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

The rule exists page 252 black on white in print. You can't blame them for making use of it and limiting it a tad.


As for second point - citation needed. "Invalidating" is a BIG word there, I'd imagine the actual truth is somewhat not there. Overall the point is that there will be plenty of changes and in my opinion many of these are deliberate changes to make the game less frustrating for people who do not necessarily get off having RNG miss streaks. I'm down with them tampering with AC values and adding a few extra sources of Advantage for that, it won't detract from my enjoyment of BG3 and likely will only increase it by reducing wasted actions.


If there will be spells that will be legitimately useless given these changes, then they either will be just that or will be amended (like Sleep, for example, btw). It's not unlike BG/BG2 - you also had a ton of useless spells there and these games were far from faithful 2e recreation - somehow the world did not end there and everyone and their mothers put these games on a pedestal as a model D&D videogame.

Larian doesn't limit Facing. They expand it, making it much more easy to use. And we certainly can blame Larian for using an incomplete version of an optional rule. Just as you can defend their choice.
As far as I can tell there is no DMG component of the rule that restricts it to light weapons. I will be much happier if/when this is implemented, though I'd be even happier if it was limited to the rogue and/or changed to a flat bonus.

And yes, they don't invalidate 56+ class abilities. But height/backstab (dis)advantage DO make many of these 56 abilities less useful (e.g., why Barbarian reckless attack when you can just backstab? Why faerie fire when you can just climb a ladder or backstab?). Again, replacing height/backstab (dis)advantage with numerical modifiers would completely fix these issues.

Also: Larian's fix to sleep doesn't fully correct for the HP increase. >50% HP increase for most goblins but ~30% increase in HP that Sleep affects. Sleep goes from affecting 2-5 goblins to affecting 2 at max.

Yes, I can. And you are dodging the point I made, which is that YOUR statement (Facing rules require a Light weapon) was factually wrong. Because it was and still is. Ignoring 90% of the Facing rule is not 'limiting it a tad' so you are also factually wrong on that point as well. Do you want to be accurate?

Did...did you actually read the original post in this thread? I am being serious, did you? Because you're asking for a citation to something that exists in the very first post. I know that because I wrote it. Please, feel free to do your own thorough review and dispute any of the 56 class abilities and spells I listed. While you do that work to have the supportive evidence, that list *only* covers levels 1-4. The amount of class abilities and spells geared towards providing/imposing Advantage and Disadvantage grows massively once you get into level 5+.

So as I have continually showed you to be wrong, here is a simple question you can answer. Which is the easier task:

- to rebalance 56+ class abilities and spells; or
- to remove Adv/Dis from height and position as currently implemented?

Next, and this is simply because I love it when the conversion of 2e to BG 1/2 is trotted out as an example, please provide a list like I have of the differences between the 2e ruleset and the implementation by BG 1/2. Heck, you can even just limit it to spells if you want. Because here's the thing, you are making a statement of fact (BG 1/2 were not faithful to the ruleset) without supporting evidence. That's ignoring the fact that 2e was atrociously designed from a digital programing perspective and 3.0 was already in development at the time. While you are compiling this evidence (or if you choose not to, invalidating this as a point you can make), perhaps you'll understand why the changes made from 2e to accommodate the digital environment receive such dramatically different treatment by the player base than the changes Larian are trying to implement..

Larian intends to put limit by restricting it only to light weapons per their ingame tooltip (so that's by the way to address Barbarian part, unless you do some light weapons Barbarian).



They will likely not implement "reaction" part of original rule, but they also will restrict it to to light weapons only.


Various spells being less effective is quite a big of a gap from the "invalidate" claim - after all, there might not always be a ledge and your barbarian might not be swinging them shortswords either. Sleep is arguable, because on one hand it's potentially less powerful, but on the other hand it's guaranteed effect now with set HP - you know exactly what you're getting - there is a lot of value in that in RNGfest that is D&D. They might further increase it though, which imo they could by adding another flat 6 hit points base and rank up, but that's what EA is for.

Same goes for many other spells that might be affected - they will either amend them, buff them or simply let them stay as is and the world won't end.

Ah now I see we're getting to semantics. Okay:

Invalidate - "make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous."

It is the absolutely correct term. Your argument is with the dictionary.

Quite frankly, I'm not exactly intending to waste my time with you, bud.

I spoke my piece and I intend to keep doing just that to balance out this RAW extremism from time to time.

I know you are invested into it and it's your right to voice your opinion, but it's also my right to voice my opinion on the matter.


In the end of the day, I strongly believe that more deterministic, less frustrating gameplay with expanded options is simply more fun and more welcoming to larger audience this game is intended for. It is far more important than going batshit crazy trying to reproduce 5e RAW in-game despite all its RNG BS, especially being keenly aware of the fact videogame players rightfully do not appreciate excessive RNG and excessive wasted turns in their games.

Thankfully, Larian has experience with that both with their own games AND with games like Xcom with its well known 95% memes. I am glad they listen to their internal common sense and choose to homebrew changes that lead to less frustrating gameplay, while offering more invested players an out with full and easy to implement addon support. Why I'm glad it's their stance exactly voiced in few last interviews and their loaded dice musings to counter excessively shit RNG and alternative more deterministic dialog paths are even better news for me.


And btw, I do think that yeeting a barrel into a clump of trash and blowing them up is hilarious too and should be a thing. Hope I did not burst your vein there with my filthy casual "fun".

Okay, sure. But if you want to separate into situations where this overlap will or won't apply, then we also have to bring the word "invalidate" back into the argument.
-In situations where you can get height advantage (probably most, given the encounters so far) faerie fire will be invalidated
-In situations where you cannot get height advantage, but can still get backstab, faerie fire will be invalidated.
-In situations where you can't get height or advantage, then faerie fire will apply as normal.
Net effect: the effectiveness of faerie fire is lessened, just like I was saying. I was summing over these scenarios by saying, in general, these abilities are made less useful.
Or, phrased another way, height (dis)advantage will sometimes invalidate these 56+ abilities, and sometimes not.

Also, that is a bold claim that Larian will fix these spells to be balanced. I haven't seen much evidence of that so far, or any indication that Larian realizes there is a problem. As you said earlier on this page, citation needed. And if they don't, then we as players have strictly lost options/tactical choices.

Larian is obviously adapting mechanics to fit the game. It's disingenuous to imply they won't continue to do so.

No Larian thinks that High Advantage and Ground effects from D:OS was a good feature and we make it a Core Mechanic in BG3. Its standart in the Editor and this mechanic was before the first 5e rule in the game.
After that decision they implemented 5e rules and "Oh no we have problems lets tinker at AC, HP and other values".
The reality is that Larian D:OS Gimmicks > 5e rules and the "adapting" is another word for "mess with it".
No one with brain will implement 5e rules first and implement such a homebrew rule second and make all the work useless.

And for the "realistic" fans: Dwarf and halflings have against "normal" races automatic disadvantage because heigth ;O)

If your point is to create a D&D game with awesome homebrew rules to overhaul the experience, I guess that's what everyone should do^^

Not sure any DM create his own rules before having tried the RAW.

Their mechanics, rules and wishes are awesome and could really enhance D&D but as they are implemented, they altered the experience way too much... leading first of all to very poor combats in which the only real tactical choices related to these homebrew rules are "fire, ice or poison ?"

(Backstab and High ground are so powerfull and so cheesy that they're not really choices... Everything is balanced considering we'll always use them).

You can just admit you were wrong, it is a lot easier that way for both of us and then hopefully we can move forward with more productive conversations.

I do want to highlight something for your own edification. Several times now you have stated your belief that DOS style combat is, and I quote "more deterministic". Now, I want to make a few points here.

One, I absolutely agree with that statement. Two, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujVMIYzYXg

Saying combat is "more deterministic" means, literally, that combat is pre-determined by conditions that existed prior to it taking place. Which is absolutely correct in the current build of the game, because *YOUR* actions and free will mean almost nothing next to the 'Lazy Larian' (tm) homebrewed rules that overwhelm everything else in the game. No amount of effort will overcome the topics discussed here and barrelmancy, they pre-determine everything else in combat.

Next, and this is where some citations are needed, you make the *bold* claim that videogame players do not like excessive RNG. First, again, sources needed. Second, do you know what game you are playing? It's Baldur's Gate 3, the third game in a trilogy. It is pretty clear you didn't play those games extensively since they contained all but exactly the same amount of RNG as exists in BG 3 (1d20 variance for attack rolls) and yet.....somehow.....someway....here we are 20+ *years* later and the popularity of those games is the *only* reason this game is even being made in the first place. So there's my evidence that the RNG of D&D is not disliked by videogame players (this game only exists because the first two games were and remain so popular decades later), what's your evidence?

Why are you speaking in such absolutes? There's nothing incompatible with determinism and RNG. Clearly D&D plays with that continuum everywhere. Having consistent advantage does not negate all challenge nor remove player agency from the game. That's hyperbolic and flatly wrong.

It literally does. Every single aspect of D&D 5e, from ability scores, to HP/AC values, monster abilities, class and racial abilities, spells, pretty much every mechanic in the entire rulebook is balanced around the player *not* having consistent advantage. How do I know? Because there's a 9th level spell, the most powerful *thing* in the entire game, that does nothing else beyond granting Advantage and imposing Disadvantage on enemy attacks. That's *all* it does. And Lazy Larian now lets us replicate 50% of that spell (only advantage on attacks) just by dropping a box and standing on top of it.

Guys.

Turn the testosterone-fuelled language down a few notches please. Heated debate is one thing, but aggressive arguing and confrontational language is quite another.

We all have different views on what we want to see in a game (and yes, it is a game). We all play the game slightly differently. Acknowledge that the other person feels just as strongly about their viewpoint as you do about yours. If you can't respond without being confrontational, don't respond. It doesn't make you any less a gamer.

Even though advantage only comes to be around a 5% bonus on average aka a +1 static bonus? Even though just because a spell has a given slot means it can either be very weak or very strong in that slot? Even though advantage or disadvantage can be ridiculously easy to negate?

Alrighty then...

I'd like to understand why you consider advantage is only +5% and why you consider you (and the AI) can negate advantages/disadvantages that easily.

I definitely agree with Isaac.
Every homebrew rules totally guides and determine the way combats take place.

D&D RAW are way more rich in terms of tactical possibilities than what we actually have in BG3.
(Reactions, synergy between classes, more actions, cover, more things to think about because less common overpowered mechanics...)

Read the D&D rules as I did if you don't know them. Combats could be far more challenging and deep with more D&D and adjusted/toned down hombrew rules.

Mathematically, advantage and disadvantage are most impactful for middling DCs. Averaged from 1-20 results it only comes to a 5% difference.

It's easy to negate because sources don't stack. You don't get double advantage. You just have advantage. All it takes to negate is a single source of disadvantage.

Now, think of mid to high level monsters and you'll see it really won't mean much at all over the course of the game as a whole. It feels OP only because of the combination of low level and easy enemies. That's it.

Not sure where you learn maths or probabylity or if you really know what advantages and disadvantages mean but you're totally wrong.
The average advantage on a D20 roll grants +25% to hit while the average disavantages decrease your %to hit by 25%.

That's exactly how it work if your character is level 1 (proficiency +2), if your build is "correct" (modifier +3) and if you fight against ennemies that have an AC of 15 (D20 roll >=10).
You can check in the game.

My knowledge of mathematics is probably not much greater than yours, but it seems to me that to reach the 5% that comes out of your hat, a common lvl 1-3 character should fight against ~AC 23 ennemies.
There it wouldn't be very much impactfull... but the entire game would suck because you'll miss except if your D20 roll is >= 18

Now about "negate" advantage and disadvantage, it looks you'll stay very vague.

Just one exemple...
What can your ennemies do to avoid your backstab when you can cheesy jump and attack once (or more if you're a fighter lvl 5) each turn from it's back ?
Is he going to cheesy disengage and always try to reach your back to keep the balance ? Or is there any other consequences of your cheesy jump and cheesy backstab(s) to keep that balance ?

I'd really like to have your real exemples of how "balanced" advantages/disadvantages is and how "easy" it is to negate.
I guess easy means we have many many possibilities. If not... maybe "determinism" was finally the right word.

The bonus on an advantage is substantial. It's +25% on a 50% chance roll. And so it should be acquired by using resources instead of just placing your character behind a target or literally moving one step up on a stair.

It they are so scared players would be disappointed to miss too often, then they should give everyone advantage by default and use +/- 5%, +/-10% bonuses to adjust in case of backstab or elevation.

SacredWitness just probably made a mistake in calculation. The 25% is more or less correct. More importantly, advantage doubles the chance to make critical hit and nearly negates the chances to critically miss. Vice versa disadvantage. This is very often forgotten part of that feature.