Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Please remove surface effects on cantrips

+1

Cantrips are basic attacks, I don’t want my non-AoE spells causing issues for my melee fighters.

+1 The effects are either too powerful or simply alters the cantrips too much. 5e is a perfectly fine ruleset and tampering should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Also, fewer oil barrels please.

+1

Like most things, 5e isn't perfect, which is why it should always be read in conjunction with supplements like DMG and Volo.

Remove Cantrip ground effects and input them exactly as the Rulebook intended.

Eldritch Blast proves a Cantrip just having damage can feel fine; it doesn't need an additional AoE attached.
Warlocks get to customize theirs because it's literally the baseline foundation of their kit.

Wizards/Sorcerers do not need this; they get many more spells than Warlocks do, therefor giving them more options to adapt to the situation.

If you want a ground on fire, you cast that Fireball, or that Wall of Flame, or that Bonfire. You don't need to give them that much battlefield control in a Cantrip.

If your argument is "Yeah but they'll feel weak at low levels otherwise if we don't give it to them.", well that's the entire point of playing a spellcaster. You outsmart, maybe sometimes struggle, but you get through it and it pays off at later levels with hugely impacting spells.

If you think it's bad now with Cantrips, wait until we hit level 5 and beyond. Who knows how figgin crazy they're going to make Fireball or other spells.
I will not have fun if a Fireball creates a gigantic 10 foot fire patch on the stone ground beneath it.

Remove ground effects from spells unless otherwise stated, or unless you're targetting something specific (ie. Patch of tall grass, bushes, oil barrels, etc).

Ditto, hear the feedback and remove effects for cantrips. Keep spells as close to 5e as possible.

+1

good middle ground would be: cantrips (maybe also spell that doesnt specifically create surfaces as of 5e ruleset) dont create surfaces, but if cast on elegible surface or entity (ie oil barrel, water pond) they interact as they do now (destroy / set ablaze flammable, freeze)

Personally I don't have an issue either, but is sounds like they shouldn't have so many surfaces or explosive barrels around. I think you take care of the later, the issue is greatly reduced. That said I'm fine with cantrips not able to spark surfaces to. I'd be fine with both, no to cantrips and less surfaces and barrels that go boom. It was over the top in the DOS's as well. Great, your programming marvels did something great technically with surfaces, but you still have to masterfully stroke gameplay.

To echo what's already been said:

Cantrips should work as written, but also allow for player creativity.

The cleric cast create water making a puddle of water. Cool. The wizard targets the puddle with ray of frost. NOW it should create the icy surface, but probably no more than a small radius. The game should reward creative intent.

Basically this.

If an enemy is standing on stone, using Fire Bolt on them should not create a fire surface. If they're standing on oil, targeting them should probably ALSO not create the fire surface. But targeting the OIL should create the surface (but no direct damage to them).

This!

I'd like to test version where cantrips only put single turn worth of surface, and you don't get free prone from the frostbolt. I *like* the utility, throwing frostbolt at fire makes sense regardless of what PnP purists might think.

Also, damaging surfaces in general need changing, you shouldn't get more damage by running for 6 seconds than for standing 6 seconds in it

IMO half move in fire or more = single instance of damage should be fine, so you can run thru any tiny fire surface without any damage but not thru burning building

+1

THIS. Imagine aoe-damage-surface 5e spells PLUS surfaces from every other imaginable source. If you want aoe effects from spells, there are already specific spells for that be it for CC or damage. It's already in the 5e system.

Cantrips also scale with level keeping them viable. They are quite decent for sustained pew-damage in 5e. That's how they should be.

+1. I know Larian's all about the ground effects, but I've repeatedly seen Firebolt's leftovers do more damage than the spell itself. And Ray of Frost is hilariously broken against ogres with their terrible Dexterity saves.

What I find a bit strange, that I shoot melf s acid arrow, it leaves surface effect, I go back to the area after 15 min and it is still there. I think these effects should disappear after a while. I am not sure if it ever disappear.

Honestly I would love it if the surface effects were toned down a lot. Make it so the elemental arrows just do elemental damage with no surface effects. Same for most spells.

There are house rules for terrain effects in 5e but those are to make some encounters special, not as it is in BG3 with how every encounter seems to be played.

Just to add to this, from the 5e rules.

Bomb

Type: Adventuring Gear Cost: 150 gp Weight: 1 lb

As an action, a character can light this bomb and throw it at a point up to 60 feet away. Each creature within 5 feet of that point must succeed on a DC 12 Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 fire damage.

You'll notice there nothing about leaving a pool of burning oil on the floor after using this bomb.

+1 x 100000000

This is my biggest gripe with the game so far (The larger issues are obvious EA issues). I am fine with spells being able to ignite stuff like grease (That is something you would ask your GM if you could do in a TTRPG). But puddles of acid under my feet killing me because of an arrow? Now that just feels very much like a videogame feature and not something from a TTRPG. And why add these effects to low level stuff anyways? 5e has higher level spells for that kind of thing. Fireball explicitly states that it ignites stuff. Cloudkill creates a poison cloud.

5e is not a perfect system, but adding DoS elements to everything does not fix anything, it just makes it a mess.

That a good rule to use to think about this. Would a Human DM allow it.

I expect most DM would veto stuff like

Acid Slash leaving a puddles of acid ( rules state you can target 2 people if within 5 feet )
Firebolt setting the floor on fire ( nothing about clothes catching on fire or extra effects. )
Ray of Frost making a patch of ice ( rules state speed reduce by 10 feet for a round )
etc.

I been looking through the books and can not find any arrows like what are in BG3.

There is

Alchemist's Fire (flask)

Type: Adventuring Gear Cost: 50 gp Weight: 1 lb

This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

Notice no puddle of fire and if anything was going to leave a pool of fire, you would think it would be Alchemist's Fire (flask)

I expect the elemental arrows should be like that, hit you with an extra 1d4 elemental dot for a few rounds, not better then many spells.