Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Can we talk about the nerfed range on bows and spells?

I'm sure a lot of other issues have been posted about, but in DnD some builds have an amazing range they can operate at and in BG3 this range is nerfed. Some examples:

Firebolt ( normal range 120 feet, BG3 range 60 feet )
Eldritch Blast ( normal range 120 feet, Eldritch Spear range 300 ft, BG3 range 60 feet )
Longbows ( can shoot without disadvantage at 150 feet, can shoot with disadvantage up to 600 feet )

Now I am not saying that we should be able to shoot 600 feet away, that would be a bit too much, but 120 feet should be fine. The issue with limiting those spells is that:

1. You nerf what makes the spell special. Firebolt and EBlast being 120 feet is part of their balance. By nerfing their range by half and giving nothing in return, you just nerf a class for no reason. And Warlock really doesn't need nerfs.

2. By making the range cap at 60 feet that means any melee with a Dash can get in your face which is not good and needlessly nerfs casters/ranged characters by putting them in extra danger that they shouldn't be in.

3. 60 feet max range severely limits the advantage of getting to high ground and making use of angles and cover

+1, got nothing to add to that.

As to your last point, I'm pretty sure that high ground extends the range of bows/spells.

I agree that the longbow should have a greater range, especially compared to the shortbow.

I am fine with the ranges of firebolt and eldritch blast. Firebolt is more powerful than 5e RAW, so I'm fine with its range reduction. Eldritch Blast is just powerful in itself. And again, both of these ranges can be extended from use of high ground.

2.) Any melee with a dash can get in your face, yes. But you can then freely jump-disengage away, so it's not as bad as it would be.

Aside from the possibility of ranged attacks becoming OP (at least in certain situations like outdoors), one issue to keep in mind is aggro range. In DOS2, for example, where elevation increased the range of bows, etc., there were a few situations were you able to shoot enemies and not enter combat, effectively just cheesing a battle. If range of attack was increased, the aggro range would also have to be increased, which might be harder to implement for reasons not readily apparent.

Larian might have even addressed this issue, but I cannot recall.

All that being said, I have no issue with the range of attacks. If they could find a way to avoid the scenario in DOS2 I explained above, having range being adjusted by elevation (either increased or decreased) would not only be more realistic, but would give elevation a significance without the need to use advantage/disadvantage (the argument against adv for elevation being posted elsewhere).

Eldritch Blast is the one good thing Warlocks have, the spell that makes the class worth playing. It really shouldn't be arbitrarily nerfed. And not so hard, to be sure. This is a 60 ft reduction nerf, it's huge.




Make enemies enter combat when hit? Seems an easy fix.

The ranges often feel short.

But when you're firing from elevation the ranges suddenly grow huuuge and you can fire a super far shot at a tiny target with advantage. Range should be a bigger factor than elevation.

Nah because then the enemy would have to spend their turn running to you. On your turn, you'd shoot them again. Then they'd continue running to you. Then you'd shoot them again. And only then would they reach you. It'd make for super unbalanced fights as you'd have already significantly weakened the enemy at no penalty to yourself.

Not all enemies have bows, so it's not necessarily true that they could just return fire from 100+ feet.

The fix would require some combination of increasing aggro range or the smartness of the AI: i.e., if attacked from 100+ feet away, hide or run away instead of charging in.

Sure, it seems easy to do. That doesn't mean it actually is easy to do. To determine if it is or is not, one would need a detailed and thorough understanding of the source code for the game, which I don't possess (and doubtfully does anyone beside certain Larian employees).

This scenario is why there is a dodge action as well as a cover system in D&D. It would be nice to see these implemented but who knows if that is viable at this point. I do find it annoying that the goblin archers can shoot twice as far as all the cantrips even though many of the spells should at least match a bow's range.

Funny enough, there are more enemies with ranged attacks than melee ones in the EA. So many archers punching people in the face because they have no melee weapons.

And your tactic already work. Just stand in a room and let the enemies come at the door...well at least when they don't shoot through walls and stuff.

Just like every game, using realistic distances has a huge set of problems... if you make the ranges realistic, then you need to make the distances in combat realistic, and if you make that realistic then you need to make the distance between areas realistic etc.., and then you'll end up with a game where you have to spend hours walking around to get from one place to the next. It's pretty normal for video games to tone down all the ranges of everything, because it just doesn't leave you with a good game if you try to use realistic ranges.

Also, as if high ground needs to be buffed - it's already ridiculously overpowered and definitely is not in need of any help.

I agree with what you're saying in your first point, but range can definitely use some work. Certain spells are balanced around having more or less range than other's. When you just go and say,
"all longrange spells have a range of 60ft."
You are killing variety while also nerfing and buffing spells, when you could just make corresponding changes to the ranges, based on the percentage that you are scaling down the map.

Also if high ground is the issue, then base ranges could be increased and high ground benefit decreased to compensate for making ranges not terrible for even ground.

This is a good point, and no "you can jump/disengage" is not a defense. It's probably not feasible to put the full range in the game, but perhaps the range of bows, Firebolt, and Eldritch Blast should be increased to 80 feet, so you can't have enemies move + dash to get into AoO range of casters.

So what you're saying is that if I carefully plan my combat, I am likely to win? Where's the flaw exactly? This is what happens in DnD 5E as well. If I have a high vantage point and a very good preparation pre-combat the enemy is likely to die horribly.

What's the issue with that?

It's not OK for an enemy to be able to dash in melee range to my wizard no matter how well placed I am ( because max range is 60 ft and anyone can dash 60 ft )

60 ft max range is a joke when any melee can cover that in one turn

I would probably slightly increase the range, but overall I don't think reducing range is that bad.

Frankly, I can't recall that many games where players would take advantage of the ridiculous range of a longbow fully, because making a battle map that big is cumbersome.

Whereas here nothing is stopping you from just pelting enemies with arrows from 600 ft once you get sharpshooter, which would be just odd.

But you wouldn't win due to superior tactics/strategy. You'd be winning because the enemy AI is set up to not notice you at X distance, where X is much less than the range of your bows from high ground, a coding decision by Larian.

I'm not necessarily arguing that spell/bow ranges shouldn't be increased. I'm arguing that if spell ranges are increased, then Larian should also increase aggro range to preserve balance. Which might affect other things. So not necessarily an easy fix.

Your point that your wizard should be able to be out of melee range is a good point.

I am bumping this thread as it's still a major problem in patch 5 with max range in game set to 18 meters. So it needs to be brought back to the attention of Larian and crew that ranges need to be fixed to 5e standards.

Especially if they have action surge. Move, dash, action surge, attack, and BA shove. Most casters are dead now.

Yeah, this doesn't hold up any more. Firebolt is now exactly the same as it is in 5e RAW, except with a major range nerf, same for Eldritch Blast. And a melee character getting to your squishy casters is basically certain death for them, even if you disengage and move away the melee fighter is now within range to simply run you down again and hack you to pieces because you can't keep distance because of this stupid 60 foot range cap.

Wow this is an old thread. Yep, firebolt is now strictly less powerful than RAW with the range reduction and reversion back to 5e mechanics, and spellcasters are in more danger as they can't BA jump+disengage from melee enemies. Especially since ladders can be climbed with 0 movement, so enemies that are in reality ~40 ft away (20 feet horizontal, 20 feet vertical) can climb to your high-ground spellcaster with a single move action. This makes high ground less of a refuge than it should be.

+0.7 to increased ranges to firebolt/longbow/EB. I don't think the full 120 ft (or 600 ft for longbow) is necessary, but up to 90 ft would probably be a good balance of buff while still limiting the free damage in fights. A good DM will adjust encounters by giving enemies ranged weapons/having them flee or hide if players constantly make use of sniping, whereas BG3's AI DM won't.