Another of gamedesign choices I don't like (that should maybe enjoy the D&D fans) ? Why the hell does a fireball ignit everything in it's area of effect ? (even rocks, soil and sand)
That's also a part of "realism". Maybe you don't call it "bling bling" or "realistic" ? Ok no problem, call it whatever you want too, but don't tell me I'm wrong if I don't like it for a Baldur's Gate game or if you don't understand.
Is there DoT on the fireball's targets or when you move in it's AoE after it's done in the rules ? I can't find something like that, but I'm not an expert I have to admit it.
Whatever the answers, I don't like that so I'm sure you'll understand it's not a problem with the choosen words or something else.
I actually liked that detail in the gameplay. that´s what you think it´s going to happen when you hear "Fireball!" Not a magical fire that burns everything and magically disappears with no effect.
In fact, the description of the spell says "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area"
I always found lacking that in most games magical fire leaves no trace after vanish. That also gives fireball some utility to create pathways and destroy barriers.
I totally agree it's a very good thing that things can burn. It has to be visual but also a gameplay element in specific cases.
But what about totally unrealistics and overpowered elements I pointed at ? Can u live with that ?
I really think the D&D description suits better : "It ignites flammable objects in the area" (and don't forget) "that aren’t being worn or carried".
Random outside grounds and bodies aren't objects.
You should die if all your body was in flame. Of course it doens't mean you don't have burns on your body? These are the instant D&D rules damages
- Visual effects about grounds exists but they dissapear when the "surface" dissapear. It could be cool for them to stay.
- I think totally inflammed surfaces for a complete turn with additionnal damage is way too powerfull and irrealistic when you're in short grass or on a stone.
- This is obviously not the same when you're burning highly flammable surfaces. These should continue burning for 1 turn or more.
=> Of course, if you're against burning
objects or you're walking on an ignited surfaces, you should take those additionnal damages.
This would give the game more RP and more strategy because you'll have to find a way to create additionnal damages, it wouldn't be automatic when you're playing with fire.
Of course I like the idea of destroyed things with fire but I think Larian should first stay limited by the rules first and then add their own cool mecanics to complete the players possibilities.
Actually it looks like it's D&D rules + Larian's rules at the same time, which leads to incoherent situations.
I could as another exemple talk about the fire bow because you put your hand and your bow in fire. Not sure this is really how D&D works about magic weapons and their ammunitions (correct me if I'm wrong).