Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Confused about some criticism

For less strategic tactics. If you're using strategy they're extremely powerful and extremely readily available.

The problem isn't simply that they're available as a (substitute for) strategy, the problem lies in the ubiquity and the fact that gameplay has been specifically balanced around them being so. Thus, the issue with every goblin having access to multiple surface/status-creating items or every encounter having a significant high ground/low ground (dis)advantage element. It distorts how you approach the game so that if you don't make use of those mechanics, you will either turn combat into a brutal (and unfun) experience for yourself or you'll end up failing an encounter.

Instead of encouraging players to find creative solutions to problems, you'll encourage them to use those solutions because every alternative is objectively worse.

Wait, so your telling me it is less strategic and entertaining to actually place your range on high ground, use the terrain and play the characters strengths rather than spamming grenades stuff. Yeah you pretty much lost me there, but you do you. A trained monkey can keep spamming grenades, just saying. Also, every goblin does not throw grenades, and if a NPC gets high ground, you can use the pull ability to yank their ass down, or use the push/arrow to knock them back. Oh wait, that isn't strategic, I should just keep lobbing those grenades. I think I will still play the way I am, and you know actually enjoy the game lol.

Pandemonica,

The issue is that high ground gives the ranged character advantage on their attacks and disadvantage on incoming attacks. It literally invalidates the use of spells at the cost of movement.

So instead of strategizing about what spells to use, the player just spends their movement. There are other positioning choices that could be made as well if the player wasn't over-incentivized to move all their ranged party members to high ground.

Literally the player is making less choices on positioning and less choices on spells.

Where should I put my wizard? The high ground. If higher ground didn't provide a net trade of 10 in combat, we could actually consider where to optimally place the wizard to dish out their spells. Sometimes the high ground puts Gale out of range to use his spells, and you can't undo that movement.

So after enough play throughs, you'll be constantly spamming magic missile and shatter so you don't have to deal with higher ground. What matters is getting an enemy to zero HP. Having to start combat with my wizard attacking with disadvantage all because an opponent or two is on higher ground is lame. (A foot higher).

I would like to play wizard with strategic positioning and being able to actually consider what spells are best for the situation. Not Shatter/Magic Missile or you're screwed.

Exactly this.

The problem is that the game is only balanced in regards to those environmental mechanics introduced by Larian (ie surfaces and high ground / backstab).
In doing so, you lose class flavor which makes D&D so fun to play in the first place. When I'm starting to play my wizard, warrior and ranger the exact same way in the game, you know there is an underlying issue.

Absolutely. And there are the same consequences with many other homebrew topics highlighted elsewhere.

For real. All characters (don't matter what class) in my party carry the biggest crossbow they can use and seek high ground. I hardly bother with spells other than jump, magic missile and fire bolt to blow up barrels or light stuff on fire.

This just makes me so sad. Got the MOD stuff started tonight, no way I play this game if it boils down to how you describe.

Agreed, when Larian said they wanted to make fighter & ranger feel good to play.... I was like cool they could use some buffs.

BUT

I didn't expect classes that are range-dependent to become Pidgeon-holed. In tabletop DnD 5e, the fun of playing Sorcerer, Druid, and Wizard in DnD is that they are strategically diverse. You make situational choices that benefit the party.

In Baldur's Gate 3, Fighter can solo a Bulette and wizard is stuck here casting magic missile. Ranger needed buffs, but don't give non-martial classes the shaft. Non-martial classes are denied being fun in the current meta. Even Druid is showcased as being "Wild Shape is amazing and you're an idiot for trying anything else."

I don't want a game where Wizards and Druids are one-trick ponies. When they're supposed to be the opposite.

Well I am not saying this game is perfect far from it though I like BG3.

However I still feel they also make progress in some areas. Now using torch is much easier and not some freaking mess. I was so annoyed with the old torch way to use so I cast Cleric Light spell instead. Now they make so that using torch is much easier which is good.

Throwing healing bottle on dying companion no longer gives damage. While not realistic I do feel this as user friendly improvement. You can not give items to a companion that is dying so they could use it themselves so good improvement.

Optional: Loaded dice.... well it is free option to use or not. I think this should be automatically disabled if higher difficulty level then Normal.

These seem like small things, but a bit improvement. Well was the show perfectly smooth? No I feel there is room of improvement, but at least they make some progress. They have also made progress with path finding.

Druid class released which is great.

No, it's certainly not less entertaining to play that way but strategy is the art of doing what works and lobbing grenades works. I don't lob grenades because it's a less interesting and varied way to play. But it's also bad strategy. I want zero skill OP strategies nerfed because just not using them is less satisfying.

I never played actual D&D (only it's PC adaptations) and I am fully supporting making changes to the system to make it better on PC. That said, playing BG3 demo, I found combat to be pretty repetitive and boring. From what I understand some complaints I had are a result of changes to the core rules, which undermine original systems. It's not that changes are bad, it's that bad changes are bad.

Yeah, I don't like this complaint as well, but mostly because it's very vague. It is clearly not D:OS3 - there are many differences one can point to. But at the same times D&D can mean many things - Neverwinter Nights1 is arguably a better D&D adaptation then BG1&2, but I actually quite disliked NWN, while I loved BG1&2. The point really isn't what BG3 is or isn't, but that there is a substantial fanbase of BG1&2, who don't like Larian's take on the IP. Whenever it is relevant or not, is up to debate as long as there IS an audience for BG3. I personally found what I like in Pillars of Eternity series, while other Infinity Engine fans dislike it. I think that Kingmaker is hot garbage, while others praise it as 2nd coming of BG. It is somewhat unreasonable to expect for Larian to make a BG3 and satisfy absolutely everyone. At the same time, Early Access is there for us to complain, so as a fan of BG series I don't like something, why not to voice it?

The problem for me is as well that none of the changes they made actually improved the game. They took a (somewhat) balanced system, homeruled it and each change broke fundamentals that are already significantly noticable at level cap 4 with barely 6 classes - not to mention how bad the changes will affect other classes and higher levels. And you see that they themselves primarily play using things they homeruled and only switch back to 5e options when their overpowered homebrew isn't available. That are never good signs.


On top of that there are so many gamedesign issues that simply don't fit together at all for a smooth (modern) experience (actual reasons why games have moved away from D&D rulesets). Its a utter mess of unsynchronized thoughts and ideas that simply don't mesh. Best example of very poorly thought through design:
What's the point of having limited usages per day if you can always go camp after a fight? Why don't the spells simply regenrate after combat like in PoE2? Why do I have to click through some questionable GUI to get to camp, deal with the loading, pointless camp animation? All just to have the interactions with the party that will do their damnest to brush you off to come again later because you have (yet again) not earned their trust? Then click on the sleeping bag and be back where you left - none of this helps game balance, immersion, quality of life or the overall game experience. Its a juncture of independly developed mechanics that are thrown together with no real though how they interact.

I'm really said to say, but the design in this game is on a very raw (to not use another word) level. Not something I would expect from an experienced team. It reminds me a lot of unexperienced GMs that don't understand how their rule changes affect the whole experience, which is fine/bad enough on a table among friends in our spare time, but not from professionals doing a game for years. Comparing DAO's camp mechanics or Pathfinder Kingmaker's with BG3 hurts. Both are completely different, but stick to the game design and nail it, while BG3 mixes both to no avail because it doesn't know where its going besides that it wants to be cinematic.

These are problems that show a lack of vision. If Larian doesn't soon decide if it wants to go one way or the other, but keeps a washed out 5e ruleset as a blanket over a DOS2 core and sprinkled on top with Dragon Age cinematics and DOS2 combat ideas it won't end well.

Yes. What are you missing? This right here =>

You know what, I can't agree more..At 1st when I was making criticism I was talking about how much the barrel mechanic and the logic was so flawed and how it breaks the combats in many ways. Then I realised the simple fact; don't use it, if you don't like it no one is forcing you to do so, what players are actually objecting is that other people being able to make use of it in their play through to beat the game. Which is none of your concern really, why ppl are even objecting for other players to have an other way of doing things. So yeah some of the criticism is just out of the window.

In my opinion, this is more an issue with being low level and lacking a substantial spell roster, rather than height advantage. Ranged character being incentivized to seek out high ground is a good thing as it promotes more tactical combat than would be possible without verticality coupled with increased mobility. I do agree with all positional advantage is over-incentivized however, so much so it will force Larian to make some significant homebrew to Barbarian and their staple Recless Attack ability for instance.

That said, I take much more issue with flanking/backstab advantage than the height counterpart. At least enemy AI focus on gaining height advantage while they pretty consistently fail to take advantage in melee. Besides, moving to the back in melee constantly is EXTREMELY gimmicky in a way that reveals turn based movement/combat (that I actually prefer) as a highly unrealistic approximation of combat. It downright hurts immersion in a way ranged advantage simply doesn't.


To be fair, one of the very strongest builds is a Wizard specced out as a fighter with the appropriate magic items, they become the most versatile builds in the game able to go toe-to-toe with anything or stay at range. I have seen even regular built mages win in combat fighting both the Bulette AND the two Minotaurs at the same time.

This is interesting because I feel higher ground is gimmicky and backstab can be alleviated with simple changes.

I've always been in the camp that high ground benefits are overtuned. I'm not saying they should be completely removed, but advantage/disadvantage together is always going to over-incentivize it. Which is currently some Larian has doubled down on by creating a threatened status where ranged attacks are at disadvantage around 3-4 meters. There are a lot of fights where you don't have a choice on where to position a ranged caster. I would like the choice to make calculated risk with a wizard. Threatened + The total value of high ground benefits, denies the player any real choice.

(Note too close to use ranged abilities is already in the game providing disadvantage, threatened is a double-up).

It becomes a chore instead of a reward. The player is actually punished for having a ranged caster on the same level, within four meters of an enemy. A lot of fights start with an enemy within four meters because you were locked in dialogue.

Referencing other suggestions from the forums: if higher ground gave the player +2 AC and +2 to hit and threatened doesn't provide disadvantage. Now the player can make a calculated attack on the first round to finish off an enemy, then pursue the high ground (the enemy might be out of the spell range after moving to high ground). The player shouldn't be forced into pursuing higher ground, where they now cannot finish off one of the enemies in combat, and they'll have to initiate damage on another enemy.

High ground benefits should be a choice, not a must-do.

I was mostly highlighting this because martial classes have been more enjoyable to play in early access. If the enemy AI used backstab as often as the player does, everyone in the forums would see the issue with low-cost advantage.

All-in-all
I would like more spells to be viable:
I would like to have the choice of using scorching ray on an enemy 3 meters away without having disadvantage imposed on the wizard.
Spell save DCs don't get the benefit of reduced AC, so they're going unused usually shelved.
And
I don't want to be forced to move my wizard to higher ground arbitrarily. Again it should be a reward for a chain of good decisions by the player, not "do this or spells miss".
Magic Missile and Shatter are great, but I would like to use other spells.

Higher ground being overtuned is just a part of several reasons why combat feels stale for casters. Reducing enemy AC instead of increasing player proficiency makes the situation worse than it could be.

Not quite accurate. The problem is that barrelmancy is not a cheat or an exploit. It is a mechanic that is intended by Larian, and as such encounters are designed with players expected to use barrelmancy to overcome their obstacles. So if you choose to not use barrelmancy (as I would because I find it ridiculous and cheesy), you get screwed in that encounter. Same thing with the height advantage thing, the elemental surfaces thing (which thankfully have now been toned down), etc. Combat is all about gimmicks and explosions and cheese, and that's pure D:OS, not D&D (at least not any D&D game I've ever played in my 25+ years playing D&D).

Why on earth would having higher ground advantage feel unrealistic to you I wonder? It is a staple mechanism from real life historic battles to Star Wars where having high ground leads to surrender or death lol.

At least I back up my feeling with reason. Higher ground bonus is realistic because it is an attack that comes from above, forcing the defender to split their attention between navigating the ground and avoiding the lethal threat above. A secondary reason is that it work both ways. You are not constantly reminded that the AI is too dumb, in fact, the AI seeks height advantage almost to a fault. The only reason for it being remotely gimmicky is by proxy of the AI not taking melee advantage, which oftentimes causes the AI to abandon near-melee situations to scamper to higher ground far away.

As said, the current flanking/backstab mechanic clearly reveals turn-based combat as poor approximation of real combat the way the enemy lets you walk behind them in open combat without reacting. HIGHLY UNREALISTIC! Damaging for immersion (and a sense of fairness) for anyone with any measurable critical sense. The enemy and player should automatically pivot facing enemy flanking attempts even when it's not their turn, provided they are not caught flat-footed and surprised. "Backstab" should require actual realistic movement, like two enemies threatening a single foe and one moving behind (or the aforementioned surprise/ambush).

Allow me to reiterate, is not that you gain a bonus for flanking I feel gimmicky, it's the cheap way you get it.



Definitely. So over-tuned it becomes an all important strategy for at least ranged martial characters. This would be an important strategy for ranged martial characters even with a more balanced approach (ie. high ground granting half cover effect +2 AC/dex save, inversely flanking/backstab could give +2 to hit). Advantage/disadvantage is already overused in RAW D&D without Larian's bumbling homebrew that becomes a self-generating vehicle for more homebrew because it infringes/breaks other abilities as mentioned in my above post.

Higher ground isn't nearly as essential for wizards as you make it out (not being threatened is). Wizards have so many more and better options than utilizing cantrips/spells that can leverage height advantage. This becomes, as mentioned previously, more true as you level. By 5th level you can cast Fireball (somewhat nerfed by Larian's lowering AC/increasing health to combat unfun RNG) and Hypnotic Pattern that can win combat before it gets really dangerous.

Seems to me you universalize your own private playing style/experience when you keep on about Wizards being uniquely locked into a repeating pattern or out of options. To the contrary, the Wizard is arguably the most versatile, mobile, and powerful class in the game, and again - this becomes more true as the Wizard gains level and moves beyond attack cantrips. Near unparalleled mobility can be gained through spells and the Wizard's action economy makes using bonus actions a better deal than for many other classes that has more use of their bonus actions. Level 1 Longstrider gives a decent boost to mobility and lasts all day. Jump is brokenly overpowered, a level 1 spell that basically gives you a free level 2 Misty Step teleport every turn for a minute. Misty Step is a spell many considered a must in its own right.

The problem with height advantage is, as I see it, twofold. One, that it grants advantage, a +5 bonus, which is a lot. +1 or +2 would be much more fitting. Two, that lower height also grants disadvantage on attacks to you, making it effectively +5 to hit and +5 to AC. Similarly to #1, changing it to +1 or +2 would be better.

Or just removing one of the bonuses and make you either get an attack or AC bonus from height (preferably +1 or +2 instead of advantage).