Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Remove Height and Backstab as Sources of Advantage/Disadvantage

Correct.
1.) From my recollections there is only 1 surprise round. Your surprise attack goes off, then initiative is rolled and everyone in the combat gets to act. But I might be mistaken...though this is how it *should* work.

2.) I'm assuming this is a bug. The game claims that you get advantage from attacking from stealth (which would allow you to get sneak attack damage), but then that sneak damage doesn't actually apply. Larian seems to have coded it so that your character unstealths before hitting, which then means you're no longer attacking with advantage...

3.) It's a mechanic aimed at simplifying 5e D&D. Instead of having to keep track of numerous small bonuses (e.g., pathfinder's morale, luck, natural, circumstance, dodge, deflection, sacred, size bonuses) some of which stack and some dont, everything is abstracted to 3 options: "advantage, normal, or disadvantage." It makes PnP combat work so much more smoothly, trust me.
However, in a video game, there is no real reason why all those small numerical bonuses shouldn't be included. The game will do all the calculations for you.

Well written and cogent argument. I like the idea of giving height and positioning a flat +2/-2 bonus/deduction. I'd much rather use class mechanics to gain Advantage or mitigate Disadvantage.

Excellent post. Would read again.

Looking at the graphs in the link it seems is only +/- 5 at 10; at 19 it is +/- 1 (linked article says average is +/- 3.325).

Wouldn't this mean if you had a high (say 90%) unmodified chance to hit, using a flat +/-2 would make it more likely to hit than using advantage?

Not sure what proportion of attacks are long odds rather than midrange (where advantage is higher) though or if it matters. I can't work it out in my mind...

Agree with OP. Especially the height mechanic gets tired very quickly in my opinion. In the first encounter past the tutorial against the intellect devourers, the moderately sloped ground can make a night/day difference depending on which direction you are attacking from.

Concerning the argument that it feels bad to miss frequently: it also feels bad to consistently get hit by the enemy unless taking part in this race-to-the-top mini game.

Apart from the various skills that directly compete as ways to grant/inflict advantage/disadvantage I would also draw a comparison to other conditions. Targeting a creature in darkness (without dark vision) or heavy fog causes disadvantage. Aiming upwards at a moderate angle is way easier than that.
Using a weapon a character is not proficient in removes the proficiency bonus, which is +2/+3 in early levels. Aiming upwards should be easier than using a weapon the character does not know how to handle.

I agree that effects of movement should be more pronounced in a video game compared to TT and height can play a part in that. But I think significantly smaller incentives can accomplish this goal. E.g. a range modifier for ballistic weapons would by itself encourage seeking high ground. And perhaps an attack bonus of 1 with the possibility to increase it through abilities in some classes. IMHO this would already be enough to seek out as an advantage without devaluing other choices too much.


Not sure what scenario you are referring to exactly. Assuming the base scenario is having to roll 3+ (90%), rolling that with advantage would be 99%. Giving a bonus of 2 (rolling 1+) would produce 95% when respecting critical failures. And even ignoring critical failures (100%), the increased chance of critical hits typically makes up for the 1% lower probability.

Miloment beat me to it Lx07, but significant change in getting a Critical Success/Fail is where the additional benefits from Adv/Dis come from beyond the 3.325. There are lengthy sources around the more popular 5e discussion forums (Giantitp, Enworld) that go *hard* into the math to include comparing Adv/Dis against the average AC per CR level. It always ends up being a rough benefit of +-5 *on average*. Which is why it's the strongest baseline mechanic in a bounded accuracy system.

@miloment/@Isaac Springsong, thanks I was getting confused by the graphs and misread them. Seems easier visualising with anydice.

I agree with the idea in OP to change so it isn't so easy to get advantage in these ways, just was misreading as flat +/-2 may result in increased hit chance compared to advantage in some situations.

And this for me it’s really the point, thank you for running the simulation. It takes the same time on average.

Yes the combat plays differently and yes I agree, I definitely feel more overpowered than in my average DnD session, but I think the point is to create a game that can appeal beyond DnD fan base.

Is BG3 EA giving me enough DnD? So far (120 hours) yes, better than any other game I’ve played. Almost every fight played differently at every replay (4 for now)

Would I like one day to see it modded/upgraded with a RAW mode? Definitely!

"appeal beoind the D&D fan base"

funny, that's precisely why BG and BG2 were RTwP.

What’s funny about it?

because what you are using as a defense of Larian's choices are the exact words used against Bioware when they made the original BG RTwP. The "wider audience" being all of PC gaming, not just niche RPG players. That is why BG was such a remarkable success, and yet the majority of arguments against BG and BG2 are that they aren't turn based or "faithful" to D&D.

so it's funny to witness the cognitive dissonance in action. "you guys" literally split hairs to try and keep sense of your arguments. it must be exhausting.

I don’t get it. Turn based vs RT is a thing, Height and Backstab mechanics another. You have noticed that both share the same goal. That’s good, but sharing the same goal does not mean you either like them both or dislike them both. With this logic you should either like every type of food or no food at all, because both share the goal to feed.

As for splitting hair, this is a forum about BG3 and this a thread about Height and Backstab mechanics. So yeah, we’re talking and talking about it.

The best way to scale encounter difficulty in 5th ed is to add more enemies to the fight. Add some more peons... Add a lieutenant to the boss fight (+more peons)... That said the issue there is it slows the encounter down. On table top the DM generally breaks peon minions into groups and has each group act all at once for speed.

Made it to the end...

+1 for the OP.


My take away is that the high ground rule only makes sense when you consider the lack of a cover system.
- 5th ed has 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, and full cover.
- BG3 does not have the cover system but the High Ground sort simulates it for ranged attacks.


My feelings:
- please add the cover system updated for 3d environments (will need to cast more than 4 rays)
- reduce the high ground bonus to +1 or +2 to hit. (and no low ground penalty because cover has you covered now)
- add in the optional flank rules from DMG (2+ characters on each side of the target) with a +2 hit only. (melee needs fun rules too)

No need to be snarky when arguing your point. Attack the argument, not the man.

Even if the idea is interesting, I think adding a cover system so far in development is a bit of a stretch. But I dig the +1/+2 for height instead of an advantage. And it can be easily modified I guess.

If they are to implement a cover system then now would be the best time. Keep in mind we're only one month into the early access period and we're most likely still a year (if not more) away from the game's full release.
The longer they wait with implementing any new features, the more likely they are to run into issues.

Yeah, but if we have in mind a cover system like xcom for instance, the environment is not suitable at all for it at the moment. The only stuff that would fit are barrels or chests, like all the destructible assets. The problem with these is they can be destroyed super easily.

So it would essentially mean they'd have to rework all the maps to include hard cover structures.

Overall whatever results in less wasted actions, within reason, is fine by me. It simply feels good to connect your attacks with a good enough ratio and a flipside it certainly feels terrible when game almost punishes you with miss streak RNG.

Positional advantage (backstab) is already an optional rule in 5e, they just need to fix it to their intended light weapons only requirement. Height advantage/disadvantage (just to remind you it's not all happiness and sunshine there) is homebrewed, but I'm totally down with it because it simply makes sense.

Neither of what you said is true unfortunately. Positional Advantage has nothing to do with weapons that have the Light property even in the *literally never used anywhere ever* optional rule of "Facing" in the DMG.

And if you think it makes sense, what is your response to the 56+ class abilities and spells that are completely invalidated by the two homebrewed systems?

Implementing cover would also require a change to their ray-tracing/cover detection/"am I able to hit" algorithm. Currently, if you can draw a line (or arc) to any part of the enemy's body, you can hit them. This doesn't work with cover. You need to draw at least 4(?) lines to different parts of enemies, probably more.

Not arguing against Larian doing it, but it's not nearly as simple as Solasta/XCOM's grid-based cover system.