Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Larian's gimmicks are like an invasive species to an ecosystem

It's an opinion that is supported by reality, and the empirical facts of the changes that Larian has made to the game, that have completely changed the focus of DnD combat, from characters using their abilities to best affect the battle, to characters using the environment (surfaces, height, barrels etc) to affect combat.

I don't like this type of gameplay but that's not really what BG3 is.
Yes, surfaces are still a problem for many reasons (concentration, immersion, too many surfaces consumables,...) and there are still too many but I'll say it again : tweaks would be enough.

How surfaces are implemented doesn't make sense but removing them entirely would be bad (surfaces, not barrels)
It has nothing to do with DoS : surfaces/environment interractions are a great thing every game should have. Just not how it works in DoS or in BG3 (for now).

That's fun, in this thread someone think I'm a D&D fanboy and someone else think that I'm a DoS fanboy

Well here's a chart of the first 200 rolls from my sample of "weighted dice"
Rolls 1 - 200

That's your opinion, and you are free to hold it, but that is not how 5th edition DnD works. Larian stated that they wanted to make a '5th edition DnD game, not a reskinned DOS', but what they have released into EA, is more-or-less, reskinned DOS due to their implementation of DOS mechanics, and their lack of implementation of 5th edition DnD mechanics.

It is what it is, you may like it, but it's not DnD at the moment.

I'm 100% for a game closer to the rules for many reasons as I said in many many (many many...) threads but I don't really care that it follows the rules as written.

I have strong griefs with the game but the fact it doesn't follow D&D 100% is not one of them. I have to admit it.

Nice! Thanks for this addition.
This plot matches much more closely with Niara's NWN, NWN2, and S:CotM that it does with the BG3 unweighted sample.

I don't know how to do a quick statistical analysis that checks the steak-iness of a random number generator...the best I can think of is: for each number rolled, tally up the occurrences of each number rolled immediately after it. Then check that that distribution is randomly distributed. However, this would probably require even more than 500 rolls for statistical significance and seems like it'd be very tedious to do, so I'm just going to rely on the visual differences between the graphs for now.

I don't suppose you also have a similar plot for your unweighted die rolls?

Edit: A month ago, I did the something similar for Niara's dataset, where I grouped 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20. I found something like:
-The average roll following a roll of 1-5 was 9.8
-the average roll following a roll of 6-10 was 10.3
-the average roll following a roll of 11-15 was 10.8
-the average roll following a roll of 16-20 was 11.3
-All the above had errors of ~0.4-0.8ish, so were not conclusively different from the expected 10.5

I wasn't using google docs when I initially recorded the data and I don't have the original data set anymore. I could try to get another sample of "unweighted dice", but I do have a few commitments at the moment.

But it is heavily implied that Khaga is the de facto leader of the druids with an authority that cannot/will not be questioned by any of them, and any direct interference in the events would lead to combat with the druids. The end result of how I save the child might be different, but either way it forces me to have to kill the druids, or reload and convince Kagha otherwise. And killing the druids over a failed dice roll is simply not something I'm gonna put up with, because it's not the character I'm playing.

Either way it would be criticized. If we boiled down the dialogue to RP flavor but with the same outcomes, people would criticize the game in that your choices don't have consequence in outcome, but if we commit to having a succeeded dialogue branch have consequence, then failing the dice roll becomes the bitter point. There's also no fun alternative as a druid player with invested skills in history and religion to fail the fresco dice roll for Ketheric's defeat; it is highly impactful from the story perspective of a druid player to recognize the fresco of banishing Shar's Dark Justiciars and reciting it to Khaga to bring her up against Olodan, and failing to recognize the fresco's has that outcome, all because of some crappy dice roll if you don't save before reading each plate and reload if the dice roll does not go your way despite proficiency.

I just resent the amount of save scumming this game pushes on me even compared to DoS, where you might save scum after finding out what the possible outcomes are, but not many times because in order to get each outcome it's a matter of rolling the dice like in BG3. Too much feels outside the player's control.

By the way I love the analogy from the title of the original post.

Invasive species probably being a xenomorph gestating inside 5e, waiting to burst out in a glorious explosion of acid, poison and blood surfaces.

The sad part being that RAW 5e actually worked really well as a video game before all the memes got slapped on it.

I feel ya and agree that too much depends on the rng, and failing means you're locked out of content or that you have to do something in a suboptimal way. Failure should mean different results/methods, possibly often worse, but not necessarily.

See my previous example, which I thought of and typed in a few minutes (and thus Larian could easily do better).
-Succeed on persuasion: you get the child taken away from Kagha. Everything is great
-Fail on the persuasion: you're given 3 additional options
1.) Stand by and watch the child die. No need to explain consequences
2.) You put yourself in front of the snake, which bites you. Kagha (perhaps with another persuasion check?) is moved by your willingness to protect this child, perhaps realizing that you just saved her from the sin of killing a kid. Not only do you not have to kill the druids or reload, but this scenario makes Kagha more friendly to you than otherwise
2b.) You fail the additional persuasion check after stepping in front of the child. Kagha, unmoved by your sacrifice, calls you a fool and tells you to get out (but with the child). You're not allowed to visit Nettie (but you can find the back way and sneak in)
3.) You attack the snake, killing it. Kagha attacks you. But you save the child.

This way has different outcomes, somewhat determined by RNG, but also heavily determined by your choices. And the consequences of all of your options are mostly predictable; there's no surprising "Oh, you failed this a seemingly straightforward persuasion check? Welp, now this child is dead and it's all your fault."

Edit: Oh, and DragonSnooz, no worries. I appreciate the data you've given so far!

These are good suggestions.

Overall, what Larian should do is make failure less unconditional.

Another example where I had to reload even though I generally never do it, because the result was just way too extreme: Sazza.

You roll for Intimidate (or Persuade?) against the tiefling woman who wants to execute Sazza in her cage. You fail and she shoots you, initiating combat and making the entire Tiefling community hostile. Would the other Tieflings even condone her actions, really? It doesn't really matter because the game forces you to kill everyone or flee after one failed skill check. Instead, there should be an option to take the bolt but NOT start combat with anyone. A scenario where the homicidal Tiefling woman would see the error of her ways after shooting you, or die attacking you in blind rage but her friend would speak on your behalf to the camp how she lost her mind and you acted in self defence.

That would be more acceptable, and I hope they consider it, but it seems like creating extra work to mitigate the effect of RNG on dialogue outcomes. Either way, I'd be satisfied with your solution or the removal of RNG from dialogue/object checks, whichever comes first, though I'm biased in favor of removing RNG altogether.

---

On a completely unrelated note, it's kind of strange how utterly fixated people are on surface and surface interaction and barrels when not a single encounter hinges particularly on any of them. Surprise stealth atatcks grant a total of 8 free actions through the surprise system, yet somehow it's the completely redundant barrelmancy and surfaces nobody uses in EA that get brought up as this big balance offender.

You don't use surfaces in the Githyanki patrol fight when you can Thunderwave 2 of them off to their deaths if you position your wizard at the top of the barricade, and Bless and Mirror Images on 3 out of your 4 characters are more than sufficient to survive the initial barrage of attacks; then Lazael Frightening Strikes Baretha and CC's her to death with action surge, you kill off the raider with another Frightening Strike or an Inflict Wounds combo, and the "hardest" encounter in the EA is not so hard anymore.

Same with Bulette or Ethel, you surprise stealth attack them with a martial class backstab and proceed to grant your party 8 free turns of action to burst them down with, no surfaces used ever. When Lazael or any fighter can do 45+ damage in one action surge and frighten the character within the same turn, effectively half healthing the lv5 hardest bosses in EA with just one class, what's the need for barrels or surfaces? Won't even mention rogues.

When people keep yapping about surfaces I only have to assume they're playing really suboptimal party comps and spell loadouts for the use of barrels or surfaces to feel remotely necessary when martial classes are infinitely better than these gimmicks and far less convoluted than preparing barrels before combat.

@1varangian I completely agree about the Sazza encounter. This would be a perfect place for a working knock-out/force surrender mechanic, where you show the tiefling that she shouldn't have messed with you and she stops trying to attack you.

@Zenith It would be extra work, but I think it's worth it to add additional dialogue options and conversation directions. Even if rng was completely removed, this wouldn't affect the binary and way-over-the-top nature of this encounter. Either you successfully persuade Kagha to let a child go or she kills the child. C'mon. What about the completely realistic scenario where Kagha just keeps the kid captive??

Surfaces and Barrels
Personally, barrels don't bother me that much. Yeah, it's dumb that characters can easily carry multiple barrels in their inventory, but enemies don't carry around barrels so its fine.

Surfaces, however, are used by enemies and their effects on concentration haven't been properly considered. This is part of the reason Shadowheart is so bad: if she gets hit with a single fire flask or fire arrow, she has to make 2+ concentration rolls (+ if she catches on fire) to not lose Shield of Faith or Bless or etc.

Also, personally, I consider the 8 free stealth actions a form of cheese because the AI doesn't properly respond to stealth. In order for this to be at all balanced, enemies should be able to hear you and not just notice you through sight cones. Even showing us the enemy's sight cones are a bit too much cheese imo.

Oh I think the Stealth cheese and pushing enemies off the widely available high elevation has been mentioned more than once or twice.

High ground alone wins against Githyanki Patrol, the entire Zhentarim Hideout, the Duergar, Redcaps, and many other fights. It doesn't take a tactical genius to see where Larian placed the high ground (often with destroyable ladders so the enemies will just wait obediently to die), or to discover Menacing Strike or "Backstab", or to hide outside vison cones.

Jeez.. this stuff is really keeping me from playing the game. I hope it's a big focus in the next patch.

For me the easier fix would be that once you engage a stealth surprise attack, the rest of your party is put in combat regardless of their stealth status or location. It's crazy I can open on Ethel with Lazael or my rogue/druid from stealth, and then pelt her with a Hex from Gale, open with Bless with Shadowheart, and this all gives me a free extra turn before I unleash my true barrage.

Of course, it would make aggravating fights like Bulette/Githyanki harder, but it is a necessary evil to fix these gamebreaking exploits and just balance the multi-actions of Bulette and AC of Githyankis and multi-actions of Minotaurs after fixing the exploits to make the fights manageable.

Most people also surprise Ethel because it's the main way to not be forced to kill the people with the masks, giving you the chance to free the Halfling that was entranced. Ethel's fight is also frustrating because of the way the cage is positioned, often the game does not let you cast conjure water on it to turn off the flames after Ethel sets the cage on fire. So, people save themselves the hassle of dealing with the annoying elements of her fight by just killing her before she teleports. I'll also say the companion pathing down the trapped trunks and vines until you reach her is so aggravatingly atrocious.

By this point with the amount of balancing they have to do just for the first act and lv1-4 range, I expect this game will stay in Early Access until 2023-2024, jfc. Assuming 3 total acts and 2-3 more classes that need to be tweaked.

Somewhat agree. Given the existence of surprise rounds, this still easily allows your whole party to get full round without enemy response. It should be more difficult to get off a full surprise round because enemies should have an easier time noticing us than they currently do.

But yes, I agree that the rest of your party should be put in combat regardless of their stealth status. The characters that were stealthed should of course remain stealthed, and thus get their first attack at advantage unless discovered.

For characters that may be across the map, perhaps they should not automatically enter combat. But they should not be able to enter within range of the combat without being forced into (the end of) turn order. Once you get (60m? whatever the range is that is greater than maximum bow/spell range) from an enemy in combat, you should be forced into combat

This is something they need to realize on a much larger scale before developing more content.

Fix the exploits. Create a functional resting system. Fix the action economy and home brew.

Otherwise they will end up with an extremely broken game later in the levels. Level 11 Wizards who can Long Rest after every fight. Enemies needing even more "unfair" abilities to counterbalance all the cheese available to players, amplified exponentially at higher levels. A level 11 great weapon Fighter launching a "stealth" attack, hitting an enemy 6 times before they can react.

Changing everything and reworking every encounter later would be such a daunting task they just might leave it broken or try to fix it with some more suspicious home brew like extra HP. So the foundation of the game needs to be extremely solid. And in the EA, it definitely isn't.

The thread title is a bit sensational and I wouldn't go that far at all, but I get the intent. If none of this is addressed by launch, it might as well be true.

That said, I'm in the camp that thinks realistic tweaks are still possible. Not all of the homebrew is completely bad - I do agree that you should auto fail dex saves if you are knocked down/prone, but I also know that it's only happening right now because being knocked down/prone is currently programmed as being unconscious, considering how it immediately breaks concentration at the same time as well. Larian could go a step further and nerf Fireball and Lightning Bolt to having the same possible damage output as every other damage spell in their spell level, because we all know they're only as powerful as they are in tabletop due to implied traditional reasons. But most of the current homebrew has an overwhelming effect on the combat, and objectively invalidates half of what you can do in the game when one goes into an action economy analysis.

For example, the spell Faerie Fire. An extremely valuable support spell in tabletop, but generally not worth using in BG3. It grants advantage against enemies that fail the saving throw as long as the caster is able to maintain concentration. There are several huge downsides to using it in BG3 that did not exist in tabletop.

1) High ground advantage and backstab advantage are far easier ways to gain advantage without having to use a spell slot, maintain concentration, and hope the enemy fails the dexterity saving throw. Bonus action jump/disengage also existing makes it trivially easy to get high ground/backstab advantage on top of that.
2) Surface effects make it much harder to maintain concentration by potentially forcing you to roll three times before you are able to react to it (the initial attack, the generation of the field under you, and taking that field damage again at the very start of your turn). That's two extra rolls over tabletop, both completely unavoidable with no saving throws to stop that damage.
3) Reactions not existing right now means you have far less possible tools available to prevent taking damage, and thus having to make those concentration rolls.
4) Several other concentration spells ended up being buffed in other ways because of the homebrew design, such as Flaming Sphere, which further discourages the use of Faerie Fire.

Low level DnD is considered the most balanced the game is, but all of this kind of ripped the balance apart. The more astute among you reading this (and probably remember my big thread from a month and a half ago) may realize that what I mentioned above is essentially saying that the current homebrew design has a domino effect on the balance of the rest of the game. It's THAT concept that people take issue with. At the same time, none of what I mentioned are beyond reproach either (compared to, say, proper reactions, which are still up in the air).

(On a different note, classes and archetypes that heavily rely on their unique bonus actions basically get screwed by this new emphasis on bonus action shove and jump/disengage. Classes like Fighter and Ranger that didn't really use bonus actions to begin with got indirectly majorly buffed by their existence, while classes like Bards later would be somewhat nerfed by having to consider their existence or using their bonus action on something like Bardic Inspiration. You can see similar shades of this in the decision to make Druid's wild shape go from being considered a primary action into a bonus action, and the argument there can go both ways. Had it remained a full action, they could immediately bonus action shove in the same turn, taking advantage of a possible higher strength modifier. But Wildshape being a bonus action allows them to attack or cast a spell in the same turn, allowing them to keep up with the rest of the classes in action economy in different ways otherwise.)

Remember that a common statement about DOS2 is that it lets you do anything, not everything. And that's a statement that the DOS2 community takes actual pride in. That really isn't a philosophy that should be taken into DnD combat. Maybe DnD prides itself in its ability to role play in a flexible manner, but I suppose the actual combat rules are at odds with it. Yet universally circumventing or discarding them doesn't seem like a good idea.

One can basically paint this community as engaging in hysterical pessimism, as a certain content creator had poorly decided to do last month. But the people here who argue that everything is fine and dandy and not to question Larian's vision need to realize that all of this is borne out of a certain desire for the game to be better. Understand that the people here WANT to be wrong in the end, and that they want Larian to surprise them. Because nobody should have to describe BG3 in the future with such glaring caveats, like what everyone does with POE2's poorly paced main story, or Kingmaker's kingdom management, and so on.

That said, there is one possible reason why I think these arguments got louder in recent times. A certain other EA game had a big update a few days ago, and there is a realization that BG3 is still capped at level 4 and that all communications known show an intention to keep it that way until the game is finished. For the love of everything that is holy, level 5 should not be gated behind the full release, it is absolutely something that should at least be tested maybe a month or two beforehand. It is not about impatience, it is about knowing what to expect from the entire rest of the game. That single level gives players access to crucial tools that overwhelmingly shift the game's balance in a different way.

But shapeshift is only a bonus action for Moon druids; for Land Druids, it is a full action, and basically why shapeshifting is never used as a Land druid, because wasting a turn to transform into a 20 HP weak shapeshift (even moon druid's polar bear at 30 HP is pathetically weak due to the low AC like all the forms) that promptly gets taken out in a single turn as most enemy take actions that do 12-25 damage means you've wasted a turn, and in the case of Land Druids it's lethal, because as it happened to my Druid, with the low form AC, the Ogre landed a crit and sent my Druid straight to death status, whereas if he simply had stayed in humanoid form with 19-21 AC or 30 AC with mirror images up, that would have never happened.

Moreover, even in the case of Moon druids, having access to Thunderwave as an action after wildshift bonus action is far more useful as the base strength of even "stronger" (they're all pathetically weak forms past lv2 enemies) polar bear will fail quite often the push attack roll. Thunderwave may cost a spell slot as opposed to Push, but it does damage on top, so if you fail to push the target, you at least get 8-18 damage in and don't waste a turn on a complete miss, and on top of it all the Thunderwave push and damage affect multiple targets as opposed to the single target push that does no damage.

Removing Wildshift from bonus action would further nerf the already weak shapeshift forms and mechanic, and right now most solo challenge run players optimizing druid play are NOT using the forms as they are horrendously weak compared to grabbing scale plate +1 for 19-21 AC humanoid druid form gameplay with both conjure flame blade, flame sphere, and moonbeam doing far more damage than any animal form, and then having access to Healing Word as a bonus action spell.

There's absolutely no incentive to use forms as a druid unless you're Moon and even then it's only raven form for a convoluted Misty Step equivalent or Polar Bear to serve as a ghetto, more restrictive Arcane Ward from the abjuration school (aka absorb a hit, but at the cost of doing nothing of use for your party while in form and being unable to reposition moonbeam or flame sphere for aoe and single target damage). If anything, forms need buffing, not nerfing so at least Moon druids can opt for a shapeshift centric gameplay. Particularly the tadpole druid form special power is super gimped right now and needs help.

Hm. Well, I'm not too familiar with Druid mechanics, only that Moon is considered ridiculous even in tabletop for reasons I have also only heard of in passing, so I'll just take your word for everything.