Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback What is ONE ROUND? and this and that

First post ever but been testing on and off since first release date (250+ hours in EA). Now its patch 9 and release date is set. I REALLY want this to be the best DnD game ever and I like what Larian done before. Been playing tabletop DnD for 35 years and started with rulebooks 2.0, thru 3.0 and 3.5. When 4.0 (horrendous changes) came, our team switched to Pathfinder settings. That said, I’m not all read-up on 5th edition rules .. but some things shouldnt change I think so a couple of gripes. This have most certainly been discussed but I’m new to this forum and 300+ pages is to much to read up on. First things first though .. many of the things Larian done in this game are making me so so happy. Staring contest with a squirrel or Gale’s revival-contingency-plan are so funny. And I can choose to do an EVIL run, just saying! Had to make my tabletop gaming friends see those.

A big part of what we love with playing DnD is discussing the rules. Having different opinions about them and sometimes having houserules that makes sense. But skipping out of them entirely? It’s a DnD game! Rules are our bread and water. Now actions and attack-of-opportunity don’t make sense. I do believe that Larian are a bunch of nerds that love tabletop Dnd (like me) and want to make the best possible game for other nerds of the same kind. I gripe (or give positive feedback) on things I don’t think are as well done as I would like it to be. Anyways …

* What is ONE ROUND? To me that is a a 6 second time frame, from when I act until I can act again. Initiative order who gets to act first and so on. Then it starts again in same sequence next and next rounds. But somethings sometimes brake peoples initiative order count. For instance when a Gnoll at initiative 17 gets put to sleep at initiative order 10 by Gale the wizard (failed save), that Gnoll shouldn’t be afforded a new saving throw at initiative order 17 next round (as it seems to be now). He should be a sleep until Gale’s initiative count 10, when he gets a new save (when ONE FULL ROUND have passed since last save). And the Gnolls new initiative (if he cleared the save this time) count is now 10 -1, so immedieately after Gale.

As it is now it doesnt matter if its a ’sleep’ or ’hideous laughter’ or ’trip attack’ .. its just wasted because the game treats NEXT round as Now-a-full-round-have-passed. As it is now every character should ALWAYS focus on damage, everytime. In EA we can choose wizard going abjurer or evoker but its only evoker that makes sense now. Its a pity because if the wizard class loose his versatility he can choose Sorc instead.

* Next thing is more of the same. What can you do in your round? Or rather, what shouldn’t you be able to do! When Gnoll 1 fails he’s saving throw on Gale’s sleep spell, he falls prone and sleeps. In same round Gnoll 2 at lower initiative count moves up and shoves Gnoll 1 to wake him up. No gripes there, yet! It’s what come’s after I have a problem with. For some reason the Gnoll (or whatever) get’s from sleeping to standing-up-and-ready-for-FULL-ROUND-ACTION as an immediate action?? That can’t be right even though i’m a bit off with 5th ed.? Standing up from prone IS a move action (or maybe part of a move action). It’s never a free or immediate action. Also falling asleep or hysterically rolling on ground laughing should disarm you. Maybe get a die roll to keep whats in your hands if tripped. To me its a FULL ROUND ACTION standing up from prone and getting yourself armed. You might be able to do a defensive action at same time as drinking a potion or rasing your shield, but no dashing-jumping-attacking at all.

* Lae’zel tripped a Gnoll with her attack so it were prone next to her. On the other side (flanking) were my PC fighter. On the Gnolls turn it stood up from prone without provoking AoO from fighters, and then the Gnoll used manyshot with its bow, again without provoking AoO?



As it is my first post I have some more gri.. positive feedback. No gamebraking but still things that could work better.

* I think the FLY spell is totally wrong. If you have to start and end on a surface area in that round, its not a FLY. Maybe a misty step or dimension jump (is that still a thing in 5th ed?). Maybe its nerfed in EA so we cant fly over those broken bridges ..

* When my team passed outside Waukeens rest everyone except me behind the screen made the perception check to spot (and commenting about) the flying red dragon. My camera view didn’t allow me to see what everyone talked about.

* First time Waukeens rest and burning buildings I went inside with my whole team and had a heck of a time to get everyone out again with smoke and blindness. Next time I split up and left my tres-amigos outside and went to the ambassador rescue on my own. When i broke down the door and she runs outside, I wanted to search her room quickly before everything burned down. I got 2 steps before the ambassador, now outside, engaged my party and forcing a conversation .. meenwhile, my PC stood idle in a burning room and waited to act. A teeny weeny bit irritating, but at the same time funny how its not perfect. But thanking three random spectators looking on a burning building when she knows her rescuer were someone else? Its not that we have matching Manchester United gears on. NPC’s forcing conversations should only be available towards currently active character.


* Did one Evil run and got some problem with party night. I had the conversation early on with Minthara to join her when going to bed. After that I went and talked to all my party members and because i had very high approval with Lae’zel she wanted me in bed too (who am I to refuse a lady?) When I went to bed I didnt get an option for Minthara so only Lae’zel. Then after that Gith rough and tumble, I woke up at 2nd half of Minthara’s bedtime with her standing over me, dagger in hand. The thing is she acted as we had shared bed (or slab).

* This could be a 5th ed thing but I (Me, my opinions only) don’t think everyone should be able to do every move. Let fighters and such Dash and Jump close to enemies. In my tabletop games in 35 years spellcasters cast spells, prefferably from a good distance, not doing quick rushes every round. If you can’t reach the target then you learned wrong spells. Besides, spellcasters seldom have that kind of stamina. The help-action is a nice thing but should be medicin skilled.

Still, I love what you at Larian are doing with this and I’ll probably going for another 200 hours before launch. Kudos!

A lot of the rules are larian homebrews from what I remember they said something along the lines d&d rules don't go well for a video game or some such. Off the top of my head the fly mechanic is limited because of the game engine, I do know that's been discussed several times but just don't remember the actual reason.

There is a freebe pdf you can snag off the official website for the basic run down on 5e rules, some where on dndbeyond.com

- Enemies typically get saves against lasting spells at the end of their turns in 5e. This way, they'll still lose/be affected for a turn (if e.g., Held) even if they make that save. However, it's true that if the enemy goes right after your caster, then they effectively only will spend 1 turn (not round) affected. This was likely done for simplicity in 5e - it doesn't require changes to the initiative count and it's easier to remember to make a save right after your turn.

- RAW, enemies shouldn't get STs vs Sleep; they should just be asleep for 1 minute or until woken up. This is a change that Larian has made which makes the Sleep spell much worse. Additionally, characters in BG3 are given free Bonus Action Shoves which makes it too easy to wake up their allies.

- Their is no such thing as "Full Round Action" or "Immediate Actions" in 5e. Characters have 1 Action, 1 Bonus Action (if available), and their movement (NOT an action). Standing up from Prone costs half your movement and doesn't provoke AoOs (which I agree is dumb. There should be more of a penalty for standing up than there is in 5e RAW).

- Attacking with ranged weapons (or a ranged attack spell) while next to an enemy gives Disadvantage on that attack. That's the cost in 5e; it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

- In 5e RAW, only rogues (and monks, kind of) can use their bonus action to dash/disengage/hide. Everyone else must spend an action to do so. But Larian has changed this, allowing all characters to do these with only a bonus action. I (and many others) agree that this should be changed as it makes the classes more bland. This change also lessens the ability for the frontline to hold space.

- In 5e RAW, jump simply costs movement and the distance depends on your strength score. Larian changed this to a bonus action, and in their implementation you can move further each turn by jumping+moving. The ease and distance of jumping in BG3 negates many AoE surface effects.

Edit: In general, it sounds like you want BG3 to function more like Pathfinder/3.5e. Keep in mind 5e is an entirely different system and it's important to consider why each mechanic is present and how it interacts with the rest of the rules before changing things. Replacing certain rules with pathfinder variants might hugely unbalance the system.

Thanks for clarifying some of the actions. I don't necessarily want the old ruleset (even though i find them better suited to my TT experience), but I think some of what they changed-it-into in 4th ed. and now apparantly 5th ed. is plain dumb. If Larian still use some homebrew they could have changed that to somethings better. I don't understand why the 'shove' action lets the pushed target immediately stand up. If I dont make the target fall of a cliff I haven't gained anything at all with that action. Using a ranged weapon in a melee situation should provoke but i can live with that being the rules, even if i dont egree with it (a lot of things in life one doesnt agree with).

fallenj: Thanks for the tip on dndbeyond .. i'll look it up.

You can get the basic rules pdf, which is a cut down version of the players handbook on dndbeyond, or you can use 5e.tools which has all the information.

initiative happens at the start of entering combat not at the start of each round so your example isn't great because being put to sleep skipped a round but doesn't change initiative.

imo a better example would be a new goblin patrol entering the melee witch adds extra monsters to the combat [and they slot in depending on their initiative rolls]

p.s, that is also why a sleeping character doesn't get an action when they wake
for example you put him to sleep, then another goblin wakes him up before his turn in initiative order comes around = that ex-sleeping goblin still can't attack you... may do something else nasty of course

I know the initiative starts when entering combat. My example were that the Gnoll at initiative 17 should have it changed when another initiative count brakes his initiative order. Otherwise (as seems to be right now), the Gnoll fails his save at Gale's initiative 10, and can make a new save on 17 next round. Therefore Gale won nothing on putting the Gnoll to sleep. It got 2 attempts to make the save. First on Gale's initiative and then on its own. I belive it should be a sleep from Gale's count round 1 to Gale's count round 2 and then make a new save. If the Gnoll makes that save then it should be able to act somehow but from that new init order (Gale -1).
In the very first dungeon we see, Dank crypt i think its called, my party sneaked up on the enemies behind the door with a lever. Gale cast sleep and 3 of 5 enemies failed there saves. Yet the other 2 shoved and everyone got up and attacked my party before anyone in my party could act. So that sleep spell, or hideous laughter or the like don't do what its supposed to do. Next time Gales just put a firebolt at the firewine keg and poof, 3 enemies dead.

Heya!

Just to add on to some of the things others have said here, it sounds like most of your gripes are from things that Larian have changed or homebrewed, rather than the D&D system they're supposedly derived from (the game started from a point of being D:OS2's ruleset, that had a 5e coat of paint, with gradually more things tweaked towards 5e rules as time has gone on... but it's still not really close to a proper or well balanced system)

It's unfortunate that you stopped at 4e; a lot of folks agree that 4e was an overall poor move, and the system only lasted a couple of years before it was replaced. It was more made-for-video-games than other editions, and oversimplified a lot of things. 5E brought the tiller back substantially, and blended ease of accessibility and simplicity of system with something more satisfying and crunchy than 4e; not as complex or drowned in different numbers as 3.5 or PF, but still mechanically meaningful. It's a really good balance, even if it's not perfect, and there's a reason it's now approaching the longest running edition of D&D; it's a good edition.

In terms of what you can do: each character has things they can do on their turn; most things cost a portion of your turn economy – characters have an Action, possibly a Bonus Action, and Movement. Each character also has one reaction, which are specific things triggered possibly outside of their turn by other factors, and they have one free interaction per turn as well – this can be grabbing something off a table, drawing a weapon, or any number of various small things. If you want to interact with more things than that one freebie, though, you'll need to use your action to interact with an object. Each ability, feature, perk or other action will tell you what part of your turn economy it takes; most things take your action. There are no more 'full-round-actions' that have other rules related to what other parts of your turn they cause you to not be able to use, or partially use, or anything like that; it's direct, simple and straight-forward, and everything takes up the portion of your economy that it says it does.

So... in 5e, characters are presumed to be competent and proficient enough to do most of what they are doing without opening themselves up to awkward attacks mid-action; whether it's casting a spell, standing up from prone, moving around an enemy, or grabbing something out of your pocket, none of that provokes opportunity. What does provoke opportunity attacks, primarily, is moving out of another creature's attack range. A few other effects can as well, if certain feats are in play, but moving out of range is the main one. Taking an opportunity attack is also an expenditure of effort on the attacker's part; it takes up their reaction, of which they only get one per round. This is sensible (and a lot more so than 3.5's “you provoked six attacks of opportunity when you moved around this character – yes they made all six during the half a second it took you to take those three steps, no they can't attack that often on their turn normally”).

A round is still about six seconds of time, but mechanically it is the time from the beginning of your turn, until the beginning of your next turn. There is no universal 'round timer', though if you prefer to yo can always imagine it as starting at the first initiative character's turn – many do. Most effects that have lasting duration don't consider or care about 'rounds', and it's not a function much used. Rather, effects last longer durations and the save-out comes at either the beginning or end of the affected creature's turn, if one is available.

So, for example, you can cast hold person on a target, and they will immediately have to make a save when you cast the spell; if they fail, they are paralysed for up to one minute. The affected creature will have a chance to save out at the end of each of their turns, so, regardless of anything else, the caster will always get at least one of the target's turns value for their spell, and the target still loses that turn – being out of action for at least one full round, usually more. Right now, in Larian's programming, they've screwed this up terribly, and affected creatures will save out at the beginning of their turns, meaning that, under Larian's homebrew, you can stick your hold spell, and still get zero value for it, because it won't deprive the target creature of even a single turn, if they make the second save-out. This issue affects all spells with on-going effects; if you look at the focus thread on spells, the spell timing problem, and other issues with spells are discussed in more depth there. Focusing by-turn rather than by-round ultimately works a lot better for game flow, and saves futzing around with changing initiative orders, which gets messy; in active play, it's an all around improvement over 3.5 in this regard.

The next gripe you mention is pure Larianism, unfortunately, and they've shown no inclination to change it yet, despite a lot of forum voice taking issue with it. In normal 5e, a target that falls asleep, such as from the sleep spell, falls prone, is incapacitated, unconscious and drops what they're holding. If it's the spell, they sleep for a minute, or until they are woken – and specifically, it takes another creature's Action to wake them up. Then they are awake, but they are still prone, and can't do anything about that until their turn, when they can spend their movement to stand up, and use their one free interaction to grab one thing they were previously holding when they do; if they were holding more things, such as a weapon and a torch, they'd need to use their action to recover everything and so on.

In Larian-verse, everyone has been given the ability to shove with their bonus action at all times, that shove wakes up sleeping targets and always succeeds, the target is moved 15 feet or more in a direction for free, and they automatically stand up when woken – all Larian homebrew, which so far they've shown no inclination to change, despite a lot of calls for it.

Unfortunately, your gripe regarding the gnoll bowman is correct, and there's no fault with Larian there, apart from their slightly overblown gnolls with more attacks than they should have for 5e balance at this level. In 5e, combatants are presumed to be combat aware and competent enough to not be constantly exposing themselves to extra attacks all the time; you can stand up and be combat aware enough to do so without provoking opportunity attacks, and if you are inclined to shoot your bow, you are presumed to be competent enough to do so without endangering yourself as well.

If you fire your bow while you have targets threatening you, the peril of doing so and keeping yourself safe, and the capacity of those enemies to hinder you as you're trying to shoot, imposes disadvantage on your attacks; you roll two die and take the lower result, for your attack rolls; that is the penalty for attempting to shoot in melee range.

Tactically speaking, this just means that you should try to capitalise on when you make someone vulnerable, so that you and your team can get the most out of it – knocking someone down directly before they get their own turn will give you very little value or chance to make the most of that opportunity. In 5e, you can take the 'ready' action, which allows you to take an action outside of your turn order, using your reaction and a specified trigger; you can ready to trip a target just before your fighter and your barbarian act, for example. In BG3 right now, however, we do not have access to the Ready action, and Larian have shown no signs of giving it to us, despite many calls for it, so this tactical ability is not available.

Don't get me started on Larian's Fly.....

Don't worry... in 5e Fly works like you'd imagine it should... do worry, however, because Larian's game engine is actually two dimensions, and operates on layers, and has since the D:OS2 days (for example, if you throw a fireball at three goblins on a set of stairs, and you aim it at the middle one, the middle one will get hit, but the one above it and the one below it will not, despite being only 5 feet away... because they are on different levels and the spell is actually a 2-dimensional circle, not a sphere).... they cannot have creatures in the air, because they must exist on a ground point at all times. So all flying is just fancy jumping, and it's completely dumb and ridiculous.

Last rules gripe – yeah, in 5e, Dash, Disengage and Dodge are all standard actions that everyone can take. Dash allows you to use your movement again, Dodge imposes disadvantage on any incoming attack rolls (and grants advantage on dexterity saving throws), and Disengage protects your movement from provoking opportunity attacks. Normally, these all cost your Action, and are costly investments to take for most characters. Any time your Wizard is dashing, dodging or disengaging, they aren't casting spells, usually.

Jumping is just part of your movement, if you choose to, and it consumes the same amount of movement as distance you cover. There are some rules that govern how far you can jump in various ways (as well as caveats for athletics checks to make additional distance beyond your normal ability) – but suffice to say the scrawny wizard will not be able to jump very far or high, compared to the fighter.

In Larian's rendition, they've passed a lot of those things into bonus actions, and given them to everyone as bonus actions for free all the time – hugely stepping on the toes of the individual classes that can get some of those actions as bonus actions as special class perks. This is a very bad move for balance, amongst other things, but so far they've shown no inclination to pull it back to 5e rules, despite many voices calling for it.

Normally, the Help action allows you to grant advantage to an ally on whatever they're trying to do – it costs your action, and benefits them. There are also a number of spells and effects that will use the action of another ally to break – such as sleep requiring an ally action to wake you up, or allies being able to use their action to free you from being entangled, and so on. There is also the Stabilise action – which is using your action to make a Medicine check on a dying character to stabilise them. It doesn't restore hit points or bring them to consciousness, it just takes them out of the dying state.

Combining many of these into the general Help Action makes a certain amount of sense for a video game – help should be applicable to all of the spells that require an action to break, for example, and it should equate to a medicine check on a dying character, too. Right now, however, we have a very haphazard and broken implementation from Larian: We cannot use Help in the traditional sense, to assist an ally, at all, we also cannot use it to wake sleeping characters or free them from vines – even though Larian's own tool tip for the entangle spell lifted the text of the spell directly from the 5e handbook, and says that you can. Help on a dying character heals them and brings them to consciousness... and of course, in Larian's implementation this also means they immediately stand up from prone as well, which makes it completely broken (basically, if you have more characters than enemies, you cannot lose, since you can just bring each other up endlessly). It's not great in its current state.

Sorry for the ramble – I just tend to want to clarify when people lean into blaming 5e for the things that Larian have done ^.^ Hope some of this was helpful!

Tks Niara good info.

This s a party game and alot more companions and pets can get value out of that one turn of sleep but that 1 turn is one round for the gnoll(if he doesnt get shoved before his turn) or whatever the debuff spell may be...

if anything the only problem is that spells like web and others do not force a check when enimie is standing in it at the start of their turn and that they can jump out of it without any rolls made that's the real kicker.. when it comes to debuff spells.

Thats the gist of it. Many times it looks like an earlier version of ruleset, but doesnt work like that. Makes oldtimers like me cringe a bit.


I beg to disagree - Many of the rules thru different ed have been thought out according to how it works in real life. You can't say we (characters) are more competent because that same thing goes for the opponents. If im a faster and more fluid skater then the opponent take advantage by being a better crosschecker, with same argument, hes competent enough to do what he were supposed to. Being tripped and prone puts you in an awkward situation and getting back up is not something you am just competent enough to magically do without provoking. My opinion and not a gripe vs Larian nor 5th ed. just my opinion.


well it says in spell desription how long duration there is, so you do have rounds (or turns, same thing), just as before. 5th just filled with other action possible than before. Some good some bad as it always is. Of course its an 'universal round timer' still, but if you measure it as Nick-Johnny-Peter-Nick-Johnny-Peter-Nick etc or put a number on it .. initiative counts are a flowchart. If im Johnny im always acting after Nick and before Peter, and its 1 round or turn between my actions.


yea that were the main thing in my starting post. Broken. I didnt say I dont believe Larian going to fix it, just that it was really not functioning now as it should be. And EA is for positive AND negative feedback.


Yea I understand its something many take offense with. Its immersive breaking and just wrong. Sorry Larian, you do good work but this is just wrong. Take away the free shove and automatically standing up


I think the penalty should be as before, if I try standing up while flanked and shooting, not only do I get a penalty to my attacks, I risk my life. Then some of the gnolls or maybe my own party members would try to crawl away a bit before standing up. Loosing that action but saving life.


I hear what you say but this I really dont like. I want immersiveness, not bending the situation because i can SEE my opponents initaitive count. I like to make tactical decisions with surroundings and doing stealth and right spells and such. Not tactical decisions with flawed design. Hmm, what more .. oh you mentioned ready action and reactions in 5th and this do seem better then earlier editions. I remember taking an ready action to counterspell an opposing wizard 'in case' he cast something nasty and many times totally loosing that turn because he did something else (defensive spells).


Hehe, no we just leave it out for now


this is why my group left 4th ed and moved over to PF. Classes got bland. Bards and Rogues were not jack-of-all-trades anymore .. every class were.

But thats not it. the 'one turn of sleep for the gnoll' is down to half a turn of sleep /if he make next save) because the target gets a new save at start of next turn (he's initiative). One turn of sleep happens at Gale's inititive count.


Look at it from Gale's perspective. -I cast sleep on some target because they are many and we are few. If the miss their save they are out of the match until my next turn. My comrades can focus on other targets. YES! Those two Gnolls missed their save and are now a sleep. I am contributing to the party. Then half a turn later its Gnolls init count and they prematurely get a new save. If they make it then I have gained nothing. Maybe I should just be the Evoker every turn instead. Sure some in my party can get something out of it. But not all of it as ment in spell description. Its a combination of two botched things. Premature saves and the free-action-shove to automatic-standing-up.

Regarding rounds - Yeah, it's still there, but it's far less referenced in general practice, that's all. Take some simple spells, for example: Absorb Elements is a reaction spell - you don't cast it actively, but you use your reaction in response to a trigger to cast it, and this can happen at any point, on anyone's turn. The time for the spell is listed as 'one round', because that's the maximum amount of time it could stick around, but the actual mechanics are that it grants you its effect "until the start of your next turn" - that means that if you step into lava on your turn, and use your reaction in response to that fire damage, then you'll have that resistance all through your turn, all through everyone else's turn, until the start of your next turn. If, on the other hand, the enemy mage that goes just before you flings a fireball your way, and you react with absorb elements, you'll only have that resistance a few moments, because it will end after that mage ends their turn and your next turn starts. Nothing if functionally measured in rounds, in 5e - a number of spells specify one round as their duration, because that's the simplest way of denoting that the effects last until the beginning or end of your next turn (the individual spells clarify the exacts), but beyond that, they measure in minutes, or hours, or more; with one exception that I'm aware of, there aren't really effects that last for a stated number of rounds beyond "1", for the above reason. Short-term spells that lasted a variable number of rounds in older editions (such as spells that lasted a number of rounds equal to you CL or such things), generally now last 1 minute as their standard base; ten rounds is more than any combat encounter generally takes, so it's a simplification that benefits everyone in most cases.

Reactions weren't a thing in earlier editions, and they do a lot of work that you may feel was missing - for example, Counterspell is a normal spell, 3rd level, with a casting time of a Reaction (triggered when you see a creature casting a spell); you don't need to spend your turn preparing to counterspell, or dedicate any extra resources or actions to it, other than spending your reaction for that turn, and the spell slot to cast it. It's, ah... much less of a headache and potential resource waste than spell countering was in earlier editions ^.^

==

Just an extra note - you might find some others splitting hairs with you over the sleep example; Sleep doesn't offer a saving throw at all, and works differently to most other spells - a legacy, ironically, from older editions. Sleep affects creatures based on their total hitpoints, and any who succumb stay that way until woken or the spell ends, no save-outs. Hold Person would be a better example to illustrate the problem with Larian's spell timing problem; in proper 5e, landing that first save guarantees that the target will lose at least one turn to the hold effect, no matter when you hit them with it, because the save only occurs at the end of their turn... in Larina-verse, the save-out happens at the start of their turn, so enemies always have to fail your save twice in a row (when you cast it, and at the start of their turn) in order for you to get any benefit out of the spell at all; you're effectively always casting control spells at disadvantage, and at super-disadvantage (which does not exist in 5e), if they would already be resistant to your effect.

I wonder if the TB Larian engine can only do some sort event dispatch/check at the start of a turn, and this is why they can't implement the rules correctly (when end of turn saves are required)? If so, I doubt this will change which would be very frustrating.

In fact, there is another mechanic that proves they absolutely COULD do system checks (including save-outs) at the end of turns: The irony is that it's another thing they've implemented incorrectly, to the detriment of players!

A barbarian's rage is supposed to end early if they haven't attacked a hostile creature or taken damage since the end of their last turn. This means that a Barbarian's rage doesn't end as long as they are taking damage each round, from any source and at any point in the round, or if they are making opportunity attacks, even if they aren't attacking with their action each of their turn.


Now... that's how it should work...



Currently, in game, if a barbarian ends their turn without having attack or taken damage on their turn, their rage ends immediately at the end of their turn. This is clearly the game making a check at the end of your turn, and ending an effect based on whether the conditional is met or not - everything required for an end of turn save-out effect. It also means that Barbarians cannot rely on taking damage outside of their turn, or opportunity attacks to keep their rage ticking over, and it means that they immediately lose their damage resistance if they end their turn without attacking.

---I agree with that the mechanics exist to make it an at-the-end-of-the-turn-check. That could be used on other saves as well. Noted in-game there are wepons that make you go mad if you don't rage on every turn.

That aside, I dont know what the rule say specific about this and what they used to say but in our TT plays thru the year we have been rather harsh on what you can and can't do when you rage. RAGE=You get get absolutely mad. All thougt on defensive maneuvers go away. You are going to kill every enemy. Period. If you CHOOSE to save/heal/drag away a comrade when there still are enemies abound, or sort of stand guard against enemies isntead of wading thru them, thats a logical decision and your rage ends. The longer you rage on the harder it gets for you to differentiate enemies from friends and when all enemies are downed you must use a will save (wisdom save) to not attack your friends too. Raging is about letting your logic mind out of the window and Hulk-smash! Taking damage shouldnt even bother us. We are adventurers, we all take damage evertime we meet enmies. Just getting some minor damage every turn shouldnt prolong your rage powers if you dont get to smash-smash-smash. What you describe that Larian has done right now really seems they do it my way. But not all the way because there should be a downtime after your rage ends before you can use it again.

Oh and from the earlier post on splitting hairs about the Sleep spell. You're probably right. I haven't really used the hold person' spell. As a TT player that mainly goes towards other humans and not used in chaotic settings vs all kinds of monster. We all wait for the heavier 'hold monster'. I dont have a problem with the Sleep spell per se even if I think 2 turns (BG3) is a bummer. Its the save-again at wrong time I tried to adress and that goes with several spells. Also the shove-to-stand-up mechanic totally breaks the meaning of the sleep spell.

Thanks for your patience and all the ramblings

As with many things, the 5e ruleset and design philosophy has been a lot more open to player interpretation of how things might be, and avoiding of hard-locked stereotypes. Barbarians aren't just "I are big dumb hulk I smash rargh!" They can be, certainly, but they aren't necessarily that one single dull and over-used trope any more. They can be different. Similarly, your Rage as a barbarian can express itself in many different ways, and take many different forms; not everyone gets angry the same way, and not everyone channels primal forces the same way... and surely enough, not everyone channels primal forces by getting angry in the same way!

If you want to follow the traditional dumb-hammer stereotype, the Berserker primal path (subtype for barbarians) mostly fits to that old ideal, but there are more than half a dozen other primal paths to choose from that all flavour and shape your barbarian and their rage in different ways.

The formal rules for rage, in 5e are simply these:

- You gain its benefits as long as you are not wearing heavy armour (those being, at base, resistance to Bl/Pi/Sl damage, advantage on anything that uses strength, whether check or save, and bonus damage on attacks you make using strength; your subclass as a barbarian will usually add more things to your rage depending on what subclass you take)

- If you otherwise could cast spells, you cannot do so while raging.
- You cannot maintain concentration on any ongoing spells either, and any concentration you are holding immediately ends.

- Your rage ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then. You can also end your rage on your turn as a bonus action.

This means that your soldier-barbarian can furiously spend her turns rescuing her dumb-arse recruits from their own stupidity while shouting at and berating them the whole time, and as long as she's taking damage while doing so, that's enough to keep the exasperated and indignant fury going. It seems strange that you'd suggest that on-going pain isn't enough to infuriate people and keep them mad - because it categorically is ^.^ Quite literally, causing pain to creatures to infuriate them and lose their sense of tactics in favour of raw fury is an exceedingly common tactic, because it's very effective.

A lot of the design philosophy is about giving players more flexibility in the kinds of characters they want to create, without rail-roading them into the more traditional stereotypes of those classes - you can still follow those stereotypes, if that suites the character you want to make, but it's not forced on you.

-- I didn't suggest it change. I merely gave my opinion of how I think i should work according to how our TT sassions been played. When I look at 5th description it is as you say and that is a big difference from earlier rules. It says nothing about getting fatigued when your Rage ends and that was a thing before. It didnt make barbs more simple minded before. On the contrary they had to make a choice if stepping in to Rage were worth the cost, because of the drawback afterwards. I see where we differ because formerly the rage were turn based and now its a minute. When it was turn-based you pushed yourself to the limit every turn. Now you know before that you can make intelligent decisions during your Rage period.

-- For a completely different thing (to leave the rage discussion), why are de spellcasters so nerfed? I understand you can't have the enging working with every spellcaster having 5-6 spells per level prepared, but to make those you have rely so heavily on concentration? You can only have 1 ongoing concentration spell so spellcasters get even more nerfed. 7-10 spells prepared and half the options are concentration related? Is it like this 5th edition or is this too Larian style?

That's true, though it's worth bearing in mind that if the player individually feels that their Barbarian is not capable of making decisions or acting in a certain way, it's still their right to play their character that way, and many still do ^.^ Berserker Barbarian has the post-rage fatigue build up that you remember - it comes into play when they use their frenzied rage, which grants them additional attacks. Exhaustion is (or can be) dangerously crippling in 5e, though, so it's a heavy cost-value decision that you make.

For spellcasting - one of the things that made spellcasters so grotesquely overpowered by even the mid levels, in older editions, was their ability to stack up various spell buffs and have them all running simultaneously. The solution to this was to limit buff-stacking substantially. A lot of folks react initially very badly to the concentration mechanic as it exists in 5e - especially if they're used to stacking up a dozen different wards and buffs and augments in advance before going into major fights - but in reality, it works out in a mostly balanced way and it's not as bad as many people's first takes are, when they come from older editions. It was also a necessary move, I have to say, like it or not (and I say that as someone who mainly plays casters and loves them... but full casters could break the world apart by tenth level, in older editions, and it wasn't great for everyone else). Even so, it's not perfect, and there are quite a number of spells that are concentration that don't really deserve to be, and a number of spells that are not concentration that probably should be.

First of all, yes - in 5e there are a lot of spells that now require concentration, and you can indeed only maintain concentration on one spell at a time. Doing other things does not endanger or interrupt that concentration - you can hold concentration on Storm Sphere and cast lightning bolt each subsequent turn without trouble, and you can use your reaction to counterspell someone without endangering your concentration. Only a few specific things break concentration, but casting another spell that requires concentration is one of them.

In most cases, however, your full spellcasters aren't going to have too much trouble juggling concentration in a fair and practical way. Choosing spells that synergise well, and not overloading your concentration spells versus your non concentration spells is just a part of picking your load out for a day, if you are a prepared caster. It IS a halter at times, and it's not perfect, but I'll stand by it being fundamentally necessary, coming off the spell stacking of older editions. Prebuffing for several minutes at the tabletop isn't fun or tactically interesting for anyone, really.

As a rule of thumb: If a spell deals damage, and can continue to deal damage each turn, then it will require concentration. If a spell buffs one or several party members above a certain grade of value, it will require concentration. If an effect crowd-controls or otherwise puts one or several targets out of action, or debilitates them for an on-going number of turns, it will generally require concentration to maintain the effect. If a spell summons one or several creatures, it will usually require concentration to keep them around and/or on your side. Outside of those factors, most spells will not require concentration, and balancing these is now part of the game of tactically picking your spells an when to cast which ones. Whether a particular effect is necessary or beneficial enough to be worth your concentration slot is a decision that most casters have to make now... and the balance is not always right; there are some spells that basically no-one will ever cast, because their effect simply isn't worth your concentration slot, and there are better options that are... and those are flaws in the system. Barksin is one such example - no sensible person will ever consider barkskin to be worth the concentration slot, and it realistically should be a spell, like mage armour, that does *not* take concentration.

Larian have, for the most part, followed the book when it comes to spells taking concentration or not - they've made a few silly moves, such as making mage hand concentration (it's not and shouldn't be), but overall they've followed things as written here. The major issue with concentration BG3 is that they have loaded on large amounts of incidental and unavoidable damage all over the place, which spams you with endless concentration checks - so you will fail one and lose your concentration far, far FAR more easily in BG3 than you would in a normal 5e game.

They've also got bad stacking on some of their status conditions which cause automatic concentration losses that should not happen (being knocked prone causes automatic, no save, concentration loss in BG3 - when it does not do so in normal 5e; this is because in Larian's game, 'prone' also applies 'unconscious' for some ridiculous reason, so any time you fall down, you are also temporarily 'unconscious' and your concentration breaks. It's been reported since the early days of the EA, with no change ever happening.

Here's an example: You have a concentration spell up - suppose you're holding call lightning so you can zap several targets heavily each turn with a single spell slot. A goblin over the other side of the camp runs 30 feet, uses its bonus action dash to run 30 more feet and now has line of sight on you, despite you tucking yourself away as best you could - the maps are too small to actually get 'safe' in this regard. The goblin uses its action to fire an arrow of roaring thunder at you; it rolls a natural 1 and misses... BUT, the arrow still lands on the space it shot at, your space, and so when it explodes it still blasts you backwards 10 feet; you pass this save and take only 2 points of thunder damage, but you still get thrown, and you still fall prone, and so your concentration still automatically ends. There was nothing you could have done about any of that, in Larian's game - you couldn't stay out of LoS from the goblin, the goblin missed, you passed the save you shouldn't have had to make... you still lose concentration, without so much as a save to keep it. They are making the game extremely concentration unfriendly.

Along with this, they've also made numerous concentration spells much weaker or limited - either by shortening their durations, or by not letting you pick the targets of them like you're supposed to be able to (it is on record in bug reports as being their intention that you cannot chose which two targets your would try to affect on an upcast hold person - you just highlight a point and hope it hits the two creatures you want, which is utterly ridiculous...), or by making the effects caused by them easy to remove or dispel by any character in ways they should not be (You put down a stinking cloud to cover an area and stop creatures getting to your party; a goblin throws a candle from the table at the cloud, it explodes in fire and then is gone. The other goblins all run through unimpeded. Elsewhere you cast an incendiary cloud to melt a mass of enemies. Next turn, the goblin priestess casts darkness on the same space, and her darkness spell displaces and removes yours, because Larian's engine can only handle one effect in a place at a time - and the AI Knows and abuses this!). Overall, while Larian have stuck mostly to what is and isn't concentration, they've also made the concentration mechanic itself seem and feel much more crippling and unfriendly than it should be, by way of their other design decisions.

I suspect I'm not going to sell you on it regardless, and that's okay - but those are the reasons.

Are you sure about this dimension design? It's not my experience. For example, in my current playthough as a Rogue, when I was temporarily indisposed during the fight on the boats towards Grymforge (two missed attacks + shove = death), Gale had to do a bit more than shooting his crossbow. His fireball hit all the dwarfs on the other ship, wether being on the elavated platform or down on the deck. Somewhat earlier he also hit all Giths wether on the ground or on the boulder nearby. Is that a different design than stairs? I never tried a fireball on stairs.


Generally I think it does not make sense to bring non-5e DnD rules into the discussion. It's difficult enough to deal with the changes of 5e by homebrew alone, where even I as a non-DnD player am partly upset by Larian's policy.