Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
I was re watching the gameplay demo and the few ranged weapons/spells that the guy used seems to be very nerfed in range...

5e spells and bows already got ludicrous nerfs compared to 3.5e. A fireball on 3.5e has 400 feet + 40 feet / caster level or 1200 feet at lv 20. 5e nerfed it to 150 feet or 45 meter. Why nerf spell range even more? On pathfinder kingmaker due the range nerf, is hard ot not kill your own party with Horrid Wilting

[Linked Image]
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Fireball#content

One of many reasons that i din't liked dos2 is that archers can only hit targets at 13m. I IRL can hit targets at 50m with my 175 lbf crossbow and don't consider myself a good shooter. 50m for most ranged weaponry is a small fraction of what a british longbow can do IRL. In a fictional world where bows are far better and can damage even ghosts, bows and spells should have a far greater range.

Even NWN2 who nerfed the Warlock class to oblivion to the point that the class is unplayable without the warlock reworked mod, allowed you to hit enemies at 250 feet with Eldritch Spear.

And 5e has some metamagics that can increase spell range.

Joined: Feb 2017
X
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
X
Joined: Feb 2017
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
I was re watching the gameplay demo and the few ranged weapons/spells that the guy used seems to be very nerfed in range...

5e spells and bows already got ludicrous nerfs compared to 3.5e. A fireball on 3.5e has 400 feet + 40 feet / caster level or 1200 feet at lv 20. 5e nerfed it to 150 feet or 45 meter. Why nerf spell range even more? On pathfinder kingmaker due the range nerf, is hard ot not kill your own party with Horrid Wilting

And 5e has some metamagics that can increase spell range.


I can understand nerfing ranges to an extent. You would have massive benefits in many combats because you would be triggering the fights and it makes melee pretty useless. Take Eldritch Blast for example, it can get up to a range of 600 feet in 5e (Eldritch Spear to bring it to 300 feet + Spell Sniper doubles range). Generally speaking, terrain would not allow you to always benefit from this (be it due to city or forests) but there are times.

My concern is not "will they have nerfed range," but more "how much to nerf that range." It looked like all ranges were 18 meters (54 feet). That's a single round for melee to close the gap and it also takes some of the strength from certain spells away.

Last edited by Xvim; 01/04/20 09:20 PM.
Joined: Jul 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2019
There are practical considerations to this as well. Doing realistic range would require you having multiple monitors to show all the spac between archer and target.

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
I personally am against directly nerfing the range of spells and archers, and instead would prefer adding terrain that makes using them at "long" range difficult, if not impossible. For example, adding trees, boulder's, etc spread out in an area can be done to make targeting anything further than 60 feet difficult; Additionally, adding these terrain features also adds to tactical positioning in the way of cover, etc.

Joined: Feb 2017
X
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
X
Joined: Feb 2017
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
There are practical considerations to this as well. Doing realistic range would require you having multiple monitors to show all the spac between archer and target.

Very true. Long range on a Longbow is 600 feet (just like a fully buffed Eldritch Blast).
The problem is still that if range is "18 yards" for spells that have a range of 60 and those with a range of 120+, then it removes a consideration and a balance factor from them.

Last edited by Xvim; 02/04/20 12:28 AM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Xvim
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
I was re watching the gameplay demo and the few ranged weapons/spells that the guy used seems to be very nerfed in range...

5e spells and bows already got ludicrous nerfs compared to 3.5e. A fireball on 3.5e has 400 feet + 40 feet / caster level or 1200 feet at lv 20. 5e nerfed it to 150 feet or 45 meter. Why nerf spell range even more? On pathfinder kingmaker due the range nerf, is hard ot not kill your own party with Horrid Wilting

And 5e has some metamagics that can increase spell range.


I can understand nerfing ranges to an extent. You would have massive benefits in many combats because you would be triggering the fights and it makes melee pretty useless. Take Eldritch Blast for example, it can get up to a range of 600 feet in 5e (Eldritch Spear to bring it to 300 feet + Spell Sniper doubles range). Generally speaking, terrain would not allow you to always benefit from this (be it due to city or forests) but there are times.

My concern is not "will they have nerfed range," but more "how much to nerf that range." It looked like all ranges were 18 meters (54 feet). That's a single round for melee to close the gap and it also takes some of the strength from certain spells away.


Melee having disadvantage at greater range makes perfectly sense.

I HATE when weapons like longbow has nerf toy ranges.

ToEE did it right. I can hit enemies very far way with fireballs.

And as i've said, this is a OPTIONAL thing. IF you wanna archers unable to hit your fighter at 14m, don't play with this option. Have fun with useless ranged classes. Not only archers. Sorcerers/Wizards/Warlock already only start to shine at lv 6+ and the lv cap will gonna be 10. Once you finally get your fireball, you will only be able to hit enemies at CQB(Where the spell is useless and often deal a lot of collateral damage)

I really miss spells like Armageddon on M&M VI who has his range and affected area = the entire map, including NPC's and your party.

A 1996 has better archery than 99% of modern games.

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
There are practical considerations to this as well. Doing realistic range would require you having multiple monitors to show all the spac between archer and target.


Not true. You can click on cast the spell/attack and then move the camera towards the enemy.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
because wizards are STILL way overpowered in 5e

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Sordak
because wizards are STILL way overpowered in 5e


No, are not. Mainly on low level settings. And again you ignore that divine casters are far better than arcane. But i don't see people who like to be arcane casters wanting to nerf to oblivion divine casters. Divine casters can do everything that arcanists can do, in armor, with better saves, healing capabilities, more health(...) and don't need even to have scrolls.

In highly magical settings, magic is the strongest force and it makes sense, just like technology is the strongest thing IRL and in some settings like Dark Sun, psionics are the strongest thing. 4e is trash and one reason is because every class felt the same.

Also, ruining something because is over or under powered is why balance is a fun-killer, immersion-killer, variety-killer, replayability-killer. If you are in a campaign where the world is dominated by a severe theocracy and every arcane caster is viewed as demon worshiper and even possessing a arcane magical scroll can sentence you to slavery or death, arcane casters, mainly wizards would have a hell lot of time. And balancing it will kill the athsmophere. Wanna a in practice example? Look to VtMB. Nosferatus are the hardest clan to be played but according to the "balance cult", they should have been removed or had his deformity nerfed to just -1 dot on seduction instead of being a harsh curse that make people freak out only by seeing you in a highly social game and thus, having his curse in story reflected by game mechanics.

Hell, look to necromancy on dragon age inquisition. Worst thing ever due the "balance cult"... Arcanum, Pathfinder Kingmaker and Gothic 2 - RETURNING has much better necromancies and are overpowered in some situations and under powered in others.

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 02/04/20 08:17 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
I agree with the idea that spells and weapons should have the PNP range in a game based in D&D, but I do not think it´s going to happen. Mainly because the higher range means bigger maps to create and more space between encounters so in a videogame (even more in an MP game that you have to handle 4 players) is counterproductive, generally speaking.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>muh wizard should be stronger
>4e is trash
>lies
oh man, youre just trying to bait me into insulting you.

Casterfags are the most insufferable people that were spawned by the third edition craze.
you literaly want all the toys to play with and be overpowered, but if someone else has something its unimmersive.

Joined: Jul 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Sordak
because wizards are STILL way overpowered in 5e


No, are not. Mainly on low level settings. And again you ignore that divine casters are far better than arcane. But i don't see people who like to be arcane casters wanting to nerf to oblivion divine casters. Divine casters can do everything that arcanists can do, in armor, with better saves, healing capabilities, more health(...) and don't need even to have scrolls.

In highly magical settings, magic is the strongest force and it makes sense, just like technology is the strongest thing IRL and in some settings like Dark Sun, psionics are the strongest thing. 4e is trash and one reason is because every class felt the same.

Also, ruining something because is over or under powered is why balance is a fun-killer, immersion-killer, variety-killer, replayability-killer. If you are in a campaign where the world is dominated by a severe theocracy and every arcane caster is viewed as demon worshiper and even possessing a arcane magical scroll can sentence you to slavery or death, arcane casters, mainly wizards would have a hell lot of time. And balancing it will kill the athsmophere. Wanna a in practice example? Look to VtMB. Nosferatus are the hardest clan to be played but according to the "balance cult", they should have been removed or had his deformity nerfed to just -1 dot on seduction instead of being a harsh curse that make people freak out only by seeing you in a highly social game and thus, having his curse in story reflected by game mechanics.

Hell, look to necromancy on dragon age inquisition. Worst thing ever due the "balance cult"... Arcanum, Pathfinder Kingmaker and Gothic 2 - RETURNING has much better necromancies and are overpowered in some situations and under powered in others.


You do realize that in 5e Arcane casters can in fact wear armour, there is no arcane spell failure chance caused by Armour in 5e.

So while Wizards and Sorcerers aren't profient in armour, they can aquire it various ways. And Warlocks and Bards start with light armour prof.

And Eldritch Knight Fighters can wear heavy armour right away.

And really only Wizards and those with the Ritual Caster (divine or arcane) feat need scrolls. There really isn't inheriant mechanical difference between Arcane and Divine magic, like alignment its just mostly fluff now.

Joined: Jul 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Sordak
because wizards are STILL way overpowered in 5e


No, are not. Mainly on low level settings. And again you ignore that divine casters are far better than arcane. But i don't see people who like to be arcane casters wanting to nerf to oblivion divine casters. Divine casters can do everything that arcanists can do, in armor, with better saves, healing capabilities, more health(...) and don't need even to have scrolls.

In highly magical settings, magic is the strongest force and it makes sense, just like technology is the strongest thing IRL and in some settings like Dark Sun, psionics are the strongest thing. 4e is trash and one reason is because every class felt the same.

Also, ruining something because is over or under powered is why balance is a fun-killer, immersion-killer, variety-killer, replayability-killer. If you are in a campaign where the world is dominated by a severe theocracy and every arcane caster is viewed as demon worshiper and even possessing a arcane magical scroll can sentence you to slavery or death, arcane casters, mainly wizards would have a hell lot of time. And balancing it will kill the athsmophere. Wanna a in practice example? Look to VtMB. Nosferatus are the hardest clan to be played but according to the "balance cult", they should have been removed or had his deformity nerfed to just -1 dot on seduction instead of being a harsh curse that make people freak out only by seeing you in a highly social game and thus, having his curse in story reflected by game mechanics.

Hell, look to necromancy on dragon age inquisition. Worst thing ever due the "balance cult"... Arcanum, Pathfinder Kingmaker and Gothic 2 - RETURNING has much better necromancies and are overpowered in some situations and under powered in others.


You do realize that in 5e Arcane casters can in fact wear armour, there is no arcane spell failure chance caused by Armour in 5e.

So while Wizards and Sorcerers aren't profient in armour, they can aquire it various ways. And Warlocks and Bards start with light armour prof.

And Eldritch Knight Fighters can wear heavy armour right away.

And really only Wizards and those with the Ritual Caster (divine or arcane) feat need scrolls. There really isn't inheriant mechanical difference between Arcane and Divine magic, like alignment its just mostly fluff now.

Joined: Feb 2017
X
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
X
Joined: Feb 2017
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Xvim
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
I was re watching the gameplay demo and the few ranged weapons/spells that the guy used seems to be very nerfed in range...

5e spells and bows already got ludicrous nerfs compared to 3.5e. A fireball on 3.5e has 400 feet + 40 feet / caster level or 1200 feet at lv 20. 5e nerfed it to 150 feet or 45 meter. Why nerf spell range even more? On pathfinder kingmaker due the range nerf, is hard ot not kill your own party with Horrid Wilting

And 5e has some metamagics that can increase spell range.


I can understand nerfing ranges to an extent. You would have massive benefits in many combats because you would be triggering the fights and it makes melee pretty useless. Take Eldritch Blast for example, it can get up to a range of 600 feet in 5e (Eldritch Spear to bring it to 300 feet + Spell Sniper doubles range). Generally speaking, terrain would not allow you to always benefit from this (be it due to city or forests) but there are times.

My concern is not "will they have nerfed range," but more "how much to nerf that range." It looked like all ranges were 18 meters (54 feet). That's a single round for melee to close the gap and it also takes some of the strength from certain spells away.


Melee having disadvantage at greater range makes perfectly sense.

I HATE when weapons like longbow has nerf toy ranges.

ToEE did it right. I can hit enemies very far way with fireballs.

And as i've said, this is a OPTIONAL thing. IF you wanna archers unable to hit your fighter at 14m, don't play with this option. Have fun with useless ranged classes. Not only archers. Sorcerers/Wizards/Warlock already only start to shine at lv 6+ and the lv cap will gonna be 10. Once you finally get your fireball, you will only be able to hit enemies at CQB(Where the spell is useless and often deal a lot of collateral damage)

I really miss spells like Armageddon on M&M VI who has his range and affected area = the entire map, including NPC's and your party.

A 1996 has better archery than 99% of modern games.

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
There are practical considerations to this as well. Doing realistic range would require you having multiple monitors to show all the spac between archer and target.


Not true. You can click on cast the spell/attack and then move the camera towards the enemy.

As I stated, as the person starting most fights, it's not a matter of "oh no, not my melee," but a problem of making every single fight, it makes things super one sided in the player's favor. Also being able to swap at will between melee and ranged weapons kind of makes the penalties for ranged fighters minimal.

You are sort of right as far as the power level of casters, but not quite. Their damage is not really insignificant at low levels due to buffed Cantrips. Particularly Warlocks doing 1d10+Cha Force + 1d6 Necrotic (Hex) damage with Eldritch Blast at level 2.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Sordak
>muh wizard should be stronger
>4e is trash
>lies
oh man, youre just trying to bait me into insulting you.

Casterfags are the most insufferable people that were spawned by the third edition craze.
you literaly want all the toys to play with and be overpowered, but if someone else has something its unimmersive.


Wrong
1 - On 3.5e, arcane casters are weaker than divine in every aspect
2 - Is not i who is saying that 4e is trash. The edition who made D&D lost the "most played tabletop game" spotlight to Pathfinder made it by a reason.
3 - Mention one lie
4 - 2e was far better for casters at higher levels. Enemies and players tends to have way less HP and PCs too past lv 10. Divine casters tends to be way weaker on his offensive magic.
5 - What is the problem of wanting to use magic in a high fantasy game? What is the next? You will complain because people use firearms on a cyperpunk game instead of knifes?

I an not against giving powerful supernatural abilities from other classes, like making a high level berserk feel like Guts raging with Berserker armor on the manga. I an against making the entire game fell like a P&P wow clone / boring busywork.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I agree with the idea that spells and weapons should have the PNP range in a game based in D&D, but I do not think it´s going to happen. Mainly because the higher range means bigger maps to create and more space between encounters so in a videogame (even more in an MP game that you have to handle 4 players) is counterproductive, generally speaking.


You don't need to create bigger maps. If i can't hit a enemy because i can't see him is OK. If i can't hit him because my warbow has the same range of a NERF toy run, then is a problem...


Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
You do realize that in 5e Arcane casters can in fact wear armour, there is no arcane spell failure chance caused by Armour in 5e.

So while Wizards and Sorcerers aren't profient in armour, they can aquire it various ways. And Warlocks and Bards start with light armour prof.

And Eldritch Knight Fighters can wear heavy armour right away.

And really only Wizards and those with the Ritual Caster (divine or arcane) feat need scrolls. There really isn't inheriant mechanical difference between Arcane and Divine magic, like alignment its just mostly fluff now.


Yep. But he claim that Arcanists are OP on 3.5e and spoiler : They are not. Even on CRPG adaptations. Clerics on NWN1 for eg, has Implosion, a OHK attack on failed save that affects AOE and bypass death magic immunity. Far better than wail of the banshee.

Originally Posted by Xvim
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
[quote=Xvim][quote=SorcererVictor]I was re watching the gameplay demo and the few ranged weapons/spells that the guy used seems to be very nerfed in range...

5e spells and bows already got ludicrous nerfs compared to 3.5e. A fireball on 3.5e has 400 feet + 40 feet / caster level or 1200 feet at lv 20. 5e nerfed it to 150 feet or 45 meter. Why nerf spell range even more? On pathfinder kingmaker due the range nerf, is hard ot not kill your own party with Horrid Wilting

And 5e has some metamagics that can increase spell range.


I can understand nerfing ranges to an extent. You would have massive benefits in many combats because you would be triggering the fights and it makes melee pretty useless. Take Eldritch Blast for example, it can get up to a range of 600 feet in 5e (Eldritch Spear to bring it to 300 feet + Spell Sniper doubles range). Generally speaking, terrain would not allow you to always benefit from this (be it due to city or forests) but there are times.

My concern is not "will they have nerfed range," but more "how much to nerf that range." It looked like all ranges were 18 meters (54 feet). That's a single round for melee to close the gap and it also takes some of the strength from certain spells away.


Melee having disadvantage at greater range makes perfectly sense.

I HATE when weapons like longbow has nerf toy ranges.

ToEE did it right. I can hit enemies very far way with fireballs.

And as i've said, this is a OPTIONAL thing. IF you wanna archers unable to hit your fighter at 14m, don't play with this option. Have fun with useless ranged classes. Not only archers. Sorcerers/Wizards/Warlock already only start to shine at lv 6+ and the lv cap will gonna be 10. Once you finally get your fireball, you will only be able to hit enemies at CQB(Where the spell is useless and often deal a lot of collateral damage)

I really miss spells like Armageddon on M&M VI who has his range and affected area = the entire map, including NPC's and your party.

A 1996 has better archery than 99% of modern games.

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
You are sort of right as far as the power level of casters, but not quite. Their damage is not really insignificant at low levels due to buffed Cantrips. Particularly Warlocks doing 1d10+Cha Force + 1d6 Necrotic (Hex) damage with Eldritch Blast at level 2.


D10 + CHA damage is not that different than a heavy crossbow.

But you are right. Cantrips on 5e are better than ever. But if the enemy can close the gap in one round, your cantrips will gonna be useless. With this NERF toy range, everyone will be pact of blade warlocks...

Joined: Feb 2017
X
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
X
Joined: Feb 2017
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

D10 + CHA damage is not that different than a heavy crossbow.

But you are right. Cantrips on 5e are better than ever. But if the enemy can close the gap in one round, your cantrips will gonna be useless. With this NERF toy range, everyone will be pact of blade warlocks...

Yes, d10+stat is the same as a heavy crossbow, but damage types do matter. The idea that they are much farther behind than everyone else until 6 was a point I disagreed with.

I already agreed with you that nerfing ranges to the extent that you can close that gap in 1 round is too much. It should be 2-2.5 rounds of movement for a long range spell imo. That would make it much harder to catch a kiting caster while giving bonuses to classes with speed bonuses (Rogue / Monk / Barbarian).

Last edited by Xvim; 02/04/20 05:24 PM.
Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Sordak
>muh wizard should be stronger
>4e is trash
>lies
oh man, youre just trying to bait me into insulting you.

Casterfags are the most insufferable people that were spawned by the third edition craze.
you literaly want all the toys to play with and be overpowered, but if someone else has something its unimmersive.


I hate to admit it, but I have to agree.

@OP
Sorry, but I do not understand your complains.

- The spell has a range of 150 feet, the average walking speed is 30 feet.
Even a monk with haste cannot walk so far in one round. And when the enemy can use haste, you can use it too.

- You say: " If I can see it, I should be able to shoot at it."
This would work only if each character has his own field of view. So when you select a char you can only see what this char can see, not what other party members can see.
In all computer games you could see everything that any party member can see.
Imagine the following scenario. You have one party member with a strong range attack and a mile away another hidden party member is observing some enemies.
The ranged char could not see them himself, but the player can see and select the enemy because the hidden char sees them. So the player lets the ranged char cast a fireball at enemies from one mile away.
Limited range for abilities is needed in computer games.

- Your comparison of classes is nonsense
In 5E every char can cast in armor if he is profient with this type of armor. If you want to throw fireballs while wearing plate armor its easy to do it.
In 5E every char has the same hit chance and damage if they have the same stat value and the same weapon they are profient with. There is no different hit chance for different classes like in 2E (thaco) or 3E (BAB)
I think its wrong to say that clerics are always stronger than mages. Both classes have unique spells that are very useful. Mages can make groups of enemies completely helpless with stinking cloud or strongly increase the damage, defense and speed of the whole party with haste, for example.
In 5E the difference between arcane and divine spells is gone. You can have a char who can cast spells from different classes and they use the same spell slots for all spells.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
So youre playing fantasy games wrong if youre not playing a wizard?
you better not read lord of the rings bruv.

you better stick to harry potter.
>muh 3.5
yeah, exactly as i expected. This is the breeding ground for this kind of thinking. the worst edition.
>Lies
oht he entire "it has to be that way because IT MAKES SENSE" business?
Or every class in 4e beeing the same.
oh yeah, and the bit about 2e having more OP mages than 3.5.
you also kind of forget how the leveling process and average level of play between the editions differed.
also
>Muh wow clone
reductium ad hitlerum is a shitty argument.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
One of many reasons that i din't liked dos2 is that archers can only hit targets at 13m.

In DOS2 the basic lack of range could be remedied in a number of ways: Talent, height advantage, immobilization skill, numerous teleport skills...and god forbid, actual teamwork. This made combat *so* much more interesting and tactical than simply; if I see it - I shoot. BG3 characters will likewise have special mobility powers (gained from the tadpole?). The rogue in the gameplay reveal had a "Pin Down" attack (18m rage so already 50% "better" than DOS2!). For spellcasters this would incentivize the use of different types of spell; crowd control spells would be important too, instead of just blasting away.

Making turn-based combat more tactical is essential to keep if from becoming dull quickly. Having a full party of ranged characters gain two rounds of free damage on enemies with less, little or no ranged attacks sounds stale to me. Might I humbly suggest you're overly fixated on realism in a fantasy game where the focus should be fun and balance?

Last edited by Seraphael; 02/04/20 06:29 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

And as i've said, this is a OPTIONAL thing. IF you wanna archers unable to hit your fighter at 14m, don't play with this option. Have fun with useless ranged classes. Not only archers. Sorcerers/Wizards/Warlock already only start to shine at lv 6+ and the lv cap will gonna be 10. Once you finally get your fireball, you will only be able to hit enemies at CQB(Where the spell is useless and often deal a lot of collateral damage)


Just a note: The word "option" is not magic, and using the word "option" does not mean something which radically changes the rules of gameplay becomes trivially easy to design, test, and implement.

I guarantee you that the game is not going to have two sets of maps and rules for ranges based on whether you select the "shoot from infinity" "option". The developers are going to design the combat arenas in one way, taking into account the ranges of spells and attacks.

The range they use should be long enough to cover an entire combat arena if possible (unless the arena is larger than the PnP range), but they'll probably want to avoid situations where your team can go "all long range" and arrow or cantrip every enemy to death before they can close to attack range. The reason is because an optimum combat strategy which is boring, repetitive, and too easy is not good design.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Xvim
[quote=SorcererVictor]I already agreed with you that nerfing ranges to the extent that you can close that gap in 1 round is too much. It should be 2-2.5 rounds of movement for a long range spell imo. That would make it much harder to catch a kiting caster while giving bonuses to classes with speed bonuses (Rogue / Monk / Barbarian).


I have a better suggestion. Why not not mindless charge into a sniper who has the range advantage?

You are right. Force > Piercing.

Anyway, i disagree about 2 rounds. It was NEVER a good strategy. On battle of agincourt, French with heavy cavalry, good quality armor and shields failed to charge into a far smaller number of British longbowman. On Wild West, there are cases of a single fort being defended by 2 guys with gatling guns because the weapon had good range and rate of fire.

People are too used to solve everything with a fast swinging blade. And when for eg, Pathfinder Kingmaker throws Insect Swarm in a quest where the quest giver says that you will probably need it, and people "but swords should be effective vs everything, like a insect swarm, a iron golem and a dragon" and gave negative reviews.

I don't cry because certain enemies like Spawn of Rovagug can devour my magic and has 36 SR meaning that my lv 20 main character sorcerer with greater spell penetration has only 40% of chances of hitting him with anything that allows SR. The spawn of the God of destruction should be a deadly enemy. My sorcerer was only being useful vs his minions while my kineticist and my barbarian and archer was trying to kill him.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
The spell has a range of 150 feet, the average walking speed is 30 feet.
Even a monk with haste cannot walk so far in one round. And when the enemy can use haste, you can use it too.
.


And why the enemy should be able to close the gap in one round and knock down your sorcerer/wizard/warlock?

At this point, just remove all archers and arcane casters and remove all ranged attacks from divine casters because they will gonna be useless.

In a open field, if you have a melee weapon and the enemy has archers, you are screwed in 99% of the cases. Unless his weapon breaks or you got extremely lucky. Doesn't matter if you are in a no magic, low magic, high magic, no technology, sci setting, etc.

What allowed humans to conquer and kill far stronger creatures like Bears was not fast swinging blades, was RANGED weaponry, Bows, Crossbows, Firearms, and melee weapons with decent range that can be trowed like spears. All of this weapons are underrepresented in fantasy in favor of "fast swinging blade festival".

One thing that 2e did right is that the AC vs slashes, piercing and blunt from plate armor is different. That means that a mace is far more likely to damage plate armor than a sword. IMO the difference should be far greater.


Originally Posted by Seraphael
(...) The rogue in the gameplay reveal had a "Pin Down" attack (18m rage so already 50% "better" than DOS2!). (...)Might I humbly suggest you're overly fixated on realism in a fantasy game where the focus should be fun and balance?


You are comparing with DOS2 not with 5e D&D. But lets talk about fun then.

After you playing the game for like dozens of hours and finally getting one fireball per long rest, having no way to use it without blasting your own party and even if you can use, enemies closing the gap in one round and knocking down you doesn't sound fun or interesting.

If Larian made this nerf toy ranges because fast "swinging blades should solve everything", i will try find a way to mod the spells into P&P like values. Just like NWN2 nerfed spells to oblivion and Spell Fixes mod fixed most of then.

Without spell fixes, you can have one summon. With spell fixes, you can control your caster level * 2 hit dice worth of creatures. Without spell fixes, a lot of DC's are broken, spells that grapple won't grapple, etc.

Originally Posted by Sordak
So youre playing fantasy games wrong if youre not playing a wizard?(...)
>Muh wow clone
reductium ad hitlerum is a shitty argument.


Straw-man fallacy. I an not saying that you should play as a wizard. I an saying that wanting to use magic in a highly magical setting makes sense and ruin the magic setting will kill most of the gun of the game for a significant portion of the public.

The own creators of 4e said that they took inspirations on wow. 3.5e can be awful on your opinion but guess what. Pathfinder or as some people know as 3.75e took the spotlight of your loved 4e(only loved by you) as the most sold tabletop RPG. And even after 5e, if you sum pathfinder with 3.5e, pathfinder and 3.5e are more played than 5e.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Stabbey

Just a note: The word "option" is not magic, and using the word "option" does not mean something which radically changes the rules of gameplay becomes trivially easy to design, test, and implement. .


Everything that the PC can use, a NPC can use.

Is not as if Fireball casted by PC and by NPC's have different ranges.

Look to NWN2 Spell fixes mod who UNnerf most of ridiculous nerfs made by the devs.

And are you saying that ToEE is easy because they din't nerfed spell ranges? Go play ToEE. ToEE is the most faithful D&D adaptation.


Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
We are talking about a fantasy computer game, not about a realistic simulation.
A game need to have some kind of balance, sometimes even at the cost of realism.
If shooting enemies from miles away is often the best tactic, then half of the classes in the game would be completely useless.

Real world battle is not fair.
Today if enemies fight each other at distances were they can see each other they usually shoot each other with automatic guns.
If you have no automatic gun yourself you will probably end up dead.
If you add an automatic gun in a fantasy game, everybody will use it and all classes who cannot use it will become useless.
It makes no sense to have 100 classes in your game when 90 of them are useless compared to the other 10.
Thats why it is more importent that the game is balanced (at least a little bit) than a fantasy game being realistic.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Madscientist
We are talking about a fantasy computer game, not about a realistic simulation.(...)
Thats why it is more importent that the game is balanced (at least a little bit) than a fantasy game being realistic.


Nobody is talking about realism only that the ranges needs to be consistent with P&P rules.

1 - RPG's should be living breathing alternative worlds. Not just boring work like most modern games are.
2 - Nobody is talking about automatic guns. We are talking about having a 5e game with 5e ranges for 5e weapons like longbows.
3 - Other classes aren't useless on P&P.
4 - Even IRL, automatic guns are mostly used on short bursts or in semi auto mode. And the best weapon for CQB urban enforcement and for anti air warfare are completely different
5 - Balance is not only a immersion killer but a variety killer, fun killer and replayability killer. Look to VtMB. Nosferatu are cursed with deformity. In a highly social game, they can't even be seen in the streets without breaking the masquarede. If Troika was another game dev who likes to balance everything, they would probably remove the clan(reducing the variety of the game) or made his deformity being just -1 dot on seduction(balancing the clans and killing immerson)
6 - As i've said, what is the point of playing as a ranged character if the enemy can close the gap and knockout you in one round?

In open fields, range should be a massive advantage. Doesn't matter if the setting is fantasy or not. Did you watched Conan, the Barbarian? Conan NEVER mindless rush towards enemy archers because they can only hit a target at 13m. That would be silly in any action movie, in any novel, etc.

Ludonarrative dissonance is always bad

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
This is not a pen and paper RPG. It is a computer RPG. The source material is adapted to the medium. Changes happen.

Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Stabbey
This is not a pen and paper RPG. It is a computer RPG. The source material is adapted to the medium. Changes happen.


Correct

In PnP the GM can adapt the game depending on the situation.
He can create challenges depending on what characters you have and how the players play.

In a computer game everything has to be programmed before the player starts playing.
The player cannot know what awaits him.

When I say the game must be a bit balanced I do NOT mean that each char needs to be good in every situation.
But when you add a class into the game, this class should at least be able to get through the game without feeling completely useless.
Its bad when the game presents a challenge that only one specific type of char can do well but the player cannot know this before.
I see no problem here as they said there will be several ways to solve each situations.

extrem example:
Enemies with longbows stand on a mountain and shoot at everything in a wide area below.
The game expects you to disable them with a long range spell or you sneak up and shove them down the cliff.
Oh, you created a char that cannot cast AoE spells or is extremely good in sneaking? You are an idiot who deserves to die.
Everybody knows that it doesn´t work to fight archers when you are good in using swords.


You keep on mentioning the nosferatu. Its true that they added a monster class to a social game.
But they also gave them the invisibility spell and you could reach most places through the sewers.
So you have a class with a big handycap, but the game is balanced in a way that this class has also the means to deal with this handycap.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Stabbey
This is not a pen and paper RPG. It is a computer RPG. The source material is adapted to the medium. Changes happen.


Every change from P&P on D&D history was to the worst. Warlocks on NWN2 are unplayable without warlock reworked mod. Pale masters on NWN1 giving no +caster level and being limited to one summon are also useless.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
(...)
Enemies with longbows stand on a mountain and shoot at everything in a wide area below.
The game expects you to disable them with a long range spell or you sneak up and shove them down the cliff.
Oh, you created a char that cannot cast AoE spells or is extremely good in sneaking? You are an idiot who deserves to die.
Everybody knows that it doesn´t work to fight archers when you are good in using swords.(...)


Except that the game is a PARTY based game. And even if you are a solo warrior, there are scrolls that can cast invisibility, darkness, mirror image, etc. Also, most archers at least on 3.5e had good reflex saves, most rogues also can have evasion and improved evasion feats so fireballs aren't the best way to deal with then. Not mentioning that while casting it, you are subjected to attacks of opportunity. A solid fog would be the best spell for that situation https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm

And that is another problem of nerfing range of spells/bows/crossbows/etc; it renders some spells useless.

Protection from arrows is another thing that could help you and contrary to fog, is a 2th tier spell that lasts one hour per level https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm

Maybe i an wrong, i never played much with martial classes but every martial soloing video that i saw end up using magic in some point, just like i had to use melee as a sorcerer in some point(tenser's transformation + BBoD) on my solo baldur's gate 2 run. Or slayer form. On 2e, among those who wanna solo, multiclass is extremely common, few people do pure martial or pure arcane or pure divine runs because they are very hard

edit - here is a video of myself dealing with enemy with very high magical resistance. I could use spells to lower his resistance, but i rather used slayer form + stop time + summons and killed him on melee.




Last edited by SorcererVictor; 02/04/20 11:32 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Every change from P&P on D&D history was to the worst.


Then don't play them, because there will always, always be compromises made in the adaptation. Everything in a videogame must be specifically put in by the developer and programmed in. Nothing which has not been programmed in can be used. Because there is not an infinite amount of time and content which can be added, games can't take into account every possible thing a player might want to think of.

For example, the BG3 pre-alpha video starts off beside a river. In a PnP campaign, you can certainly try to swim the river and scale a cliff. But in a computer game, if the developers don't want you to swim across the river and scale the cliff, you cannot even try. The medium constrains the rules.

You can grapple in PnP. You won't be able to grapple in BG 3, because the animation for that would need to be put into the game. Given the number of creatures which exist in the game, the resources requires to make every possible combination of grapple animations look good would be prohibitive. The medium constrains the rules.

If you insist on a videogame having absolute fidelity to every rule in the PnP ruleset, you're not going to get it. It cannot be done for a reasonable budget in a reasonable amount of time.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Stabbey

Then don't play them, because there will always, always be compromises made in the adaptation. Everything in a videogame must be specifically put in by the developer and programmed in.


No, you din't got my point. Not implementing wish or implementing a limited wish list like BG2 did is OK. Uterly changing the rules and nerfing things NEVER was good.

That said, you can't have a 100% equal to a P&P screen experience but ToEE(Temple of elemental evil) is the most faithful D&D adaptation while SCL(Sword coast legends) is the least faithful. As for grapple, a lot of spells on NWN1 uses graples. Eg - Black Tentacles

The grapple check used to determine whether or not a tentacle hits a target is as follows:
1d20 + caster level (to a maximum of 20) + 4(tentacle's strength modifier) + 4(tentacle's size modifier) versus
1d20 + base attack bonus + strength modifier + size modifier.
source > https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Evard%27s_black_tentacles

And note that pathfinder kingmaker has a lot of mobility checks to climb certain areas of the map.

There are a big difference between not implementing all possibilities of P&P to DESTROYING a class like NWN2 did with warlock, like NWN1 did with pale masters and necromancer specialized wizards.

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 03/04/20 12:25 AM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>strawman
what strawman?
it wasnt me who said that magic should be the strongest force in a magical setting and that way its your own fault fo rnot playing a wizard.

You said that.

>muh wow inspiraiton
and they also said they are inspired by a lot of other stuff.
Thats why its reductio ad hitlerum
"Wow is bad and thus 4e is bad"

No. 4e was hated because wannabe grognards that didnt play 2e or earlier editions thought htat 3e is what defined TTRPGs and because Hasbro expected huge revenue numbers out of DnD (4e sold better than 3,5, just so you know)

And i perosnally dont care friendo :^) ican play whatever i want at my table. And look at 5e apologists getting swarmed with cringey critical role content, MTG tie ins that are obvious marketing material you pay for and ridiculous politics.
meanwhile paizo has starfinder fail and pathfinder 2e fail spectulary aswell.
For the exact same reasons obviously.

Third edition and its derivatives is the single worst thing that has happend to TTRPGs and it spawned an absoluteley disgusting fandom that will not accept anything different from it.
This is the future you chose.

Meanwhile im having fun with my friends.

Last edited by Sordak; 03/04/20 09:11 AM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
"muh wizards op", i will try find a screenshot of the pathfinder kingmaker on the endless dungeon. My sorcerer was actually the 4th biggest damage dealer.

Arcane casters aren't more deadly than a well eqquiped buffed warrior. Amiri on my pathfinder kingmaker camkapign at lv 15 has 3 attacks per round with 15-34(d10+12+2d6 - Incorruptible Petal - the best melee weapon that i've found, a +5 glaive , holy ultrasound that worths 57900 gp) damage each, or 45-102 damage, while my lv 20 sorcerer with tsunami a lv 9 spell can deal only 24d6(144 max) damage. It sacrificing a tier 9 spell who allow FORT save for half damage If i put HASTE + Stoneskin + Legendary proportions + bull strength + all other buffs that i have, she can reach 200 points of damage per round. Something that even using the broken rods that pfkm has, i can only reach on 3 spells per rest if i an very lucky. 5 levels above her.

Sorcerer on 3.5e and pathfinder doesn't shine on damage. He shines on controlling the enemies, buffing alies, etc. Eg, the Sirroco spell, ice prison, summoning creatures like thanadaemons, etc. Spells that deals a lot of damage like hellfire ray generally require ranged touch attacks. But if all rays hit, it can be 45d6 damage...

Originally Posted by Sordak

it wasnt me who said that magic should be the strongest force in a magical setting and that way its your own fault fo rnot playing a wizard.
.


Yep. Only wizards are capable of using magic. There aren't sorcerers, cleric, warlocks, hybrid classes, etc. Only wizards... /sarcasm. My point is. Giving supernatural abilities to martial classes in a high fantasy game would not be bad.

Also, in other games, be a magician is far harder than be a warrior. Example? Gothic 1 and mainly Gothic 2 NotR. You don't start Gothic 1 with magic, you need to find someone able an willing to teach you, Corristo only teaches on mid of chapter 2 if you joined his camp and answered rightfully his questionnaire. After it, you need to learn magical circles and expand your mana. A warrior can fully max his one hand and STr at lv 15. A mage at lv 30 still din't maxed his main stats if he din't saved a lot of LP before he turned one.

On lovecraft TTRPG, using magic is something so alien that will eventually lead you to insanity.

My point is that the game mechanics should reflect the fictional game world. Just this.

Originally Posted by Sordak

4e was hated because wannabe grognards that didnt play 2e or earlier editions thought htat 3e is what defined TTRPGs and because Hasbro expected huge revenue numbers out of DnD (4e sold better than 3,5, just so you know)


The initial sales. And note that piracy was more common on 3.5e times, the 3.5e had OGL releases, look to marketshare. 4e made D&D lost the title of most played TT game to pathfinder

Originally Posted by Sordak

meanwhile paizo has starfinder fail and pathfinder 2e fail spectulary aswell.


About Pathfinder 2e
"Pathfinder 2e and DnD 4e are both trying to solve the same problems with 3.5/P1e, ie the martial caster disparity, (...)"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder...risons_between_pathfinder_2e_and_dnd_4e/

And i reminder. I an not against making martial classes more interesting to be played. I an against making arcane/divine casters LESS interesting to be played


edit : about 4e being heavily inspired by mmos wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped. I think there was a feeling that D&D needed to move into the MMO space as quickly as possible and that creating a set of MMO-conversion friendly rules would help hasten that.

https://rpgcodex.net//content.php?id=8309

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 03/04/20 10:36 AM.
Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Computer games need to change the rules if they are based on PnP rules.

A good example was the Realms of Arcadia trilogy, which was elected as best computer RPG 1991, 1993 and 1995.
They used exactly the PnP rules with all classes, spells and skills.
The games were good, BUT:
- 80% of spells and skills were useless, some examples:
You could spend points in the riding skill but you could never ride anything in the game. You could cast "purify food and water" but there was no bad food in the game. You could cast rainbow bridge ( a spells that creates a bridge that allows you to cross obstacles, such as rivers ) but it had no effect because the map was as it is.
You used only a few spells or skills often. Some spells and skills are extremely situational. You can learn the spell "banish ghosts" and it is useful in exactly one situation in the whole trilogy. When you open a specific chest which is guarded by a ghost you can get great items if you have the spell or its game over if you don´t.
- Part 1 and 2 of the trilogy are almost impossible to finish without a guide.
In part 1 you have to find a treasure map that shows the location of an artifact that helps you to end an orc invasion. Parts of this map are scattered all over the world. There is a tiny chance that a merchant appears randomly in a tavern and sells it for a high prize. He does not proc or you do not have enough money when he does, too bad. There is a tiny chance to get it from a sailor who shows up randomly in a harbor. One piece has a person and when you meet him you have 2 options " I am looking for the treasure." or " The lord of this country has asked us to find the treasure." The first option gets you the map piece, the second one not because this guy does not like his lord. And so on.
Yes, the game used exactly the PnP RAW. But in a PnP session when you need an items to continue the story and the source material says you have a 5% chance to get it from a sailor in the harbor but you have been in 100 harbors already without success the GM can just say that the sailor is in the next harbor without rolling a dice or find another way to let you get the item so that your story can continue.
- In a tavern in the starting town comes a visitor and tells you a wall of text about a ghost ship. This wall of text includes several names. 20 hours or so later you have a random chance to encounter the ghost ship. If you want to get off the ship you have to enter one of those names. I hope you have written down who was the brother of the previous owner of the ship ( or something similar ) or else you are trapped there forever.

Personally I consider a computer game just as what it is: a computer game.
The game has the rules it has. I do not care if those rules are based on PnP rules or not. If they are based on PnP I do not care if they are 100% the exact PnP rules or not.
I care about that I enjoy playing the game and the rules should make sense in the context of this specific computer game.
Personally I am happy that they went from the DOS system to DnD because I dislike inflating numbers and completely random items.
But I do not mind if they make changes compared to the PnP rules, because PnP and computer are different kinds of games.

@ OP:
The devs have confirmed they they had to make changes in some things compared to PnP because the PnP stuff was not fun or it is impossible to implement it properly with the time, money and technology they have.
I am happy that they do. I have written above what happens if they don´t.
If you really hate those changes that much then don´t buy the game


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Sordak
>muh wizard should be stronger
>4e is trash
>lies
oh man, youre just trying to bait me into insulting you.

Casterfags are the most insufferable people that were spawned by the third edition craze.
you literaly want all the toys to play with and be overpowered, but if someone else has something its unimmersive.

Tone it down a bit, please.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Computer games need to change the rules if they are based on PnP rules.(...)
If you really hate those changes that much then don´t buy the game


There are a HUGE difference between not implementing a ultra powerful IA to allow you to cast wish like you can on P&P to change everything that can be easily ported to a PC and worked pretty well on previous D&D adaptations.

This mindset "lets change everything" is why we don't have a decent good D&D adaptation since NWN2(2006). 80s had Pool of radiance. earlier 90s had ravenloft and dark sun. late 90s, baldur's gate, earlier 00s, nwn1, mid 00s, nwn2 and after this, we only got mobile cash grabs wow clones like neverwinter mmo and sword coast legends. Pathfinder Kingmaker is a pathfinder adaptation, not D&D. I really wish that BG3 will follow the rules instead of being "DOS3"

Nobody is saying that BG3 should be 100% equal to P&P. If is like Dark Sun, is pretty good IMO



PS : I don't like ludicrous number inflation and wow style itemization too. Nor cooldowns and ultra limited range. Even pfkm who i love has his problems. Eg, horritid witling is almost useless because is hard to use without killing your own party too.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>Muh damage
because damage is what solves encounters.
Meanwhile wizards solve encounters throuhg spells, meanwhile spells that you cant miss, that enemies need to save.
Meanwhile Mages will do all the utility that other classes do but better. Open locks? wizard, detect traps? Wizard. Social encounter? wizard, Dungoen exploration? Wizard, transport? Wizard. Stopping time? Wizard.
What does the humble fighter do? he fights, but not very well compared to other classes.

none of that white room damage stacking bullshit applies. thats just theorycrafting for obsessed people.

>other casters than wizards
yeah so that changes my point in what? Casters.
>Giving martials magical powers
or give them martial powers that let them compete.
like tome of battle did, or 4e did.
But oh no! then every class is the same.

>sales
third edition had no competitors, then paizo split off from the team and became one.
its not exactly rocket science.
That doesnt mean that the sales of 4e tanked, it means that Paizo started selling stuff.

>pathfinder 2 is 4e
yeah, only it does things in the exact opposit way.
What pathfinder 2 is doing simmilar to 4e is doing a lets say "mathematical sound" system.
but it still has class imbalance and it still plays like third edition.
It does some work to balance it, but it doesnt change the underlyign structure, its still about stacking boni on top of one another.

SO yes, pathfinder 2 tries the same as 4e, but in a different way, so its not compareable.
Also, im not even saying Pathfinder 2 is failing because it sucks.
Im saying that its failing for the same reason 4e failed.
because Grognards refuse to change their way and want to live in 3.pf land forever.
Paizo made that bed, now theyll have to lie in it.
And i personally find that amusing.

If you want something compareable to 4e, look no further than 13th age, which gets huge praise in the niche RPG space.

>DnD Needed to move into the MMO space
By that they didnt mean the DESIGN of 4e, they meant the DnD online subscription service that they planned to roll out, it wa sbasically roll 20 with Heroforge incorporated.
but the head designer comitted murder suicide so it was shut down before it came out.
Dont misrepresent the facts.

>Dont make Casters less interresting
ITs not about making them less interresting, but giving them more utility.

Riddle me this:
Why is
>Ranger - a guy who has an animal companion and shoots a bow
>Fighter - a guy who fights things with weapons
>Thief - a guy who can open locks and do sneak attacks
>Barbarian - a guy who gets angry and hits things and is good in nature
a class?
But then why is
Wizard - a guy who turns invisible, fights people with fireballs, flies, stops time, creates food, creates water, creates shelter, shoots magic missles, puts people to sleep, pits enemies against one another, teleports instantlyl, summons meteors, casts shields, casts lighning, talks to demons, talks to animals, summons ancient spirits, summons demons, summons celestials, summons monsters, creates magic items, creates magic scrolls, opens locks, disarms traps, finds hidden doors... and a lot more
a class?

Do you not see the difference in scope? a wizard is not a very thematic character.
>but muh sorceror
does very much the same but casts it in a different way.
Warlock is the only full caster class that is grounded in its theme.

Instead of "Wizard" and "sorcerer" there should be things like

>Pyromancer - who conjures fire and shoots fireballs
>Summoner - who summons creatures
>Illusionist - who turns invisible and bewitches people

Those should be classes.
because they have the same utility as Fighter, Ranger and thief do.
They have niches and roles.
Which is good for a ROLE PLAYING game

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
I think it is a good idea to reduce range for bows, it would just feel silly, if you would need to move 2-3 screens and 2-3 rounds in order to hit the enemy in each fights.
I also think, that with group initiative, it is good to nerf Aoe spells, otherwise they just fireball you, and kill your team, before doing anything...

So you keep close combat viable, you can still jump or push and move out of danger if needed, and shoot back if you need to...

Realistic ranges are not for TB.

Last edited by Minsc1122; 03/04/20 02:33 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Minsc1122
I think it is a good idea to reduce range for bows, it would just feel silly, if you would need to move 2-3 screens and 2-3 rounds in order to hit the enemy in each fights.(...)
Realistic ranges are not for TB.


Do you realize that there are a thing called map design and that 600 feet range longbow is something situational in most dungeon crawler games? That there are spells like Dimension Door or Haste to help you close the gap?

Originally Posted by Sordak

Wizard - a guy who turns invisible(...) creates food


You are so bias towars "muh wizards op" that you ignore that create food is a CLERIC spell, on 3.5e and on 5e.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createFoodAndWater.htm
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Create%20Food%20and%20Water#content

You again ignored divine casters in your comment.

In general on 3.5e / pathfinder, Prepared Divine caster > Spontaneous divine(Oracle for eg) > Prepared Arcane caster > Spontaneous Arcane > Martial. And wizards needs scrolls, otherwise they can't learn the spells and scrolls are expensive. Finger of Death costs 2.5k gold(not sure), imagine learning ALL spells of the same level.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
divine casters are still casters.
as said, clerics also got way too much utility. but not quite as much as wizards do.
classes shouldnt make the roles of other classes obsolete.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Your problem is that you see D&D as a war game, not a a ROLE playing game.

If i an playing war thunder with me 262, i wanna feel like i an piloting that plane even if the game on non simulation setting is way generous with G force and etc. At the same way, if i an playing D&D as a necromancer, i wanna feel like i an a necromancer.

That said, if you have one party member being ludicrous more powerful than another, is due GM's fault. On most cases, wizards can go to shop and come back with ludicrous high amount of deadly spells that any non chaotic place would try to ban.If even on US is hard to get anti materiel rifles(some cases are considered DD) and a grenade launcher(always DD), why in a fantasy city getting a fireball scroll would be easy?I can picture every non chaotic major city outlawing spells like Finger of Death, Knock, Fire ball, etc.

On pathfinder kingmaker, the scrolls available on your barony shop is tied to his "arcane" rank and before you can raise arcane, you need to raise your domain divine.

I will re write your sentence "casters are op" to "wizards when they can get a complete spellbook with all spells in existance and have time to rest after every encounter are OP"

Warlocks, should get only spells that makes sense that his patron will teach him. A warlock who has Raven Queen as Patron for eg, should't cast wall of light. Same with a sorcerer, a sorcerer with golden dragon bloodline casting frost spells 24/7 would make no sense.

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 04/04/20 12:17 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
Yep the good ole days of Wizards having to roll to see if they can learn a spell are in short supply nowadays.

This who balancing thing, and people wanting to do everything that everyone else can do at the expense of others shining moments are the bane of good roleplaying. (The way the identify spell works, there is no working to identify objects anymore. Just hand them everything to them, there is no discovery about the item anymore.)

Everyone wants to Min Max their characters, they want that 20 in there main attribute. There is no room for that character to grow later. He is at his peak when they start.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
You are exactly wrong Victor.
I see it as a role playing game. you see it as a character building game.

Role palying imples ROLEs.
a ROLE is a ROLE to play, as in, your character has a NICHE.
WHich implies that your character is good at SOME things that the party needs.
Meanwhile your party is NOT GOOD at other things the party needs. Because if you can do everything, youre not playing a role.

How is "do everything "thematic for a wizard?
how is a Pyromancer and an Illusionist LESS thematic than a wizard who can mix and match spells randomly?

If your "Role" fantasy is beeing able to do everything, then maybe you should ask your DM to make a single person campaign for you.
also

>Its the DMs fault
Not a fucking argument.
Why even have games when the DM can just houserule everything.
no, rules are rules. Its Roleplaying GAME not Roleplayign Theatre.
THere are rules. The Dm is gonna houserule one way or another, but having mechanically sound rules and restrictions goes a long way to not make the DM hate his fucking life because he has to do everything on a case by case bsis.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
I an ot saying to house rule everything. Only to make getting finger death scroll harder as getting a bow that can OHK enemies on a failed save... If you make scrolls easy to obtain and weapons hard, obvious those who rely on scrolls will be better than those who rely on weapons.

You are seeing D&D like a mmo, with DPS, tank, CC, healer, etc when that is not the case. When people don't like something about a game or wanna something new, people MOD it. For example, i love Gothic 2 but be unable to learn Magic from Xardas(the same guy who teaches circle 6 on G1) is a huge disappointment. So i downloaded a huge mod called returning that not only adds the option to be a necromancer/dark magician but also made the game far harder in almost all aspects; dragons for eg, you can use fear + shrink monster and punch then to death. On ret, they have health regen, summon army of enemies, cast circle 6 magic(highest in the game) like fire rain and storm, and only by being 300m near the fire/cold dragon lair, you take heat/cold damage.

Most people who play D&D games use home-brew stuff, so if having a pyromancer instead of wizard that can only learn spells with fire descriptor can be fun for you, play with that class. Dread necromancer class is a class only about necromancy and i loved to play nwn2(modded) with it.

And most D&D games use homebrew stuff too. Slayer form who exists on BG2 doesn't exist on P&P.
[img]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...nd.gif/revision/latest?cb=20170811120157[/img]

Anyway, i started to play Dark Sun(1993) today and casters are insanely harder than melee warriors. Because arcane magic is hated in that world. My fighter/cleric is lv 6 doing amazingly on melee and at range with almost 3x more hp than my "preserver wizard" and my wizard can throw on fireball per rest. I can pick few spells per level up and a color spray scroll could be sold for 3000 gold.

Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor


1. ) That said, if you have one party member being ludicrous more powerful than another, is due GM's fault. On most cases, wizards can go to shop and come back with ludicrous high amount of deadly spells that any non chaotic place would try to ban.If even on US is hard to get anti materiel rifles(some cases are considered DD) and a grenade launcher(always DD), why in a fantasy city getting a fireball scroll would be easy?I can picture every non chaotic major city outlawing spells like Finger of Death, Knock, Fire ball, etc.

2.) On pathfinder kingmaker, the scrolls available on your barony shop is tied to his "arcane" rank and before you can raise arcane, you need to raise your domain divine.

3.) I will re write your sentence "casters are op" to "wizards when they can get a complete spellbook with all spells in existance and have time to rest after every encounter are OP"

4.) Warlocks, should get only spells that makes sense that his patron will teach him. A warlock who has Raven Queen as Patron for eg, should't cast wall of light. Same with a sorcerer, a sorcerer with golden dragon bloodline casting frost spells 24/7 would make no sense.


I have edited your post a bit to make a reply easier

Your ideas are good in principle but you have to implement this in a computer game.

1.) In BG2 the cowled wizards would come if you use magic in the city, at least until you pay them.
It was not a big problem as there were no difficult encounters outdoors in the city and the money was easy to get.

Many players would get upset if you cannot find some typical mage spells.
If you cannot find some scrolls, classes who learn new spells at lv up would become more powerful compared to wizards unless 4.)

2.) In PK you ruled over this city. You will probably not rule a city in BG3.
You get camp followers however. Maybe your camp merchant gets new items only when you make a deal with some groups in the game world and some groups are exclusive. For example you could help either the city guards or the thief guild and each one gives different items.

3.) It will be hard to prevent players from resting in a computer game, unless you add a time limit.
Maybe some quests progress automatically when you rest.
For example you get a quest that bandits want to attack a town. If you go there at once you find the bandits in their camp and deal with them before they attack the town. If you rest once the will attack the town when you arrive. If you rest twice or more they have occupied the town and killed or imprisoned most villagers.
This would lead to players resting every time before accepting a quest,
Unless you put a hard timer on every quest. But this would mean that fast players have to wait forever until an event starts while other players miss stuff without knowing why.

4.) You could progam that each magic subclass has only access to a limited amount of spells of their class.
But the way I understand 5E, subclasses add abilities to the base class, they do not remove stuff in general.


I like these ideas and a good GM could implement them in his game,
but I do not expect to find this stuff in a computer game.

A GM has to make a game interesting for a handful players in front of him.
A computer game dev has to make the game interesting for millions of people. I guess there are more casual players or min maxers than dedicated role players who consider role playing more importent than maximizing your power from a game mechanics point of view.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
I an ot saying to house rule everything. Only to make getting finger death scroll harder as getting a bow that can OHK enemies on a failed save... If you make scrolls easy to obtain and weapons hard, obvious those who rely on scrolls will be better than those who rely on weapons.

You are seeing D&D like a mmo, with DPS, tank, CC, healer, etc when that is not the case. When people don't like something about a game or wanna something new, people MOD it. For example, i love Gothic 2 but be unable to learn Magic from Xardas(the same guy who teaches circle 6 on G1) is a huge disappointment. So i downloaded a huge mod called returning that not only adds the option to be a necromancer/dark magician but also made the game far harder in almost all aspects; dragons for eg, you can use fear + shrink monster and punch then to death. On ret, they have health regen, summon army of enemies, cast circle 6 magic(highest in the game) like fire rain and storm, and only by being 300m near the fire/cold dragon lair, you take heat/cold damage.

Most people who play D&D games use home-brew stuff, so if having a pyromancer instead of wizard that can only learn spells with fire descriptor can be fun for you, play with that class. Dread necromancer class is a class only about necromancy and i loved to play nwn2(modded) with it.

And most D&D games use homebrew stuff too. Slayer form who exists on BG2 doesn't exist on P&P.
[img]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...nd.gif/revision/latest?cb=20170811120157[/img]

Anyway, i started to play Dark Sun(1993) today and casters are insanely harder than melee warriors. Because arcane magic is hated in that world. My fighter/cleric is lv 6 doing amazingly on melee and at range with almost 3x more hp than my "preserver wizard" and my wizard can throw on fireball per rest. I can pick few spells per level up and a color spray scroll could be sold for 3000 gold.


You can mod the game as much as you want.
But the devs have to create a game that works for most players when you just download and install it.
RPGs are already a niche genre and you want to make it even more niche.
It would be great if the devs include stuff created by modders later into the official game, but I would not bet that it happens.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
He was talking about P&P but lets talk then about adaptations to D&D into PC.

There are ANY case of a change for the better?

Just one. Ignoring the completely destruction of D&D ruleset like neverwinter mmo and sword coast legends. In NWN2, did the changes that they made to warlock good? On NWN1, limiting you to one summon and not giving +caster level to pale master was a good idea? Or it killed the class? Anyone play as a specialized necromancer wizard? Knowing that stop time is from opposite school and you can only have one summon and most nuking spells like wail of the banshee has his range far more limited?

The most popular spell mod for NWN2 is Spell fixes and improvements who makes spells more p&p like.

And on nwn1? PRC. A mod who makes the game far more P&P like, even bring reagents to spells and adds newer classes like WLK.

Talking again about wizards on CRPG adaptations. In what they are OP? I an at lv 6 on dark sun and my wizard **** compared to my melee fighters.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>muh MMO
again, you cant fucking get away from it.

You meanwhile see DnD as your personal power fantasy with you who does everything and the others there to fawn about you.
you dont want a team game, you want a power fantasy. But thats a shit kind of game for multiple people.
From its inception DnD was a game about cooperation, calling that an "MMO" is the most disingenuous argument you can possibly make

And as for what i do.
Im the DM, so i dont let casters be all powerfull in my games, if they dont like it, sucks to be them, but as a result, my party is having a ton of fun. I force them to work together or else they fail miserably.
I challenge them as a team, i dont just challenge their spell slots.


But this is about a video game, i cant houseurle in a video game and thus , in said video game, i want casters to be toned down and martial characters to be elevated because i want to be on an equal footing with the other characters.
Playing a caster is not a fantasy i indulge in.
Its not the role in a story i wish to play, thus, i want the other options to be equal.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Sordak

You meanwhile see DnD as your personal power fantasy with you who does everything and the others there to fawn about you.


Wrong. I just like to use magic in high magical settings. On pf:km when i played as a silver dragon sorcerer, i din't picked a single fire based spell. Sirroco, Fire Snake, etc are amazing spells but makes no sense for someone who draws his power from a cold based bloodline to use those spells.

Originally Posted by Sordak

But thats a shit kind of game for multiple people.


This is a SP RPG, not a MP RPG. Can be played on MP but most people will gonna play on MP.

Originally Posted by Sordak

From its inception DnD was a game about cooperation


D&D is a game about ROLE PLAYING. Simulating being in another "reality".

Originally Posted by Sordak

But this is about a video game, i cant houseurle in a video game and thus , in said video game, i want casters to be toned down and martial characters to be elevated because i want to be on an equal footing with the other characters.


Again, i ask. NAME ONE, JUST ONE GAME WHO DID IT AND DIN'T RUINED THE CLASS
NWN1? Nobody plays as pale masters(one summon and no CL), as necromancers wizards(best shcool as opposite school), dragon disciple is only useful for melee guys, arcane archers being able to only infuse fire(the most resisted element) is also ruined.
NWN2? Nobody plays as warlock(most nerfed class on the game) and everyone who plays as arcane caster uses the spell fixes mod(the top rated mod on that category)

And note that both games feature 3.5e arcane on epic levels. A 5e game up to lv 10 will have far weaker arcane casters. On video games, dealing damage is far more important than on P&P. You can see by Kineticist who is not that big deal on P&P of Pathfinder but is the best damage dealer on PFKM

Even if Larian nerfs the spells to oblivion, i bet that people will mod spells to P&P and that mod will gonna be one of the most popular on nexus mods.

Necromancy for eg is trash on NWN2. But with spell fixes can be great



Originally Posted by Sordak

Playing a caster is not a fantasy i indulge in.


Is your taste. If i an playing in a high magical setting, i wanna use powerful magic. If i an playing in a sci-fi setting, i wanna use powerful sci-fy weaponry. I don't indulge in the fantasy of using melee weapons, mainly swords. I mean, spears, polleaxes and javaliens are cool but swords are just overrated weapons.

Anyway, try to create a party of only casters on any golden box games and lets see how well you will gonna be...

Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
He was talking about P&P but lets talk then about adaptations to D&D into PC.

There are ANY case of a change for the better?

Just one. Ignoring the completely destruction of D&D ruleset like neverwinter mmo and sword coast legends. In NWN2, did the changes that they made to warlock good? On NWN1, limiting you to one summon and not giving +caster level to pale master was a good idea? Or it killed the class? Anyone play as a specialized necromancer wizard? Knowing that stop time is from opposite school and you can only have one summon and most nuking spells like wail of the banshee has his range far more limited?

The most popular spell mod for NWN2 is Spell fixes and improvements who makes spells more p&p like.

And on nwn1? PRC. A mod who makes the game far more P&P like, even bring reagents to spells and adds newer classes like WLK.

Talking again about wizards on CRPG adaptations. In what they are OP? I an at lv 6 on dark sun and my wizard **** compared to my melee fighters.


Sorry, but the game will not be if you want it to be.
If you want a role playing game with more emphasis on role playing than min maxing then you have to:
- Play PnP and find players/GM who share your idea of role playing
- Play a computer game and install whatever mod you want or restrict yourself that you do not select certain spells or you do not combine certain classes.

The game will not be as you want it to be.
If the devs implement all the stuff you want, many other people will complain just as much as you do.
There will be players who want to multi class a warlock who has a pact with a fiend with a paladin of Tyr. They want to have a sorcerer with the red dragon bloodline and cast ice spells all day long.
Nothing in the rule book forbids such things. If players want to role play they have to discuss what they consider acceptable because everybody has a different opinion about what role playing means and how it should be implemented.

Personally I do not use any mods except unofficial fan patches (some game are almost unplayable without) and things that bring back cut contend (KotoR2 or Bloodlines).
I do not use anything that changes game mechanics, this I consider cheating.
But in a single player game everybody can do whatever they want.

I played NWN1+2 without mods and they were good enough for me.
Once again, when I play a computer game I do not care if the rules are the same as PnP or not.
Computer game x has the rules of computer game x, thats it.
My favourite char in NWN2 was this white knight
It uses a bug that would not work in PnP (you can select cleric domains again and get the feats from more than 2 domains) and I do not care if this char fits your idea of role playing.
For me was importent: I liked it and it was done in accordance with the rules of the unmodded NWN2.

Last edited by Madscientist; 05/04/20 06:42 PM.

groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Madscientist

- Play a computer game and install whatever mod you want or restrict yourself that you do not select certain spells or you do not combine certain classes.


Wrong. I just need to NOT MIN MAX and build my character accordingly to the theme that i an building

Originally Posted by Madscientist

If the devs implement all the stuff you want, many other people will complain just as much as you do.
There will be players who want to multi class a warlock who has a pact with a fiend with a paladin of Tyr. They want to have a sorcerer with the red dragon bloodline and cast ice spells all day long.


I an not saying that the devs should prohibit characters that makes no sense. I an saying that i don't like creating min maxed character that makes no sense. If you have fun being a warlock with a pact with a succubus and a cleric of Tyr, how it is impacting on my game? Mainly in a SP game, if someone is playing with Pun-Pun characters and having fun on their SP games, why i should care?

On tabletop game, is up to the DM/Group. I prefer role playing groups but if a group is satisfied with their min maxing gameplay, how it affects me? Lets then have fun with their pun pun and let me have fun with my thematic coherent characters

Originally Posted by Madscientist

I do not use anything that changes game mechanics, this I consider cheating.


Is not cheating. Do you realize that there are a lot of mods who makes the games far harder? Did you played Antitribu for VtMB? Did you played RETURNING for Gothic 2? Or played Gothic 3 with alternative balancing?

A dragon on original gothic 2 is a monster that can be defeated with a fear scroll that you don't even need to be a magician to use. On Gothic 2 returning, is a legendary creature with colossal health bars, summons army of minions, has high resistances, cast circle 6 magic(highest in the game and the PC on chap 4 will have only access to circle 4 magic), only by being 300m near the fire/ice dragon lair, you constant take fire/cold damage and your stamina is drained quickly. This not mentioning their deadly breath weapon and deadly melee strikes that are worst than any melee warrior.

Deadly dragons and deadly monsters on skyrim also makes the game far harder.

Originally Posted by Madscientist

Once again, when I play a computer game I do not care if the rules are the same as PnP or not.
Computer game x has the rules of computer game x, thats it.


Then don't make a TTRPG adaptation. What is the point of licensing a game to NOT offer a similar experience in another media? Why make a D&D adaptation? Make another generic wow clone instead of promising a D&D adaptation and delivering a awful game like sword coast legends

Originally Posted by Madscientist
It uses a bug that would not work in PnP (you can select cleric domains again and get the feats from more than 2 domains) and I do not care if this char fits your idea of role playing..


So for you exploiting is ok, but using mods to make a D&D game more D&D like is cheating?

I also don't care if it fits your idea of "cheating", i wanna play with 3.5e version of warlock, not the NWN2 """""""balanced"""""""" (read - useless) version. And if someone took the time to UNnerf the warlock invokations, where the DC of eldricht blast is wrong and some invokations work more nerfed than arcane spells who are already nerfed compared to pnp, for example, sorcerer fire wall lasts caster level rounds. Warlock fire wall lasts 3 rounds.

If making fire wall more akin to P&P is "cheating", i will glad to cheat.

[Linked Image]
https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 05/04/20 08:04 PM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>Roleplaying game
yes , a game about playing a role in a fantasy world.
Its not about simulating anhting. thats a fallacy that comes from third edition , but it wasnt true in third edition either.
The game is a game, the mechanics arent meant to simulate the physics of the fantasy world.
The rules are mechanical abstractions to make it easier to represent a fantasy world.

>Didnt ruin the class
because you need to be OP to have fun?
wizards worked well in the divintiy games :^)
Wizards work extremley well in 4e, they just have more defined niches.
Wizards work well in the Elderscrolls Games, especialy morrowind.

The best implementaiton would be in Dragons Dogma i guess.
Each class has a define drole, and the wizards role is to take a long time casting and then unleashing absolute hell on everyone, without stepping on everyone elses toes.

I also liked the classes in Everquest.
I played a necromancer there, holy shit it was breddy good. You coul do things no other class could. But you also didnt step on anyones toes.
You have a very special role, you eone of the few classes that can summon, in EQ1 you could even equip your skelingotns

I dont care about your necromancer dude. I dont wan tto nerf the ammount of Skeletons you can summon.
I LIKE it when you can summon an army of dudes.

I dont like it when you can summon an army o dudes AND fly AND open locks AND scry AND be invisible AND change the weather.

Last edited by Sordak; 06/04/20 07:42 AM.
Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Role playing games do not enforce role playing, they just give the opportunity to do so. But its the player who choses if you care about playing a role and what kind of role you play.

The devs create the rules for the game and I have the this opinion:
Everything is allowed as long as it is possible to do such a thing and there is no rule that says its forbidden.
So yes, its totally OK when your paladin summons undead, the priest of light has darkness as his fovourite spell and the rogue backstabs enemies with a ballista.

In a computer game the devs program the rules and everything that is possible is also allowed.
In a PnP game the GM has the final word what is possible.
The devs should discuss with the players what rules make sense ( thats what this forum is good for), but in the end its the devs who make the rules however they want.
Its up to the player to decide what role to play and how to play it.

And now let me role play my warlock/paladin who uses charisma for spells and weapons and with his holy weapon he adds both radient and necrotic damage to his attacks while summoning undead as meat shield and having ultra high saves and immunity to several effects.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
absoluteley not :^)

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Sordak

Its not about simulating anhting.


Lets have fireball dealing cold damage then. We don't need to care about inner consistency.

IMO 2e is the best one in therms of simulating living in other world. Not only because certain classes who are far more complicated than others require more XP to level up, and that the hit points aren't inflated past lv 10 like 3.5e but ALSO because for example plate armor is far better protecting you from slashes than blunt.

By other hands, 2e had a save rule that i particularly don't like ie - save vs death that means that resisting a finger of death from the strongest necromancer and from a lv 1 wizard with a scroll is the same save. 3.5e with DC has a better mechanic. But 3.5e is the edition who suffers more from pun-pun builds.

Originally Posted by Sordak

because you need to be OP to have fun?


No, needs to not suck.On NWN1, a Wizard 5/Pale Master 10 will be efficiently a lv 5 wizard with only one weak summon. Even a lv 6 wizard is stronger than him. Caster level is so vital for arcane like BAB is for melee warriors,

Originally Posted by Sordak

wizards worked well in the divintiy games :^)


No, the range is ultra limited, only one summon, cooldowns(...) and your progress is just by getting bigger number. Wanna see a game where is hard to be a wizard but also cool? See Gothic 1.

You don't start the game with magic, you need to find someone able and willing to teach you. Corristo only teaches you on mid of chapter 2. And finally after you become a magician, you need tons of Learning Points to learn each magical circles and increase your mana. Warriors can max out their one hand and strength at lv 15. But wizards even if they save up LP to when they become magician, will only be able to max out at around lv 30.

And Gothic 2 did magic far harder than G1 already was. Now not only you need to learn magical circles and mana, but also nobody sell magical runes to you. You need to learn how to make runes too. I NEVER did a pure magical run on any Gothic game(except Gothic 3) by a reason.

Originally Posted by Sordak

The best implementaiton would be in Dragons Dogma i guess.


By not having cooldowns, they on DD are far better than Divinity BUT i prefer rangers and magick archers over wizards any time. I can output far more DPS with my magick archer

Originally Posted by Sordak

I dont like it when you can summon an army o dudes AND fly AND open locks AND scry AND be invisible AND change the weather.


Yesterday i completed the first DArk Sun from golden box. My wizard had one tier 5 spell(Cone of cold) and 2 tier 4. Scrolls aren't easy to obtain in that game. The versatility of a wizard is proportional to how many spells he learned. You can nerf wizards without changing a single rule.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
And now let me role play my warlock/paladin who uses charisma for spells and weapons and with his holy weapon he adds both radient and necrotic damage to his attacks while summoning undead as meat shield and having ultra high saves and immunity to several effects.


Have fun with your Pun Pun build; it is a single player game. On my group, if i an a DM, will only allow multiclass if there are a good story reason for that. Many servers on NWN1 ban multiclass by a reason; there are a lot of people who pick lv 1 cleric only for the Divine Shield.

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 06/04/20 11:54 AM.
Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
- BG3 is not dark sun or Gothic.
I do not know dark sun, but Gothic 1 is set in a prison with hundrets of prisoners and only 13 of them are mages.
In the baldurs gate setting magic is allowed and it is something normal.
People using magic to fly or to cummunicate telepathically is as normal as we travel with a plane or talking through a mobile phone.

Unless you use magic to attack people or their property or you summon undead or demons in the middle of a town, nobody cares what magic you do.
Being a wizard is a normal job.

- In the real world people make a lot of things in order to get more power.
So it makes sense if characters in a fantasy world make choices that make them more powerful.
Training for another class to become profient with some skill or equipment or learning an ability that works good in combination with what you already have, sure why not.
Especially evil chars would do anything to increase their power, no matter what other people think about it.
This way you could also argue that min maxing is normal and you need a good role playing reason to restrict yourself from doing stuff that is posible.

- The IE games were very good, but a lot of things made little sense to me.
+ arbitrary restrictions, like only humans could be paladins or monks and only half elfs could be ranger/cleric
+ very unintuitive system. Some numbers are good when they go up (e.g. stats) other are good when they go down (thaco, AC, saves). Only extremely high or low stat values had an effect, no changes in a wide range. Only some classes could have a strengh between 18 and 19. Spells did not depend on anything but level, for many spells it makes no difference if they were cast by a lv1 wizard or a lv20 wizard with 25 int. Most classes could dumb 2 or 3 stats without any downside.

3E was more intuitive (higher numbers are always better) and you had more freedom, but creating a good char sometimes became complicated like rocket science.
In PK ( I consider Pathfinder as DnD 3.75 ) you had to look for every buff if it is a morale, luck, enhencemant or whatever bonus or if the AC is dodge, natural or deflection.

I know nothing about 4E and I have not played a 5E game so far, but from what I read I like the changes. You still have tons of options but they have simplyfied the rules. Now you have only (dis) advantage or not, there is only one AC and so on.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Madscientist, i agree with you. Baldur's Gate is a high magical setting. But Sodark seems to enjoy more low to mid magical setting. I mentioned Gothic and Dark Sun because both games are not high magical setting like Baldur's Gate(they are no low magical setting like Conan or GoT where magic is extremely rare, ritualistic and generally comes with a lot of costs for eg)

About G1, among the prisoners on the colony, only one of then mastered circle 6 magic(Xardas) and only 2 reached circle 5(Saturas and Y'Berion), Corristo reached circle 4 and was the strongest FIRE magician in the colony(outside of colony, you have like 3 fire magicians with circles 4/5/6 magic on the entire colony), magic in Gothic 1/2/3 represents mechanic wise well the game world. And that is why is good.

Arcania in other hands is trash. Rune magic should't even work post G3 and it not only work but have cooldowns... The unique point that i disagree is

Quote
"Training for another class to become profient with some skill or equipment or learning an ability that works good in combination with what you already have, sure why not."


The answer is simple. Powerful entities don't give power or teach you for free. Tyr will require that you follow the DOGMA of his church to give divine spells to you. At the same way, a powerful succubus will require that you serve her and do her bidding to TEACH his secrets to you(a lot of people confuse clerics with warlocks, but clerics are a conduit to the God's power, Warlocks are apprentices to his/her patron). How you can serve both?

Did you read about Oathbreaker Paladin?

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
i prefer adnd 2e to third edition. Foe all the reasons youve mentioned.
and idk, a spell is a spell, if ind it amusing that they are in theory not bound to the individual.

But no, its not a simulaiton, if it were, thered be rules for how a fireball interacts with the metal of your armor, and thats just autistic.

>necromacners
yeah and i didnt say necromancers need to be weak.
I said they need to be specialized

>divinity
>range is limited
Good.
nuking someone from orbit without him beeing able to react is bad game design in a video game.
>muh summons
consequence of DnD, the same reason summons work they do in 5e: action economy. Having multiple weak summons is always better than ahving a few stronger ones.
Id have liked mroe summons in Divintiy, but ultimaltey thats not what the wizard classes in divinity are about. and totems are fun.
>learning magic
yeah but thats because gothic essentialy got entire questlines about every class.

You cant make a DnD based game like that since you get class levels from... well from level 1.
DnD 4e had a rule for starting otu as level 0, but DnD just isnt made about the Hogwarts expirience, its about beeing in a dungeon or the wilderness and gainign expirience by leveling, not by beeing an aprentice or by joning a faction.


>Dark sun
well theres your answer.
Im talking about default DnD by which i mean FR, Points of Light, Greyhawk and whatever other newfangled critical role setting they got these days.
Something that is the average expirience when playing dnd.
Dark sun is actually a very well thought out setting and thats also why it makes the class balance into something more siginificant.
Saying "Wizards are fine because they are fine in dark sun" is proivng my point.

>Dragons dogma and dps
Well wizards arent the DPS class.
thats the point, they have a ROLE to play. And that role isnt DPS, its area of effect mass destruction.
If you want DPS you gotta be an arcane archer or an assasin.
but realy, wizard is almost never the DPS class, not in DnD either, the wizard solves problems without doing damage.

>multiclassing
im not banning multiclassing
but in order to be a character thats both a warlock AND has divine powers, well, quite frankly, in my setting you wouldnt get that.
i can see a warlock getting Psionic class levels because its kind of the same nature of Occult studies, but divine powers tend to get revoked in my setting if you dont follow the actual teachings of your god (doing deals with some unimaginable nightmare creatures doesnt realy line up with the divine beeings in my setting)

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Sordak
But no, its not a simulaiton, if it were, thered be rules for how a fireball interacts with the metal of your armor, and thats just autistic.


RPG's are all about immersion since they was concerted. GURPS tried to have very complex rulesets but most people prefer a more fast and simplistic but at the same time immersive game than having a chapter on a book only to how to walk in frozen lakes...



Originally Posted by Sordak
nuking someone from orbit without him beeing able to react is bad game design in a video game.


Wrong. ALL, i repeat ALL games who is considered to have great archery, doesn't matter if is turn based, real time or real time with pause allow you to hit enemies at extremely high distances.

Nobody consider the gameplay of guns or sorcery on Hellgate londom satisfying and the lack of recoil on firearms and the fact that your range is ultra limited to 15m, kills the game as a shooter. As a looter hunter diablo like experience, the game is fine but i can't play it as a gunner. Thief, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, Elder Scrolls Morrowind and Skyrim, Mount & Blade, all of then allow you to hit enemies from far away.

When i played M&B as Rhodoks, i defended a city with only 200 soldiers from a communal force of 800 soldiers, thanks to the amazing marksmanship

But see this videos. This is how archery should be.






Originally Posted by Sordak
Having multiple weak summons is always better than ahving a few stronger ones.


Not true. My animated skeletons can't even proper hit certain enemies and some enemies can one cleave kill then on end game of pathfinder kingmaker. Undead created by higher level spells in other hands, can sustain some rounds vs powerful enemies.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Something that is the average expirience when playing dnd.
Dark sun is actually a very well thought out setting and thats also why it makes the class balance into something more siginificant.


My point is that you don't need to change the game rules to make learning spells harder and honestly, i liked that each one of the few magical scrolls that i found was a significant thing, like getting a new powerful weapon for my melee characters.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>GURPS
a literal meme and basically showing why aiming for simulationism in a TTRPG is a mistake.
>Immersive sims
love em.
As video games.
As games that actually have the processing power to make that happen.

>Archery
and none of those games are compareable.
They arent party based CRPGs.
If you want to ahve t that way, you have to rewrite the rules and make mounted combat an action, so that archers can actually be countered, also you need to make combat more deadly and have an unarmoured archer die from one or two melee hits.

Basically you have to turn it into mount and blade.
Which im fine with, but then go all the damn way.

>pathfinder
theres yoru problem.
Pathfiner kingmaker notoriously inflates the stats of its enemies beyond what the monster manual says.

This is a Third edition problem.
In third edition (and pathfinder, make no mistake, is just third edition DnD) a weak character cannot hit a strong one outside of a critical hit.

So there you go. Another fault of the worlds worst system.

>make learning magic harder
But not in a forgotten realms campaign in which high powered wizards basically sprout out of the ground like mushrooms.
Learning wizardry is hard in Dark Sun because in dark sun, beeing a wizard is a fast track to getting lynched

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Did you played ToEE(Temple of elemental Evil)? Without blasting the Noble Salamanders in the node of fire at greater range while you are protected from spells up to tier 3, i see no way to defeat then. They can deal 20d6 damage while they are immune to fire.

As for making the combat deadly, a lv 5 ranger with 13 CON will have probably have 39 hp(11+7+7+7+7 6 is the d10 average + 1 for con), a critical hit from a heavy crossbow(d10 + 1~5, lets assume 4) can deal 28 damage.

Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
I agree with Sordak that you should not compare BG3 with Skyrim.

Skyrim is a single character action game, BG3 is party and turn based.
Skyrim is an open world were many enemies walk around, BG 3 will have hand crafted encounters, where every encounter is designed for exactly this place.
Yes, I played Skyrim and I killed enemies with an arrow from far away. I also played Fallout New Vegas and I used the sniper rifle to kill enemies from the distance.
But one big difference between those games is player skill vs character skill.
Shots in Skyrim or shooters are rewarding because you (the player) has to aim at a moving target. A deadly headshot is a reward for player skill.
In BG3 you just click on an enemy and its the character stats and dice rolls alone that decide the results.

You can have a follower in Skyrim or New Vegas, but I always played alone because those followers messed things up most of the time, especially when you play as sniper.
Usually they run after the first enemy they see and then they get killed or they disappear forever in the distance because there is always an enemy to chase.
BG3 is designed for a party, you control every char and each char has a different role to fulfil.
And there will be situations where it is a good idea to start combat with your sniper assassin one shotting an enemy from stealth.
The situation will get even better when your mage casts summons, web or stinking cloud to stop enemies from reaching your sniper.

Mages are not just damage dealers, they are the magic version of a swiss army knive, having the right spell for every situation.
In PnP this is limited by resting, but computer games are usually not very restrictive with resting, which makes casters much more powerful compared to other classes.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Well, enemies has dispel, dimensional door and etc. I rather face a enemy with good IA than having ultra limited range.

That said, on P&P one time, my DM trowed elf arcane archers assassins at night sniping our party at 120m while all casters of my party was out of spells. If wasen't by a single lucky row, we would get killed.

Temple of Elemental Evil has P&P ranges for spells, i can hit enemies very far away with my fireball. As for resting, resting on pathfinder kingmaker where times matters and take supplies is a good solution. On Might & Magic VI, you can't rest spam, at least not before mid game. Light magic can create food and supplies and water mage allow you to teleport. But until you get it, you need to manage your supplies.

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Minsc1122
I think it is a good idea to reduce range for bows, it would just feel silly, if you would need to move 2-3 screens and 2-3 rounds in order to hit the enemy in each fights.(...)
Realistic ranges are not for TB.


Do you realize that there are a thing called map design and that 600 feet range longbow is something situational in most dungeon crawler games? That there are spells like Dimension Door or Haste to help you close the gap?


Situational, but if you have very long range, that is also making no sense, all you would do is to try to kill enemy from far.
Which was bit boring in DAO2, that one of the most efficient tactic is to teleport your enemy away when they reach you and kill them from far. ( Of course it might depend on build, but it was just too good not to use it.)

Also I am wondering if level design should be completely changed, because of longbows..
Especially if you got a lot verticality, you can just stay on the top of a mountain wizard eye and kill everybody without touching them.

Last edited by Minsc1122; 07/04/20 05:04 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Minsc1122
Situational, but if you have very long range, that is also making no sense, all you would do is to try to kill enemy from far.
Which was very boring in DAO2, that one of the most efficient tactic is to teleport your enemy away when they reach you and kill them from far..


Modern bioware games are not good example, they are too hack and slash games and has completely different mechanics than baldur's gate. Look to Temple of elemental evil. ToEE is not easy only because i can hit enemies from far away. Quite the contrary. The spiders relative early one while you don't have AoE spells and good saves are a terrifying enemy.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5