Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Cmbat is [i]weird[/i]

This is not a complaint of combat being either to easy or to difficult. I'm not a DnD buff, and that means any version. I'm mainly playing this EA because I've played BG II to a far thee well, and really like DOS2. And while BG III doesn't really have the BG feel yet, so far I did enjoy it.

Several other oddities aside, the thing that currently puzzles me the most is combat:

- I may be an old fashioned DM, but I do expect my enemies to be bound by the same rules I am. So when I encountered Gnolls who can either melee or range attack ocnsistently three times a round, or a would be level 4 paladin dishing out more than 20 hp damage in one attack and then happily going on to multiattack, my first reaction was "What the hell did I do wrong with my character and companion builds? Why can't I do that?". Following that was a frantic search to enable my party to provide the same level of punishment. Apparently I didn't do anything wrong, which beggars the question why a level 4 standard Gnoll is so much more proficient in combat than what should be the hero of the game.

- On a different note, how is it possible that my enemies always target my casters first? I mean before they even do anything. I can understand identifying the wizard, but the cleric runs basically the same equipment as my warrior, so that seems weird. I don't mind them doing that i n general, because I do the very same. I'm actually happy that whatever I'm facing is showing some sort of combat intelligence, but some things go too far.

- Currently I get by with the good old evade and long range attack strategy, which works rather well. If I can get Lae'zel in place, she does a good amount of damage, but getting her in place is extremely difficult. So far ranged attacks seem to completely rule, and I'm just happy that I have a Ranger preference, which means I get the most out of my character.

- Which brings me to the question: What is the purpose of a warrior? Or a rogue, for that matter?. I may be tied too much to the concept of a tank, but Lae'zel certainly isn't one. She's pretty good in one on one melee combat, but that seems to be it. And why would I need a rogue? I can apparently lockpick and disarm traps well enough with my ranger, so the concept of the rogue in this setting seems to elude me. The combat damage I've seen so far from Astarion isn't something to write home about, either, even if he is doing his sneak attacks from behind. Not that I would let that bloody Vampire near my party ever again, but that is a different story. ;-) Did I miss something? I can't really see why I would have a melee character in my party.

- Since Lae'zel doesn't seem to have any aggro generating tools, I've tried to use the bear companion of my ranger. Well, "goading" sometimes works, but seems to break immediately if I so much as wave a bit of damage in the fact of the affected foe. Again I get the feeling that I'm missing something, but I have no clue what that is.

So that is why I'm finding combat in BG III rather strange. I know it is early access, but still...

1. Agree on the first point. Those gnoll archers are so OP!

2. Good point, yet I think if this wasn't the case many spells like Expeditious Retreat would be invalidated and you could simply destroy the game with Wizard/Sorc/Ranger and not take defense.

3. Very much agreed on that point. There is a lot of verticality and complexity in the environment (which is amazing), that especially in the earlier parts of the chapter make positioning for melee very difficult.

4. Personally I'm finding fighter (at least in the levels we have) to be much more powerful than the other classes once you get to lvl 3-4. Cast Blur, Bless, Aid, and situational like Prot. from Good and Evil and you have a nigh indestructible wrecking ball. At level 4 you can select the Great Weapon Mastery which gives you extra attack on crit or kill and +10 dmg and llose 5AR, which can easily be compensated for. Stack some misty step scrolls and with some good rolls you can kill half or more of the encounter in a single turn. Anything that gives Darkvision is also very good since there are a lot of dark places too! My first playthrough I had my char as Wiz in party with Gale, Shadow, Lae, with the mindset that Wiz gonna be OP. Found that the amount of resting you need to do compared to having fighter carry is pretty big difference, especially compared to the Battlemaster spec.

5. True there isn't an aggro mechanic, but I think the traditional way of having such a system does make it quite boring. Barring the most likely case of it being some balance issue, it could be as you pointed out in 2. I think if you use in game logic the no armor casters would always be the favored target since most of the time they are squishy but also potentially the biggest threat. Cleric is hardly gonna do the same amount of damage, so if caster gets downed first your gonna be spending time reviving. Still with good positioning this isn't really something that is very impactful. Everyone has very good defensive options, and you could technically make your Wiz or Warlock a tank and break this mechanic xD

The combat in the game is quite challenging. So I think that your disregard for rogues exasperates that experience since, despite being very buggy, using sneak attacks and stealth can be very, very, very good at giving you the upper hand. The amount of options for combat are pretty redonkadonk, so I trhink if you approach it with very traditional mindset it's gonna be very challenging. This is a system that really rewards out of the box thinking and is something that I love in a good DM. So I think the weirdness you are experiencing comes from this fact that it's so different from similar games. The more you play the more you will discover. Have 4 sessions atm cuz I find out something new and want replay to use said thing.

+1 to it being weird that the enemies you fight seem to operate on different rules. The gnolls were a nasty surprise for me that wiped me the first time I fought an actual group of them.
+1 to the class distinctions being a bit weak, but I'm guessing that has more to do with being EA (hopefully, otherwise the game will be weird) and that additional specializing perks will come up like in DnD 5e.

However, in-universe I believe the reason for the Paladin being wonky is because he's actually an infernal cultist pretending to be a Paladin of Tyr, which is why he gives you his sacred holy sword (!) as a quest reward for providing the head of a parasite-infected tiefling. Really makes you wonder what's up with that, huh?

I switch my monster up every now and then to keep my players on their toes. If things are too predictable because of OOC knowledge it's not necessarily a good thing. I think they should keep to the rules for the run-of-the-mill gnolls and goblins, but then have a lot of leeway for the bosses and unique monsters they want to put in.



I think there's three reasons
- Advantage from backstab is way too powerful, and acid too prevalent, so the "tanks" have a big problem tanking anything because of this deviation from the rules.
- The highest quantity enemies you'll be fighting at the start are goblins, who can disengage at will. This is according to the rules, but unfortunately it makes the fighters ability to do battlefield control a bit worse
- Rogues biggest value on the battlefield ought to having a lot advantage on the rolls from being hidden, where no one has reliable access to advantage. Right now with cantrips proning everyone, backstabbings galore and height giving advantage on ranged attacks, everyone has advantage all the time. None of those things should give advantage, which would make the rogue a lot more valuable because he can actually hit stuff.

The absence of the "dodge" action is also a major factor why melee fighters with high AC can't tango too long.

Yes, once again Larian should deviate less from D&D 5th edition rules. I'm not saying it has to be 100% tabletop rules, but just don't change things without any reason. Also not saying never change any monster's stats or abilities. It's simpy hugely out of place for low challenge rating enemies to have so many attacks.

The problem with melee characters in BG3 is, once again, a result of deviating from 5th edition rules.
- Cantrips creating surfaces, making them hazardous to your own frontline (plus simply overpowered in general).
- Surfaces in general, as every damn enemy has some kind of arrowhead and/or bomb (I'm okay with surfaces if they were a bit more special and rare).
- Jump/disengage as a bonus action invalidates a big part of what makes rogues shine (increased mobility and options in combat).
- There are two optional flanking rules and BOTH of them are implemented in Baldur's Gate 3 (advantage from attacking from behind, advantage from another friendly character engaged with target).

Additionally, there's free camping almost anywhere, even inside the goblin fortress. I'm pretty sure that camping / replenishing spells will be more limited at some point, but right now that's one more reason why spellcasters just dominate.

I'm not complaining about the gnolls giving me a surprise or doing something I didn't expect. But I do expect some sort of consistency, and doing three attacks per round for almost any low level monster is not consistent.

Nice summation!
It's my number one thing to moan about on these forums! Both the Fighter and the Rogue are part of the fantastic four of D&D (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard) However Larian doesn't treat them as valuable parts of the adventuring party currently.

You sure the gnolls don't have multiattack-bonus actions-legendary actions?

Each one of the level 4 gnolls? I have actually no clue what you are talking about (I did mention that I'm not a 5e buff), but I find it inconsistent to get a low level opponent that can actually attack that many times in *each* round, apparently without any precondition.

I find changed to combat abilities in the creatures a nice touch, otherwise I would just know what to expect.

Is it hard - yes, but it is beatable.

I do agree that monsters tend to snipe the wizard/cleric a lot. Which is ok I guess, if you treat this game as a co-op game against an AI, and not a pnp with a DM. Since if I as a DM was sniping the wizard in every encounter then the player would soon leave the table.

Most monsters in DnD follow the monster stat block rules, not the player rules. So they tend to attack more times than us.

As for the point about Melee characters:
I think that comes a bit down to player expectation of the classes, and the build. Some of it has to do with the changes to the DnD 5e rules that Larian made, but I think that goes both ways.

What's the Point of a fighter? I assume you mean melee fighter? Because a fighter is considered a very good ranged attacker in 5e.
The fighter, right now in BG3, is a two handed weapon power house. Pick up Great Weapon Figher at lvl 4, and consider carefully when to use it (It's a toggled ability). The fighter in my multi player playthrough wreacked face!
Battle Master's abilities also adds a ton of damage.
All in all the Figher did the most consistent damage in our play though.

Rogue: The rogue needs some work (I just made a post about that). But Thief seems to be a very good melee figher too. Getting an aditional bonus action means they can go into sneak, attack with sneak attack and also get their bonus action off-hand attack off. Select the Dual Wielder Feat at lvl4 and dual wield rapiers for lots of damage.
(But yeah Rogue feels very half-done)


There isn't any "tanks" in DnD 5e. The whole "holy trinity" build thing isn't really a thing. Fighers and Rogues are consistent damage dealers, when used tactically correct. The casters tend to be better at battlefield control than damage, with the exception of Warlock who has a decent cantrip in Eldrich Blast.

Eh Polearm Master, Sentinel, Greatweapon Fighter pretty much locks down the enemies in one place. If thats not a "tank" I don't know what is. Eldritch Knights with the Shield Spell, Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade are also among the tankiest damage dealers you will ever encounter.

Oh and an Ancestral Barbarian with their ability to apply disadvantage to every attack that does not target them is also a pretty "tanky" build.

Agreed on most counts.

To respond to the OP, yes, D&D5e monsters and NPC follow different rules from player characters. Player characters have less HP and do more damage; they have less access to multiple attacks per round; their class limits what kinds of abilities they can access.

Monsters are built using different tools because their function in the game is completely different - their average lifespan is 2-4 rounds; their purpose is limited to being a narrative prop, a challenge, or a resource sink; they are defined by one or two special features or attacks, not by a slew of class-dependent abilities; they rarely have spell slots or consumables to keep track of (they'll be dead before they get to use them anyway); they are often outnumbered by the players (running a lot of monsters is hard on DMs, so it's preferable to have fewer monsters than adventurers. The published modules almost never put you up against a monster horde) and thus have more ready access to Multiattack, Legendary Actions and Lair Actions (i.e., things that break the action economy in their favor). Because they're often outnumbered, it's fine for monsters to have a broad suite of abilities - healing, buffing, movement, control, blasting, all in one package - they don't have to worry about niche-protection like PC classes do.

A monster's 5e statblock isn't its "character sheet", and it doesn't simulate that monster's realistic capabilities. Rather it's a player-facing "challenge sheet" that presents the players with a level- and group-size-appropriate obstacle for them to overcome.

The problem in BG3 is that Larian isn't sticking to the spirit of the above design philosophy. There's no thought given to the number of enemies one goes up against, their action economy advantage, or adapting monster statblocks for the environments they design. Every encounter is "Deadly" by D&D5e's CR calculations, which means the player has to cheese them by using DOS-style environmental interactions. Which throws the system they licensed out the window in favor of barrel go boom.