Great, can you list what games you have worked on so I can avoid them? Your idea of game balance does not match mine.
That's more than uncalled for. I will profess that I did initially think the same way as well, but not now when I understand where his balancing priorities are. He appears to be more focused on numerical analysis, when the rest of us are generally more focused on tactical analysis. It's very different.
It is not desirable to change a bunch of spells because one is underperforming. Its a expensive, and often unneeded approach.
I think the current approach to hp/ac is good for the most part, especially if we consider what other classes role will be. Having AC lower provides immense value to defensive buffs that come from classes like cleric, paladin, bard, etc. Shifting classes in general in a way to large amounts of ac (or damage reduction) would essentially invalidate those classes. it would effectively put cleric into a "heal, damage spam" mode, as opposed to its other current options like crowd control, and buffing. This is highly undesirable (imo) and would result in such classes being more "useless" and less "enjoyable". The game needs to stay in its current direction for now, but look at ways of reevaluating some of the "rules" of table top dnd, and looking for ways to improve over all class functionality and enjoyment.
Examples of things I consider "Rules" are things like the dice rolls, AC, etc.
Examples of things I consider "rules" that should be "suggestions" are things like "if companion can be used in combat or not".
I'm not entirely sure you understood what I meant. I never said anything about altering party AC, only enemy AC. Increasing enemy AC but lowering their HP to be in more line with tabletop shouldn't have any impact on party AC. It's also interesting that you brought up buff spells, because certain parts of this forum are in an uproar over a recent developer interview where they mentioned that not many people appear to use Bless, and they assumed that it was because that people find using buffs to be boring. Some people rather justifiably took that rather personally, because basically saying that the majority of the community finds a tactical option to be boring is not really something you want to hear a developer of a turn-based game say. But again, DnD is an inherent cost/benefit analysis system, so what most of us think really happened was that the other systems Larian put in place made it so that we don't consider Bless to be worth using.
Increasing enemy AC but lowering their HP would incentivize using buff spells more often, because now that opens up the tactical option of attempting to manipulate the RNG in your favor through buffs to kill an enemy faster. There is nothing similar that exists for the other way around besides an across the board buff to damage numbers in general, or indirect tactical options like shoving enemies into out of bounds areas to instantly kill them or turn 1-2 ambush strategies like barrelmancy spam. It's nice that the unconventional strategies exist, but the majority of grievances lie with the idea that the whole game appears to be balanced around such tactics, making it feel rather repetitive. That is even worse when there appears to be little recourse to turn a situation that goes bad back into your favor besides a straight up slugfest, because the enemy HP/action economy will either completely overwhelm you in a protracted fight, or the player tools from tabletop that exist to buy time to turn a situation around just simply don't exist in BG3 right now.
If you want to understand where I'm coming from, I would hope that you can drop by my thread from yesterday and give your thoughts there.
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=757307I would also suggest trying out Solasta too, for comparison purposes. That game is a lot closer to tabletop standards than BG3 is, and I think it'd help you in understanding everyone's expectations of what they want the balance to be like in BG3. It probably wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that a lot of the criticism here wouldn't be anywhere near as focused if that game did not exist. For example, I mentioned Bless earlier - it's hardly used in BG3, but it's considered one of the most valuable spells to use in Solasta, even though both spells generally work the same in both games.
I should repeat myself once more, a lot of the clunkiness in BG3 basically revolves around Larian's changes being molded into an
incomplete rendition of the source material. Your suggestions would
probably be okay if we assume that everything else such as high ground advantage is left alone, and certain things like player-controlled reactions and ready actions are never implemented, but many people do not want to accept that being a possibility.
