Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback A discussion on how the game's current combat mechanics design heavily restricts tactical options

The Larian cheese actually wouldn't be touched much. Again, there's a reason I did not go after consumables and field effects.

Everything I listed are things that apply to both players and enemies. If we can't take advantage of them, the enemies can't either. And most enemies start in a position where they are in a much better position to take advantage of these mechanics than we are, so addressing these concerns would in theory have a much larger effect on reining in the enemy encounter balance rather than nerfing the player. The current situation leads to the sentiment that the encounter balance is far too skewed towards Larian cheese, running to high ground ASAP, and coming up with ambush tactics to take down most of the opposition during the first three turns. If a fight ever takes longer than 5 turns, chances are you had a plan that outright failed, or you're turtling like hell on high ground, and there aren't really any tools at our current levels to really turn a bad situation around due to the lack of key proactive abilities like the dodge action/ready action/player-controlled reactions (which would also do a lot in giving the player more tactical control over a fight).

And maybe you're right about the jump thing, but it should be left in for exploration purposes, like jumping down large distances with feather fall. But I do agree that having to press the button to jump up and down small ledges or small gaps outside of combat is a huge waste of time. Especially when 90% of that time is spent fishing for the correct angle for the game to recognize what you're trying to do. It should automatically calculate your path there and execute it, like how the game already moves you accordingly to attack an enemy with a ranged attack or spell if they're out of range from your current position.


I ran under the assumption that this is how bows already worked, but I did a quick fight and realized that high ground did not actually extend ranged attack range for whatever reason. Or if it did, the boost was minimal to the point of being negligible. Which is weird because that was exactly how high ground worked in D:OS2 (along with providing a damage bonus instead of an accuracy boost, though D:OS2 was balanced around the idea that hit rates were universally always in the 90+% range without use of specific spells).

The difficulty of the game is a joke at the moment.
It's extremely hard if you don't use any "cheese" (including free advantages) and very easy if you use everything.

I agree that the game would be a bit too hard if they reworked things for a better D&D experience but on the other hand some easy things can be done.

One more member in your party and the experience is totally different. They could also remove 1 or 2 monsters, don't give them fire potions, decrease ennemies damages,.....

It's really hard to have a vision without trying another setting but what I'm sure : they'll have to change things because at the moment the difficulty level isn't good at all.

Yep Partysize is a issue thats true.... 6 would be perfect but even 5 would help. But lets be honest you have an idea about HOW MANY post regarding that issue have errupted accross ALL forums in the internt since the very Start of EA?
Larian gives shit about comunity. I hate to say that but its so obvious after watching latest Panel from Hell that someone realy has to be a faithfull fanboy to NOT see it.

As far as i recall Larian had a couple of difficulty modes introduced for DOS2 with different stats, AI behaviour and set of skills for enemies, so I have the feeling they are planning to balance iterations on encounters anyway, they build it as sandbox system which i think means they can make tweaks globally without literally going into each of these encounters (though they need to test these all to make sure everything works well which is enourmous work for all encounters designed i agree). So in case they make some regular Dnd rules mode/toggles hopefully there will be a fitting difficulty mode to it.
Regarding jumping to be micromanaged I do not understand either why it has not been designed that you click at your destination and your char jumps automatically (if you have enough skill/stat) if something is in the way or you cannot get there by climbing/walking, but probably there is a reason (maybe an engine limitation) for that? I can probably live with that if that remains unchanged, its just feels strangely overcomplicated.

I can aswer you that......

It cant be done in the Divinity Engine. Jumping needs to be activated as is a "Throw Item" in the code. That means you technicaly throw yourself at a certain location with a fake jumping animation......... well what should i say..... its divinity engine. It was alot cheaper than making a whole new engine just for the purpose of making a Baldurs Gate sequel.

I believe reworking those encounters could be done by simply reducing the number of enemies per fight in most cases. There might just be a select view encounters that would require more effort to rebalance by actually replacing the type of enemy you're facing off.

Well of course it CAN BE DONE. What i wanted to say is that it surely wont be done.

reason:

1. Larian doesnt give shit on comunity
2. Game allready sold well
3. Review (steam) are good because many people play 2 hours and give a review.
4. Most of the people who bought its dont even knoe what Baldurs gate was and much less played it.
5. its alot easier to get Aproval from WotC and then saying we are DND than actualy trying to implement DnD
6. Too much rework will result in a Production delay and as we learned they are lacking Staff allready.

I would have to disagree about the combat difficulty being too difficult if they removed some cheese like barrels and effect arrows. I have played through 4 times now, on my 5th and going through all classes. I have never used barrels, I have used effect arrows maybe once. I never use scrolls or grenades and the combat isn't really that difficult. Maybe a little challenging here and there, but not overly difficult. Now that of course does not include not using the free advantages like elevation and such, but nothing I can do about that.

Personally, I don't see them removing the cheesy barrels etc, but if they did, I do not think it would make it overly difficult.

Well let's get things back on topic. We can't assume Larian doesn't listen to the community when they did change cantrips, and adjust surfaces.


This thread is more about improving tactical options for the player, it's okay if Baldur's Gate 3 is not 1:1 with DnD 5e RAW.

I've done several playthroughs without cheese and avoiding high ground, it mostly relies on resting and prepping before/after each encounter. It isn't a dramatic difficulty spike.

• The biggest change is that there would be less lopsided engagements when a player first experiences a fight.
  A few anecdotes with patch 3, the gnolls start with the high ground and there are numerous fights where ranged casters can start with disadvantage because one enemy is 4 meters away.
  there should be more tactical variety for spells, since on a 1st playthrough the player won't be playing to avoid disadvantage all the time with ranged casters. The player won't just be backstabbing with fighter, ranger, rogue. etc.

And as much as I would love to write about possible solutions, it's rarely a popular topic unless players have experienced it before. It's easier to criticize the game on forums because we've all experienced patch 3. Forum members have the common ground to compare and contrast what we like and have not been enjoying. If solutions are proposed, it's something forum members don't get to experience on their computer and it will be hard to develop an opinion on. Some would need experience the changes themselves to develop an opinion on it.

If combat does become too difficulty there are options to make combat easier. (A few examples, but not limited to these examples).

• 
  Party size could be increased to five or six
  Character base stats could be increased for their core stat modifier
  The proficiency table could be adjusted to improve player accuracy at all levels.
  Stat for enemy encounters could be reduced.

The good thing about Dungeons and Dragons 5e is that it gives the dungeon master simple options to make the campaign easier or harder.


If Larian really wanted to go out of the box to make the game easier.
Post from another thread
Adjusting the damage dice to improve minimum damage rolls would definitely make the game easier. Average damage for 1d10 is 5.5, average damage for 3d3 is 6, average damage for 3d4 is 7.5, etc. Multiple dice are more likely to roll the average than a single dice, 3d4 would consistently roll between 5-10 damage.

I think it would be easier to go the route of either party size, adjusted character stats, or proficiency. It's less of a distortion to game balance than other changes could be. Larian has made games with multiple difficulties before, I'm sure they already have in-house ideas on how to increase/reduce difficulty.

I'm critical of the Larian homebrew, but I take STRONG issue with this. Incentivizing tactical combat is a MUST. There would be almost no point to tactical maneuvering if you had your way. Combat would devolve into putting meat-shield in bottleneck positions and non-melee would be reduced to focusing on damage/support. There would be very little purpose to all the delicious verticality this game provides. If combat becomes as non-tactical as that, we might as well go real-time with pause for Diablo-style brawling/clicking. 3D chess would definitely not be a thing.

The focus on height advantage as the only problematic issue when flanking advantage is OBJECTIVELY WORSE. Height advantage is only bad because of the strong over-incentivization, flanking advantage is bad because of over-incentivization, because the AI consistently fails to exploit flanking unlike height, and mostly because of the very cheesy way it works mechanically.

The way the AI allows the player to flank them freely in open combat, STRIPS the turn-based system NAKED, revealing it as a really POOR APPROXIMATION of real combat. A better mechanic would be: Unless surprised, combatants pivot and turn towards their opponents - even if it's not their turn. Flanking should only be achieved by two enemies threatening one defender and one moving to flank (or by surprise). Immersion and better tactical combat achieved.

Height bonus isn't nearly as immersion breaking in the same way as the current implementation of flanking, it's just even more strongly overtuned/overpowered (probably to offset how strongly the AI prioritize low-AC targets and how weak defensively backline defenders tend to be). This is a much easier fix.

I agree with Pandemonica regarding difficulty, and I also don't cheese shoving, barrelmancy, grenades, etc. My only exception is the because the AI seems WAY too smart for that encounter specifically.

Now that the concept of proposals have been brought up.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=758672#Post758672 What do you all think about this? In another thread dropping prone was brought up. Prone defined, so we're all on the same page.

Concept: Remove the benefit of disadvantage on incoming attacks with higher ground and add in a prone or dodge action.

I like the intent of the idea and here's where I'm going with this.

• If high ground doesn't natively provide disadvantage on incoming attacks, it will be less of a "must-have" for ranged abilities.
• Ranged attacks from below wouldn't be punished as much at the start of combat.
• Dropping prone to have ranged attacks come at disadvantage is a strategy in DnD 5e.
• Dropping prone would create a defensive option for the player/NPC that the game is currently lacking.

If the game requires that 1 action is spent to drop prone, then there will be more tactical depth. There would be more trade-offs as the player would have to consider if it is worth it to use an action to have disadvantage on incoming attacks and then spend half their movement to get up on the next turn.

Similar logic could be applied to adding a Dodge action. What are all your thoughts on this?

Spending an action to drop prone seems extreme. In 5e it doesn’t cost anything. In fact, you can drop prone and dodge in the same round if you choose to do so.

Maybe I missunderstand but I can't see the point.

Why would you prone if you can dodge ? Then don't implement dodge ? What about melee that cannot prone ? Then implement prone as a bonus action and dodge as an action ? Why would we change anything to highground if you can prone each turn nearly for free...?

Dodge should be implemented as an action but this is not especially related to highground. On the other hand I don't understand the idea of self prone... It wouldn't solve any specific issues related to highground.

At the moment highground is the god mode.
Advantage for you + disadvantage for your ennemies + you can often hide behind a wall or fall back a bit to break your ennemy's lign of sight.

The prone thing is the exact same system as now except that it cost "something" to have the "+ disadvantage for your ennemies". If it cost a bonus action it will not be tactical at all but something you do at each turn. If it cost an action it has the same effect than dodge...

According to me highround should just give a bonus to Attack roll - or AC - or a reduction to downer target - and nothing more (except maybe a bonus to your range, field of view).

I'd like something similar to dodge, so I'm being flexible with implementation. I want something that would make the player consider options. If drop prone is implemented to 5e RAW I'd support that proposal as well. If the character drops prone they're at least sacrificing half their movement on the next turn and an enemy could jump/misty step and get into melee range. It's strategically more engaging than what we can play in patch 3.

Hiding behind a wall is a strategic choice, that's healthy for the game. If the benefit of disadvantage is removed from higher ground it becomes about using the environment for defense.

It raises the question, is the problem really that you get advantage when using high ground? Or is it that attacks are at disadvantage if if the character is on the low-ground?
It's positional disadvantage that drives the magic missile meta. (Threatened or lower ground). [I believe from prior discussions we both agree that adv/dis together is too much value]

Imagine if Threatened applied disadvantage to melee attacks, the player would be forced to use backstab to get a normal attack. It would feel like your options are limited, which is what happens when you use ranged abilities. The conditions for disadvantage are forcing the player to make move to high ground. Some examples:

• For ranged attacks: There are times where you would have dealt with disadvantage staying at the same elevation, are not dealing with disadvantage because the ranged ability is going beyond it's normal range, are dealing with disadvantage because of lighting on the enemy, etc.

If the player is using ranged abilities, they are limited on choices because disadvantage can be so superfluous.

Melee rarely has this issue. Fighter was already planning on attacking in melee anyways, for melee attacks backstab is just a few feet away.
(This does come back to my personal opinion that higher ground providing advantageFOR+disadvantageAgainst+Threatened is the biggest issue).

In conclusion, the proposal should at least make ranged attacks more enjoyable to use and help get away from the magic missile meta.
(Keep in mind, I would still want Threatened changed/removed to supplement the proposal.)

EDIT
I value you input, I'm open to both dodge and prone. And I want to read what the community says on which they'd rather have. If forum members really want both, prone, or dodge, that helps write up the proposal.

If there is no advantage to ranged for having the high ground (which I am against actually), then there should be a physical disadvantage to prone for melee. Meaning if your prone, you should have a similar disadvantage that applies if you under sleep and get hit by a melee strike. If you just laying on the ground prone, there should be a multiplier to being hit by a melee strike from lets say a battleaxe.

So like in 5e. Melee attackers get advantage against prone enemies.

Then cool, sounds like a balanced idea. I have only done some research on 5e, i was just responding to what was posted. But in regards to dodge, they should limit the amount of times you can use it, say 1 every 2 or 3 rounds. Otherwise it can just be spammed and exploited. That is if it is a bonus action.

Like many of the things that Larian has home-brewed or ignored, 5e already has a pretty reasonable answer for this.

If you are prone:
-Your only movement option is to stand up (thereby removing the condition) or to crawl (you move at half-speed).
-You have disadvantage on attack rolls (it's harder to attack when you are lying down).
-An attack roll against you has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of you (most melee attacks; because it's more difficult to dodge). Otherwise it has disadvantage (most ranged attacks; because you present a smaller target)

If you are unconscious (because you are sleeping, knocked out, under the effects of a spell, etc.):
-You cant take actions or reactions.
-You can't move or speak, and are unaware of your surroundings.
-You drop whatever you are holding and fall prone.
-You automatically fail STR and DEX saves.
-Any attack that hits you is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of you.

I'm not saying that the 5e solution is necessarily best, but it works as part of a system with the other 5e rules. Arbitrarily changing or throwing things out without considering their place in that system is likely to lead to an poorly balanced game.

I'm not aware of any official rule for high ground. I would potentially give the person on high ground partial cover (effectively increasing their AC) against ranged attacks from the low ground, but that's about it. I suppose a person on high ground using a ranged weapon (but not a ranged spell) could have a greater effective range. They would probably have a better view of the battlefield. But I don't see why being higher up with make it any easier to shoot someone below them. The advantage/disadvantage thing feels like substantial overkill.

Well there would still be advantage for high ground in the proposal. (I'm looking for a reasonable proposal). In this proposal the change would be incoming attacks are not automatically coming at disadvantage. All the defensive value would fall to how terrain/strategy is used (which is why I'm bringing up prone or dodge).

The proposal would have attacks from lower ground be normal . From the high ground, if you want enemy attacks to be at disadvantage you would have to either:

• drop prone and spend half your movement to get back up at a later turn. The downside to being prone is an enemy attack at melee range gets advantage.
• Spend an action to use dodge.