Larian Studios
Posted By: robotcycle Balance - 17/04/22 04:38 PM
This may have been discussed before, but I didn't see it on a quick search. It seems to me that you are fighting almost epic monsters at a very low level. At 4th level you are fighting phase spiders, drow, dueragar and minotaurs. What are you going to be fighting at 6/7th level? Demi Gods? It seems a bit much. I wouldn't think you would be fighting many of the creatures until much higher levels. What does everyone else think?
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Balance - 17/04/22 04:55 PM
At least some players more familiar with DnD expressed worries over what seems like a high level campaign being set within levels 1-10+. There was also some complaining about using higher level enemies and nerfing them so they can be fought by level 1 party, and overall changes to bestiary - especially phase spiders have been criticised for having little to do with "phase spiders" from the tabletop version.
Posted By: SerraSerra Re: Balance - 17/04/22 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
At least some players more familiar with DnD expressed worries over what seems like a high level campaign being set within levels 1-10+. There was also some complaining about using higher level enemies and nerfing them so they can be fought by level 1 party, and overall changes to bestiary - especially phase spiders have been criticised for having little to do with "phase spiders" from the tabletop version.

If I remember correctly, around EA launch, the discussions on this topic focused on which would have been the best/worst way of nerfing these supposedly too high level enemies by adding/decreasing their HP vs. their AC.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Balance - 17/04/22 07:03 PM
It makes me sad, bcs i less and less believe that i would ever fight a kobold in this game. frown
Posted By: ArcaneHobbit Re: Balance - 17/04/22 07:32 PM
Most of these enemies aren't particularly "high-level" creatures in PnP. Regular Drow are CR 1/4. Phase Spiders, and Minotaurs, are CR 3. Duergar are CR 1. Bulettes are CR 5. It's totally expected for a party of 4 4th level PCs to fight any of these creatures, especially with full resources. In fact, a lot of these creatures would get crushed by a party of 4 PCs if they were alone, which is why there's multiple of them so that there's some challenge. The two minotaurs encounter would be considered a medium difficulty encounter in tabletop for a party of 4 5th level characters.

The issue most PnP players have with these creatures in BG3 is actually that they have a bunch of new abilities that don't necessarily relate to their tabletop counterparts. Phase spiders, for example, have slightly less HP than PnP (28 vs 32) but can now teleport and make ranged attacks via their new spit ability, which actually makes them a bit stronger than their PnP counterparts. However the problem people have with them is that their ethereal jaunt ability was turned into a teleport when that's not really what it did in PnP.

There are still a ton of creatures that can challenge higher level PCs, Larian isn't going to run out of them. In fact, one of the good things about using 5e is that even lower CR creatures can still be relevant at higher levels if fought in appropriate numbers.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Balance - 17/04/22 09:37 PM
The issue for me is the lack of creating a sense of progression and achievement. If we consider that our Level 1 characters are something along the lines of apprentices, students or graduates, then they are being thrown in the deep end somewhat. It might be a trope but I really don't think there is anything wrong with cutting your teeth on some more basic creatures.

It worked immensely well in BG1 in my opinion; a wolf was a real threat at the outset but a couple of levels later and you could deal with them with little trouble...hence creating a tangible sense of your character's evolution. I get Larian has this fixation tie getting away from their concept of 'boring' but the flip side is that everything is exceptional and explosive...and so the experience of facing a dragon later in the game is diminished, because we have already seen them in the intro...and can apparently even kill the one in the Githyanki patrol.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Balance - 17/04/22 10:29 PM
The really offensive enemies are the tutorial ship's mind flayer and Commander Zhalk. We should be absolutely obliterated if we try to fight them. The Mind Flayer should Mind Blast us (60 foot cone, DC 15 Int ST or take ~22 damage and get stunned if you somehow survive it), since it would be simple to get both us and Zhalk in the same blast. Idk about Zhalk but I assume he, as a seemingly powerful individual, should also have something similar.

But the fact that it's fairly feasible to win that combat just makes a joke of all "powerful" enemies. The mind flayers seem like they're supposed to be (one of the) Big Bads of BG3. So let them be a Big Bad. There should be enemies we can encounter that it's nearly impossible for us to defeat.

As for the rest of the enemies, eh the only other one that's potentially a problem (as others have said, Drow are CR 1/2, Duergar are CR 1, and even Minotaurs are only CR 3; all perfectly reasonable enemies for level 1-5 characters) is the red dragon. If you attack the red dragon before it flies off, it should also obliterate you.
Posted By: ArcaneHobbit Re: Balance - 17/04/22 11:00 PM
Most of these creatures really aren't anything that special.They're hardly monsters that only seasoned adventurers can deal with, they're the CR they're at for a reason. There's still plenty of high CR creatures that can feasibly threaten tier 2 and 3 PCs in the monster manual and other 5e books which can definitely give players a real sense of progression.

The dragon is also kind of a bad example here. The reason they're introducing you to dragons early is because they're plot relevant and so it makes sense that one would show up early. You can't actually fight the dragon either. You can kill it, but only by going with the extremely cheesy barrelmancy strategy of sneaking in without triggering the cutscene, placing a very large amount of explosive barrels next to it, and detonating them to deal enough guaranteed damage to kill it. I'm not sure if this strategy even works anymore though since they've nerfed barrelmancy a lot since the EA started.

Needless to say, this isn't really a fair fight in any stretch. An actual fair fight against the dragon would be nearly impossible since it's a CR 17 Adult red dragon that can knock out multiple level 4 PCs in a single turn and can instantly kill an entire party of level 4 PCs with it's breath weapon. A party of 4 PCs can totally kill it in an actual fight at level 13 or so, but it's definitely not something you can really do at level 4.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Balance - 18/04/22 12:15 AM
Imps - 3 of them, are beyond deadly for 2 Level 1 characters in D&D. 3 intellect devourers are beyond deadly for 2 level 1 or 2 characters.

A party of 5 or 6 level 1 characters have a much better chance at 3 imps, and it's more balanced. Likewise, a party of 5 or 6 at level 1 or 2 have a much better chance against 3 intellect devourers.

Yes. The ONLY reason these encounters aren't impossible is because the monsters are nerfed - severely.

All Larian has to do to balance these encounters is allow for party of 4 custom characters, increase the party size max to 6, and implement actual 5e monster stats.

There's nothing wrong with the encounters. It's the party size and the fact that they aren't ACTUAL D&D monsters. They're baby thug monsters that have been given the appearance and names of really tough monsters.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Balance - 18/04/22 07:45 AM
Originally Posted by ArcaneHobbit
I'm not sure if this strategy even works anymore though since they've nerfed barrelmancy a lot since the EA started.
I believe it dont ...
Few patches back, someone tested it in some stream i watched, and no matter how much explosives you deliver, it allways just started cinematic how dragon is flying away.
Posted By: geala Re: Balance - 19/04/22 07:21 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Imps - 3 of them, are beyond deadly for 2 Level 1 characters in D&D. 3 intellect devourers are beyond deadly for 2 level 1 or 2 characters.

A party of 5 or 6 level 1 characters have a much better chance at 3 imps, and it's more balanced. Likewise, a party of 5 or 6 at level 1 or 2 have a much better chance against 3 intellect devourers.

Yes. The ONLY reason these encounters aren't impossible is because the monsters are nerfed - severely.

All Larian has to do to balance these encounters is allow for party of 4 custom characters, increase the party size max to 6, and implement actual 5e monster stats.

There's nothing wrong with the encounters. It's the party size and the fact that they aren't ACTUAL D&D monsters. They're baby thug monsters that have been given the appearance and names of really tough monsters.

I think it would be an overreaction to increase party size (I like it at 4) or give a full party at once or do something else on the player side, just to make a few minutes in a tutorial more to DnD rules. To the imps there could be a story element why they are severely weakened. To the mindflayer and the devil, it should simply not be possible to beat them (and get Everburn) in the tutorial.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Balance - 19/04/22 09:05 AM
To the intellect devourers, they could say they're all babies.

To the phase spiders, they could say they're all a mutant strange breed found only in the Western Heartlands - a breed that teleports instead of phasing into the Ethereal Plane and that spits globs of poison, and that acts nothing like a phase spider.

To the harpies, they could say that they're a strange breed that can't use clubs and fight up close but who flies around hurling stones constantly instead and whose lure song works different from other harpies in the world.

To the wood woads and mud mephits - um... Yeah, they're a Western Heartlands breed too because they multiply WAY more frequently than your typical mud mephits and they also don't have the same stats as a typical mud mephit. Wood woads too. They aren't as tough. Hmmm. They'd be more of a 6 person party enemy, like the phase spiders... And the harpies... And the intellect devourers...If they had D&D stats...

Hmmm... And the original encounter with skeletons in the cellar... They had to nerf it because party of 4. Now, you fight like half of them, if not a 3rd of them. Not exactly a good guardian group for a necromancer. You fight what - 3 now?

And the red caps... They had to spread those guys out so they can't get into melee too quickly because if they do, total wipe party of 4.

Or the Gith patrol, at level 4, they are STILL a seriously tough fight for most people, and the hardest fight in the game. Party of 6? Not as hard or impossible. (I've tested it.). Hmmm. Strange. They're pretty darn close to 5e stats. So, balanced more for party of 6. Really hard for party of 4 at level 4. Geez, don't even try them at level 3 or 2. Party of 6 though? Even at level 3, you COULD do it. It's real tough, but not impossible for party of 6 at level 3.

Minotaurs - don't act like minotaurs with their hulk smashing.

Bulette is balanced for party of 6.

Spectator and Drow, nerfed for party of 4.

Hook horrors and Filro - meant for party of 6 and nerfed so you can beat them with party of 4.

Over and over again, almost every monster is nerfed or changed into something NOT D&D so that you can play the encounters with party of 4. I know because I've tested it by recreating the scenarios with tabletop. The encounters are built for party of 6, not 4. THAT is why most monsters don't behave with their proper stats and abilities.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Balance - 19/04/22 05:37 PM
All your monsters don't have to be a copy paste of the MM you know. NPCs are better if their 'legal' but monsters should fit to every situation.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Balance - 19/04/22 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
All your monsters don't have to be a copy paste of the MM you know. NPCs are better if their 'legal' but monsters should fit to every situation.
I mostly agree (monsters in the MM are just examples after all) except for cases where homebrewing makes them less interesting. E.g., Imps without DR are equally as interesting combat encounters, but Intellect Devourers without the ability to devour intellect...at that point they can only do a basic attack. Just use an wolf/imp/humanoid thrall enemy instead.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Balance - 19/04/22 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sozz
All your monsters don't have to be a copy paste of the MM you know. NPCs are better if their 'legal' but monsters should fit to every situation.
I mostly agree (monsters in the MM are just examples after all) except for cases where homebrewing makes them less interesting. E.g., Imps without DR are equally as interesting combat encounters, but Intellect Devourers without the ability to devour intellect...at that point they can only do a basic attack. Just use an wolf/imp/humanoid thrall enemy instead.

Yes. True, and I agree. My point, though, is that MOST monsters are NOT 5e. MOST don't act like they should
Posted By: Sozz Re: Balance - 19/04/22 07:39 PM
They can't devour your host brain

*claps dust off hands*

Of course excuses are just excuses but unless the game makes a point of telling us we're at risk of having our intelligence devoured, I won't make a point of it either. Maybe when we next encounter the Illithid faction our training wheels will be lamp-shaded...or have a hat put on it...it will be addressed I'm trying to say.

For the record I'd love an intro that makes us terrified of entering combat but we're not going to get that.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Balance - 19/04/22 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
They can't devour your host brain

*claps dust off hands*

Of course excuses are just excuses but unless the game makes a point of telling us we're at risk of having our intelligence devoured, I won't make a point of it either. Maybe when we next encounter the Illithid faction our training wheels will be lamp-shaded...or have a hat put on it...it will be addressed I'm trying to say.

For the record I'd love an intro that makes us terrified of entering combat but we're not going to get that.

And again, it's not just the intellect devourers. It's MOST monsters in BG3. The only ones that are kinda sorta okay are goblins and their allies.

Except that they like to shove a lot... And throw bombs and shoot magic arrows that send people flying... And some - many - are really buffed beyond Goblin Boss stats... Hmmm. Wait. Maybe the goblins don't have proper D&D behaviors and stats either. I mean, some do, but many don't. Many aren't even close.

So what in BG3 actually acts like what it should?
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Balance - 20/04/22 07:11 AM
I dont think its Larian fault that nobody invented illithid themed enemy that would be adequate threat for single level 1 PC ...

It seems just right ...
Monster form sets the tune of the story ...
And monster statistic (and abilities) sets difficiulty of combat.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Posted By: geala Re: Balance - 20/04/22 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
...

Over and over again, almost every monster is nerfed or changed into something NOT D&D so that you can play the encounters with party of 4. I know because I've tested it by recreating the scenarios with tabletop. The encounters are built for party of 6, not 4. THAT is why most monsters don't behave with their proper stats and abilities.

So, then where's the problem? There is no law/treaty which dictates the game to be DnD 5e PnP with a party of 6. It's a video game with a party of 4 based on the DnD world and implementing (after what I've read from others, as I'm no DnD player) only about 80 to 90 % DnD 5e rules, not everything. They have to rebalance the monsters, and they have done it mostly in an entertaining way, for my taste. smile
Posted By: Niara Re: Balance - 20/04/22 12:38 PM
If you tell your audience that you're going to make a D&D game based on the 5e ruleset, as faithfully as possible, then you have an obligation to do so and to not change things or deviate them from that unless it's truly necessary to make the game work. If they had implemented thee ruleset 80% faithfully, very few people would be complaining - I'd be happy, for one thing. They have not done that; not even close. Whoever is telling you that they've done an 80-90% faithful rendition of the ruleset is straight up lying to you.

The problem is that setting a game in particular setting, using (or claiming to use) a particular ruleset, and placing within it creatures that are the defined property of that game's licence with representations within that ruleset... all creates an expectation that what is presented will actually be the thing that it is claiming to be - not something else that uses its name and (sometimes) appearance, but is functionally completely different.

If they want a creature to do a certain thing, and they don't find an appropriate D&D monster to fit that niche the way they want (unlikely, to be honest), then they absolutely have the freedom to make a new monster that DOES fit exactly what they want! They HAVE that freedom! If they want to make a special kind of troll that does fire damage is immune to fire, bleeds fire when you cut it, and does not have its trollish regeneration suspended by fire... they can do that! No-one (almost no-one, probably) will complain! ... As long as they don't call it a "Troll". As long as they call it a name that suites the new creature that is - call it an Emberwrack Troll, or something of that nature... fine; that's a-okay.

What's not okay is placing iconic D&D monsters into the space for players to fight, but then not having them actually be those creatures; it adds nothing of extra value to those who don't know better, and only makes those who do know better annoyed - you say you're fine with how they've been rebalanced, but you admit yourself with your own comment that you don't actually know how they've been rebalanced, or how they are meant to be in the first place. That's okay, but what it illustrates is that you'd have been happy either way; you'd have been happy if the creatures presented in their current state looked a bit different and had a different name. You wouldn't even know the difference. So why; why in the world would you support decisions from them that make no difference to some people's enjoyment and take away from others, and add no positive value experience over a difference choice, to anyone? Because that is what we have here.

==

To Rag; It's LARIAN'S fault that there is no CR 1/4 illithid-themed enemy to pitch to a single level one character as a fair encounter... It's their fault entirely because they are the ones who created the situation where such a thing was called for, but, as our DM, as you are so fond of referring to them as, they didn't create a suitable creature to fit that need. That's their job, as DM. If they had a scenario, and looked in the monster manual, and couldn't find a creature suitable for their needs, and a re-skin and block-borrow would not suffice, then it was their responsibility and duty as our DM, to Make one for the scenario they had envisioned. They Didn't do that, and they are Not doing that, and by and large that is the problem.

I'll point to solasta again here, just because - They only have the SRD to work with, and so they don't have license for the complete monster manual. This means that they've had to build monsters to suit their scenarios and situations. They have done so, creating creatures that obey the general D&D design rules and principles, creating stat blocks that fit their CR and which, while unique and new, still nevertheless feel like creatures designed for the 5e ruleset, and which work as such, often utilising many of the traits that you'd expect such a creature to have (Like their little winged dragonette-type creatures having fly-by, for example). The result is that even though these are all new creatures with their own names and appearances, they still feel like 5e monsters, through and through... compared to BG3's monsters which, Despite having the visually distinct iconic appearances and names, do Not, in an alarmingly high number of cases.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Balance - 20/04/22 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
If you tell your audience that you're going to make a D&D game based on the 5e ruleset, as faithfully as possible
I believe i still didnt see even single example of advertisement of any sort that would contain such promise. O_o

Originally Posted by Niara
necessary to make the game work.
Wich should still be your call ...
In other words: In any and i mean ANY case, when you get feeling that game doesnt work ... and i repeat once more in ANY way ... you have all right to change it aproprietly.

Thats the hard life of game developer ...
You are standing between two groups and each decision that will please one, will most likely angry the other. laugh
Sometimes it seems like decision if you wish to be shot to left, or right knee ... everybody would prefer not be shot at all, but that option is not on the list. laugh

Originally Posted by Niara
Whoever is telling you that they've done an 80-90% faithful rendition of the ruleset is straight up lying to you.
Aswell as anyone who will tell you exact oposite, since too many things are still hidden from us ...
In other words, such judgement is impossible until game will be fully out and we shall have all classes at max level fully explored. :P

Originally Posted by Niara
The problem is that setting a game in particular setting, using (or claiming to use) a particular ruleset, and placing within it creatures that are the defined property of that game's licence with representations within that ruleset... all creates an expectation that what is presented will actually be the thing that it is claiming to be - not something else that uses its name and (sometimes) appearance, but is functionally completely different.
I would dare to presume most people gathered as much from this topic ...

The real question tho isnt "what" is a problem ... but "why" is that a problem?
The only answer i have found so far is that people are pissed off that they cant metagame their enemies ... that is something i would expect from some around here aswell, but not you, Niara. O_o

Originally Posted by Niara
If they want a creature to do a certain thing, and they don't find an appropriate D&D monster to fit that niche the way they want (unlikely, to be honest), then they absolutely have the freedom to make a new monster that DOES fit exactly what they want! They HAVE that freedom!
Nobody ever said they dont.
So ... im not quite sure why even mention that. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
As long as they don't call it a "Troll". As long as they call it a name that suites the new creature that is - call it an Emberwrack Troll, or something of that nature... fine; that's a-okay.
I hope this is a joke ...

As long as the creature have over its head written "A troll" its horrible disrespect for the source material ... but once its changed to "B troll" all is fine, nobody gets offended, and everyone are happy with that beautifull perfect creature. -_-

Originally Posted by Niara
What's not okay is placing iconic D&D monsters into the space for players to fight, but then not having them actually be those creatures; it adds nothing of extra value to those who don't know better, and only makes those who do know better annoyed
Disagree ... i dont know monsters from DnD too well, and fighting with Intellect Devourers on the beach certainly ADDED soemthing extra for me ... fighting there with some giant rats, wild dogs, or huge crabs would be mechanicaly exactly the same ...
But fighting there Intellect Devourers, even for someone so oblivious to DnD there was direct link between the creature and the ship! Its called narrative immersion. :-/

I could understand it, if that would be other way around ...

Like if someone would clain that Beholder can scrath you with his claws ... or if someone would clain that jelly blob can shoot beams from his eyes ... or i dunno, that Kobold hit you with his Fin ...

Then i would totaly understand that people are pissed off.

But what exactly restrict devourer to attack with his claws? o_O
Same goes for Imps ...
Same goes for Phase Spiders (and their poison spitting attack) ... there are spiders that can spit poison you know

Originally Posted by Niara
- you say you're fine with how they've been rebalanced, but you admit yourself with your own comment that you don't actually know how they've been rebalanced, or how they are meant to be in the first place. That's okay, but what it illustrates is that you'd have been happy either way; you'd have been happy if the creatures presented in their current state looked a bit different and had a different name. You wouldn't even know the difference.
Your conclusion is wrong here ...

I also admit that im totally fine how they have been rebalanced ...
I also didnt know (before this whole topic started ... GM4Him is talking about this for some time, so i catched something in the process) how they have been rebalanced ... so indeed i was also unaware of how they are meant to be ...

But no, i would certainly NOT be happy if the creatures would look different and had different name. :-/
(Unless you are talking about trivial differences as having one less tentacle and therefore being new sub-species, or slightly different collors and therefore being new sub-species ... as it usualy goes in biology)

Originally Posted by Niara
re-skin and block-borrow would not suffice
It seems to me that it was sufficient enough.

Originally Posted by Niara
They Didn't do that, and they are Not doing that, and by and large that is the problem.
But why i that problem?

Originally Posted by Niara
This means that they've had to build monsters to suit their scenarios and situations.
What kind of monsters are you fighting there?
I didnt play Solasta and i only endured it for few minues, when Wolfheart streamed it ... but all enemies i have seen were wolves, bears, and some lizards ...

Cant quite imagine how would anyone make such creature inaproprietly. laugh

---

I dunno ... i gues im unable to see the problem bcs im used to homebrewing mobs ...
Just in our last session we have fought Giant Lizard ... that attacked us with his claws, jaws, tail, and even pressed our fighter to the wall with his hind leg ...
It was fun ... nobody cared that half of those attacks were "not by the book" ... and nobody even mentioned that the Lizard had aproximately thrice as much HP, and quite certainly different stats. laugh
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Balance - 20/04/22 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by geala
Originally Posted by GM4Him
...

Over and over again, almost every monster is nerfed or changed into something NOT D&D so that you can play the encounters with party of 4. I know because I've tested it by recreating the scenarios with tabletop. The encounters are built for party of 6, not 4. THAT is why most monsters don't behave with their proper stats and abilities.

So, then where's the problem? There is no law/treaty which dictates the game to be DnD 5e PnP with a party of 6. It's a video game with a party of 4 based on the DnD world and implementing (after what I've read from others, as I'm no DnD player) only about 80 to 90 % DnD 5e rules, not everything. They have to rebalance the monsters, and they have done it mostly in an entertaining way, for my taste. smile
80~90% of the rules? I wish, it would be called Solasta if that was the case. More like <50%, including changing or not implementing core mechanics and class features. Also the monsters they should implement are balanced around said core mechanics and features.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Balance - 20/04/22 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
...placing iconic D&D monsters into the space for players to fight, but then not having them actually be those creatures; it adds nothing of extra value to those who don't know better, and only makes those who do know better annoyed [...] So why; why in the world would you support decisions from them that make no difference to some people's enjoyment and take away from others, and add no positive value experience over a difference choice, to anyone? Because that is what we have here..
I'll emphasize this point. Regardless of how much leeway you think Larian has as a DM (from "obligated to run 5e RAW" to "can and should change anything including use of the d20") Larian's goal should be to make a better, more enjoyable game. Any decision they make should be with this in mind. "Better" of course depends on a lot of things - more enjoyable, less work, less offensive, thought-provoking, etc.

If X% of players dislike a change, and the remaining Y% don't care about it, then said implementation strictly harms the final product and the decision to implement that change is bad. Now obviously there's some non-zero number of tabletop D&D players who like Larian's monster changes. But from what I've seen on this forum and elsewhere, the PnP players who dislike the homebrewed monsters significantly outnumber PnP players who actively like the changes (again, people who are indifferent don't matter).

As to why: e.g., I know that Mind Flayers and Intellect Devourers are super terrifying enemies in PnP. So in BG3, I start out super cautious and wary of them, making encounters with them more tense and interesting. And then I realize they're ~pushovers lacking their signature abilities, which is disappointing and remains disappointing any future times I encounter them.
Posted By: Niara Re: Balance - 21/04/22 03:43 AM
Smarmy pedantism ill-suites you, Rag – you've seen, read and even quoted back the relevant quotes multiple times over the past year. You know, exactly, which quotes I'm referencing, and pretending otherwise is being contrary and arguing for the sake of doing so, as well as being deeply disingenuous.

(More on This)


It doesn't matter if you have a personal idea about what those quotes mean, or what we should interpret them to mean – That's just your opinion, as you so often like to confront others with – regardless of what you think we should all interpret them to mean, these things were still said. It doesn't matter if they were said with a tailing caveat that alters the pitch of them in the slight manner that a tailing caveat can – the statement itself was still made. For all the times you've objected to it, you've never acknowledged that this was, indeed said – you've just wiggled about what it means, and what we're supposed to assume it means, in order to define Larian's actions as honest; that's your opinion – it's not factual. Factual is that they said these things. They said “as faithfully as possible” in their description of how they wanted to implement the ruleset. They said the game would be using the 5e ruleset. They've even more recently said that they want their game to be the benchmark for 5e D&D in video games – and Always when they mention changes and deviations, they use reductionist, diminutive language to strongly imply that the changes that do deviate from the ruleset will be minor.

You like to ignore All of that, and cling instead to the little diminutive caveat (without acknowledging its language as diminutive...), that some things might not work and so they have to make a few little changes... Which is not a thing that anyone else has ever disputed, but which you seem to think is some kind of ultimate impervious shield against any criticism of Larian's designs as presented versus their statements as advertised. Sorry; it's not. It does not meaningfully change the situation.

It is not a lie to say that they have not implemented an 80-90% faithful rendition of the ruleset – They Haven't. By all means, however, if you'd like to contest that I'm wrong here, please go ahead and set out an ordered and fairly weighted list of the core 5e rules, and show where Larian have followed and where they have deviated from these (and bear in mind that anything that you have to check off as 'not implemented at all yet' is, by definition, 'not faithful implementation'); you will not reach 80% green checks.

==

Quote
The real question tho isnt "what" is a problem ... but "why" is that a problem?
The only answer i have found so far is that people are pissed off that they cant metagame their enemies ... that is something i would expect from some around here as well, but not you, Niara. O_o

Someone asked what the problem was; I explained. Please pay attention.
Metagaming the statistics has been no part of the complaints thus far, either. Again; please pay attention.

If you see an iconic D&D creature and you get a little excited/happy thrill from encountering it, that emotional reaction mostly comes from your understanding of the creature and what it is – that's not metagaming and that's not using your understanding in a game sense – this is purely at the emotive and experiential level. If these creatures then turn out to, actually, not be much like themselves, and don't really behave like the icons they're claiming to be, then, really, they're just not those creatures, and it's disappointing and deflating. It's a negative experience.

If you don't know anything about these creatures and you aren't a D&D player, and you don't really have any understanding of them, they you don't get that reaction – you just get the general excitement and positive adventure feeling of encountering something new and unknown to engage with and be surprised by. That's great too.

Point is, however, that you who does not know these things or have this understanding would get the same positive experience from a creature that fits its behaviour and matches up visually and aesthetically with what it does, and had a name and a creature type and behaviour... and you wouldn't experience any difference between whether it was named one thing or another. This is a positive experience, and more pointedly, your experience of it is the same either way.

So... why are you raising objection to people wanting their experience to not suffer that kind of negative impact, in a way that literally does not affect you at all? … Or are you really saying that if the creatures you fight on the ship had not, specifically, been intellect devourers – creatures that you aren't familiar with and don't have any real understanding of – but had instead been some other illithid-themed creature that patrolled their ship and had a simple ability set to match their actual behaviour, which was the same... that somehow, despite having zero frame of reference and zero understanding of the difference, or that there is even was a difference... that somehow, this would negatively impact your experience of the game, enough that you'd feel unhappy about Larian's decision to do this?

If they'd had you fight stray cats in the ship, sure, that would have been narrative inappropriate... but the point that's being made here is that Larian have the freedom to create things that are appropriate, if nothing appropriate exists, and that it is their duty to do so. If Intellect devourers were too powerful creature for us to be facing (and they are), then they could and should create something else – a variant creature that has the restricted capabilities and strengths – and name it as a variant clearly, so players can build up their grounding of the world lore reliably - or a completely new illithid-themed creature that matched what they wanted.

What if, for example, you'd been forced to fight Ceratopedes about the ship instead of statistically crippled intellect devourers? These critters are a CR ¼ creature that scuttles about Illithid ships often doing cleaning and maintenance on its organic parts. They're about the size of a medium-sized dog, but about six feet long, and crawl about on about twenty or so spindly legs, each with a little grasping tetra-claw on the end. Their main bodies look like stretched out strips of crenellated brain matter, fused to flexible muscle fibre (often with a variable number of smaller, finer sensory feelers that extend from their body like thick, wavy hairs); they can crawl on walls, and are fast, but not overly sturdy; they can deliver painful claw stabs to creatures when threatened, or when defending the ship, and are perpetually tied into the ships neural network, as other creatures of the illithid's ritual designs are. Killing one of these as they escape from their confinement would be a perfect challenge for a fresh level one adventurer on their own.

Then we might later learn that we were lucky not to encounter any intellect devourers, another common feature on nautiloids, and learn about how lethally dangerous that would have been – and then maybe later still we might encounter them, and be excited by the anticipation of this greater danger.

Why are you arguing against this? Why are you contending that the current situation is better? Explain that to me.

You're saying that this would make you unhappy.... even though you didn't know what Intellect Devourers were before experiencing them, and had they not been used you still wouldn't – and this creature would instead have been your first experience of illithid-themed servant creatures on their ship. Do you legitimately say that you'd have been unhappy with this, and with anything else, except actual intellect devourers, which you didn't know existed before hand? Because that is simply not possible; it would be a lie for the sake of being contrary.

Why do you hate Ceratopedes so much, that their presence would make you unhappy? Why are you against them scuttling about on the nautiloid, being a challenge appropriate creature for level one adventurers to fight in the intro? Why do you object to Larian using them, or something similar, instead of statistically- and capability-crippled intellect devourers, that undermine how legitimately dangerous those iconic creatures are?

==

Below this you say a bunch of things that are directly addressed by other parts of the same comment, so, I'm going to ignore all of that, since you can answer it yourself by actually reading the comment I made as a full response, rather than nit-picking single lines and complaining that they aren't relevant, while the very next line illustrates their relevance. I'm not going to play that game, Rag. Read, Comprehend, THEN respond. I know you've said that doing that is difficult for you; at this stage, that's not my problem anymore – it just reflects poorly on you and I'm trying to offer you some well-intended advice for how to mitigate that.

This however:

Quote
I hope this is a joke ...

No; I'm dead serious. The fact that you think I might be joking here is just showing that you are somehow not on the same page as most other people discussing here. I'm completely serious. As I said: they are free to invent new creatures, and new variant creatures, as much as they like, to fill in the exact niches of creature type and behaviour they want, if they don't find something suitable. It's even encouraged. If they want a troll that spits fire and flies, however, what they can't do is just call it a normal troll. They have to call it something new, because it is something new. It's as simple as that; that's literally all they need to do... and they're not doing it.

==

Quote
I didnt play Solasta […] but all enemies i have seen were wolves, bears, and some lizards ...

The first required encounter in the first story dungeon contains TA custom monsters. I'd suggest you go play the game, or watch someone else play it, or read up on its bestiary, or do whatever else you need to do to improve your understanding of the point before making ill-informed comments against it ^.^ It'll save everyone else some time. My comment about their creature creation stands; your ignorance of it doesn't constitute a counter-point.

==

What you describe in your personal anecdote is not homebrewing; it's re-skinning (and it might not even be that), which is part of the DM's standard toolkit. It sounds like you weren't the DM, so you don't even really know what you fought, in that sense; you're guessing – you say giant lizard, because it was described to you as a giant lizard creature – but if it were one of the other large lizard creatures (large subteranean lizard, for example), then it would have about three times the hp as a generic giant lizard, a tail attack, its attacks would be capable of grappling (Re, pinned to wall), and in general it would be a more appropriate challenge for a party of adventurers. Sounds like it wasn't a homebrew at all actually. Sounds like you fought a very large lizard, and you're guessing incorrectly about which creature it was.

Either way, your example is not even remotely analogous to what is being discussed here.
Posted By: geala Re: Balance - 21/04/22 06:55 AM
I got the 80 to 90% from discussions on Steam where similar "We were betrayed" wars rage for ever. It was said by people who seemed to me to know about DnD from their arguments and experiences as (alleged) GMs. But of course such numbers are highly subjective and debatable.

It gets even more difficult as different multiplicators for the magnitude of changes had to be taken into account. For example, a change to the armor mechanic would be huge (and I wish Larian would have changed the stupid DnD AC system which is perhaps necessary for PnP but an insult to mind on PC, as better systems are easily found and could be calculated), while a change to some monster's hp or abilities at least for me is neglectable even if I put myself in the position of a DnD fan, as the changes don't seem to be massive in most cases. Gameplay-wise it is no difference whether we got a changed DnD monster or a new monster with the same stats.

So this discussion is not about balance. Larian does not suck because they got the balance wrong. The discussion is, as usual, about disappointment that Larian changed DnD stuff.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Balance - 21/04/22 07:27 AM
Originally Posted by geala
It gets even more difficult as different multiplicators for the magnitude of changes had to be taken into account. For example, a change to the armor mechanic would be huge (and I wish Larian would have changed the stupid DnD AC system which is perhaps necessary for PnP but an insult to mind on PC, as better systems are easily found and could be calculated), while a change to some monster's hp or abilities at least for me is neglectable even if I put myself in the position of a DnD fan, as the changes don't seem to be massive in most cases. Gameplay-wise it is no difference whether we got a changed DnD monster or a new monster with the same stats.

I'm not saying that all changes are bad, but many changes on monsters are huge and not neglectable gameplay-wise.

- I find the changes to phase spiders absolutely terrible. It makes combats against them slower than they should and/or nearly 100% ranged oriented. The "Dancing Light" spell as implemented doesn't help, especially if all your characters doesn't have nightvision.
- It's exactly the same with harpies and considering their area design, it's even slower because you're often lower than them. It makes our characters run a lot more than they would if the harpies had proper DnD actions.
- Minotaurs now have an AoE jump that allow them to disengage and to reach our weaker characters easily (So is their charge if I'm not wrong). Melee characters should be able to protect them or deal damages if minotaurs rushes your second lines... they aren't.
- Goblins and many other creatures can shove as a bonus action... which become a part of many combats for various reasons (push you of course - which may lead to insta death or a lot of additionnal movements - waking sleeping characters up, disengage)
- Many creatures also have more HP than they should, making the "sleep" spell less usefull.
- Some creatures also have higher ability score, which mean in exemple that their ST are better than they should. This can really mean something when you cast a spell.

I guess we could also talk about the massive amount of consumables that gives extra actions to many ennemies but it would probably lead us a bit too far.
That's just a few exemples. TBH as a non-DnD player I haven't gone so far into analysing this but a lot of changes aren't neglectable whatever we don't care, we like them or not.

Of course, it wouldn't change anything gameplay-wise if the "phase spiders" of BG3 were called "spitting spiders".
But I guess most of us can easily understand the dissapointment when something you like for years is suddenly changed. Only DnD fans care about the "iconic DnD creatures" so if you want to satisfy the fans, you create something that corresponds to what the fans are fans of and not a different version of it with the same name... On top of that many DnD creatures are better gameplay-wise than Larian's creatures as stated above. Personnal opinion though.
Posted By: Archaven Re: Balance - 21/04/22 03:26 PM
i just want to put my personal opinion. i don't like what larian is doing. especially with the ruleset. first and foremost it's a dnd5e game. it's a dungeon & dragons game. i would appreciate if they stick to the core rules and monsters statblock and balance it differently and not turn it to their DOS formula. if they don't respect the franchise, might as well don't work on it at all.
Posted By: gaymer Re: Balance - 21/04/22 04:21 PM
The biggest issue for me is when you look at the enemies stats and they have ability modifiers that are impossible for L4/L5. Why do Githyanki warriors, for example, have such high Wisdom? Githyanki have STR and INT and we are facing Fighters. It would be logical for them to have STR, CON, maybe some DEX, and possibly INT.

Why are their WIS modifiers so high? This is the same with sooo many other enemies.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Balance - 21/04/22 06:57 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
*snap*
You know ... i really wanted to tell you lot of things, but somehow i came to conclusion that there is no point ... since we would be repeating the same shit for 10,459th ...

So i just wanted you to know that i read it.
Posted By: Argyle Re: Balance - 21/04/22 07:54 PM
Regarding lower level monsters with psionic capability, I believe the Gray Ooze was capable of psionic attack? Perfect for a beach encounter!

I think the main point of this topic is not so much whether the encounter difficulty is matched to the player party abilities, but more that certain types of traditional D&D monsters were created and intended specifically for higher level play. Drow parties, mind flayers, and intellect devourers are traditionally in the same class as the mid-to-high level demons and devils, and direct combat with such creatures with a low character party level does seem a bit "over the top".

For level 1-3 adventures, I would expect stuff like wolves, giant frogs, zombies, goblins, violet fungi, etc., to be most of the combatants, with bosses being something like an ogre or a werewolf. Jumping right into Drow and intellect devourers when my mage has only three spells to cast, one of which is identify, ... ooh, I don't know. It makes me think of a scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life involving the word "stampede".
Posted By: Ragitsu Re: Balance - 21/04/22 08:03 PM
That's right: the difficulty of a standard Drow patrol/raiding party ought to begin at CR 3.
Posted By: Piff Re: Balance - 22/04/22 01:52 AM
Endless circular arguing does nothing for the discussion and is just fucking exhausting to read. And I'm about 90% sure you both have had this exact argument six months ago.

So I'm going to quote someone else's post

Originally Posted by ArcaneHobbit
Most of these enemies aren't particularly "high-level" creatures in PnP. Regular Drow are CR 1/4. Phase Spiders, and Minotaurs, are CR 3. Duergar are CR 1. Bulettes are CR 5. It's totally expected for a party of 4 4th level PCs to fight any of these creatures, especially with full resources. In fact, a lot of these creatures would get crushed by a party of 4 PCs if they were alone, which is why there's multiple of them so that there's some challenge. The two minotaurs encounter would be considered a medium difficulty encounter in tabletop for a party of 4 5th level characters.

The issue most PnP players have with these creatures in BG3 is actually that they have a bunch of new abilities that don't necessarily relate to their tabletop counterparts. Phase spiders, for example, have slightly less HP than PnP (28 vs 32) but can now teleport and make ranged attacks via their new spit ability, which actually makes them a bit stronger than their PnP counterparts. However the problem people have with them is that their ethereal jaunt ability was turned into a teleport when that's not really what it did in PnP..

Thank You for saying it. (Although 2 bulettes against 4 level 5 characters is still a deadly encounter, and if you are unlucky enough to attract the attention of the minos while fighting the bulettes, then woe, tpk be upon ye.)
Trying to achieve a satisfactory balance is futile, when the creatures in question have been given abilities beyond the scope of their pnp versions. This fundamentally changes the way they work, and affects the balance of encounters because their CR levels have not been adjusted for their new abilities. What was a medium encounter becomes an encounter with a difficulty ranging from hard to cheese-or-die.

And there are more than a couple of cheese-or-die encounters in the EA already. It possible that reduced/increased difficulty levels on launch will mitigate this, but we can only give feedback on what we have now, not what we might have in the future.
© Larian Studios forums