This is a relatively easy fix, so I'm not sure why it hasn't been implemented. In regular DnD, saving throw spells and spells that use attack rolls are relatively balanced in power, up until you get to higher levels where there are very few attack roll spells. The way that Larian has implemented the AC rebalance, that is lowering most enemy's ACs while increasing their health, means that damaging spells that force saving throws are doing far less damage in comparison to spells that use attack rolls. This is pretty easy to fix, either by increasing the damage that spells that force saves do (basically meaning that they are less reliable than in 5e, but still hit hard), or by decreasing the saving throw bonuses that enemies have, similar to what's been done with AC.
Right now it's merely annoying, as most classes still have access to damaging spells that use attack rolls, but when higher levels are added, this will severely imbalance most spell casters, compared to martial classes. A class that's hit particularly hard are Clerics, who in all of 5e, have only 6 spells that utilize attack rolls (in order of increasing levels: guiding bolt, inflict wounds, spiritual weapon, contagion, dispel evil and good, and plane shift (which is probably high enough level that it won't be in the game). Even wizards have a significantly more limited spell selection that won't be hurt by this compared to their other spells, especially looking at particularly fun and iconic spells, even ones like Fireball or Cone of Cold.
I'd really appreciate some sort of official statement from Larian regarding whether this is intended to be fixed at some point or not, given that it's been an issue since the start of early access.
This is interesting but I'm not sure I fully understand, as I'm not 5e-savvy and don't pay close attention to the numbers in the game. Are you saying that because spells with attack rolls are mitigated by AC, they've benefitted from AC reductions, whereas AC has no impact on spells with saving throws (instead it'll be DEX or WIS or whatever the saving throw is based on) they get no benefit from AC reduction but the damage they do is less proportionally due to higher HP?
I confess that I tend to focus on attack roll spells but that's been more because I seem to waste fewer turns by failing to do damage than with saving throw ones, but that's to do with the probability of hitting rather than the amount of damage, and I think your point is about the latter for saving throw spells? I think I need to pay attention to the numbers after all and understand what factors lead to my spells connecting or not, though I don't think the game is great at educating me about this or at least I can't always work it out from the tooltips.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I'll also add that High Ground's +2 bonus only applies attack rolls, further widening the difference between attack-roll and ST spells. I don't think that all spells should get a +2 to their DC while on high ground (why would being on the low ground make it harder for enemies to make their e.g., Con or Wis STs), but it's something additional to consider.
That said, is there a universal AC lowering for enemies in BG3? Goblins are the main offender as I recall, having both higher HP and lower ACs, but other monsters/enemies?
I think +2 from the high ground is a bit too much, considering that it stacks with lightning charges, happy, bless and so on. Making it +1 instead would be a good thing to do.
With the recent addition of weapon actions, spells with a saving throw got an indirect buff. A lot of weapon actions can inflict a ST disadvantage on a target, making you very likely to succeed. Also casting bane before the battle greatly increases your chances to land a spell with a ST. When I build a character around such spells, I try to get Bane spell for my Gale and Wyll and gloves of the absolute power to my Laezel or Astarion. You can opt your playstyle to make great use out of those spells, but in general I agree that they could use a slight buff in comparison to attack roll spells.
I hope this trend of lowering AC and increasing HP doesn't carry over to higher levels. I hardly even use spells that target Saves anymore. Mages, like everyone else, are better off standing on High Ground and spamming away with attack roll spells (or Magic Missiles with the OP amulet they provided).
By increasing Goblin HP, letting enemies wake each other up with a BA Shove, and reducing the duration, they completely neutered the Sleep spell as well.
I don't like to use Concentration spells either. You're lucky to maintain a concentration spell for two turns with Larian's obsession with surfaces and explosions in this game. Enemies also jump directly to your mages or they've been given powerful ranged attacks, bombs or aoe arrows. Protecting your mages is impossible and you're just constantly rolling for concentration and it will quickly fail.
I think spell DC's should get a flat +1DC to compensate for high ground and the increased concentration checks, and the amount of surfaces and explosions should be greatly reduced. And they should stick to MM with enemy stats instead of giving all goblins double HP, and let Sleep be great at low levels.
I am against this. Yes, the AC buff has negatively affected stuff like fireball (or shatter in EA) which purely focus on damage, but casters are most powerfull when they play controllers.
Just because enemies have 15% more health, or whatever the number is, should not mean, that it is easier to hit your hold monster, disintegrate or banishment. That is FAR more potent than dealing a few hit points more, especially against bosses
So you would favour the penalising the vast majority of traditionally offence caster's spell kits, and well over half of the usual play-styles, because one particular play-style is not (very) negatively affected? You would say that casters 'should' focus on this play-style in order to avoid the penalty? That doesn't seem like a very balanced or fair opinion to me.
I'll further note... All saving throw spells are suffering this relative penalty by proxy of the increased efficacy of attack roll spells. Enemies have not had their statistics reduced (and in several cases they are higher, in fact); they are not relatively worse at various saves in the same way that they are relatively worse at avoiding being hit. There are numerous extra ways to buff attack roll spells, and numerous benefits they get on top of these things, none of which apply to saves. There are several cases where enemies are getting advantage on saves from spells that they should not be getting, other Larian design elements hinder, negate or interrupt control spells, or those control spells have had their durations neutered, and overall the balance trend is that Larian's design really loves and wants to pressure players into favouring attack rolls, because that is how their base engine is designed and that's what they 'know'... to the vast detriment of saves, which are actually the majority of spells in D&D, offence or otherwise.
Bear in mind, of the ~210 spells that Sorcerers (traditionally offence casters) have access to, only 18 of them are attack rolls - and 6 of those are cantrips. Less than 10%. Larian's design choice here is pushing casters hard away from using save spells at all, and pressuring them to adopt play-styles that focuses heavily on just those specific attack roll spells... so balance aside, it's a terrible choice just for player freedom and versatility, and actively discourages differing play-styles and ways of enjoying the game.
Casters are already stronger than martials, and you get fireball next level, you will not exactly be too weak with your AOE spells.
I am in theory fine with buffing some AOE spells (though imo it is not necessary), but NOT reducing spell saves. As I said, a few hit points can go away quickly, and hitting a save or suck spell has far more effect on a battle than an additional hit or two with normal attacks.
I think you overestimate what attack roll spells can do. Sure, Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray etc deal some nice damage. But hypnotic pattern, or in EA Sleep, can just end the encounter!
And this difference gets even stronger on higher levels. Wizards do not need a buff!
I am opposed. Why? Snowball effect. We've seen enough snowballing homebrew. Change this and watch how it screws up 5 other things which then screws up 10 more things.
No thanks. I can only hope they will likely have a ton of spells to choose from for full release - hopefully - and hopefully they will also balance everything out based on difficulty settings and we won't have weird imbalances like the OP is talking about.
In short, it's not usually as easy as it seems or as you are making it sound.
Again (to Qoray), you're trading on a misinterpretation and a hold over stigma from earlier editions.
Casters are absolutely not stronger than martials, and that fallacy needs to die. It was true in earlier editions, but it's no longer the case in 5e. The best damage dealers in 5e are fighters and paladins... you don't get to a full caster for damage-dealing contribution until fourth or fifth position... and the best crowd-controllers are Monks. Control spells are powerful - but major targets have legendary resistances, and most major boss combats are over within five turns, which means that you can and often will be forced to waste most of those combats trying and failing to stick these spells, and contributing nothing, unless your DM is being exceptionally kind (because the creature can just pass the save, and often will, and only have to consider using a resist if they would fail). Conversely, creatures don't get a legendary "you don't hit" ability - and the way Larian are over-buffing attack rolls and weakening saves (as mentioned - several creatures so far have higher stats than they should, and as a result have better saving throws than they should have, as well as improper advantages), that becomes increasingly and overbearingly reliable and worthwhile, over deciding to do anything else.
If you just read the above comments, you'll see that what I'm saying is true - players are actively being pushed, hard, away from using save spells because of how ineffective they are in the game right now, compared to other choices. This isn't hyperbole or assumption - it's actual player testimony.
Sleep, in EA is an absolute joke - it's been nerfed into the ground, so thanks for bringing it up: First, it's not a saving throw spell anyway, so it's not overly relevant to this discussion... beyond that, monsters have increased Hp, so sleep can affect fewer targets. Sleep now only lasts for two rounds, instead of a 1 minute. Sleep is broken easily by the increased amount of ambient surface and radiant damage that the game throws around, and by the fact that every creature has a bonus action to shove a sleeping target - when the sleep spell calls out specifically using an action to wake a target up. Sleep never lasts on any creature fro more than one round, if it lasts for around at all and the target isn't woken up by the time its turn comes around (it usually is), and you will NEVER hit more than two targets with it. You are literally ALWAYS better off casting a reliable damage dealing spell with that spell slot, than you are casting sleep, in the current EA. What encounter, I'm curious, have you 'just ended' with sleep, in the EA?
I don't think anyone is saying that the attack roll spells themselves are too strong, or anything like that - the issue is that they've been made so much more reliable, buffable and favoured, while saves are substantially less effective than they should be in the current Ea, due to many factors, that players are feeling pressured into focusing on attack roll spells, because anything else is mostly a waste of a turn, in the current EA, and this isn't a good thing. There are not many attack roll spells; if players are feeling pressured into focusing on them to the near exclusion of other things, and are feeling like that's their only real option for being effective, compared to other things, then that's creating a pigeon-holed play-style that is really bad for players' flexibility, and will get worse as the game advances if it isn't addressed now.
I'm not personally making any comments on how it should be addressed - just that it needs to be.
Did you also mention surfaces? With a single Firebolt cantrip, you can blow up your enemies if they are standing on grease, or more importantly if they are near barrels, torchstalks, etc. So, why use fireball when you can use a cantrip and a surface? Just as powerful.
Bah. What am I saying. Just shove. It's the most effective spell of all.
Did you also mention surfaces? With a single Firebolt cantrip, you can blow up your enemies if they are standing on grease, or more importantly if they are near barrels, torchstalks, etc. So, why use fireball when you can use a cantrip and a surface? Just as powerful.
Bah. What am I saying. Just shove. It's the most effective spell of all.
Fireball does more damage and you can combine it with grease... Second resting doesn't work at all so a fireball is almost a cantrip:) IN short your example is a bad one but threads point is valid as is your point you'r trying to make.
In short:
No cover system = balanced moved to AC attacks Loads of ways to get free/cheap AC advantage = balanced moved to AC attacks As of right now no potions for casting stats = balanced moved to AC attacks High ground +2 bonus to AC attacks that stacks with everything = balanced moved to AC attacks Bardic Inspiration = balanced moved to AC attacks Only a hand few ways to lower saving throws = balanced moved to AC attacks
anyone can use any scroll for any spell at any time = balanced moved to ranged and melee AC attack classes
Edit: Shove = balanced moved to pushing enimies off the map for a easy bonus action kill.
Sleep, in EA is an absolute joke - it's been nerfed into the ground, so thanks for bringing it up: First, it's not a saving throw spell anyway, so it's not overly relevant to this discussion... beyond that, monsters have increased Hp, so sleep can affect fewer targets. Sleep now only lasts for two rounds, instead of a 1 minute. Sleep is broken easily by the increased amount of ambient surface and radiant damage that the game throws around, and by the fact that every creature has a bonus action to shove a sleeping target - when the sleep spell calls out specifically using an action to wake a target up. Sleep never lasts on any creature fro more than one round, if it lasts for around at all and the target isn't woken up by the time its turn comes around (it usually is), and you will NEVER hit more than two targets with it. You are literally ALWAYS better off casting a reliable damage dealing spell with that spell slot, than you are casting sleep, in the current EA. What encounter, I'm curious, have you 'just ended' with sleep, in the EA?
Some of this is true yes, but not all of it. Most hp was nerfed back down btw and you are forgeting that AC attack on sleeping target will always hit and will be a crit...so that alone gives you shit loads of value if done right. But i agree sleeps needs a rebalance indeed.
You can force AI to suicide with a well placed sleep spell on group of AoO. So yeah the shove wake up needs to go AI is addicted to shoving! So much so they forget what AoO is! Sleep It's broken op when used to bait AI into moving.
you are forgeting that AC attack on sleeping target will always hit and will be a crit
It shouldn't... It should be an advantage attack, that crits on a successful hit if it's made within 5 feet, but shouldn't be an auto-hit. (Can I add another 'Balance moved to Ac attacks' for that Larian change?) Though it does rely on you getting a turn before the sleeping target is woken up... which, I'm going to be honest, happens a shockingly low percentage of the time, in most situations in EA; MOST of the time, in my experience at least, something or someone wakes the sleeping target up before a team mate can bop them, giving you effectively zero utility for the spell slot and your turn.
Again (to Qoray), you're trading on a misinterpretation and a hold over stigma from earlier editions.
Casters are absolutely not stronger than martials, and that fallacy needs to die. It was true in earlier editions, but it's no longer the case in 5e. The best damage dealers in 5e are fighters and paladins... you don't get to a full caster for damage-dealing contribution until fourth or fifth position... and the best crowd-controllers are Monks. Control spells are powerful - but major targets have legendary resistances, and most major boss combats are over within five turns, which means that you can and often will be forced to waste most of those combats trying and failing to stick these spells, and contributing nothing, unless your DM is being exceptionally kind (because the creature can just pass the save, and often will, and only have to consider using a resist if they would fail). Conversely, creatures don't get a legendary "you don't hit" ability - and the way Larian are over-buffing attack rolls and weakening saves (as mentioned - several creatures so far have higher stats than they should, and as a result have better saving throws than they should have, as well as improper advantages), that becomes increasingly and overbearingly reliable and worthwhile, over deciding to do anything else.
Yeah, I have played enough 5e to know that that is not true. Around our current levels, there may be balance, but fighters get a couple more attacks and indomitable, but it compares in no way to the damage you can deal with summons, animate objects etc. Even Paladins only are really strong if you have a reliable way to crit, without the crit, smite is not particularily impressive. How do you do that? Hold person, hideous laughter, ...
As for monks being the best crowd controllers, I refer you back to Treantmonk:
Sleep, hideous laughter, ... all serve to critfish. One round of it is enough, it almost doubles damage from most classes, easily enough to quickly kill most enemies.
Originally Posted by Niara
I don't think anyone is saying that the attack roll spells themselves are too strong, or anything like that - the issue is that they've been made so much more reliable, buffable and favoured, while saves are substantially less effective than they should be in the current Ea, due to many factors, that players are feeling pressured into focusing on attack roll spells, because anything else is mostly a waste of a turn, in the current EA, and this isn't a good thing. There are not many attack roll spells; if players are feeling pressured into focusing on them to the near exclusion of other things, and are feeling like that's their only real option for being effective, compared to other things, then that's creating a pigeon-holed play-style that is really bad for players' flexibility, and will get worse as the game advances if it isn't addressed now.
saves are exactly the same as they are in 5e, no? They did not make saves harder... I would like enemies with higher AC and less HP more as well, but I don't think lowering save DC is a sotution to this. And what attack roll spells are you using so much? Sure, scorching ray is strong, but mostly in combination with the circlet of fire, or the hex spell. Chromatic orb mostly for the synergy with create water (I would give you disadvantage on making the save/ advantage on the attack roll with the wet condition, not giving vulnerability). Otherwise, most attack roll spells are ok, but in no way mandatory. I refer back to Aestus Guides here: https://www.aestusguides.com/guides/baldurs-gate-3-spell-tier-list
Originally Posted by Niara
Though it does rely on you getting a turn before the sleeping target is woken up... which, I'm going to be honest, happens a shockingly low percentage of the time, in most situations in EA; MOST of the time, in my experience at least, something or someone wakes the sleeping target up before a team mate can bop them, giving you effectively zero utility for the spell slot and your turn.
Probably just a difference in our playstyles or luck, but I had great success with sleep, especially in the earlier encounters. Btw while we are talking about sleep, in 5e is lasts 10 turns and the condition is weaker, yes, but more importantly, you have to ROLL for the hit point maximum. 5d8 is 22.5 on average, yes, but you can also roll a 5 and do nothing. In bg3, not only is sleep stronger (crits), but you also KNOW if your enemy has too many hit points to be effected!
Originally Posted by Lastman
No cover system = balanced moved to AC attacks
Yeah, agreed, that we need a cover system. But I think we will get that and they still are figuring that out. Probably why sharpshooter was not added yet (btw. hand crossbows are also contributing to why attacks are so strong right now, they basically give you crossbow expert for free)
Did you also mention surfaces? With a single Firebolt cantrip, you can blow up your enemies if they are standing on grease, or more importantly if they are near barrels, torchstalks, etc. So, why use fireball when you can use a cantrip and a surface? Just as powerful.
Bah. What am I saying. Just shove. It's the most effective spell of all.
Fireball does more damage and you can combine it with grease... Second resting doesn't work at all so a fireball is almost a cantrip:) IN short your example is a bad one but threads point is valid as is your point you'r trying to make.
In short:
No cover system = balanced moved to AC attacks Loads of ways to get free/cheap AC advantage = balanced moved to AC attacks As of right now no potions for casting stats = balanced moved to AC attacks High ground +2 bonus to AC attacks that stacks with everything = balanced moved to AC attacks Bardic Inspiration = balanced moved to AC attacks Only a hand few ways to lower saving throws = balanced moved to AC attacks
anyone can use any scroll for any spell at any time = balanced moved to ranged and melee AC attack classes
Edit: Shove = balanced moved to pushing enimies off the map for a easy bonus action kill.
Most of this was said in half jest, but yes. The point is that there are already things that are homebrewed that have already thrown the balance of 5e off. Shove is just 1 example. High AC enemy? Lure them to within 30 feet of a cliff or lava and shove. 1 hit KO. No spell necessary.
Yeah, I have played enough 5e to know that that is not true.
Not enough, it would seem. The reality of play simply does not support your opinion except individual specific cases, which I have to assume have been your personal experiences, but they are in the minority and against the averages if so. Late game, fighters are king of damage and paladins are close behind. 1-4, there's rough parity, with casters having more flexibility; 5-10 casters have a slight leg up; 11 onwards, fighter and paladin take over and never look back. Some classes regularly and reliably hit the 60+ damage-per-turn bracket at high levels, and without spending any large or long-rest resources; none of them are casters. Casters, on the other hand, regularly meet the same challenge by using their extremely limited long rest resources to get anywhere close to that damage, and often have the target simply no-sell them/reduce to a fraction of that outright regardless, with nothing they can do to prevent it. They retain much more flexibility, but it's highly contingent - unlike martials, whose likelihood of hitting becomes a near certainty at high levels, the likelihood of creatures saving against your DC (which is harder to raise and rises by less overall), only increases at the higher levels, where creature save bonuses continue to climb, and AC remains stable.
Also, outsourcing your opinions to other people's guides does not make you seem like you really understand what you're talking about; use your own reasoning, or talk about why you recommend it. I'm not seeking to convince you - you are free to take this information on board or not, as you please, I'm just sharing it.
Quote
saves are exactly the same as they are in 5e, no? They did not make saves harder...
No, they are not. As I said, numerous enemies in the EA have higher stats than they should, and thus higher saves as a result; this makes save spells less effective. There are many other factors in play as well that make saves less effective than they should be, and folks here have discussed and mentioned several of them (discussed heavily in other more detailed threads); most of the current control effects are easily broken by damage, or are maintained with concentration, and the game has a lot of extra sources of extra or guaranteed damage that are Larian additions (as discussed heavily and in more depth in other more detailed threads). The timing that the game uses for saving throws and save-outs is also messy, and can result in targets saving out of effects before you get any effect from them, even if they fail the initial save and you stick your spell (as discussed in detail in other threads as well). It's not the hard mechanics being different, in this case, it's the game itself as Larian has made it that introduces many other factors that inhibit saving throw spells in ways that they do not hinder attack rolls spells - and control spells, which you point out the value of, are the things that suffer most here.
Yeah, agreed, that we need a cover system. But I think we will get that and they still are figuring that out. Probably why sharpshooter was not added yet (btw. hand crossbows are also contributing to why attacks are so strong right now, they basically give you crossbow expert for free)
I just posted a few off options that gives AC easier chance to hit.
There are more things that effect AC hit chance, like status effects and other larian homebrew like weapon attaack removing Dex modifier from targets AC so yeah and the biggest thing is all hose things can be combined in all sorts of ways to get really high hit chance.
Hope you are right about the cover. Not sure where you got the notion that they will add it? Was it in a interview? Maybe i missed it. But i think it's to late to add a system like that. Hope i'm wrong.
I have played plenty 5e, and you have no reason to be so rude. I will not answer further comments.
In regards to the monk video, I could type up a 20 min post as to why monks are not good at crowd control, but why if somebody else has already made the effort to look at it in all detail?
As for referencing outside guides, that gives the comment more objectivity (because there the individual features and spells are analyzed in more detail than one would in a forum post), and prevents a discussion turning into "A is stronger" "no, B is stronger" "no, A is stronger" as we have now.
As I have said, please consider this the end of the discussion, and have a nice day
Second resting doesn't work at all so a fireball is almost a cantrip:) IN short your example is a bad one but threads point is valid as is your point you'r trying to make.