Originally Posted by Sunfly
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by eikona
I love the ground effects. I've been trying to figure out why people hate them so much. If they were removed I think I'd stop playing this game because it'd be so boring.


It's because the game is trying to use Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots from D&D 5e, which is based around the idea of attrition of health and other resources over encounters, and it's also using massive AoE attacks in every battle, unresistable status effects, surface damage, and high ground advantage from D:OS 2, which is based around the idea of being fully healed and fully charged for each encounter.

The two systems clash when used together. If Larian really wants to use AoE's, unresistable status effects, surfaces, and high ground advantage, it also has to change the parts which are designed based on a system which doesn't have those.


I see this complaint a lot but I've yet to hear a good explanation for why it's actually a bad idea beyond "5e handles it this way instead". There's nothing special about hp, ac, and vancian spellcasting that gets ruined by BG3's implentation of the rules. Numbers can be tuned to account for the added functionalities of some spells and the rest is just adjusting available resources. It's bizarre that "It's not the same as it is in 5e" is a reply to "I find it fun".


And they do tune the numbers to account for the added functionalities...on the monsters. Somehow my 8 HP wizard just doesn't feel "tuned" to account for unblockable fire damage that can't be avoided because the entire fucking floor is on fire for the next 50 turns. Nobody says to completely remove ground effects, at least not for the most part. Just tone them down already, not literally every single elemental spell in the game should create a patch of ice or fire

Last edited by Pupito; 18/10/20 07:53 AM.