Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Gnolls are BS

Yeah well, Agincourt sort of proved that point didn't it? It may not be balanced, but history is replete with accounts of these factors lending themselves to overwhelming victory. I don't necessarily have a problem with it.

If you are trying to put down a rabid dog, you don't strip down, lube up, and attempt Greco-Roman wrestling techniques. You pick up a shotgun.

I think a lot of us may have forgotten how punishing combat was in the first Baldur's Gate and simply remember waffle stomping dragons and arch fiends in the sequel. I am personally less concerned about balance than I am fairness, and it is not an unfair fight. You may not be able to beat it the way you want to, but there is still more than one way to beat it. I thought this was a actually a fun encounter, because I hadn't even noticed the Gnolls on the rise when I was dealing with the Hyenas the first time, and I wouldn't have known what those Hyenas were doing if it weren't for an arcana check. It all felt refreshingly new and novel, and there is little I appreciate less than boring combat. I like that they are trying to make everything you fight feel unique and uniquely dangerous. Its not for everyone, and I am not trying to push my views on others, but I do wonder if he is more upset about Gnolls or losing.

I'm behind y'all a ways, was super excited for this game...until tonight. Gave up and quit game (for now) when I came across the gnoll fight. 3 tries, and not anything close to a victory. Came from 3 different directions , used elevation, used some sneak attacks. Their damage is ridiculous, and my chances to hit them are discouraging to say the least. Watched two knolls continue to attack a downed character instead of refocusing...not like they needed to...several of them could have took a lunch break and don't think I would have won. Was using my fighter, the githy fighter, shadowheart, and Gale the mage.

It's not about being able to figure it out, or finding a formula that wins...it's about this game being so far off from D&D thus far, that it is truly disappointing for someone who has played all the D&D classics and tabletop.

Sorry Larian, some of us just want to play the D&D games of old (that were commercially successful mind you!) in today's graphical awesomeness. Don't reinvent the wheel. If this is what DoS-II was like, glad I never bought it. Very aggravated.

In monster manual + additions all but the most basic gnoll have multiattacks. That sounds normal.

Fire damage with bite in other hand does not.

I understand that you are talking about the DnD, but I just want to say that this is a simple fight. I killed gnolls with first try, and boss too. This fight is much easier if compared it with Spider fight, which took me a really long time, just because I needed to understand 'web' mechanics. Maybe it shows the difference between DnD players and not DnD players. Your perception of the game can influence your battle strategy. Hmm. Because players who don't know DnD rules play with what they have and consider it normal.

I don't mind if Larian make game "more DnD".

This is an excellent point which hits at a big issue I have with the game and that I hope gets addressed during EA: the game does not do a good job teaching players how to be good at it. I'm not just talking about the tutorials, in fact I'm willing to be very leaninent about tutorials at this stage since there are still mechanics that are possible to change. I'm talking about early on creating situations where the player can learn to intuit what sort of play the game expects of you. Many combats require a level of attention and tactical approach that doesn't come automatically to a lot of players, and it can take players by surprise a lot of the time. I think working on the early combats so that a few of them force the player to make use of more creative tactics to win would go a long way in helping prepared players for knowing how to aproach more challenging encounters.

If you know how to abuse the current system, almost all fights (maybe with the exception of some Underdark ones) are ridiculously easy. But that's not the point, regardless of the difficulty, combat is just bad in the current state, the mechanics are broken. Small-stepping to get behind enemies or impala-jumping on every turn to get advantage is the opposite of fun, let alone balanced or close to how a D&D fight (or just about any fight) should look like. The fact that all monster stats had to be thrown out of the window and thus you have Gnolls critting on 16 with 3 ApR & fire damage is just a consequence of these completely broken combat mechanics - and maybe the "rule of cool" to an extent.

It's a bit frustrating, there is a lot to like in this game, I'm really just starting to think that this shouldn't have been BG3. Larian could have just created a new RPG in a new world (not FR, not DOS) without having to try to make it _seem_ like D&D...

(Quite a lot of spoilers below)

There are at least two separate points here, which I think should be addressed individually.

1) Is the combat a faithful, or at least acceptable, videogame interpretation of 5E D&D rules?

On this question, I don't know or much care, because I've never played D&D, although I know Larian have said they had to mess with some mechanics for reasons of practicality and gameplay balance.

2) Is the combat too unfair or otherwise hard in BG3?

You'd think so, to look at some of the streams of people blundering around the map and getting TPKed in every battle. But honestly, if you play the game as I believe it was intended - explore thoroughly, read books, chat with as many NPCs as possible, collect *and use* items (potions, scrolls, vials, barrels), sneak around new locations, scout for useful environmental features (haven't seen anyone drop a brazier on Gut's head or a stalactite on the Owlbear, topple a statue on top of Ragzlin or lure a Spectator to a Torchstalk before blowing it up), position your team well, do your best to surprise the enemy for the bonus attack - most fights magically become much easier. If you treat this like a fantasy Fortnite, you're going to get your ass handed you on a platter.

I don't know how much you've experimented with the Gnoll fight, but given how hard you've found it, I'm guessing you've never got the dialogue with Flind, which (if you make your rolls) makes it 10x easier. This suggests you've been approaching from the cave side, which never triggers that dialogue. Come at them from over or round the hill to the south instead.

Regardless, with elevation advantage, maybe a familiar and some buffs, it shouldn't be too challenging. It's doable at level 3 although I sometimes wait till 4, depending on how badly I want Flind's weapon.

Hardest fights for me in descending order:
Bulette (esp when combined with HHs & Filro)
Minotaurs
Kuo-tua
Spider Matriarch
Gith
Masks
Hag
Attack on Grove #2 (if you want to save everyone)
Bernard & the Armors
Duergar/Redcaps

The gnoll cave fight is several places further down the list (but I may be missing a trick on some of the above combats.)

There is truth in what you say, but IMO you are doing melee characters down a bit. My quickest run-through was with a tanky fighter (AC 18-19 by level 3) who specialised in two-handed weapons and got by far the biggest proportion of kills (although I was cheesing by having them revert to single-wield + shield after every attack). I think I used one revivify scroll and three potions in that game. (But yeah, all right, we ate a lot of meat.) Lae'zel, if you build her appropriately and kit her out with the right stuff, is also a proper house, regularly doing 20+ damage per turn, and twice that with Action Surge/potion of speed/haste spores.

It depends on the level of your party.

I didn't have so many problems in the second playthrough. Even if I hadn't but Lae'zel with height advantage, the difference is that in this run I went back to my usual strategy: to overpower my party so that bosses become easier. When I reached all my party was level 3, with good armor and weapons.


Furthermore just like another user remarked, BG (but almost all the games of the early decades of videogames) had frustrating beginings with characters killed with easy (in Daggerfall you could be killed by rats in the first room of the dungeon where the game started), in BG even in easy mode some battles requires multiple reloads, and the adventurers were so naive to choose places to rest, in the wilderness, not completely safe [and when I read some comments that applaud to such setting I thanks that the explorers of the days that were weren't so naive to be unable to find a safe spot where to rest instead of waiting for a tavern or a home].

Maybe gnolls have that famous and very special "dip" your mouth in a torch ability.

Oh no, I seriously hope if natural weapons get added, they are not dippable. As cool as a shifter with fire claws could be, it would also be way to ridiculous.

This is a good idea. So many people seem to think they can just rush and kill everything in games then get surprised when doing this makes it harder or doesn't work. Many games sadly cater to this playstyle and not to a more tactical and creative one so it is understandable that people may expect it here. Teaching people that they will have to think early on would be a good thing. There would of course have to be some mindless combats as well so the impatient sorts don't complain the entire game is too hard.

I am going to redirect this. I played 5e for a few months before BG3 came out and still had my ass handed to me in several fights, starting with the first goblin fight, but including the spider queen fight, the gnolls, and the ~!@#$%^&*()_+ githyanki patrol. So it isn't just 'know 5e' - there are enough differences in tabletop and computer gaming that knowing the base rules is probably less than half the battle.

My look at it is: Options are power; know your options and use them. Explore every game mechanic and see what happens. And keep learning and experimenting. This isn't my best post: Clearing the Deck: Killing Everything on the Bridge, but if you read it, the point is there are a good half dozen solid techniques you can use even against powerful enemies. Some of them are pretty much straight 5e abilities; some of them have been changed by the transition to a computer game, and some of them are only in the computer game.

And there are enough flat-out exploits that, if you just want to chew through fights to explore the world and get to the story elements, it is possible. But you have to find them and figure out how to use them. I took out all of Blighted Village except the ogres with one imp (my party was hanging back near the druid grove), just to verify it was possible. I could have done the ogres too, but the fight took long enough as-is; I was getting bored enough to start making mistakes. Then there's shoot/hide, 100% chance of throwing enemies (circumstantial, but manipulable), shoving things into bottomless pits, and other exploitative combat tactics.

Seriously, Larian, the enemy needs some way to deal with invisibility; otherwise, when we can finally get Greater Invisibility, it will be possible to walk up and just keep wailing on things until they die, no tactics or strategy needed. "I killed an ancient dragon using a dagger" sounds fantastic until you realize it was an hour-long boring grind because the dragon wouldn't attack or move.

I appreciate that you agree with my point but I will say that I don't think it's strictly bad that there are games which cater to a more simple playstyle purely because everyone deserves games they can play, it's not a sad thing at all. If anything, those games existing means people who want their complex, in-depth tactical games don't have to worry as much about the experience being watered down. And also I think having simple combats sprinkled throughout the game would be a good thing because I'm of the opinion that not every fight in a cRPG should push the players tactically. There should be some fights that are simple and easy even relative to the overall difficulty so that players can really enjoy the feeling of growing their skills and power. For every pitched battle against a pack of gnolls, there should be one or two curb stomp fights against backalley thugs that think too highly of themselves. If you let the players have combats where they're meant to be able to wipe the floor with oponents, not only does it make the truly challenging fights feel earned and special, but you let your players feel like they're growing in power. I know when I DM a ttrpg, I like to throw in a simple fight that's meant to be quick and easy every couple of sessions just to let the players feel cool. Plus if you do that, the players might start to get cocky and when they meet another serious challenge they can get the "oh no" moment of realizing they overestimated themselves, which is fun for me at least.

Yes. Stealth combat right now is just ridiculous because the enemies don't do a bloody thing. Would definitely be the same with invisibility.


I agree with you entirely that there should be games for everyone. I just get irritated because in other games I play (FO76 and apparently New World) the people that want easy mode for everything whined and complained until they got their way and a lot of the content that required thinking got removed. For BG3 I think the standard difficulty setting should have a mix of requiring thinking and mindless combats. Add in other modes for people that want always easy and those who want always hard. I will say that playing the type of games I usually play and my current DnD game have made me so paranoid that I treat every encounter as something that may be really bad, much to my DM's amusement I am sure.

There is a partial stealth-breaking mechanism implemented, but it is, at best, buggy as sh**.

If the enemies have already seen you and you are stealthed in an area that enemies can get to line-of-sight of within one turn, sometimes they will move up and find you. It's rare, but it happens. I think there's a visual cue to 'the enemies know where your stealth point is': Notice that sometimes when you go into stealth, you get a highlight/beacon on you. I think that's a clue that the enemies might be able to find you. I am not talking about the 'stealthing without cover' marker, that's different. If you get the beacon and then move, the beacon stays in the same place, which reinforces my belief that the game does have some mechanism for looking for stealthed characters. But the discovery isn't consistent or frequent.

Invisibility is flat-out broken. You can walk up until you are threatened, go invisible, and not move thereafter. The enemy never attacks, never uses opportunity attacks, and, unless there is another force at work, never moves.

To be briefly fair on one small point - it is correct that things don't take OAs on invisible creatures. The OA as written requires it to be against a creature you can see.

Not disagreeing that stealth in general is a broken abusable mess right now.

Enemies should move either in the direction they last saw you (if lower intelligence) or either retreat or move to cover. Never had them try to find me yet.