Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General P&P range for spells/bows(even if optional). PLS!!

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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...




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.



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.



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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.



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.




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.



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.