Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Gith Fight is Too Hard

Turning in circle.

This battle is really hard if you don't use any Larian cheese and way too easy if you use most of them.
As usual, a broken combat for a broken combat system.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree and say that "not using every trick you have available to you" isn't an example of "making a battle hard for yourself." I personally think that if the advice for a battle can be summed up as "use every trick and buff you have available" then the battle is hard. You can disagree about it being overwhelmingly hard (I for one think that it is definitely too hard for a level 4 encounter and even at level 5 I suspect that for an average player it'll still be one of the most challenging fights in the area) but it's still definitely hard. I'm someone who has played a lot of crpgs and consider myself of average skill with them, and I've given up on trying that combat until I'm at least level 5.

If enough people complain this fight is too hard Larian will probably "fix it" by putting some oil barrels down there.

The worst part is the dragon rider speeding off for no reason when combat starts when the logical choice would be to feed the party to the dragon. It's like they only wanted to show off with the dragon early.

It's pretty damn obvious what they were trying to do with the dragon knight and his mount. "This is what you could be facing one day, but not now".

I'm fine with the intent, but they need to find a better excuse. It could have been acceptable if the guy decided you were an irrelevant nuance, but it's a hard sell to accept their take off immediately after they identified you as their main target.

Something that could help that logic is that he genuinely has a more pressing concern and that a party can ultimately face him now and run the gambit of being absolutely wrecked.

Logic is overrated when you're just trying really hard to impress people.

[shaking my head] Dude. No matter what way you look at it, it's too hard. Tabletop, videogame, using Larian Cheese, it's too hard. Yes, I've beaten it many times, but 4 Githyanki Warriors fighting 4 Level 4 characters would be considered a Deadly fight by just about any DM in the world who plays Dungeons and Dragons. A Deadly Fight is considered the most challenging Challenge Rating out there. If you add Larian cheese to it, allowing the Githyanki to get advantage from height, and the battle is even harder. Unlike you, they can teleport up to high ground and suddenly gain advantage against you. Then, they get multiattack and can each attack you twice each turn. They gain an extra 2d6 psychic damage with each hit, and one of them is a RANGER who is really good at shooting you from high ground with Hunter's Mark. One of them is a healer too, which makes it even harder because that healer can restore HP to his already beefy allies. And then, to top it all off, it is made even harder because one of them is some sort of invisible assassin ninja who wields two weapons, and one of them is poisonous.

So yes, can it be done? Absolutely. I've done it in the video game and the party of 4 in the Tabletop succeeded. However, in the video game I have to pretty much fight that battle three or four times to get through it, hoping that luck will be on my side this time - EVEN IF I USE ALL THE POTIONS AND SUCH TO BUFF MY CHARACTERS BEFORE THE FIGHT.

And in Tabletop, I had to hide my Gith rolls a few times and say they missed, or the party would have died within only two or three rounds. I'm telling you, the fight is too hard for a fight at this point in the game, and as many have even stated, it is too easy to get there and you could even be attempting it at Level 3. Nope. Needs to have more roadblocks so that the PCs have the ability to level up to at least Level 5 before facing them. Either that, or there needs to be an increase to party size to allow for a party of at least 6... even with buff items like potions and such.

@GM4Him don't bother. It's not that he needs your explanation to understand what you're saying.

I would never say "every" ... i dont even think i ever used "every" trick (even couting multiple separate fights).

Challenging? Certainly ...
Hard? Maybe ...
But "Too hard"? Nope. :-/

As long as you can manage something, its not "too hard" ... and you said it yourself, you managed to kill them many times allready.

As far as i know, you can use misty step aswell. O_o

To mimic your own words ... i didnt ask you what they do. :P
I was there aswell. :P

Then i would say that you obviously do something wrong. O_o

Irellevant ...
We dont feedback tabletop. :-/

If 9 times out of 10 when I play a battle I have to save scum it, that's too hard. A game should be challenging but not frustrating; especially for battles that aren't end quest battles. So yes, I beat it multiple times, but each time I beat it, I had to basically prep first. By this, I mean that I had to know what was coming and do a ton of stuff to basically prepare for it in advance as if I had gone to the future and learned the moves of my enemies prior to facing them.

That's bad RPGing. You see, I think our differences about BG3 have to do with different perspectives. You come from a "This is a Video Game so it should behave like a Video Game and players should save scum the crap out of the game in order to get through it" perspective. From this perspective, a battle is not fun unless you have to learn the gimmick necessary to defeat it. So, it is natural for you to view the encounter from the perspective that you should have to play through it multiple times in order to figure out how you need to position yourself beforehand in order to win.

My perspective is from a true RPG experience perspective. From my perspective, a DM/GM should NEVER put the players into a scenario where they will all die. Why? Because in an RPG the entire concept is that you, the player, are ACTUALLY the person you are roleplaying. If you die in the game, that's it. Game over. Period. There is no continuing. You can't reload and try again. So the whole point of a true RPG is that players should feel like heroes who can overcome any challenge thrown at them on the first attempt. They are supposed to win every time. Again, the idea is that if you die even once, there is no coming back. No save scumming.

So when I play an RPG video game, I expect something at least similar. I recognize that there is no DM to manage the game to ensure that players don't permanently die during an encounter. If I suck up the encounter, I expect in a video game that I will die and have to reload from my last save.

This said, I would still expect that the creators of the game will at least try to make each encounter winable on the first try without having to learn and exploit some sort of gimmicks they've created. Again, I shouldn't have to save scum at all. Encounters should be hard and challenging and fun but not so difficult that I can't win on my first playthrough.

I get that they are trying to make the game replayable. That's great. I like replayability. But I also like immersion. When I play an RPG, and my character is constantly dying and I have to reload my last save file, that isn't fun for me. It completely destroys the experience. If I want to play a game where I have to replay a boss fight over and over again, I'll play a game like Mario Brothers or something where I can accumulate lives and keep replaying the same level until I win. RPGs are not those types of games and shouldn't be built like that.

But, before you pick apart my comments, again, this is MY perspective. You have yours. I have mine. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from to you.

Oh, and btw, Tabletop IS relevant. I wish people would stop saying it isn't. This game is based on the Tabletop RPG. It is the source material. You can't expect us to NOT site the Tabletop when you are using the Tabletop as the source. If they created the game based on their own rule system, I'd not mention Tabletop at all. They could build it however they want. But the fact that they built it on 5e rules and said it was built on 5e rules, that gives me grounds to mention Tabletop and say that regardless of whether you are talking about the video game or the Tabletop, the encounter is too difficult.

So please stop saying Tabletop is irrelevant.

It is a tough fight, but it can be won by figuring out how to use available resources like throwing chests full of heavy rocks for maximum weight, exploding & burning rocks, pushing enemies off the platform. Being on the platform to begin with. Taking down that double attacking teleporting pos asap, especially while still hiding unseen. And ofcourse attck from behind, use shadowhearts distraction ability for attack advantages. Sneak.. even employ poison??
And dont forget having familliars & companions present. If nothing else a lost enemy attack and at best a blinded, webbed or poisoned foe. Maybe even a final kill atleast twice something as puny as the cat has delivered the killing blow before being attacked one more time by a foe with 1hp left. And if possible have the wizard attack last, magic missile can work wonders in taking down 2 low level foes with one hit.

Still its easy compared to the bullette, full on hook horrors & wizard or the matriarch spider a aiding spider or two and 20+ baby spiders each with their own attack vs a party of 4. Fun-guy the mushy friends does help esp with zombies and if you collect all the hook horrors and bullette.. well.. might NOT want to try to oppose him. Then again duergar are relatively easy is figting them from their hut as opposed on the beach, so no need to drag the funguy there.

I have the ratio the other way around ... therefore i believe you do something wrong. O_o

I dont see how is that wrong ...
In the past, you (or someone else, dunno to be completely honest) were talking here about knowledge from past playthrough ... i dont quite understad why would you need that ... you see enemies, you can easily see they are potentialy hostile, and certainly dangerous, you even see their level, so you can estimate their potential power (wich is not exactly roleplay aspect i admit ... but from that perspective they have A F*CKING DRAGON ON THEIR SIDE ) ... what is in Roleplay perspective wrong about preparing?

If you ever seen any historical movie, its quite common when two armies meet each other, that diplomats are send forward first, while rest of the army is standing there prepared for worse ... that is your character.
I dont say you "have to do that" ... its possibility, and in my honest opinion that possibility it perfectly legit for first playthrough, when you (logicaly) dont have any experience from previous play.

And if things goes worse ...
There is allways reload. :P

How?

I could challenge you to quote where i said that ...
OR, if you wanna save time i can ensure you that i didnt.

Im just listing posibilities you DO have ...
It dont matter if you choose to use them all, not not choose any of it ... but the less you choose to use, the harder the combat will be, and its nobody fault but yours. O_o

I shall not list them again ... but if you have wide variety of options ... on one tip of scales is by your own meaning "too hard combat" and on other tip of scales is "ridiculously easy combat" ... then, what are you looking for should be somewhere in the middle.
That is not any "video game perspective", just common sence. :-/

In that case i dont quite understand how is that possible that i enjoy this fight, while not using those "gimmicks" whatever they are.

That is the point ...
I dont play through it multiple times ... actualy i believe i died only twice, or thrice in this particular combat ... and it was only when i wanted to try some experimental tactics ... wich usualy prooved to be completely wrong.

I just love your modesty.
Basicaly you are telling me that your way is the only right way? O_o

We have obviously even different approach to RPG ...
In my experience (and especialy tabletop) anything you can justify with logic ... is okey in Roleplay perspective.
Hiding half party before fight, using buffs potions and possibly poisons ... all just preparing for the worse, wich ... from perspective of your character, wich does not have "quick save" would be perfectly legit before every fight. :P

Maybe ...
But this is not scenario where they will all die ... this is scenario, where they CAN all die, and their chances for survival are not much high ... aka. challenging.

Wich basicaly, is description of almost every sessions i ever had.
(I dont say it was many of them ... but anyway, the point is the same.)

I know that ... therefore is perfectly logic from this perspective to use any possible resource, or option you have ... especialy if you see that encounter you are about to have can be a little overwhelming. (F*CKING DRAGON!!! )

You were telling me that your character ended up dead after first round ...
What outcome exactly your character expected when he, or she run in middle of four (potentialy five with Kithrak, actualy six including Lae'zel, and to be precise ... ten, since F*CKING DRAGON!!! certainy counts for more than one ... even tho Gimly would disagree) potentialy hostile enemies, that just burned whole squad of people, just bcs they argued. O_o
I would say it would be more than logical for your character to use some potion to raise his resistance ... some scroll to add some temporary hit points ... certainly some buff (not sure if Aid, is counting against False life for example) ... and possibly some spell that will raise his AC ...

All you need if few misses so you can survive.

I agree, except the end ... the important word here is challenge.
Where is that challenge, if you win anything as you say "on the first attempt" ... or even worse, "no matter what you do"?

In this you are wrong ... that is the very nature of the word challenge ...
You get something you are suppose to overcome, but you have to try ... sometimes you try harder, sometimes you try less ... but when every "challenge" is created so you are ensured to win, there is no challenge at all. :-/

This is so beatifully covenient sentence.
Any approach i suggest is just "gimmick" in your eyes.

This is more philosofical question ...
Do you know why you dont use rules of Chess in Draughts ?
Bcs that is different game ... rules of one, dont aply to the other, and its completely fine that way.

Do you know why you dont use rules of Dragon Age in Baldurs Gate?
Same story ... different game, different rules.

But for some reason i dont quite understand, you keep using rules for DnD in Baldur's Gate ...
And feel ... no, even trying to convince us, that is the right way to play Baldur's Gate ... even tho you are telling us with that same breath, that game is "too hard" in your opinion, following that rules ... have you ever thought about that this might be source of your problem? O_o

You refuse to do, or use ... you created your challenge ... if that is too hard for you, maybe you created it wrong.

Define save scuming for me, please. :-/
Bcs i would say that save scuming in combat would be quick saving every single turn, and loading every time your character gets hit.

Certainly not loading the game for *some previous save* even if that one would be before the fight itself ... when your whole party die.

It might be conciderable save scuming, if you would reload the fight, using the same approach and hoping for better luck in RNG > therefore better result ... but as long as you are trying to at least sometimes use different abilities, its quite fine to restart whole thing, if your effort lead to your death ... in my opinion.

I understand this ...
And i believe you will understand that if you tune down every single fight so it can be done with little to no effort, since you "are suppose to win every time at first atempt" ... it will completely destroy my experience.

All i can suggest to you, is try different approach ...
This game have countless permutations, and it apply for combat too ... just check your options, and thing different strategy.

If i create game based on rules for chess ... i would expect people to use rules for my game, since chess would miss some things, and some other things would be different ...

You are right in that this game is BASED on tabletop ... but that is all.
This game have its own set of rules, some are simmilar, some are same, some are completely different, some were added, and some were removed ... therefore any experience you hav from tabletop, is experience from completely different ruleset and therefore it IS irellevant.

As long as tabletop rules are not taken ingame 1:1 ...
You are wrong.

This fight is extremely easy if you only send one character down to talk, and keep the rest of your party at a height advantage. If you just King of the Hill it, and give the party member who went down a misty step scroll to get back to high ground, you will have no problem taking them out just like King of the Hill combat works in all the other fights. Heck, I soloed this fight with Astarion using a high ground ranged attack + hide combo, where none of the enemies knew where I was after my turn, so they just skipped their turns, rinse and repeat.

That being said, I also really agree that it was silly for the dragon to run away. I tried to murder hobo this encounter the first time I played and just started attacking them from on top of the gate, targeting the dragon first, and I was surprised that it just ran away. I was expecting it to come kill me, for the game to punish me for trying to fight a grown dragon at lvl 4. But without any context from a conversation with the gith, it made no sense that the dragon immediately leaves when it's attacked. The gith didn't even know who the attackers were, yet the dragon still just goes "nah man" and runs away lol.

You are basically saying "it's easy if you cheese the fight leveraging well known exploits".

Well, no shit. But that's not particularly flattering for the encounter.

Right. Ultimately, Larian is creating BG3 as a video gane and not an RPG. In video games, you save scum, replay a fight until you learn the gimmick of the boss you are fighting.

In an RPG, the DM creates encounters that don't overwhelm and kill PCs but are fun and challenging. It is one of the toughest challenges of a DM, but that's why you use the Challenge Rating system WotC created for you. It is the DMs best friend.

I almost never put PCs in a Challenge Rating of Deadly unless it is meant to be a truly End Game fight, and even then I usually provide them with some sort of way out in case RNG is going poorly. Players in RPGs don't typically like to fail the entire quest they've been working so hard to complete, so I try to be careful not to utterly destroy them.

You can also just place barrels all over the place down there while in conversation and detonate them. You may lose one of your party members but you can just revive them or revivify them. Its way easier and faster than all that.

You can also just throw the Gith at each other or down into the ravine. No check required, 100% success. So much the skill.

I mean, I would never do any of these things because I have self-respect but hey you do you

They have remove backstab advantage in patch 5 and they have decouple jump and disengage, which is a VERY good thing for combats..

I guess they'll have to rebalance every encounter now that they reduced our ridiculously OP possibilities.
And they'll have to rebalance them one again when they'll make additionnal changes to other homebrew.

It's sad they haven't follow DnD more at the beginning because their encounters are now balanced arround their cheeses... But patch 5 is a step in the right direction.

I think they now KNOW that the balance of the encounters is quiet ridiculous and despite the few people claiming that everything is perfect, a lot of us have made a lot of threads that explained WHY it doesn't work very well.

They have listenned, finally.

They also have their data and I'm SURE they have noticed that this fight is "too hard" or "too frustrating" (= poorly balanced, as the entire game).

I hope they'll continue listening for the other issues but now we can only wait and see.

They removed backstab advantage? I missed that. Seriously? That's awesome. So now, just height advantage, right?

Have you ever heared jammed gramophone record? -_-

Some caution is warranted: we are basing this knowledge off of video footage of a single(?) attack in Swen's playthrough. This was not mentioned in the patch notes or Swen's patch note video.

It's likely that it will be removed in the patch, but not guaranteed. It might just be something they were testing but didn't actually put into the patch. Or it could have been a bug where the game didn't properly recognize the conditions for backstab.