Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Saving Throws vs AC Balance

I'm sorry if you found anything I said rude - that wasn't the intention. I understand if your personal experiences have been to the contrary of the established situation, and that's neat for you if they have been, but it doesn't change the way things are overall. Appeals to seniority and appeals to authority have no weight here - otherwise I'd be touting the fact that I've worked on official 5e content myself, and know far more of the ins and outs of it than most people, as the back-up for the things I say; I don't do that, because I dislike making such appeals - they don't help share knowledge or understanding, they're just used to try to end arguments or quiet people, which is not helpful... I prefer to let explanation and reasoning hold its own.

Using the video link, for example, is an attempt to make an appeal to authority, but I don't recognise the video-maker's authority on this topic, at all. They're a person with a non-objective opinion that happens to post that opinion on youtube; they're pretty sensationalist about it, and use a lot of theoretical strawmen in their dialogue to facilitate their 'tear-down'. They're not there to give informative or objective information - they're there to make an impression.

Back on topic, since you elected not to acknowledge or respond to it, I'm glad that you've at lest taken on board the issues with the present situation regarding saving throw spells as they currently exist in BG3's EA.

Agreed.

Relying on enemy saves to do things is often deeply frustrating, BG3's encounter design makes that worse.


Guessing a fair amount of people will be incredulous at this, on top of the push back its got but this lines up with my experience in practice. The problem with a lot of theory craft in general is that it's low quality, particularly in 5e it assumes two dudes standing in the middle of a space hitting each other, until some other idealised assumption is convenient. If that's how you build encounters, monks do suffer because they aren't as good as fighters or paladins at being fighters. Start to throw mixed units at a party and monks perform well. What they are good at is getting to an enemy back line and existing there. Just by doing that they can shut down ranged attackers, and they can give casters a problem they can't ignore. And the difference between stunning strike and control spells is that they do it while attacking. A caster wants to do a save or suck, the target saves, wasted turn, the monk is still doing damage. Casters get AoE control, and that's great when enemies are bunched up for reliably getting some control off, but some times it just doesn't work out that well. And a lot of caster control effects are competing for concentration. Throw on legendary resistance and the caster goes for control they are guaranteed to waste turns before they have a chance of landing something, they are better off giving up on busting LR and just dealing damage. With a bit of luck the monk can deplete multiple charges in a single turn while still dealing damage. And Ki points really stop being a problem mid-tier 2, and worse case scenario they are a short rest resource. Going into a big fight fully loaded and they won't run out. Multiple little fights and they won't run out. The only situation where they are limited is a series of fights leading to a boss and no chance at short rest. But really class suffers a resource pinch there. Hit T3 and monks are one of the least resource pressured classes there is.

All that has litlle to do with BG 3 btw because of so many reason. Biggest one it's a video game and they do not have DMs.

Like geting bunched up enemies is really easy and it happens all the time...

It pretty much all applies to BG3: It's mixed unit enemy groups in fairly wide spaces with multiple lanes. Enemies some times bunch nicely for the 30ft template, often they don't holding at range. It's easy to think of encounters in EA that fit both categories. About the only things don't apply is denying short rests between encounters and legendary resistance, yet.

No it doesn't at least not in my BG 3 at all.

You can setup prfect ambush - surprise rounds every single time in all encounters... That wont change at all due to systemic way of Larian gameplay.
Having pull bombs that bunch up everyhing and shove as a bonus action together with other push abilties means you can bunch everything up into nice groups for AoE attacks if they don't die from a fall let say(if they are on high ground.) You can bait AI into whatever you want, they are like puppets you can control with all sorts of gimmicks like sleep spell and others.

All rest between encounters does nothing at all and at this point could just be removed... There is zero meaningful difference between short rest or long rest. Not to mention every class can casts spells due to scrolls that are unlimited and free. Vendors refresh those items lists whenever players needs them to refresh.

IF Dms you know play Dnd like this well more power to you... we sure don't.

You are being weirdly and needlessly confrontational here. Like trying to gate keep opinions.

None of those things actually apply to what I wrote. They really don't affect the difference in action economy between monk's control and casters. They don't change the effectiveness of flanking against mixed units.

Not everyone wants to cheese, or can be bothered to cheese when it's frequently quicker to just do them normally. They don't really relate to what I wrote but the game really shouldn't be balanced around cheese strategies (other than maybe shutting them down) so I'm not sure how it's relevant in the first place. And I'm not really sure what your point is about rests, if they are available then Ki points are less of an issue and enough short rests are legitimately available even if long rests are restricted.

I'm sorry but you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and aren't actually making any relevant points so I'm leaving this here.

My point is and was that you are talking about 5e cases those have little meaning in bg 3. The game uses vastly modified - rules and all sorts of mechanics that change the way all those cases playout in game right now, that just fact. So all your examples have little or zero meaning. Is monk in EA? no... Do we know how they gonna make it and change it? No, so...

i explained to you some of those different rules, and why they do what they do if you want to ignore that fine, but fact remains they are there and they effect how game plays. It's important that we stay in side the rules game uses right now after all that's the point of the topic.


The problem is not that rules are changed from 5e. The problem is they are changed in a way that's not balanced hence the Saving Throws vs AC Balance discussion.. Like op suggested If both of those were changed it would be fine but they only changed one side and left the other unchanged classic problem of all video game ports from table top. They change something important and leave everything it effects as is, copied directly from table top. Of course that leads to more unbalance.



Lightning Charges buff from items or Mystra's Blessing from the staff are in favor of AC attacks again making a big difference when you stack everything. So maybe they gonna fix it that way. This could be fixed in all sorts of ways be it with items or spell/powers, skills, stats..

Maybe they will give us items that help with saving throw attacks... Right now we only have rare weapon attacks that help out a bit. Sadly those are not reliable(far cry from those AC buffs) and are not enough to break unbalance at all. The second problem with those weapon attacks is they are not really that great for caster characters/party that normaly want to stay at range and do not have stats and proficiencies to use them.

Testimony is not data.
Players tend to only remember when RNG is bad.
Players are even less reliable when they imagine that a system is biased against them.
Fortunately Larian has actual data on what spells are saved against and how often.


In 5E spells that target DEX or CON are usually to be avoided as most creatures have inherent bonuses to those stats. (Even a spell as powerful as 6th level Disintegrate will most often do nothing)
Spells that target WIS or INT are usually the best to prepare, however there are many creatures with large bonuses to those saves as well.(Mind Flayers get Int +7, Wis +6, Cha +6)

There is a built in bonus to attack rolls as well as tie goes to the attacker but in saves tie goes to the defender (If you have an AC of 16 and I roll an adjusted 16 the spell hits if I have a DC of 16 and you roll an adjusted 16 to save the spell misses)


In 5E, in general, spells that have a to hit component will land more often than spells with a save component especially when Legendary saves come in to play.
Spells that have no saves are usually the most effective of all.

If a large percentage of players say "I avoid this because it seems/feels like it's far less effective", then it doesn't matter what the theoretical maths says; what matters is what the players do. Testimony is data - it's the primary data source that is used in modifying designs in games, in fact; that testimony can and often does come in the form of recorded play data - that is in this case, seeing that players are avoiding save spells frequently in their playing and favouring attack roll spells of their choices more often - but directed feedback gives explanation to action and context to results and thus it is considered extremely important all the same. Granted - the testimony we have is just those present and talking right now, which is a tiny smattering of people... but it's what we as players have access to. (Though it must be said...Larian have shown a frankly worrying willingness to apply their own motive reasoning to their data, to suit what they want and to claim it says what they want it to say - like when they concluded, purely from data showing low uptake on buff spells, that 'no-one liked' buffing spells because they were 'boring', and needed to be flashier and do more... and not because of how fraught their design has made concentration, and how reduced in value and effectiveness concentration spells have become as a result... and that folks weren't using the spells because they were far too often a waste of a turn, when concentration could not be maintained for any useful amount of time)

Also, the RNG IS bad ^.^ This has been tested and demonstrated with a sufficiently large data set already, a long time ago... but it's beside the point here.

Point being, as is the point of the thread - Saves are in a position in BG3 right now that many players are feeling pushed away from using them at all, and a part of that is Larian's homebrew design and implementation which makes attack roll spells more appealing and more reliable (lower Ac ratings, easy and sometimes stacking homebrew buffs to attack rolls, easy advantage sources above and beyond usual mechanics,etc.), and saves less appealing and less reliable (higher base enemy stats resulting in higher saves, large amounts of incidental damage and consistent chip damage making concentration much less secure, a lack of similar homebrew effects to support saves as exist for attack rolls, etc.).

You aren't wrong - 5e itself does favour attack roll spells in the ways you describe. I'll add to your list the relatively stable and slow AC growth, alongside large growth of attack bonus, opposite the large growth of save bonuses in monsters, alongside slower, more static growth of save DC for players... but this is a careful balance factor - not perfect by any means, but viable at least - because of the value of save spells in their utility, and the fact that save spells, when used for damage, have (with one or two exceptions - disintegrate I'm looking at you, you old signature spell you...) reliable partial damage, and also hold the majority of AoE options (which attack rolls seldom offer, except in two or three cases)... However, this balance does not need to be tipped further towards attack rolls and away from saves by Larian's homebrew, and if it is, then saves need an equivalent bonus/rebalance to compensate... which, while not impossible, becomes a difficult and tangled minefield once you wade into it. I'd rather not have the Larian homebrews, to begin with, personally.

At least you recognize the limitations of your sample set.
The next step is reject conclusions based off of biased small sample sizes.

I remember that thread as well.
The only thing it demonstrated was the woeful lack of understanding most of the folks involved had about statistics.




Again system changes based on an incredibly small sample size's perception of RNG are not advisable.
After 1000+ hours of play-testing it is not my experience that saves are made at an unreasonable rate nor has it caused me in any way to change my spell selection in game.
I, however, am just a single data point amongst many and do not speak for anyone's experience but my own.

This forum is designed for feedback, so please keep giving your personal feedback.
Larian will balance that feedback with actual data and make their decisions accordingly.

For what it's worth, I think the issue has been addressed since.

Not addressed. Was never an issue.
Just folks trying to assign to significance to random patterns within a data set.

I'll chime in adding my support (my "single data point") that ST spells feel overly punished in BG3 compared to 5e.
- Some enemies in BG3 have inflated ability scores (e.g., Gith patrol), benefitting their saves more than AC.
- Some enemies in BG3 have reduced AC (e.g., goblins), making them easier to hit with attack-roll abilities but not ST spells.
- High ground in BG3 benefits attack-roll abilities only.
- Surface effects & grenades make it harder to keep concentration, and more concentration spells rely on enemies continually failing their STs than providing extra opportunity to hit enemies with spell attacks.

@Flooter, + other things relating to RNG in BG3
Flooter, do you remember if your recorded rolls were using Loaded Dice or not?

Thanks for the analysis! The sample was taken without loaded dice.

You'd like me to reject a conclusion based off a biased small sample size? Sure: I reject yours. It fits that criterion, after all. ^.^

Tongue-in-cheek quips aside... The conclusion was that players are feeling this way, based on the testimony of players who are feeling that way. I make no definitive statement as to the magnitude of the effect, just that it is occurring - Larian are literally the only ones with the data to verify how pronounced the effect is in real terms of actual player choices, but it is what it is nevertheless - the vast majority of all who have spoken here and elsewhere publicly to the topic have felt this way, with precious few speaking against it. That is the only conclusion being drawn, and it's perfectly valid.


You talk with a wording and tone that acts as though your isolated data point of experience is somehow more valuable and more potent a case to make that it should somehow negate or counter the reported data points of several others, and should quiet them. No. You have your experience, and that is all. You are also an unreliable narrator, just as everyone else is, and you have your own non-objective bias about your results, as everyone else does. "It hasn't been your experience that..." if you can poo-poo a dozen other people for saying that, and write them off, dismissing them as non-objective sources that shouldn't be listened to, then you MUST do the same thing for yourself. Perhaps it wasn't your intention to project yourself in that manner - if not, then what I said here doesn't affect you, naturally - but please do take it under advice that this was how your posts came off, to me at least.


That's what folk here have been doing - You are are the one who came into this thread just now and attempted to shut them down, dismiss and discredit that feedback and say that it shouldn't be listened to - please don't do that. Give your feedback (You've done so, thank you for participating ^.^); please do not jump into threads to tell other people that theirs is not valid.

What I am curious about, and something you've not voiced an opinion on yet, to Alodar, is... As you point out, mechanics in 5e have a degree of favouring towards landing attack roll spells, over fully landing ST spells, and this is intentional in the design based around other inter-woven elements of the system and how it is built. It's been pointed out that the majority of Larina's homebrew mechanics and implementations push this balance even further in the direction of favouring attack roll spells - the ways in which they do so have been listed and explained multiple times, and they're not opinions, but legitimate facts of mechanics... what's your stance on that? If you're aware that the success leaning already favours attack roll spells, and Larina's homebrew and implementation choices pushes that favouring even further, without any kick back to ST spells - and indeed adds things which hamper a large section of ST spells further than usual - do you feel that these additions are a good decision?

==

Small sample sizes being irrelevant to draw conclusions from is not my conclusion.
It is the conclusion of every statistics course, ever.


I literally state my opinion is simply one data point and that I don't speak for others.
You are the only one trying to bolster your opinion by claiming you speak for "many"

I attempted to shut no one down.
I encourage everyone to express their opinion and said so.
I tend to comment when folks attempt to draw conclusions from exceedingly small and non-representative data sets.

Yes, it was the ones attempting to interpret the data who had no idea what they were talking about.


If I flipped a fair coin 1,000,000 times, how many runs of 10 heads in a row would you expect statistically?

You are sitting within one of those runs of 10 and arguing the coin isn't fair.
Your analysis is demonstrably false.

You did dismiss others as people not to be listened to, but I won't continue to humour the argument. Please don't do that.

==


Thank you for proving that you genuinely do not understand and have not grasped what I was talking about or demonstrating, at all; you believe you have and are thus not interested in correcting your assumption, but your (perhaps inadvertent) strawman is irrelevant - it wasn't what I was illustrating with the report. As I said before though, it's not relevant to this thread - by all means go and dig up the thread in which it was discussed; here is not the place for this topic.

As far as I'm concerned, Alodar wasn't talking about people at all and whether you should listen to them, but purely about statistics and how this branch of discussion poorly represents data on the topic as a whole, considering the fact that one's to leave the opinion are likely more negatively inclined in the first place. And that there are also other factors that make one's opinion on the matter unrepresentative. He wasn't saying someone's opinion is worse than other's at all. It feels to me that you argue so much, Niara, that sometimes you become intolerant to someone posing even the slightest threat to your intelligence... sorry if I am wrong, just the feel I get.

my 2 cents:
I am not a DnD expert so I can only compare Solasta with BG3
In Solasta I had a paladin of devotion, a ranger (dual wield, was also for scout and traps/locks), a cleric of war and a shock arcanist mage.

Lets see what I did with them in battles:
Paladin: attack and smite, unless they have so little HP that they die without smite anyway.
Ranger: cast mark and then attack
Cleric: cast spirit guardians before combat, then attack with weapon. Use holy word if someone goes down and fireball when there are several enemies close together
Mage: start combat by using your best damage spell from stealth, best take out enemy casters before they can see you. Counterspell was very usefull. I used fireball against groups of enemies and scoching ray against single enemies. firebolt when they are too weak to spend a spell slot and shocking grasp when they get close.
A few times I used slow when there were several enemies who can attack multiple times or fly for my paladin to reach flying or climbing enemies.
A few times I tried to use a CC spell, but they are wasted on weak enemies (they die the next round anyway) and strong enemies will probably resist them or they are immune.
I remember using hold monster on a golem only to find out its immune.

So I think that even Solasta preferred damage even though you can keep concentration and some CC spells are powerful.
In BG3 its much worse because you cannot keep concentration and CC effects tend to end fast.

note:
I compare two computer games, so resting was never really limited and non combat spells were rarely used (except identify and create food)

I have never suggested people should not share their experiences.
I have stated repeatedly that the conclusions some folk were drawing from those experiences were spurious.

==
There are so many free sources on statistics, that it astounding to me when folks choose to stay willfully ignorant of the subject.
If you ever wish to produce meaningful analysis or create compelling arguments from data it is an incredibly worthwhile subject to invest your time in.