|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Nov 2020
|
On jumping, I'm going to quote directly from the 5e PHB, of which I have a dead-tree copy (and note that some liberties, specifically concerning run-up, probably had to be taken due to how the game (and really any point and click game) handles movement). Emphasis theirs, typos mine: Your strength determines how far you can jump
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your strength score if you move ten feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing jump, you can only leap half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of the jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet, Otherwise, you land prone.
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 times your height. Basically, there are no rules concerning weight in jumping, and, horizontally, at least, even a basic character has superhuman jumping skills, if Larian stays true to 5e (though, unless everyone is less than 2 1/2 feet tall, you shouldn't be able to jump over enemies, per RAW and I'm fine with that). This is to keep everyone on the same page. I'm not sure how it translates in-game, without some way to measure jumped distance, but... As to shoving, yeah, it should take a regular action, instead of a bonus action, again, per RAW. As a side note, there are no rules about height difference (terrain-wise) in the PHB, so I guess Larian is on its own there. I wouldn't mind the advantage/disadvantage being turned way down and limited to accuracy, but I feel there should be a difference between being several feet above your enemy and several feet below. In my opinion, the 5e rules concerning jump distance are not so bad, jumping 10 ft/3m (Strength score of 10) doesn't seem excessive or superhuman to me (when you run 10 ft/3m before the jump). And it would be easy to translate in-game, they already measure the distance you can walk. Regarding the height difference of two combatants using ranged weapons: when I have a clear view on my target (no cover), it does not matter in my opinion if the target is a above me, on the same heigt level, or below me. But when I look up a cliff and see only the head of my enemy (or the upper half of the body), while he has a clear view on me, than yes, he will have some sort of advantage relative to me. I am at disadvantage, because part of his body is covered by the cliff. So we don't need rules concerning height difference, but rules for cover - and these are already in the 5e rules. I know, Larian can't do this because of the Devinity engine, so that's why they came up with their current advantage/disadvantage system. Which is too excessive/too much in my opinion. But all this was already written in these forums by many, many people.
Last edited by daMichi; 11/01/21 11:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
|
On jumping, I'm going to quote directly from the 5e PHB, of which I have a dead-tree copy (and note that some liberties, specifically concerning run-up, probably had to be taken due to how the game (and really any point and click game) handles movement). Emphasis theirs, typos mine: Your strength determines how far you can jump
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your strength score if you move ten feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing jump, you can only leap half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of the jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet, Otherwise, you land prone.
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 times your height. Basically, there are no rules concerning weight in jumping, and, horizontally, at least, even a basic character has superhuman jumping skills, if Larian stays true to 5e (though, unless everyone is less than 2 1/2 feet tall, you shouldn't be able to jump over enemies, per RAW and I'm fine with that). This is to keep everyone on the same page. I'm not sure how it translates in-game, without some way to measure jumped distance, but... As to shoving, yeah, it should take a regular action, instead of a bonus action, again, per RAW. As a side note, there are no rules about height difference (terrain-wise) in the PHB, so I guess Larian is on its own there. I wouldn't mind the advantage/disadvantage being turned way down and limited to accuracy, but I feel there should be a difference between being several feet above your enemy and several feet below. In my opinion, the 5e rules concerning jump distance are not so bad, jumping 10 ft/3m (Strength score of 10) doesn't seem excessive or superhuman to me (when you run 10 ft/3m before the jump). Regarding the height difference of two combatants using ranged weapons: when I have a clear view on my target (no cover), it does not matter in my opinion if the target is a above me, on the same heigt level, or below me. But when I look up a cliff and see only the head of my enemy (or the upper half of the body), while he has a clear view on me, than yes, he will have some sort of advantage relative to me. Because I am at disadvantage, because part of his body is covered by the cliff. So we don't need rules concerning height difference, but rules for cover - and these are in de 5e rules. I know, Larian can't do this because of the Devinity engine, so that's why they came up with their current advantage/disadvantage system. Which is too excessive/too much in my opinion. But all this was already written in these forums by many, many people. In so many Threads and problems it becomes so obvious that using divinity engine instead of making one for a DnD gameseries was just plain wrong. I don’t blame wotc for this as they have no idea what they are doing anyway (first company in history that managed to create a significant competitor on market with their own product.). But larian should have seen that their divinity and DnD are sooo vastly different that it’s really begging for problems to use the engine.
Last edited by Baldurs-Gate-Fan; 11/01/21 11:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
**Abbreviated the quote** The big picture points I agree with and I wanted to highlight the points that supplement my thoughts on how height advantage impacts gameplay. My post will be focused primarily on height advantage (higher ground). There are definitely other mechanics worth talking about, but I want to stay on-topic for this thread. Also I feel height advantage is a higher priority to address than backstab. Summary: In the 5e ruleset, Advantage/Disadvantage is the most powerful impact on gameplay... Because it is so powerful, all sources of Adv/Dis in 5e come at either a cost of resources or a potentially penalty to the user, to balance out the sheer power of the mechanic. Currently, BG 3 subverts this balance by providing always available sources of Adv/Dis in the form of Height and Backstab, both of which require nothing more than having your character in the correct location on the map... This makes the 5e sources of Adv/Dis nearly useless as they are all more costly or penalizing...
...
In 5e, in general, having Advantage is roughly equivalent of having +5 to your roll. Disadvantage is roughly equal to having -5 to your roll. This means if one character is rolling with Advantage, and the other character is rolling with Disadvantage, then there is the rough equivalent of +-10 between their rolls. Additionally, Advantage doubles the chance of rolling a critical hit, and makes critical failures much less likely (5% normally vs 0.25% with Advantage), vice versa for Disadvantage.
...
There are a few class abilities that can add a higher static modifier (such as a War Cleric's Channel Divinity that can add +10 to one single attack roll) but those are rare and always limited in amount. It is a large reason why 5e is generally much more balanced that prior editions of D&D with far less ways to truly 'break' the game.
...
Over the course of 17 'levels' of CR, the enemies AC only increases by an average of +6. Just having Advantage almost cancels that growth out entirely.
...
If you take a level 1 character and a level 17+ character, give them the same stats and the same weapon, the total difference in their to-hit roll will be +4. A level 1 character has a proficiency bonus of +2 and a level 17+ character has one of +6. The difference between these otherwise the same characters is less than the difference from Adv/Dis. That is how strong Adv/Dis is mathematically.
You can see why getting Adv/Dis is such a huge deal in 5e rules, and why being able to have them should be considered such a huge impact on the mathematics at play.
...
Possible Solutions: First, remove granting Advantage/Disadvantage for Height and Backstab... there are enough ways to get Adv/Dis, BUT they are all balanced by having a cost/penalty associated with using them.
...if Larian still wants to incorporate having a benefit for having higher elevation than a target and/or maneuvering near a target, please incorporate the Cover and Flanking mechanics as described in the first linked Primary Topics Link. Cover provides a potential benefit for being higher than your target because your target will not have Cover from your attack. Additionally, you will possibly have some Cover from attacks from below due to the surface providing elevation. Flanking also requires at least 2 allies in melee combat, increasing the risk to those characters for the reward of potentially having a greater chance to hit.
Alternatively, if Cover/Flanking is deemed to difficult or impossible due to the limitations of the DoS engine being used, then replace Adv/Dis with a flat +2/-2 bonus (which is the bonus provided from Cover and Flanking respectively). This makes players still want to seek out sources of Adv/Dis due to their higher mathematical benefit, while also not invaliding all of the listed spells, actions, and class features. I was going to write up a thread about how advantage from a greater height and disadvantage from enemy attacks is too much benefit for moving a character a few units up in 3D space. Thank you Isaac for making this thread. More on Why High Ground Advantage/Disadvantage is Problematic for BG3 Isaac wrote a lot of good points that highlight how problematic height advantage is in keeping combat engaging. By combat engagement I'm referring to the player's perspective of having meaningful choices to make. In the current patch, it's frequently just going for high ground in most of the fights. The current state of the game makes me consider reloading a save if I entered combat from a bad angle and I can now see an angle that would give me free advantage at the start of combat. That's not something a player should be considering, but after tens of hours in the game those are frequently my first thoughts. Height advantage provides too many benefits how easy it is to obtain. I want to propose removing disadvantage on attacks from lower ground because high ground is just too valuable in the current game meta. It just doesn't make sense that a character standing on top of a hill, outside of cover, is harder to hit. Baldur's Gate 3 also has collision checks for projectiles, higher ground currently gives a lot of defensive value too. My Thoughts on Possible Solutions 1) I'm all for trying out Isaac's proposal for a +2/-2 bonus for higher ground in early access. I like the idea of higher ground having benefits in the game and this change would be a step towards correcting how over-tuned height advantage is. And give the player more meaningful choices than the current state of the game. 2) It's also worth considering having height advantage only give a +2 to attack rolls. If a character is standing out in the open there really isn't a reason why they would be harder to hit and Baldur's Gate 3 already has collision checks for if projectiles could hit. Anything the character could cover behind is already possibly protecting them, so disadvantage on attacks from lower ground is greatly exacerbating how impactful high ground can be in Baldur's Gate 3. 3) Flanking is a "nice to have", I can totally understand why it'd be hard to implement as 3D space becomes congested. There is the possibility of a domino effect with flanking where immediately after your character flanks an enemy you can be flanked by another enemy. I think it would be fun to experiment with variant-flanking (tailored for the video game experience) to give more value to terrain that is not higher ground. But that could congest the combat AI and slow combat down. 4) Cover is another "nice to have", I think it would be cool to add a cover mechanic. However, I can also see how it'd be a lot of work for the developer to take the time making objects capable of providing cover, and testing that the mechanic works as designed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
+1 (or +99999999, whatever the max is)
The current system is broken, especially when combined with the bug/exploit where small steps do not cause opportunity attacks. When intending to do a melee attack, I just _always_ move behind the target - without triggering an opportunity attack - to get the advantage. All spells/skills that cause (dis)advantage are basically useless (or severely nerfed) due to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Disclaimer: I do NOT know the 5E rules.
I'll go ahead and jump in this thread specifically about the high ground "I Win button" that is currently implemented. I'd like to see 2 changes myself and the 2nd might not be popular.
1. Personally I think Adv/Disadv needs to be removed from the equation completely with regards to height's influence.
2. Higher ground should increase the range for physical attacks(arrows/bolts/thrown items). This should NOT apply to spells.
Imo increased range is the only benefit higher ground should have and that is because that is just plain how gravity works. A spell's range is basically a sphere centered on the caster that the spell can reach before it fizzles out. Higher ground would have no affect on that. I feel this would still make higher ground advantageous for any ranged toon since by its very nature it limits an enemies access to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Disclaimer: I do NOT know the 5E rules.
I'll go ahead and jump in this thread specifically about the high ground "I Win button" that is currently implemented. I'd like to see 2 changes myself and the 2nd might not be popular.
1. Personally I think Adv/Disadv needs to be removed from the equation completely with regards to height's influence.
2. Higher ground should increase the range for physical attacks(arrows/bolts/thrown items). This should NOT apply to spells.
Imo increased range is the only benefit higher ground should have and that is because that is just plain how gravity works. A spell's range is basically a sphere centered on the caster that the spell can reach before it fizzles out. Higher ground would have no affect on that. I feel this would still make higher ground advantageous for any ranged toon since by its very nature it limits an enemies access to you. I want to test out additional range for higher ground! It's still a benefit but not something that will feel like a must-have. Although I'd be open to have some spells benefit too, any ranged attack that is logically influenced by gravity. (for example Eldritch Blast probably wouldn't be).
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
2. Higher ground should increase the range for physical attacks(arrows/bolts/thrown items). This should NOT apply to spells. That's what I though a couple of days before. I definitely want to try a +1/+2 bonus to attack roll with highground and an increased range for ranged weapons. Not sure about spells.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 25/01/21 08:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2020
|
I am not for a bonus because of high ground, as it makes no sense in my opinion. But if Larian goes for a bonus, then of course I would prefer +1/+2 over the advantage/disadvantage system we have now.
The best solution would be a cover system, but we will not get it, I am afraid.
For spells: an increased range does not make sense, in my opinion. If we get a bonus, spells that use a ranged attack roll (e.g. ray of frost) will use that at well. But that leaves the question, what do spells get that have a saving throw mechanic? If my wizard casts e.g. Fireball, should there be bonus on spell save DC as well? For me it makes not much sense, but for balance reasons, there should be something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
For spells: an increased range does not make sense, in my opinion. If we get a bonus, spells that use a ranged attack roll (e.g. ray of frost) will use that at well. But that leaves the question, what do spells get that have a saving throw mechanic? If my wizard casts e.g. Fireball, should there be bonus on spell save DC as well? For me it makes not much sense, but for balance reasons, there should be something like that. Maybe a bonus to Dex-only ST spells? Cover in 5e works a similar way: in cover you get bonuses to both AC and Dex Saving Throws. Thus, if we interpret the high ground bonus as actually coming from better ability to see our enemies, then an increase in both attack rolls and Dex-based spell DCs would make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
I would prefer they cancel also the height advantage, but if they can't let go at all, why not a +2 bonus; that would a home brew rule not too OP
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2020
|
@mrfuji3
Sounds reasonable, +1
@Lunar Dante
Yeah, it is a compromise I think that works for most people here in the forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I would prefer they cancel also the height advantage, but if they can't let go at all, why not a +2 bonus; that would a home brew rule not too OP Yea that would mean : 1) that the advantage mechanic of D&D is safe. The game opens to many strategies to improve our %to hit. 2) we have another possibility to increase the %to hit through highground/backstab that would work arround our positions. 3) we have bless. I guess that with : advantage possibility + highground/backstab bonus possibility + bless possibility + modifiers + proficiencies + weapons bonuses... No one would still complain about "missing too much". "missing too much" os not really a problem to me but it looks like it's something that bother many players so they'll have to care about it. If Larian's dices are not cheated, this looks like a pretty balanced solution that would make this "constraint" reasonably easier to deal with.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 25/01/21 06:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Disclaimer: I do NOT know the 5E rules.
I'll go ahead and jump in this thread specifically about the high ground "I Win button" that is currently implemented. I'd like to see 2 changes myself and the 2nd might not be popular.
1. Personally I think Adv/Disadv needs to be removed from the equation completely with regards to height's influence.
2. Higher ground should increase the range for physical attacks(arrows/bolts/thrown items). This should NOT apply to spells.
Imo increased range is the only benefit higher ground should have and that is because that is just plain how gravity works. A spell's range is basically a sphere centered on the caster that the spell can reach before it fizzles out. Higher ground would have no affect on that. I feel this would still make higher ground advantageous for any ranged toon since by its very nature it limits an enemies access to you. I want to test out additional range for higher ground! It's still a benefit but not something that will feel like a must-have. Although I'd be open to have some spells benefit too, any ranged attack that is logically influenced by gravity. (for example Eldritch Blast probably wouldn't be). I've fired at things from higher ground before and noticed an "outside normal range" modifier listed but not seen if that applies any penalty. I can not say for sure if I've had that option when firing from lower ground to higher ground. If it is a mechanic that is applied to archery regardless of height and does indeed incur a penalty to hit, imo firing from higher ground should increase your default range so that the "outside normal range" penalty is applied at a greater distance than would be applied to someone shooting from ground level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Someone on Youtube went and made a video for "How to Win" in Baldur's Gate 3. It really shows how the mechanics Larian added to the game outshine any class, ability, or spell. It's a great point of reference to discuss how these mechanics are problematic and how we can evaluate changes. Youtube Link(Assuming Larian would prefer to keep the mechanics in the game). > High Ground, it's really highlighted how much survival high ground gives even without providing advantage/disadvantage. Attacks with advantage and receiving attacks at disadvantage are absolutely overtuned. A +2 to hit from higher ground is clearly more than generous. I really believe players will be fine without getting additional evasion from higher ground, the existing collision checks are more than enough. Good job on collision checks Larian. > Backstab, I really feel is bugged. I doubt it's working as designed. The player should have to move in stealth, outside of combat, to get backstab. A way to ensure this would be to have enemies face an active character within 2 meters of them. If you move the character around them the enemy should be rotating to keep eyes on the moving player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Someone on Youtube went and made a video for "How to Win" in Baldur's Gate 3. It really shows how the mechanics Larian added to the game outshine any class, ability, or spell. It's a great point of reference to discuss how these mechanics are problematic and how we can evaluate changes. Youtube Link. That's a great "how to beat the game in 15min" video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Good find!
Yeah, this is so true, and it shows how badly designed these Backstab and Height mechanics are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
> Backstab, I really feel is bugged. I doubt it's working as designed. The player should have to move in stealth, outside of combat, to get backstab. A way to ensure this would be to have enemies face an active character within 2 meters of them. If you move the character around them the enemy should be rotating to keep eyes on the moving player. I think you are contwining BG3 backstabs with the old 2nd Ed backstabs. I don't think BG3 backstabs are bugged at all and there is no reason a character should be stealthed to get them. They're just BG3's implementation of facing/flanking mechanics.
Optimistically Apocalyptic
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
|
The problem is that in 5E, there is no 'backstab' (rogue sneak attacks are a different issue), so whatever this is, it's not in the 5E rules. Even flanking is only 1) an optional rule in 5E, and 2) requires a flanking opponent threatening the target. Giving auto-advantage when someone is behind you - when you allow no way to react (like an oppurtunity attack) or stop them moving there - is just overpowered and devalues advantage.
Just walk behind them - hey presto,advantage. Given that flanking is not even required for 5E, and is still more constrained than this, adding this arbitrary backstab rule is pretty overpowering, so everyone is going to use it. I certainly did, and so does the enemy AI. I just think they need to remove it altogether, or implement actual 5E flanking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
|
To add to it, the backstab mechanic is silly in the sense that it breaks immersion away from how battles should play out. I get it is turn based and this already requires a bit of suspending disbelief with realism in fights. But, the backstab implies that everyone just... stands there politely awaiting their turn. Not doing anything and allowing the opponent to do as they like. Like they feel they are in a real life game of chess and are not allowed to move when 1 other person at a time does their thing. In dnd it is implied everything happens all at once in a fight (The old games are a good example of this. Even nwn1 and 2 to an extent. Or Dragonage), the turnbased initiative situation is to make stuff managable and have a good overview and make stuff easier at a table.
I do not feel Real Time with Pause is a good option (turn based works better with 5e I think) but... to go with everything in a fight happening at once: It is implied you react to an opponent and are always considered to be facing them. It makes -sense- to do this. It is why in 3.x rules you can only sneak attack when flanking (And other situations), and you need advantage/someone engaged with the enemy to Sneak Attack in 5e even. Enemies are keeping their eyes on you.
Removing this backstab homebrew Larian rule, aside from making combat mechanically more engaging, would make sense immersion wise. It might feel more like a battle (even though it is turnbased, this is, again, for the sake of convenience for the player) rather than a group of people just LARPING and politely awaiting their turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
> Backstab, I really feel is bugged. I doubt it's working as designed. The player should have to move in stealth, outside of combat, to get backstab. A way to ensure this would be to have enemies face an active character within 2 meters of them. If you move the character around them the enemy should be rotating to keep eyes on the moving player. I think you are contwining BG3 backstabs with the old 2nd Ed backstabs. I don't think BG3 backstabs are bugged at all and there is no reason a character should be stealthed to get them. They're just BG3's implementation of facing/flanking mechanics. It would have analogous use to 2e's backstab xD (I only have experience with 5e). Well, 5e's optional facing has the understanding the enemy can take a reaction to face you. It's partially why I said earlier I feel high ground is the bigger priority. I feel backstab will become less of an issue with reactions. (TBH there are multiple options to balance backstab to be in a healthier place). I'm saying it's bugged in the speculation designers either: A) didn't realize it would become an exploit without reactions B) expected reactions to be in the game, but it's been delayed for reasons unknown
|
|
|
|
|
