Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General DMG's advice about house rules.

Essentially this. Most of the homebrew I have been fine with it existing and in fact feel like they are aspects of the pen and paper game. Things like the weapons where it is the equivalent of asking your dm if you can swipe at the goblin's legs to trip him. And the highground advantage is something that makes sense, it is easier to hit with a ranged weapon when you have the high ground. The issue for me is that I want them scaled back and made closer to the base 5e context. Instead of advantage, a numeric bonus.
There is some Homebrew I really don't like, Thief basically getting its premier ability gutted for an extra bonus action, or Mage Hand punching and having zero of the utility it should have. But most Larian Changes (I believe) I have argued to scale back a bit.

Funny.
But sadly, in that case you "know" wrong.

I mean, i cant say im surprised by the fact you claim to know my intentions better than me ... but sadly, there isnt even single word true in that sentence.
Maybe except the word like ... i do like things, just not the things you presume.

Of course i do ...
But also im able to try someting else that i get and decide if that is, or isnt fun ... you should try it sometimes, instead of trying to reach the dreams.

And if that i get to try will be fun ...
Why the hells should i say anything against it? O_o

Well you did ofcourse ...
Your words was: "We were experimenting with ideas but they turned out horribly wrong, a complete disaster, so now we are reverting all of them"
With focus on: "all of them"

Seemed to me more like specific examples of situations where you dont need to use "cheeses" that you hate so much. O_o

I dont get it ...
You demand more chalenging combat, yet you refuse to make it chalenging for yourself ... bcs you have the option to play it easier? o_O

And i thought that we are talking about facts here ...
Now we find out that this whole argument was created based on your imagination, that created "some higher difficiulty", where you need to do things that we all keep showing you on specific examples that you dont need to do? :-/

I feel dissapointed.

Question from low-experienced-DnD player:
- What other sources of advantages should be there?
- What forces you to use dipping?
- What is homebrewed about thunderwave?
- What forces you to avoid 100% of AOO?
- Why do you ignore the fact that you were just told that you do NOT have to "play with the same patern"? :-/

That part about evasion seem the most logical ... you want to use it, yet you feel inside that you should have pay Action for it ...
The most obvious solution seem to be playing as if you pay action ... in other words, do not use action in that particular turn anymore. O_o
I know you would loose your bonus action in such case ... but if Larian actualy listen one of other suggestions, and allow us to use action as bonus action ...
You should be totally able to play this particular situation just as you want to. O_o

Im guesing some of you might look at what i just wrote and think something like: "That seem a little overcombinated, wouldnt it be simplier if Larian actualy reworked all the rules?"
Well, yes ... for all Maximuuuses out there it would be much easier ... but not for all the other people who dont care at all that they pay bonus action to avoid AOO, and still keep action for attack.

So what? O_o
No game could contain just good choices, that seem quite logical. :-/

Prehaps that reason is that Larian made those rules, to make the game easier for unexperienced players? O_o
Therefore they are fulfilling their purpose.

Im sorry ... but i just have to ask.
Isnt this exactly what are YOU trying to do?

As far as i know, Alodar showed you that you are able to play the game without the Larian rules, maybe not all of them, but certainly most of the worst ... so he can play however he like ... and so can you.
You are demanding complete change of rules, so you can play however you like ... and others can go to hell.

Ragnarok, I won't answer too much because you're always 100% out of topic.
"A coté de la plaque" in french. I don't know how to say it in EN but "out of topic" seems to be ok.

You should really try to make your "imagination" work a bit. There's not 36 solutions to create harder level of difficulty.
Not using the games mechanic to artificially increase the game's difficulty is a stupid reasoning that only rely on this specific EA build and/or this difficulty level. It's like saying "you can play any game in story mode without casting any spells : you should try if you think that every spells are too powerfull". That's ridiculous.

But thank you to care about my experience, I have made the game more challenging. I have solo'd it with 3 differents classes and that's what makes me understand that most things but homebrew in BG3 are completely "cosmetic".

And no, I never said that he shouldn't be able to roleplay his characters as he wants.

1. Changing the rules of advantages for highground to a +2 won't change the fact that going higher will increase his % to hit. He will even be able to increase it even more.
2. Changing the rules so shoving is a bit harder won't change the fact that he'll still be able to shove and/or create a specific character that can shove better than others.
3. Changing the disengage so it suits to RAW won't make disengage impossible and he'll still be able to disengage :
-as a bonus action with his rogue
-as a bonus action using misty step (most casters and magic oriented subclasses)
-as an action with his sorcerer that will then use quickened spell to throw his fireball as a bonus action
-as an action then heal with his cleric as a bonus action
-with his druid raven form then do something else in human form
-as a bonus action if he choose the dedicated feats (not in the game, but it could be a homebrew)
-as an action with his dual wielder that could have attacked first with his bonus action
-for free with a risk of damages from AOO(s)
-and so on... you know, that kind of stuff.

DnD only contains "choices". Not "good" or "bad" choices. There are a few suboptimal things and a few OP things according to what I read, but everyone seems to agree that the balance is pretty good.
Of course it doesn't mean that players cannot make bad or good tactical choices but here we're not talking about the rules, we're talking about specific actions in specific situations.

Yep.
Sounds like Ragnarok.

You said it was fact that the game forced you to play a certain way.
Obviously it is not a fact as you point out in your very next sentence that I can play the game my way


Yes you are correct.
The game does not force you to play in a specific playstyle.
Which is why your previous points weren't really facts.



What higher levels of difficulty are you referring?
How are they implemented?
You said we won't have a choice, what options do we have?
Did I miss a patch?
Oh wait. You are just making things up that you have no way of knowing and trying to pass it off as a fact.
Moving along.



So you don't like tactics and think that having to find advantageous position in battle is a bad thing?


Again I will ask when you played BG2 did you cast cloudkill on the edge of every fog of war where you knew enemies to be?
It was the most optimal strategy to defeat most encounters.

You could also cast insect swarm on every caster because that one point of damage interrupted all their spells and they couldn't cast anything. Did BG2 force you to use that optimal strategy each mage combat?

You could also summon 20 skeletons and kite your way across the map without ever having to engage your characters in combat. Did you do that for every combat?

Since virtually all combats in BG2 could be beaten with the same tactics, did you find that combat boring and repetitive? Were you forced to use these tactics simply because they existed and were optimal?


Thanks!

BG2 had some great options but if all you ever cast was cloudkill, insect swarm and summon skeleton you never saw them.
BG3 has some great options as well. Your choice if you want to use them.

If someone came to me and told me that they don't like BG3 because the load times are too long because every time they miss a swing in combat they reload the game for an optimal result, I would point out they don't need reload the game after every swing. You are saying that you don't like these optional features in combat and I am suggesting to you that you don't use those features. You are always free to play in any way that you want even if that way makes you miserable.

D&D is easy to break as well, RAW. Just visit some optimization boards. Also see Twilight Cleric.
Each battle in BG3 is a tactical combat , but of course if you'd rather not think each combat through and figure out how to defeat it just using your character's abilities while saving resources for the next battle,then you are of course free to summon a ton of skeletons, cloudkill the wall of fog and cast insect swarm on the mages (Metaphorically speaking)

Cant say im surprised.

And how exactly is it different from deleting those mechanics?
I mean, you dont want to eat pigheads ... i get it ... you refuse to not eat pigheads ... so the game is adjusted so you cant eat pigheads ... now you cant eat pigheads, so you are satisfied ... but the result is just the same as if you simply didnt eat pigheads. O_o

About spells ...
As long you will caliming that those spells should not exist?
Yes, "dont use them" is exactly the advice you deserve.

And its not ridiculous ...
Keep using something that i dont like, bcs "its better", and then complain about the fact that while you use that the game become too easy ... that is ridiculous.

In other words, you manage to exploit the game ... good for you i gues.

Neither did i ...
But how about some Tav (sorry to anyone who have that nick on forum, its not aimed on you pal) who likes to avoid AOO with his bonus action, who likes to eat pighead every round in combat, who likes to run as high as possible, who likes to cast guiding bolts with his Wizzard, and who like so hide and the end of every turn with his rogue?

Shouldn't he be able to play his characters as he wants?
I say yes ... and i see no harm in it. :-/

High ground
- If i claimed that i was confused before ... now im totally lost. O_o Bcs it seems like you were complaining about the game being too easy ... yet you are suggesting adjustments, that would make it easier? o_O
Well ... worth a shot: As Dez would say: "Hey, I don't really feel like this is a big deal in the game as it is right now and I feel like changing it might cause more damage than it would help. Could you elaborate further to help me understand what you mean, and your reasoning behind it?" I hope i used that corectly.

Showing
- Changing rules so showing is "a bit harder" seem like good idea.
And i dont seem much probem in the fact that some characters can show better than others, especialy if that character is Str. based. O_o
To be completely honest, if i remember coreclty i once expressed even my support to some suggestion that Shove should only make enemies prone, and push them only when critical hit is rolled.

Disengage
- Yes i know what kind of stuff ...
I dunno ... this feels like big change and i know you might not feel it like change, bcs you are actualy erasing the changed part ... but speaking for myself, i would be totally able to get used to it aswell.
But again, i would be totally able to get used to using action as bonus action and dont change anything. :P
So i dare to presume im not the best sample for survey in this case.

In that case i would like to encourage you to tell me more about those bad choices in Baldur's Gate 3 that are not pecific actions in specific situations. O_o

There are 2 types of mechanics: those that the game expects you to use and those that it doesn't. It is fine to simply ignore the latter type, but ignoring the former type can adversely affect ganeplay.

Example: Eating Pigs Heads
1.) If Larian balances all combats assuming that players will eat a pig head to restore 15HP every turn, then not eating pig heads will make the combat incredibly more difficult. So you have the option of

• a) eating an entire pig head in <2 seconds, something that is incredibly un-immersive
• b) playing an unfairly balanced game.

This is a BAD implementation.

2.) If Larian balances combats assuming that players won't eat a pig head every turn, then eating pig heads will just be a way of optionally making combats easier. This is a GOOD implementation. I personally don't understand why it's included in the game, but it doesn't affect me.

Many of Larian's homebrew fall into the former category. E.g.:
- Enemies use high ground, so you can't ignore it. Enemies also sometimes use shove & backstab, and multiple enemies have been given jump+disengage powers.
- Encounters are balanced around constant advantage via high ground & backstab, bonus action jump disengaging, and BA shoving. Enemies are more powerful than in PnP 5e because we can do all these things.
- Companion dialogues are tied to long resting, forcing the player to rest or miss content

Saying "just don't use these mechanics" is ignoring the problem; that the game is balanced around using these mechanics. And, in my opinion, using these mechanics makes the game more boring, less tactical, and less fun, but not using them makes the game unfairly difficult.
You can argue that you personally don't think these mechanics make the game less fun, but that's only a relevant argument if you think Larian's implementation is better than the alternative. Otherwise, if you don't care, then why are you arguing for it?

To mention the BG2 cloudkill example, a more apt comparison would be if combats on normal difficulty in BG2 were prohibitively difficult if you didn't Cloudkill-cheese and/or if the enemy AI would use this strategy against you. In those cases, not using cloudkill would make the game less fun, but using cloudkill every combat would quickly get boring.

Now this is a great way of putting it! Thanks, Fuji! :]

Agreed. I won't put a judgement on whether or not the specific mechanics are "good" or "bad", but as an example, if the game is balanced around everyone being able to disengage by jumping every turn then to not use jump in combat is severely gimping your combat capabilities.

The caveat I have is if Larian is willing to put in a customizable difficulty slider, then most of these mechanics can be safely ignored and most people can have a fun experience.

Wow the straight up arrogance to think that you are some kind of supreme knowledge holder, that we should all genuflect to, and admit that we are just stupid sheep. Must be nice on that high horse. Good view?

^_^ Glad you all liked my summary!

As always, +1 for I love the difficulty options in...certain other games.

Oh you mean how Maximus basically called anyone that doesn't agree with his recommendations stupid, and lacking tactical knowledge of any sort just a few posts up?

Focus on the topic, not the person please. I won't call anyone out here (I know you'll be on extra high alert Pandemonica because of my reply coming right after yours, but this is an address to various past replies overall :] ), because a lot of people have let their emotions get the best of them in various responses, instead I'll just encourage everyone to focus on the OPs thread and discussions within.

Hope you'll feel better after reading things in their context

-Ahem-

@The Composer Sorry, was fighting with the quotes and didn't refresh before posting.

Whatever I also completely agree with MrFuji.

The main / the first problem according to me is that the game is using two layers that are totally unbalanced with each other.

1) The D&D layer that gives all the basics, the calculations, the features, the spells, the weapons and so on.
2) The Larian layer that add new things and/or that deviate from D&D.

The EA build is balanced "somewhere" between those two layers but the gap between them is so important that the game can be at the same time :
- very easy if you use 100% of the Larian layer
- or very hard if you don't use it at all

You only have a "normal" experience when you use some things that belongs to Larian... but not too much ! This means nothing and makes no sense for a player that have all options/buttons in front of its eyes.
Players should definitely be able to make choices whatever their reasons but the difficulty of the game shouldn't rely on our choices to use (or not) some mechanics.

At the same time how could Larian balance combats to give a "normal" experience to players that will use their very powerfull mechanics and those that won't ? How are we supposed to play this build ? What are the official recommandations for a "normal" experience ?

If the layers were better balanced the game could have strong foundations for everyone whatever the mechanics you choose to use or not.
That's the point of all those discussions about combats : bring the DnD layer and the Larian layer on the same level to really enjoy the massive D&D experience overhauled (rather than overshadowed) by Larian's touch.

PS : once again, I'm not talking at all about "choices for fun" or "exploit" like barrelmancy, stealing merchants, AI bug with hide and so on. You can definitely make the game "easier" using them but the game is not balanced arround it.

I still hope SO MUCH that they add options... that we don't have to get mods for everything

Actually, I snipped the wrong part of the comment. Wasn't in regards to Tuco thing that I quoted. It has been corrected. Regardless, I just replied to clarify that, I am out of the thread regardless, don't worry Composer, not going to carry on about it. I just wanted to fix my quote since I over cut the access to try and trim the quote.

I don't get it.

Options can change the difficulty of the game but it won't change the mechanic/the economy, what combats are balanced arround and what is OP/what is sub-optimal.

Even with options we'll have to use mods for challenging but fair combats.

I may be wrong but I never saw a game in which options allow players to rebalance the mechanics. Options in Solasta and Pathfinder (naming them because there are a lot of options) allow some degree of customization but it does not change the foundations of the games.