Larian Studios
I have seen a lot of complaints regarding the perceived OPness of height advantage.

These usually claim that height advantage offers a to hit bonus/malus that is equivalent to a +-5 on dice rolls.

This is actually not quite true. Assuming an even distribution of hit chances, height advantage only gives a +-3.5 equivalent on dice rolls.
Proof:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+from+n%3D1+to+19+%281+-+%28n%2F20%29%5E2+-+%2820-n%29%2F20%29+%2F19+*100+%2F5

This kind of makes me wonder:
Do some people intentionally spread misinformation?
Are they just bad at math?

At least heigth advantage is not as bad as many people claim.
+3.5 in a game designed with bounded accuracy is pretty significant.

And you can see it in the gameplay. It’s not just theory crafting. Fight with height advantage and backstab all the time and then fight with height disadvantage and attack head on.

You will see a significant difference in your damage output.
I don't think that height should give any advantage at all, besides increasing the range of ranged weapons, but not spells.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
I don't think that height should give any advantage at all, besides increasing the range of ranged weapons, but not spells.

+1. Especially since ranged weapons are already lacking in range to begin with.
The arguments about height advantage are less about the numerical value of it, and far more about the sheer tactical value of its existence and how it affects the value of AC. You brought up the advantage part, but I see you are downplaying the combined effect of the DISADVANTAGE half of it too. Not to mention that its very existence also makes damaging spells targeting saving throws inherently worse to use compared to spells targeting AC in the vast majority of practical situations.

So I ask this. What is the actual benefit in keeping high ground advantage the way it is, knowing how much of an effect it has on encounter design and balance? Because if your only argument is literally 'I personally don't think it's as bad as people say it is! (even though it's probably THE most common mechanics-related complaint)', then maybe there actually *is* something wrong with it to begin with.

Some people have at least tried to suggest changing it to a +2-/-2 AC calculation instead (and reverting the changes Larian made to AC/HP in favor of pumping proficiency values instead so that saving throw-targeting spells aren't left behind in the dust).
Advantage being the equivalent of +5 is the convention in dnd circles. I have not done the math on this myself, I've just assumed that somebody, at some point, have.

That link you posted is making my browser give me warnings by the way.

Also a 3.5 averages to 4.
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

It wouldn't be that bad if it was just advantage, but advagtageFOR/disadvantageAgainst is a net value of 10.

If it was just one or the other, I doubt forum members would be writing about high ground as often as we have.
Height giving advantage is an optional rule, I believe in one of the core books? Like flanking?

Thus, I don't mind it at all, I prefer that they focus on stuff that is not in the rules and breaks balance, like mages learning cleric spells or everyone having bonus action disengages.
Originally Posted by Tequilaman
Height giving advantage is an optional rule, I believe in one of the core books? Like flanking?

Thus, I don't mind it at all, I prefer that they focus on stuff that is not in the rules and breaks balance, like mages learning cleric spells or everyone having bonus action disengages.

I'd like them to focus on all of the things that you mention here, including the advantage for height.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

It wouldn't be that bad if it was just advantage, but advagtageFOR/disadvantageAgainst is a net value of 10.

If it was just one or the other, I doubt forum members would be writing about high ground as often as we have.

I'm not sure even that is true. When you can make redundant whole spells or class abilities, in a game which depends on both, you are cutting out potentially vast amounts of balancing content for 'i'm higher than you are'.
Well sure, that value can't really be calculated.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well sure, that value can't really be calculated.

Exactly. I'm of the thinking that if something renders not only spells, but even class abilities irrelevant, its too power.

When its not even a 5e rule that is doing it? Drop it.
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.

The game's current balance is only skewed towards melee characters right now because the Great Weapon Master feat is already implemented, along with the existence of a highly unrealistic 'threatened' radius on top of the 'target too close' malus that limits how ranged characters play. Ranged do get great benefits from being on high ground, but your argument now makes me wonder if high ground advantage is basically meant to act as a counterpoint to backstab advantage and a reward for staying outside of the double threatened and target too close penalties.

I often argue that high ground advantage is the big contributing issue to the imbalance in encounter design, but maybe that argument should actually be reversed, with the thought that high ground advantage actually exists because of backstab advantage. They are both definitely intertwined, and you can't get rid of one without the other.

There is supposed to be another feat that acts as the ranged equal for Great Weapon Master, called Sharpshooter. It increases damage inflicted by +10 in exchange for lowering your attack accuracy by -5. (It also disables enemy AC bonuses from partial cover, but there is no cover system in BG3... Unless the devs go with our suggestion of changing high ground/low ground to a +2/-2 AC system to act as the replacement for the cover system.)

It is likely that as long as high ground advantage exists, Sharpshooter will not be implemented within BG3, because high ground advantage basically removes the penalty.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.

Some are offering a compromise because the current state is just too advantageous. Height gives roughly +4 to hit and +4 AC vs those who are below you. I don't know if you are familiar with 5e but one of the main design aspects of 5e is bounded accuracy. The goal was to reduce bonuses so it would be manageable all the way to level 20 and bridge the wide gap that often appeared between high and low levels. So at level 20, characters get +6 to hit vs +2 to hit at level 1. It's not a big gap, certainly not as big as previous editions.

From my understanding, BG3 will cap roughly around level 10. That would mean +4 bonus along with your bonuses for ability scores and magic items. As you can see giving +4 bonuses so easily can disrupt combat balance (you are doubling proficiency bonus at level 10). Other tactics are tossed to the side. It just becomes a mad rush to be on top of the hill. It' doesn't make for more tactics. It reduces them.

So some are asking for +2/-2 or even just -2 for height disadvantage. I don't even like that but either compromise seems better than what we have now.

As for melee, I am not sure why you think it's better. Can you explain with an example? Because melee seems to be more exposed to attacks than ranged. You can shoot them and swing a sword at them. Maybe it's because your melee characters tend to have more armor?

Of course, melee has its own problems currently because all you have to do is run behind someone and again receive that +4 to hit bonus with almost no cost.

And I realize Saito already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
As for melee, I am not sure why you think it's better. Can you explain with an example? Because melee seems to be more exposed to attacks than ranged. You can shoot them and swing a sword at them. Maybe it's because your melee characters tend to have more armor?

Of course, melee has its own problems currently because all you have to do is run behind someone and again receive that +4 to hit bonus with almost no cost.

And I realize Saiko already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.

Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And I realize Saito already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

One can't really say we're piling on anyone if we're pretty much in agreement with the overall message, albeit for different reasons. :P

Melee on a tactical level might seem like they are behind the ranged... But on a practical level, I think Pandemonica's point is that they are way easier to use. Thinking on it further, they don't have to jump through nearly as many hoops as the ranged do in order to be effective. I think it could even be possible to do an all melee run by going to high ground and shoving off everyone that chases you (though obviously smacking them for damage before the shove, or shoving everyone but one or two enemies that everyone gangs up on instead), with maybe one tanky as hell melee parked below to pick off everyone you yeet off the cliffs or bridges.

Sure, ranged enemies would annoy you for a couple turns, but that's what all the grenades and bonus action healing are for, right?

(With the Bard mod, I ended up running a 19 AC College of Valor Bard who was supposed to be an archer. But he somehow doubled as the party tank and ended up being highly effective in melee because of Valor Bard's shield proficiency, and enemies would always aggro to him because he had his bow drawn half the time. 19 AC was apparently high enough that he was pretty much untouchable, even against enemy archers firing at him from high ground. Then I kind of figured out that I really should have just been using him as a melee instead of an archer. Eh.)
It's a fact that lots of spells and features are useless because of highground/backstab.

Just play the game to notice how impactfull it is (goblins camp combat). Highground is nearly a god mode because of advantage PLUS disadvantage.

It's not only about numbers.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.

Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.

Menacing attack is another broken mechanic. The frightened creature should not run away provoking an opportunity attack and should be fighting back, albeit with disadvantage. Running away from fear is the result of a more powerful action, like the Fear Spell (level 3 spell not available to us). Frightened creatures would have disadvantage to attack but that's it. Also, are you running behind monsters and attacking? That will create advantage (another broken mechanic). Try just attacking head on without going behind them. You should still win but I think you will notice a stark difference on how many times you hit.

Give your wizard a decent DEX and a crossbow full of fire arrows. Put the wizard at height advantage and watch monsters die. It's not just wizards. Any class can do this.

Jump/Disengage is also broken. It's supposed to be a full action but Larian in their great wisdom allows you do jump and attack. It used to be, you had to make a choice. Move long distances and forgo an attack or just attack. Now you can do both.

Just to give you an idea how broken this game is, I built a custom all ranger party. No wizards or clerics. I hardly had any magic healing (I think I had one ranger with cure wounds). I used Larian tactics to the fullest except for barrelmancy. Nothing could stop me. I was rarely in any danger. I entered every battle at full health due to healing food. I backstabbed, jumped and used height. I used special arrows and explosives. It was boring. The funny thing was, I could have done the same with any mix of the current classes. I'm not bragging. Anyone can do this. And that's why I am siding with those who are asking for some balance.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And I realize Saito already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

One can't really say we're piling on anyone if we're pretty much in agreement with the overall message, albeit for different reasons. :P

I just don't want Pandemonica to feel mobbed is all.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.

Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.

Menacing attack is another broken mechanic. The frightened creature should not run away provoking an opportunity attack and should be fighting back, albeit with disadvantage. Running away from fear is the result of a more powerful action, like the Fear Spell (level 3 spell not available to us). Frightened creatures would have disadvantage to attack but that's it. Also, are you running behind monsters and attacking? That will create advantage (another broken mechanic). Try just attacking head on without going behind them. You should still win but I think you will notice a stark difference on how many times you hit.

Give your wizard a decent DEX and a crossbow full of fire arrows. Put the wizard at height advantage and watch monsters die. It's not just wizards. Any class can do this.

Jump/Disengage is also broken. It's supposed to be a full action but Larian in their great wisdom allows you do jump and attack. It used to be, you had to make a choice. Move long distances and forgo an attack or just attack. Now you can do both.

Just to give you an idea how broken this game is, I built a custom all ranger party. No wizards or clerics. I hardly had any magic healing (I think I had one ranger with cure wounds). I used Larian tactics to the fullest except for barrelmancy. Nothing could stop me. I was rarely in any danger. I entered every battle at full health due to healing food. I backstabbed, jumped and used height. I used special arrows and explosives. It was boring. The funny thing was, I could have done the same with any mix of the current classes. I'm not bragging. Anyone can do this. And that's why I am siding with those who are asking for some balance.

I think balance will come, it is early alpha after all. I mean it was only October the game came out. Never would I use a dex, crossbow build on a wizard, that sounds more like a temporary exploit that will be fixed. Wizards really shouldn't even be able to equip a crossbow, just like they cannot use heavy armor. I generally don't bother to attack from the back on my warriors except for maybe the first attack I generally just keep my rogues on the back. I agree with the frightened being totally broken and needs to be fine tuned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they say recently they are going to make jump an action? I also agree about the healing food, I mean that is a touch much. Give a buff for food, or heal out of battle with it, but a pork shoulder shouldn't basically heal you for full health in a battle.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
As for melee, I am not sure why you think it's better. Can you explain with an example? Because melee seems to be more exposed to attacks than ranged. You can shoot them and swing a sword at them. Maybe it's because your melee characters tend to have more armor?

Of course, melee has its own problems currently because all you have to do is run behind someone and again receive that +4 to hit bonus with almost no cost.

And I realize Saiko already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.
I agree with you here Pandemonica.

Part of it is also that backstab is a few pixels away from what fighter would naturally do. Whereas, Higher Ground and Threatened put Wizard, Warlock, and Cleric in awkward positions. The fighter would attack them from the front anyways, but in Baldur's Gate 3 now they're jumping to the back. The Wizard, Warlock, and Cleric have to go through the chore of avoiding threatened.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And I realize Saito already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

One can't really say we're piling on anyone if we're pretty much in agreement with the overall message, albeit for different reasons. :P

I just don't want Pandemonica to feel mobbed is all.

I don't feel mobbed, but could do without the snark comment about being mobbed on. I was asked why I felt melee was OP and I answered it. Generally, I will answer any question as long as it isn't some slightly veiled snark (if that was your intention, if it wasn't I will mark it up to just misunderstanding intention due to it being so late).
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I don't feel mobbed, but could do without the snark comment about being mobbed on. I was asked why I felt melee was OP and I answered it. Generally, I will answer any question as long as it isn't some slightly veiled snark (if that was your intention, if it wasn't I will mark it up to just misunderstanding intention due to it being so late).

It wasn’t a snarky comment. When multiple people respond to one person with an opposing view, it can seem like that person is being ganged up on. I just wanted to let you know I probably wouldn’t have responded had I known Saito had already done so.

Just clearing up my position.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.

Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.

Menacing attack is another broken mechanic. The frightened creature should not run away provoking an opportunity attack and should be fighting back, albeit with disadvantage. Running away from fear is the result of a more powerful action, like the Fear Spell (level 3 spell not available to us). Frightened creatures would have disadvantage to attack but that's it. Also, are you running behind monsters and attacking? That will create advantage (another broken mechanic). Try just attacking head on without going behind them. You should still win but I think you will notice a stark difference on how many times you hit.

Give your wizard a decent DEX and a crossbow full of fire arrows. Put the wizard at height advantage and watch monsters die. It's not just wizards. Any class can do this.

Jump/Disengage is also broken. It's supposed to be a full action but Larian in their great wisdom allows you do jump and attack. It used to be, you had to make a choice. Move long distances and forgo an attack or just attack. Now you can do both.

Just to give you an idea how broken this game is, I built a custom all ranger party. No wizards or clerics. I hardly had any magic healing (I think I had one ranger with cure wounds). I used Larian tactics to the fullest except for barrelmancy. Nothing could stop me. I was rarely in any danger. I entered every battle at full health due to healing food. I backstabbed, jumped and used height. I used special arrows and explosives. It was boring. The funny thing was, I could have done the same with any mix of the current classes. I'm not bragging. Anyone can do this. And that's why I am siding with those who are asking for some balance.

I think balance will come, it is early alpha after all. I mean it was only October the game came out. Never would I use a dex, crossbow build on a wizard, that sounds more like a temporary exploit that will be fixed. Wizards really shouldn't even be able to equip a crossbow, just like they cannot use heavy armor. I generally don't bother to attack from the back on my warriors except for maybe the first attack I generally just keep my rogues on the back. I agree with the frightened being totally broken and needs to be fine tuned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they say recently they are going to make jump an action? I also agree about the healing food, I mean that is a touch much. Give a buff for food, or heal out of battle with it, but a pork shoulder shouldn't basically heal you for full health in a battle.

If it is still in early alpha it's pretty concering how few significant changes there has been to the gameplay. Most likely Larian is content with how things are and it's roughly how it will stay until release.
Originally Posted by Tequilaman
Height giving advantage is an optional rule, I believe in one of the core books? Like flanking?

Thus, I don't mind it at all, I prefer that they focus on stuff that is not in the rules and breaks balance, like mages learning cleric spells or everyone having bonus action disengages.

I checked but could not find it in the PHB, DMG, XGtE, or TCoE.

Maybe you have seen it in some Unearthed Arcana?
Originally Posted by Dexai
That link you posted is making my browser give me warnings by the way.

Also a 3.5 averages to 4.

Weird, Wolfram Alpha has never given me any warnings, be it from private or company network; you can google it, it is safe.

And no, 3.5 does not average 4, I cannot even follow what idea you had here.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

Wrong. If you don't have a clue about a subject matter, don't try to lecture people who do. I admit I did not account for criticals, but that effect would be negligible, especially considering criticals will often deal overkill damage (Goblins).

Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

In my gaming experience, the base chances to hit were generally way above 50% (at this moment I can't pinpoint a number, though). It is very well possible that Larian adopts a "missing is boring" stance, so we get something like a 80% base hit chance on average. In that case, advantage would only translate to +-3. I think assuming an even distribution is as accurate as we can get until the numbers are tweaked.

Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.

Some are offering a compromise because the current state is just too advantageous. Height gives roughly +4 to hit and +4 AC vs those who are below you. I don't know if you are familiar with 5e but one of the main design aspects of 5e is bounded accuracy. The goal was to reduce bonuses so it would be manageable all the way to level 20 and bridge the wide gap that often appeared between high and low levels. So at level 20, characters get +6 to hit vs +2 to hit at level 1. It's not a big gap, certainly not as big as previous editions.

From my understanding, BG3 will cap roughly around level 10. That would mean +4 bonus along with your bonuses for ability scores and magic items. As you can see giving +4 bonuses so easily can disrupt combat balance (you are doubling proficiency bonus at level 10). Other tactics are tossed to the side. It just becomes a mad rush to be on top of the hill. It' doesn't make for more tactics. It reduces them.

So some are asking for +2/-2 or even just -2 for height disadvantage. I don't even like that but either compromise seems better than what we have now.

Height advantage adds a tactical layer (terrain) to the game, which similar games like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder Kingmaker simply do not have at all, which is a good thing in my book. This, of course, has to be impactful, or most people will just ignore it. Seriously, would you bother with high ground if the only effect were +2 AC?
Why would anyone bother with equipping a shield if it only gives +2 AC?

+2 is not an insignificant bonus.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Why would anyone bother with equipping a shield if it only gives +2 AC?

+2 is not an insignificant bonus.

Because equipping a shield is like ... A LOT easier and less of a hassle than seeking high ground?
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by Dexai
That link you posted is making my browser give me warnings by the way.

Also a 3.5 averages to 4.

Weird, Wolfram Alpha has never given me any warnings, be it from private or company network; you can google it, it is safe.

And no, 3.5 does not average 4, I cannot even follow what idea you had here.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

Wrong. If you don't have a clue about a subject matter, don't try to lecture people who do. I admit I did not account for criticals, but that effect would be negligible, especially considering criticals will often deal overkill damage (Goblins).

Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

In my gaming experience, the base chances to hit were generally way above 50% (at this moment I can't pinpoint a number, though). It is very well possible that Larian adopts a "missing is boring" stance, so we get something like a 80% base hit chance on average. In that case, advantage would only translate to +-3. I think assuming an even distribution is as accurate as we can get until the numbers are tweaked.

Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.

Some are offering a compromise because the current state is just too advantageous. Height gives roughly +4 to hit and +4 AC vs those who are below you. I don't know if you are familiar with 5e but one of the main design aspects of 5e is bounded accuracy. The goal was to reduce bonuses so it would be manageable all the way to level 20 and bridge the wide gap that often appeared between high and low levels. So at level 20, characters get +6 to hit vs +2 to hit at level 1. It's not a big gap, certainly not as big as previous editions.

From my understanding, BG3 will cap roughly around level 10. That would mean +4 bonus along with your bonuses for ability scores and magic items. As you can see giving +4 bonuses so easily can disrupt combat balance (you are doubling proficiency bonus at level 10). Other tactics are tossed to the side. It just becomes a mad rush to be on top of the hill. It' doesn't make for more tactics. It reduces them.

So some are asking for +2/-2 or even just -2 for height disadvantage. I don't even like that but either compromise seems better than what we have now.

Height advantage adds a tactical layer (terrain) to the game, which similar games like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder Kingmaker simply do not have at all, which is a good thing in my book. This, of course, has to be impactful, or most people will just ignore it. Seriously, would you bother with high ground if the only effect were +2 AC?

Of course you would bother if it was ANOTHER +2 bonus.

But obviously you won't care about any other method to get an advantage if you can have it through an easier mechanic....
I'm not even particularly invested in "advantage" battle, but still I'm not really sure how anyone could argue with a straight face that "only 3.5" is a minor bonus on a scale from 1 to 20.
I get a cross-scripting attack warning on that site. Is the difference a +3.5 to hit every attack that you have height advantage? Could someone copy the article to text here please?
[img]http://ibb.co/s30GYwh[/img]
Problem with the advantage is not the avarage plus it gives to you mathematically but instead gives u a chance to roll 2x dice where as u should roll only 1,
and on top of that you are allowed to pick the highest roll so its pretty broken. It really gives a big advantage as the name suggests,
but also makes spells more exploitable.

On the sneak attack perspective ppl usually agree it makes a rogue OP but theres also that:
[Linked Image from linkpicture.com]
BG 3 already nerfed sneak attack by requiring 2 adjent characters to gain that opportunity. Normally you only need one,
and considering the fact that you will always have a warrior kind in your party, you should be landing them in every turn as long as you aim for it.

On the advantage/disadvantage what PHB says:
[Linked Image from linkpicture.com]

Highground can fit in the aspect of the enviroment somehow.
Standing on a table shouldnt give it to u for a melee hit, but it certainly does if you are actually in higher ground, afterall..
[Linked Image from linkpicture.com]

But things get broken when it comes to a range attack..u can gain half cover bonus (+2) but pure advantage is a bit too much.
However the game is still EA and what I think is maybe codingwise it might be hard for engine to separate that yet..It just might be
the right approach to tweak those after eveything is done so the every situation that game will cover will be on the table.
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

In my gaming experience, the base chances to hit were generally way above 50% (at this moment I can't pinpoint a number, though). It is very well possible that Larian adopts a "missing is boring" stance, so we get something like a 80% base hit chance on average. In that case, advantage would only translate to +-3. I think assuming an even distribution is as accurate as we can get until the numbers are tweaked.

As I said in my earlier post, +5 is an exaggeration of the benefit of advantage. I still do not agree with you that a flat distribution is the best estimate, since you are allowing the extreme cases to drive the average too low in this case. If you truncate the distribution to eliminate very low (only 19 and 20 hit) and very high (anything 3 and above hits) you already get to a +4.067 (calculated via your Wolfram link).

I also think that you are underestimating the importance of small boni in 5E. This edition of D&D operates under a scheme called "bounded accuracy" which makes bonuses to hit very hard to come by. Stat bonus will max out at +5 (unless you are a level 20 barbarian, which is very much an edge case) and proficiency will max out at +6. If Larian follows the treasures in the DMG then the maximum magic item bonus will be +3...

Under this regime ANY bonus is impactful, even a lowly +1. This is not pathfinder where you can stack bucketfulls of feats, items, and stats to achieve a +75 to hit if you min/max up the wazoo.
Originally Posted by Tuco
I'm not even particularly invested in "advantage" battle, but still I'm not really sure how anyone could argue with a straight face that "only 3.5" is a minor bonus on a scale from 1 to 20.
Especially when it's in addition to a -3.5 penalty for the enemy.
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

Wrong. If you don't have a clue about a subject matter, don't try to lecture people who do. I admit I did not account for criticals, but that effect would be negligible, especially considering criticals will often deal overkill damage (Goblins).

Lol dude who's trying to lecture who? There's nothing wrong about the statement "it's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls", you don't even need Wolfram Alpha to see rolling two lone D20's approaches a value of 3.5. You can do it with two dice and scratch paper. I did that when I first go on the forum here, but instead of telling people, "You're wrong" I went to Google:
A Source
Other Sources

There's no reason to be crass because you used Wolfram Alpha. Some of us studied probability and statistics over a decade ago, but we don't flex on a forum community about it. (Because who cares, it's a forum). There already are more in-depth analysis on advantage online. Internet forums are full of anecdotes and often there was prior discussion before the anecdote became popular. Some even remember the story behind the anecdote better than I do. (Forums are great that way).

Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

Sorry for not being perfect wink

Advantage being valued at +5 is an anecdote that has been used in good faith because a natural 20 can double the damage, always hit, etc. I'm glad that you're willing to admit that you did not account for critical rolls, but you can't consider double damage and a guaranteed hit negligible. During an entire campaign you will be fighting more than goblins. There are also other external factors to consider in Baldur's Gate 3 with mechanics such a shove, disadvantage on incoming attacks, enemies with lowered AC, etc. adding even more value to high ground. So is it just +3.5? It's a magnitude greater than 3.5.
Statisticians have to account for external factors, you cannot call it 3.5 and walk away.

I'd rather say it's about +5 than calculate values for each of those, I do have a day job and I've been playing Baldur's Gate 3 in my free time.
I'm fairly uncomfortable with the Original Post.

It seems to aim at correcting the technical analysis sometimes/often done about High-Ground advantage (with lower case a). It also suggests that some people intentionally spread misinformation. But the post itself is fairly criticisable. Two points :

a) The post only discusses the Advantage gained from High-Ground (with upper case A, i.e. the mechanism).

But High-Ground also means that enemies have Low-Ground and attack with Disadvantage. This far from negligible.

So the conclusion about "height advantage" being not as bad as many people claim is really just about Advantage not being as powerful as a sometimes claimed. Maybe Darun only meant to talk about Advantage, but then it would have been better to not involve height/High-Ground in the discussion and avoid the advantage/Advantage ambiguity.

b) The assumption of uniformity of hit chances along the whole spectrum is very criticisable. You don't encounter enemies that you have a 10% chance of hitting that often, I would think (depends on GM of course).
If you go for uniform hit chance between 30% and 90%, say, you find an average equivalent bonus of +4.1.

I'm not saying the Original Post is itself a clear vector of the disinformation (intentional or not), incorrectness and misconceptions it purports to rectify, but I find it uncomfortably close to that.


Having said that, the really interesting topic (to me at least) is Advantage. Which I'll make another topic for.
It's also important to consider that the first post is about two d20's rolling in a vacuum. Not necessarily in DnD or Baldur's Gate 3.
There is a really large thread about this topic. Where people broke down the % chance to hit and all that. I'll link it after work (on break now), if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Originally Posted by Darun
Seriously, would you bother with high ground if the only effect were +2 AC?

I'm in the group that feel height should only apply extra range to physical attacks(arrows/bolts), though honestly I'd be perfectly fine with no mechanical advantages automatically applied for occupying higher ground. It has inherent advantages already.

High ground generally means a ladder or stairway type limited access...that is a choke point that can be used to block melee attackers and keep them off your ranged.

High ground allows the use of the much argued bonus action Shove ability.

A ranged toon on high ground can back up a few steps and break LoS for ranged toons trying to hit them from below. You don't need cover rules if you start your turn outta sight, step forward and cast/shoot, step back outta sight again.

Removing advantage/disadvantage from height would in no way make higher ground useless, it just wouldn't be "I Win".
Height advantage is here to stay end of story! Live with it or get a new game just a friendly tip. It's not going anywhere, verticality is one of the main features of BG 3 so good luck changing that.

Height advantage was always huge in combat when you have range elements involved so nothing wrong with it. They just need to make AI better at using it. And maybe make GO Prone - crouch an option for all characters... if anything we are missing overwatch (bows and spells) and after all those we can finally call it tactical combat...
Going prone makes sense if standing on higher ground didn't already provide disadvantage on incoming attacks.

If Larian removed the disadvantage benefit of standing on hill and added dropping prone (1 action), that would be an improvement to the meta-game.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage is here to stay end of story! Live with it or get a new game just a friendly tip. It's not going anywhere, verticality is one of the main features of BG 3 so good luck changing that.

Height advantage was always huge in combat when you have range elements involved so nothing wrong with it. They just need to make AI better at using it. And maybe make GO Prone - crouch an option for all characters... if anything we are missing overwatch (bows and spells) and after all those we can finally call it tactical combat...

You should probably try to understand what "advantage" means in D&D5 wink
No one said highground and verticality shouldn't give any kind of bonus(es)

And just in case you know what it mean... While asking for "tactical combats", what do you think of the dozens of tactical possibilities in D&D that gives you an advantage but are now useless because of highground ? (and backstab)

I'd really love to have an answer to this serious question. I read so many threads here but I think I never saw any answer to this.

I'd really like to understand how someone could ask for more tactical combats while thinking that 2 OP tactics instead of +50 is great at the same time...
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage is here to stay end of story!
lol
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage is here to stay end of story!
lol

Don't know what's funny here, its very possible. Along with bonuses being applied to the DC instead of adding to the dice roll, homebrew action changes, disengage/jump, and everything else. They can't cater to everyone and as Scribe said in another thread they could reply on mods to fill what people want.

This could give them the means to butcher every d&d aspect of the game, we haven't seen the other classes and what they plan on changing on those as well.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Don't know what's funny here
Nothing. All is well. grin
Lastman is right. It is pretty clear that high ground giving a significant benefit is part of Larians vision of how the game is supposed to work.

I, personally, would not bother much with high ground for anything less than +2 / -2 and I think the same is true for many other players.

Developers usually want to incentivize playing the game as "it is meant to be played", so even if they should change the mechanic, a significant high ground benefit will most certainly stay.

On a side note: Yeah, turn ending attacks and overwatch for an actual tactical game would be awesome laugh
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage is here to stay end of story! Live with it or get a new game just a friendly tip. It's not going anywhere, verticality is one of the main features of BG 3 so good luck changing that.

Height advantage was always huge in combat when you have range elements involved so nothing wrong with it. They just need to make AI better at using it. And maybe make GO Prone - crouch an option for all characters... if anything we are missing overwatch (bows and spells) and after all those we can finally call it tactical combat...

You should probably try to understand what "advantage" means in D&D5 wink
No one said highground and verticality shouldn't give any kind of bonus(es)

And just in case you know what it mean... While asking for "tactical combats", what do you think of the dozens of tactical possibilities in D&D that gives you an advantage but are now useless because of highground ? (and backstab)

I'd really love to have an answer to this serious question. I read so many threads here but I think I never saw any answer to this.

I'd really like to understand how someone could ask for more tactical combats while thinking that 2 OP tactics instead of +50 is great at the same time...

You're just trying to copy paste Pnp 5e to video game if you want that you can always get Solasta and look at all those pop ups...

Why no one ever brings up the lack of cover system? We lost shit loads of AC to that.. That would help balance DC save spells vs range attacks.

Anyway, i don't care what it means in Dnd 5e i care what it is in game. If we go by your standards everything is useless. After all you can just throw barrels around anyway and cast scrolls why even bother with spells slots and classes?

Like i said go prone is the counter to height advantage in this game why they don't let us go prone i do not know...
Originally Posted by Lastman
After all you can just throw barrels around anyway and cast scrolls why even bother with spells slots and classes?.

Exactly true with the current flawed implementation we have here.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage is here to stay end of story! Live with it or get a new game just a friendly tip. It's not going anywhere, verticality is one of the main features of BG 3 so good luck changing that.

Height advantage was always huge in combat when you have range elements involved so nothing wrong with it. They just need to make AI better at using it. And maybe make GO Prone - crouch an option for all characters... if anything we are missing overwatch (bows and spells) and after all those we can finally call it tactical combat...

You should probably try to understand what "advantage" means in D&D5 wink
No one said highground and verticality shouldn't give any kind of bonus(es)

And just in case you know what it mean... While asking for "tactical combats", what do you think of the dozens of tactical possibilities in D&D that gives you an advantage but are now useless because of highground ? (and backstab)

I'd really love to have an answer to this serious question. I read so many threads here but I think I never saw any answer to this.

I'd really like to understand how someone could ask for more tactical combats while thinking that 2 OP tactics instead of +50 is great at the same time...

You're just trying to copy paste Pnp 5e to video game if you want that you can always get Solasta and look at all those pop ups...

Why no one ever brings up the lack of cover system? We lost shit loads of AC to that.. That would help balance DC save spells vs range attacks.

Anyway, i don't care what it means in Dnd 5e i care what it is in game. If we go by your standards everything is useless. After all you can just throw barrels around anyway and cast scrolls why even bother with spells slots and classes?

Like i said go prone is the counter to height advantage in this game why they don't let us go prone i do not know...

Ok so you also choose to avoid the question...

There are 50+ possibilities to have an advantage/give a disadvantage in D&D (and many are implemented in BG3). There are only 2 usefull possibilities in BG3.

I don't care about D&D but 50 is deeper and more "tactical" than 2. As you, I want great tactical combats in BG3.

I guess I'll never have any answer.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I guess I'll never have any answer.
Your so called question is just a feeling you have, opinion... Ever asked yourself that maybe it's not true and if you never played DnD 5e maybe you wouldn't feel this way.. What exactly is this thing that is now useless do to Height advantage or backstab in your opinion - feeling? One example will do...
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I guess I'll never have any answer.
Your so called question is just a feeling you have, opinion... Ever asked yourself that maybe it's not true and if you never played DnD 5e maybe you wouldn't feel this way.. What exactly is this thing that is now useless do to Height advantage or backstab in your opinion - feeling? One example will do...

I never played any TT wink
This is a part of what grants advantage or gives disadvantages in D&D.

You may still use some of them in the game, but for specific purpose (i.e you may fear an ennemy or use sleep, but this wouldn't be related to advantage).

General Actions:
1. Dodge/Help
2. Dropping Prone against Ranged Attacks

Spells:
3. True Strike
4. Vicious Mockery
5. Cause Fear
6. Command (certain instructions)
7. Compelled Duel
8. Ensnaring Strike
9. Entangle
10. Faerie Fire
11. Find Familiar (Help Action)
12. Fog Cloud (Depending on types of sight)
13. Grease
14. Guiding Bolt
15. Protection from Evil/Good (Against certain enemy types)
16. Sleep
17. Snare
18. Tasha's Hideous Laughter
19. Zephyr Strike
20. Blindness/Deafness
21. Blur
22. Darkness (Depending on types of sight)
23. Heat Metal
24. Hold Person
25. Invisibility
26. Maximilian's Earthen Grasp
27. Shadow Blade (Depending on lighting)
28. Web

Class Features:

29. Barbarian - Reckless Attack
30. Barbarian - Wolf Totem
31. Barbarian - Ancestral Protectors
32. Bard - Words of Terror
33. Cleric - Warding Flare
34. Cleric - Invoke Duplicity
35. Druid - Multiple Wildshape forms that grants Pack Tactics (Wolf, etc)
36. Fighter - Distracting Strike
37. Fighter - Feinting Attack
38. Fighter - Goading Attack
39. Fighter - Menacing Attack
40. Fighter - Trip Attack
41. Fighter - Fighting Spirit
42. Monk - Patient Defense
43. Monk - Open Hand Technique (knocked Prone)
44. Paladin - Conquering Presence
45. Paladin - Nature's Wrath
46. Paladin - Abjure Enemy
47. Paladin - Vow of Emnity
48. Paladin - Dreadful Aspect
49. Ranger - Umbral Sight
50. Rogue - Assassinate
51. Rogue - Master of Tactics
52. Rogue - Cunning Action (Stealth)
53. Sorcerer - Eyes of the Dark
54. Sorcerer - Tides of Chaos
55. Warlock - Hexblade's Curse
56. Warlock - Pact of the Chain (Help from Familiar)

Don't you read the threads you're answering to ?

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=719930&page=1
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I guess I'll never have any answer.
Your so called question is just a feeling you have, opinion... Ever asked yourself that maybe it's not true and if you never played DnD 5e maybe you wouldn't feel this way.. What exactly is this thing that is now useless do to Height advantage or backstab in your opinion - feeling? One example will do...

When one of if not THE most powerful mechanic in the game, upon which Class balance, Class Features, and spells up to the max level are based, can be abused at level 1, by jumping around the map like an idiot?

Yes, that's a problem.
˄ i asked you to give me one example that is now useless in game due to Height advantage or backstab and you post me all the things that give advantage in DnD pnp... i'm glad we are on the same page...
Originally Posted by Lastman
˄ i asked you to give me one example that is now useless in game due to Height advantage or backstab and you post me all the things that give advantage in DnD pnp... i'm glad we are on the same page...
You do realize that all those abilities that come at a cost, sometimes even another penalty on yourself, in a resource based system are rendered useless when you can get the same thing - advantage (roll two 20-sided dice and take the higher value) - at the cost of zero resources? Do you?
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I guess I'll never have any answer.
Your so called question is just a feeling you have, opinion... Ever asked yourself that maybe it's not true and if you never played DnD 5e maybe you wouldn't feel this way.. What exactly is this thing that is now useless do to Height advantage or backstab in your opinion - feeling? One example will do...

When one of if not THE most powerful mechanic in the game, upon which Class balance, Class Features, and spells up to the max level are based, can be abused at level 1, by jumping around the map like an idiot?

Yes, that's a problem.
How is using 3D environment at level 1 abusing it. i mean you can do the same thing without jumping btw. So stop bringing jump in to it. That's a different kind of problem all together and warrants it's own thread.
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Lastman
˄ i asked you to give me one example that is now useless in game due to Height advantage or backstab and you post me all the things that give advantage in DnD pnp... i'm glad we are on the same page...
You do realize that all those abilities that come at a cost, sometimes even another penalty on yourself, in a resource based system are rendered useless when you can get the same thing - advantage (roll two 20-sided dice and take the higher value) - at the cost of zero resources? Do you?
where in your mind is using movement not a resources?
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Lastman
˄ i asked you to give me one example that is now useless in game due to Height advantage or backstab and you post me all the things that give advantage in DnD pnp... i'm glad we are on the same page...
You do realize that all those abilities that come at a cost, sometimes even another penalty on yourself, in a resource based system are rendered useless when you can get the same thing - advantage (roll two 20-sided dice and take the higher value) - at the cost of zero resources? Do you?
where in your mind is using movement not a resources?
You do realize you need to move in order to be in range to use those other abilities as well, do you?
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Lastman
˄ i asked you to give me one example that is now useless in game due to Height advantage or backstab and you post me all the things that give advantage in DnD pnp... i'm glad we are on the same page...
You do realize that all those abilities that come at a cost, sometimes even another penalty on yourself, in a resource based system are rendered useless when you can get the same thing - advantage (roll two 20-sided dice and take the higher value) - at the cost of zero resources? Do you?
where in your mind is using movement not a resources?
You do realize you need to move in order to be in range to use those other abilities as well, do you?
no you don't yo can stand there like a stone.. if you want... completely valid tactic.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I guess I'll never have any answer.
Your so called question is just a feeling you have, opinion... Ever asked yourself that maybe it's not true and if you never played DnD 5e maybe you wouldn't feel this way.. What exactly is this thing that is now useless do to Height advantage or backstab in your opinion - feeling? One example will do...

When one of if not THE most powerful mechanic in the game, upon which Class balance, Class Features, and spells up to the max level are based, can be abused at level 1, by jumping around the map like an idiot?

Yes, that's a problem.
How is using 3D environment at level 1 abusing it. i mean you can do the same thing without jumping btw. So stop bringing jump in to it. That's a different kind of problem all together and warrants it's own thread.

You are arguing for rending the basis of the 5e system to be irrelevant based on standing higher than a target.

This isn't Sun Tzu levels of brilliance.
Seriously how the hell could we have a constructive discussion with such ... people...

If I had given one exemple his answer would probably have been something like "it's only one useless spell, that's not so important".....

It's so hopeless.
Not worth my time xD
Both height and backstab advantage are overtuned, but I'd say backstab advantage is by far a bigger offender than height advantage.

Height advantage is at least controllable and deniable. It requires:

1) Elevation (relative to the enemy) to work. You are not guaranteed this every encounter. You can gain it with movement, but the enemy can easily deny it with their movement.

2) Not having someone else in threaten range (which is far wider than melee range). For better or for worst, most legit monsters in the EA have space jam level jump.

3) Line of fire to work - minor, but a refined AI or player can take advantage of this to protect themselves from ranged advantage.

On top of this, a specific elevated position can be made far less desirable by a surface grenade (which everyone seems to carry) or a level 1 spell like Fog Cloud.


Contrast that against backstab advantage. It cannot be denied (unless someone parks literally themselves into a corner). It doesn't even require a bonus action jump if you're not surrounded (you can just inch your way around someone to their backs).
Backstab can also just be modded out.

So far I've found the following can be cleaned up.

Fire/Acid Explosion Arrows.
Height Advantage.
Backstab.
Dodge/Jump (Kinda).
Barrels.
Dipping (lol!)

At this point, unless Larian actively screws us over, we can fix this game...
Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

So far I've found the following can be cleaned up.

Fire/Acid Explosion Arrows.
Height Advantage.
Backstab.
Dodge/Jump (Kinda).
Barrels.
Dipping (lol!)

At this point, unless Larian actively screws us over, we can fix this game...

Hmm, hopefully you guys also figure out how to get rid of the 'Target Too Close' malus, and reduce 'Threatened' range to just whether or not you're eligible to take an opportunity attack if you move away. I am not entirely sure modding out height advantage is a good idea without those two being addressed at the same time, or else it's still going to be a race to high ground and needing bonus action shove just for the simple idea of staying a mile away from enemies to avoid the threatened penalty at all times.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

So far I've found the following can be cleaned up.

Fire/Acid Explosion Arrows.
Height Advantage.
Backstab.
Dodge/Jump (Kinda).
Barrels.
Dipping (lol!)

At this point, unless Larian actively screws us over, we can fix this game...
There you go now your thinking in the right direction...

The vast majority of casual don't even bother with those things - backstab and height advantage. Just look at how Swen is playing...

Larian isn't making a game exclusively for a few forums warriors who think that dnd 5e should be like it is in pnp. If they were we would have all those fixes with patch 1 or 2. But that didn't happen so...
Casual people will play the game have fun make a review with 85+ and move one if it's anything like 5e or not.

In nightmare mode if it's any good you will want those two thing anyway. The only thing that i see as problematic is the jump/disengage i can live with all others. I mean if i can live with berrels!?! We can just mod/ not use those or ignore them. Sadly even jump/disengage is staying the same majority knows it suxs. So good luck with Height advantage, that's barely on the list...
i suggest you stay with one thing and try to get that one important fix. Time is running out, patch 4 and hardly anything is changed.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

So far I've found the following can be cleaned up.

Fire/Acid Explosion Arrows.
Height Advantage.
Backstab.
Dodge/Jump (Kinda).
Barrels.
Dipping (lol!)

At this point, unless Larian actively screws us over, we can fix this game...

I don't want Backstab removed I want it reworked into a more balanced function, and more engaging facing mechanics.
Originally Posted by Dexai
I don't want Backstab removed I want it reworked into a more balanced function, and more engaging facing mechanics.

The more balanced mechanics is called flanking.
BG3 for RPG 101 and telltale fans.
For fun and deep gameplay mechanics we have Solasta and the upcoming Pathfinder 2 for now...until modders fix BG3. Sure does look like Larian isnt drastically changing anything mechanics/UI related.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Dexai
I don't want Backstab removed I want it reworked into a more balanced function, and more engaging facing mechanics.

The more balanced mechanics is called flanking.

Not necessarily. Flanking as per the rules gives advantage which is generally considered too powerful and decreased to a +2 on attacks.

I also want the game to take facing into account (since tbt DnD doesn't have facing by default because it makes it unnecessarily complicated, but a video game with models have facing -- visually speaking -- by default) instead of just giving bonuses for being on the opposite sides of the target.
Backstab definitely needs reworking or alternative rules, i would prefer some kind of flanking mechanic as well. It can add a lot of tactical depth to combat.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Dexai
I don't want Backstab removed I want it reworked into a more balanced function, and more engaging facing mechanics.

The more balanced mechanics is called flanking.

Not necessarily. Flanking as per the rules gives advantage which is generally considered too powerful and decreased to a +2 on attacks.

I also want the game to take facing into account (since tbt DnD doesn't have facing by default because it makes it unnecessarily complicated, but a video game with models have facing -- visually speaking -- by default) instead of just giving bonuses for being on the opposite sides of the target.

It could really be cool in such a TB video game but I really don't think it could work in BG3.

I guess it would require a massive rework of the entire combat system to be interresting more than boring.
An easy facing implementation would just lead to the actual backstab and I don't think they're able to (they want to) go as deeper in term of tactical combats.
I also felt im rarely in danger during playing, I guess this is not final set of rules as it's in EA.

Nevertheless, I'm not familiar with dnd but current combat and gameplay loop needs to be improved for sure.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Dexai
I don't want Backstab removed I want it reworked into a more balanced function, and more engaging facing mechanics.

The more balanced mechanics is called flanking.

100% this. Flanking (if implemented per the 5e optional rule) also rewards tactical positioning and teamwork but won't invalidate other advantage abilities as much.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Both height and backstab advantage are overtuned, but I'd say backstab advantage is by far a bigger offender than height advantage.

Absolutely! Been saying this all along, and it's important to bear in mind with all the focus on height advantage as seemingly the only evil or the bigger evil of the two. Height advantage has ONLY the issue of over-incentivization (incentivization of tactical movement is GOOD however), while flanking has MULTIPLE issues:

1. As you point out, height advantage is not guaranteed for multiple reason, where flanking is a certainty.
2. Height advantage is at least balanced in that it's a tactic the enemy very frequently uses, when they seldom if ever flank.
3. The enemy being totally defenseless/unresponsive to a single attacker makes melee combat unimmersive. Turn-based combat (that I like) is exposed as a sham.
4. The act of flanking is guaranteed, and this in itself is a negative. If something is guaranteed, having to perform a small ritual to get it every time becomes boring and cheesy. When boredom/patience is the only practical limitation of something so significant, it's simply BAD game design. Just like weapon dipping is.

I have suggested the following change in the overly simplistic flanking mechanic:

Melee combatants, even when not their turn to act, will always automatically pivot to threat - unless already engaged in melee with another threat, or surprised. Immersion and balance restored to the system.



Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

That is well and good; people can ignore or mod away much of this, but will always be aware of the fact they're engaging in self-nerfing behaviour, playing at harder difficulty with no additional reward for the added risk.

The larger issue remains though; the repeated use of resources on "Larian cheese", which too often are unimmersive, unbalanced and clunky implementations, means less resources on implementing actual D&D or story content that has none of these issues.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

So far I've found the following can be cleaned up.

Fire/Acid Explosion Arrows.
Height Advantage.
Backstab.
Dodge/Jump (Kinda).
Barrels.
Dipping (lol!)

At this point, unless Larian actively screws us over, we can fix this game...

Hmm, hopefully you guys also figure out how to get rid of the 'Target Too Close' malus, and reduce 'Threatened' range to just whether or not you're eligible to take an opportunity attack if you move away. I am not entirely sure modding out height advantage is a good idea without those two being addressed at the same time, or else it's still going to be a race to high ground and needing bonus action shove just for the simple idea of staying a mile away from enemies to avoid the threatened penalty at all times.

I'll check on this and flanking.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Dexai
I don't want Backstab removed I want it reworked into a more balanced function, and more engaging facing mechanics.

The more balanced mechanics is called flanking.

Not necessarily. Flanking as per the rules gives advantage which is generally considered too powerful and decreased to a +2 on attacks.

I also want the game to take facing into account (since tbt DnD doesn't have facing by default because it makes it unnecessarily complicated, but a video game with models have facing -- visually speaking -- by default) instead of just giving bonuses for being on the opposite sides of the target.

I wouldn’t mind +2 to flanking but has to be flanking, not just run behind someone to gain the bonuses. And 5e does take facing into account it’s just you can’t see it in turn based. DND doesn’t have facing because it is assumed during those six seconds, a character can rotate back and forth which is why opponents don’t get advantage.

Obviously the flanking option is suggesting even if the defender can move, it still can’t cover attacks from opposite sides.
Being TB doesn't really affect whether there's facing or not. If the rules took facing into account only the character who is actually flanking the target would get flanking bonuses.
LOl the title of this Thread.......

Height Advantage is the Metagame im BG3. Regardless of class or party compositon. Height Advantage > tactics
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

That is well and good; people can ignore or mod away much of this, but will always be aware of the fact they're engaging in self-nerfing behaviour, playing at harder difficulty with no additional reward for the added risk.
Also, can Backstab be removed from enemies? If you don't install mods, then you can't just ignore the presence of backstabbing because enemies will do it. If you do install mods to remove the mechanical benefits, will the enemy AI still try to Backstab?

Originally Posted by Dexai
I also want the game to take facing into account (since tbt DnD doesn't have facing by default because it makes it unnecessarily complicated, but a video game with models have facing -- visually speaking -- by default) instead of just giving bonuses for being on the opposite sides of the target.
Facing would also work to solve Backstabbing. According to the facing rules, if someone tries to run from in front of you to behind you, you have the option of using your reaction to
a) spin in place to face the enemy
b) make an AoO as the enemy is leaving your reach
Of course, jump+disengage invalidates ^, but baby steps.
Solasta manages to incorporate vertical battlefields in an impactful way WITHOUT giving advantage/disadvantage based on height. Basically, the high ground makes it harder for melee to reach the archers. This is aided by the fact that they do not have ridiculous jump physics in Solasta.

There are many non-encounter things that BG3 does better than Solasta, but when dice meet table Solasta is vastly superior. None of this extra crap is needed to make smooth and interesting battles.
Super tadpole jumps were such a distorting design choice. xD
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Both height and backstab advantage are overtuned, but I'd say backstab advantage is by far a bigger offender than height advantage.

Absolutely! Been saying this all along, and it's important to bear in mind with all the focus on height advantage as seemingly the only evil or the bigger evil of the two. Height advantage has ONLY the issue of over-incentivization (incentivization of tactical movement is GOOD however), while flanking has MULTIPLE issues:

1. As you point out, height advantage is not guaranteed for multiple reason, where flanking is a certainty.
2. Height advantage is at least balanced in that it's a tactic the enemy very frequently uses, when they seldom if ever flank.
3. The enemy being totally defenseless/unresponsive to a single attacker makes melee combat unimmersive. Turn-based combat (that I like) is exposed as a sham.
4. The act of flanking is guaranteed, and this in itself is a negative. If something is guaranteed, having to perform a small ritual to get it every time becomes boring and cheesy. When boredom/patience is the only practical limitation of something so significant, it's simply BAD game design. Just like weapon dipping is.

I have suggested the following change in the overly simplistic flanking mechanic:

Melee combatants, even when not their turn to act, will always automatically pivot to threat - unless already engaged in melee with another threat, or surprised. Immersion and balance restored to the system.



Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

That is well and good; people can ignore or mod away much of this, but will always be aware of the fact they're engaging in self-nerfing behaviour, playing at harder difficulty with no additional reward for the added risk.

The larger issue remains though; the repeated use of resources on "Larian cheese", which too often are unimmersive, unbalanced and clunky implementations, means less resources on implementing actual D&D or story content that has none of these issues.

Yeah, I'd prefer they work on Class Mechanics that are not already implemented, so that we can mod those as well, but it is what it is.
If Height advantage not that impactful, there should be no issue with it being removed, yes?
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem
If Height advantage not that impactful, there should be no issue with it being removed, yes?

Dont worry, its both. Its highly impactful, and it can be removed. laugh
Originally Posted by dwig
Solasta manages to incorporate vertical battlefields in an impactful way WITHOUT giving advantage/disadvantage based on height. Basically, the high ground makes it harder for melee to reach the archers. This is aided by the fact that they do not have ridiculous jump physics in Solasta.

There are many non-encounter things that BG3 does better than Solasta, but when dice meet table Solasta is vastly superior. None of this extra crap is needed to make smooth and interesting battles.

Always with this crapy game 80 people are playing solasta right now. 800 people are playing BG 1 20+ years old game..
And the massive difference in sales... Stop projecting your opinions of combat to everyone. If you like it that doesn't mean it's good.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by dwig
Solasta manages to incorporate vertical battlefields in an impactful way WITHOUT giving advantage/disadvantage based on height. Basically, the high ground makes it harder for melee to reach the archers. This is aided by the fact that they do not have ridiculous jump physics in Solasta.

There are many non-encounter things that BG3 does better than Solasta, but when dice meet table Solasta is vastly superior. None of this extra crap is needed to make smooth and interesting battles.
Always with this crapy game 80 people are playing solasta right now.
And the massive difference in sales... Stop projecting your opinions of combat to everyone. If you like it that doesn't mean it's good.

So rude...
Originally Posted by ][/quote
Originally Posted by Lastman
[quote=dwig]Solasta manages to incorporate vertical battlefields in an impactful way WITHOUT giving advantage/disadvantage based on height. Basically, the high ground makes it harder for melee to reach the archers. This is aided by the fact that they do not have ridiculous jump physics in Solasta.

There are many non-encounter things that BG3 does better than Solasta, but when dice meet table Solasta is vastly superior. None of this extra crap is needed to make smooth and interesting battles.

Always with this crapy game 80 people are playing solasta right now. 800 people are playing BG 1 20+ years old game..
And the massive difference in sales... Stop projecting your opinions of combat to everyone. If you like it that doesn't mean it's good.

Are you okay?
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by dwig
Solasta manages to incorporate vertical battlefields in an impactful way WITHOUT giving advantage/disadvantage based on height. Basically, the high ground makes it harder for melee to reach the archers. This is aided by the fact that they do not have ridiculous jump physics in Solasta.

There are many non-encounter things that BG3 does better than Solasta, but when dice meet table Solasta is vastly superior. None of this extra crap is needed to make smooth and interesting battles.
Always with this crapy game 80 people are playing solasta right now.
Always with this crapy game 80 people are playing solasta right now. 800 people are playing BG 1 20+ years old game..
And the massive difference in sales... Stop projecting your opinions of combat to everyone. If you like it that doesn't mean it's good.

Well, flip the script.

Give Solasta the massive budget. Give Solasta the push from official D&D channels on Social Media. Give Solasta the 'Baldur's Gate' name.

BG3 exists on name value alone. Its nothing special otherwise at this point, it cant even implement D&D properly.
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

Indeed, throw it out. We dont need Classes or Races either, only a scrub would care to do anything but stack Scrolls, abuse Barrels and Ground Effects, and Cross Bow people from the top rope.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

That's not totally true.

I don't really care about this game to be a "true" 5e D&D game because there's the logo on the box...
But I really think the game would be far more interresting and tactical with less Larianisation of D&D.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Well, flip the script.

Give Solasta the massive budget. Give Solasta the push from official D&D channels on Social Media. Give Solasta the 'Baldur's Gate' name.

BG3 exists on name value alone. Its nothing special otherwise at this point, it cant even implement D&D properly.

Well, reviews are saying different story it seems. Even if i could agree. Majority of people - fans don't go to forums.
I have gripes with BG 3 as well, biggest one is jump/disengage but i know the difference between the two combats and in my opinion they are light years away. I mean if you like clicking on pop ups i do not.
Games can still sell without huge budget for PR. Dos 2 did.

You can still have a good looking game on budget. But Crpg on budget is around one million not at 200k of Solasta.

And if anyone is giving money away i'll take 2 million minimal. I can make an amazing party rpg with a massive budget.:))
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Scribe
Well, flip the script.

Give Solasta the massive budget. Give Solasta the push from official D&D channels on Social Media. Give Solasta the 'Baldur's Gate' name.

BG3 exists on name value alone. Its nothing special otherwise at this point, it cant even implement D&D properly.

Well, reviews are saying different story it seems. Even if i could agree. Majority of people - fans don't go to forums.
I have gripes with BG 3 as well, biggest one is jump/disengage but i know the difference between the two combats and in my opinion they are light years away. I mean if you like clicking on pop ups i do not.
Games can still sell without huge budget for PR. Dos 2 did.

You can still have a good looking game on budget. But Crpg on budget is around one million not at 200k of Solasta.

And if anyone is giving money away i'll take 2 million minimal. I can make an amazing party rpg with a massive budget.:))

Of course games can still sell, but both are in EA and one is on a shoestring budget with zero name recognition.

Who do you think would have more sales based on that? lol

I mean you think most people give a shit about the combat in this game? The ones leaving positive reviews are 'omg its soo pretty, i get to dress up and there's good cutscenes!' you have people legit asking for combat skips to be implemented here.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

Early versions of chess were quite different from modern chess, afaik. BG3 is in alpha stage and everything is subject to change. I would rather put my faith in Larian to create a good ruleset for a videogame rather than a company that needed half a century to figure out something like "bounded accuracy". The reason BG1&2 were good is certainly not the D&D rules.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

That's not totally true.

I don't really care about this game to be a "true" 5e D&D game because there's the logo on the box...
But I really think the game would be far more interresting and tactical with less Larianisation of D&D.

I’m not following this either. Why would you put a D&D logo and say it’s based on 5e if you weren’t going to implement the ruleset and use the D&D setting?

Asking for less Larianism is asking for a more faithful interpretation of 5e. I know you agree because I know from your posts you agree with most of the suggested changes.

I should repeat again. No one is asking for a perfect 1:1 translation of 5e. What most critics want is a system that is first grounded in 5e and then make modifications to fit a video game environment. Larian instead used DOS and then modified it to fit 5e.
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

Early versions of chess were quite different from modern chess, afaik. BG3 is in alpha stage and everything is subject to change. I would rather put my faith in Larian to create a good ruleset for a videogame rather than a company that needed half a century to figure out something like "bounded accuracy". The reason BG1&2 were good is certainly not the D&D rules.

Oh my goodness. Early versions of chess? Seriously that’s your argument? We are talking about the current version of 5e not 1st Ed.

Thank you for your personal opinion.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

And to add to this, people aren't just saying make the game closer to 5e. People are protesting because the some of the changes (and the total omission of certain features) have only served to create wildly worse imbalance rather than make the game any interesting on a tactical level. Going 'lol DnD isn't balanced!' as a defense means you don't actually have a real argument, because it's actually more balanced than whatever we have now.

If height advantage/low ground disadvantage/backstab advantage didn't exist, and if player-controlled reactions/dodge action/ready actions did, people would have likely been perfectly fine with literally everything else staying as is. I know I would be.

I used to think D:OS2 was a revolutionary game, and it really is. But as the years passed, I started to realize I didn't actually enjoy the combat due to how the game's difficulty was largely balanced around the idea that you'd cheese everything you could. One could say I only enjoyed the idea of the game's combat, but not actually doing it at the end of the day. Especially when late game boss fights weren't really very tactical - they were just rocket tag on an extreme scale. If the boss ever got a turn with a party member nearby that either wasn't out of range due to height restrictions or didn't have chameleon cloak/tons of defensive buffs stacked up, that party member (or maybe your entire party if they weren't completely split up far enough away from each other, because almost every late game boss moved by teleporting themselves) was guaranteed to die no matter what. There's a reason why the majority of the D:OS2 community says the game peaked in Act 2.

I mean, really, this is how I won the vast majority of fights in D:OS2 Tactician with a full party (which is MUCH harder than a lone wolf run, which most people did to beat Tactician) with little difficulty, once I figured out how the game really worked.

1: Give everyone level 2 in Aeroteurge so they get Teleport and Nether Swap

2: Split up the party, have everyone start in stealth from high ground. Maybe send one person ahead, usually your tankiest or highest initiative party member forward to initiate dialogue before the battle if necessary. (Highest initiative so they can bunch enemies up with a combination of Teleport/Nether Swap, and get out of immediate danger with the latter at the same time.) This was often actually my archer MC, who naturally had the highest initiative since the stat governing initiative also controlled crit rate, and he would have enough AP remaining for 1 ranged attack after they got out of danger with one of his mobility skills or swapping places with a high ground enemy with Nether Swap.

3: Maybe have the other party members cast buffs on them during dialogue, because buff timers are frozen while talking, then go back to stealth afterwards.

4: Once combat actually begins, have your other party members immediately teleport enemies/AoE burst enemies from stealth to disable their first turn or cull them outright.

(I favored having two Hydrosophists using Rain/Ice spells to freeze enemies, with one also focusing on further Aeroteurge spells for stuns. Sometimes they'd spam Rain before the fight to coat the ground in water and reveal invisible enemies. My archer had elemental arrows to help facilitate the status effects if needed. This usually resulted in most enemies having their first turn completely denied if they didn't immediately die. If an enemy survived and was able to move, another party member would just teleport them right back in if they lacked the ability to cast Fortify on themselves. And if they did use Fortify, their health was usually already low enough that they'd be finished off by any magic attack anyway. Note that you can also use Nether Swap to swap living characters with dead bodies.)

5: Spend the following turns cleaning up.

That's really D:OS2 combat in a nutshell. Don't do anything like this, and the game outside of specific boss fights suddenly becomes 5x as hard. Field effects didn't actually matter much for damage reasons if you were playing optimally, they were far more dangerous because of any status effects tied to them, due to everyone's extreme mobility and the armor system blocking the damage portion unless you were dumb enough to actually move within those field effects.

That said, what I just described about D:OS2 requires a lot of effort and smart tactical thinking with how skills interacted in that game.

It's very clear that at the moment, a lot of the same design philosophy seeped into BG3. Yet it is somehow even MORE restrictive in options than D:OS2 was on that front, with most fights summed up as 'get to high ground ASAP and have everybody else attack/shove/barrelmancy things from stealth'', and it doesn't help when a lot of the core tactical features like player controlled reactions and ready actions are missing. It's rather disheartening for lack of a better word.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Darun
From what I have gathered it took Wizards of the Coast some 4-5 decades to figure out that it might be a good idea to constrain the ridiculous nonlinearities of their retarded ruleset with bandaids like "bounded accuracy".

And some people here treat D&D rules like they were some godsent commandments L O L

I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

That's not totally true.

I don't really care about this game to be a "true" 5e D&D game because there's the logo on the box...
But I really think the game would be far more interresting and tactical with less Larianisation of D&D.

I’m not following this either. Why would you put a D&D logo and say it’s based on 5e if you weren’t going to implement the ruleset and use the D&D setting?

Asking for less Larianism is asking for a more faithful interpretation of 5e. I know you agree because I know from your posts you agree with most of the suggested changes.

I should repeat again. No one is asking for a perfect 1:1 translation of 5e. What most critics want is a system that is first grounded in 5e and then make modifications to fit a video game environment. Larian instead used DOS and then modified it to fit 5e.

Don't worry I know what you mean and as you said, I usually agree with anything going to "more D&D"...

What I meant is that it's not especially because it's D&D. I'm not a fan of D&D and I never played any TT in my life...

But this is Baldur's Gate 3 and this game deserves the best. Many players just don't understand what they're talking about but as an absolute fan of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, I wanted to be here and I wanted to understand what people were talking about.
So I read the rules A LOT and I even bought the PHB.

Considering what I learned about D&D by curiosity, considering what I experienced in BG3 and considering what I experienced in the previous Larian's games...
Yes, I think a better implementation of the rules would lead to a better tactical games with more solutions,more choices, more creative opportunity to solve combats.

That's a huge part of what I'm waiting from a good tactical TB game.

I'm just a video game player. Not an absolute fan of D&D neither an absolute fan of Larian's games.
I'm just a fan of Baldur's Gate that wants the best for BG3... And according to me the best mean a better balance between D&D and Larian. D&D has much more to offer than Larian allows for now.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I'm not following.

Would you play chess with checkers ru!es? Why would you play D&D 5e with another ruleset?

All people are trying to suggest is make the game more like 5e which it is based on, not because it's the greatest system ever.

And to add to this, people aren't just saying make the game closer to 5e. People are protesting because the some of the changes (and the total omission of certain features) have only served to create wildly worse imbalance rather than make the game any interesting on a tactical level. Going 'lol DnD isn't balanced!' as a defense means you don't actually have a real argument, because it's actually more balanced than whatever we have now.

If height advantage/low ground disadvantage/backstab advantage didn't exist, and if player-controlled reactions/dodge action/ready actions did, people would have likely been perfectly fine with literally everything else staying as is. I know I would be.

I used to think D:OS2 was a revolutionary game, and it really is. But as the years passed, I started to realize I didn't actually enjoy the combat due to how the game's difficulty was largely balanced around the idea that you'd cheese everything you could. One could say I only enjoyed the idea of the game's combat, but not actually doing it at the end of the day. Especially when late game boss fights weren't really very tactical - they were just rocket tag on an extreme scale. If the boss ever got a turn with a party member nearby that either wasn't out of range due to height restrictions or didn't have chameleon cloak/tons of defensive buffs stacked up, that party member (or maybe your entire party if they weren't completely split up far enough away from each other, because almost every late game boss moved by teleporting themselves) was guaranteed to die no matter what. There's a reason why the majority of the D:OS2 community says the game peaked in Act 2.

I mean, really, this is how I won the vast majority of fights in D:OS2 Tactician with a full party (which is MUCH harder than a lone wolf run, which most people did to beat Tactician) with little difficulty, once I figured out how the game really worked.

1: Give everyone level 2 in Aeroteurge so they get Teleport and Nether Swap

2: Split up the party, have everyone start in stealth from high ground. Maybe send one person ahead, usually your tankiest or highest initiative party member forward to initiate dialogue before the battle if necessary. (Highest initiative so they can bunch enemies up with a combination of Teleport/Nether Swap to simultaneously bunch enemies up, and get out of immediate danger with the latter at the same time.) This was often actually my archer MC, who would have enough AP remaining for 1 attack after they got out of danger with one of his mobility skills or swapping places with a high ground enemy with Nether Swap.

3: Maybe have the other party members cast buffs on them during dialogue, because buff timers are frozen while talking, then go back to stealth afterwards.

4: Once combat actually begins, have your other party members immediately teleport enemies/AoE burst enemies from stealth to disable their first turn or cull them outright.

(I favored having two Hydrosophists using Rain/Ice spells to freeze enemies, with one also focusing on further Aeroteurge spells for stuns. Sometimes they'd spam Rain before the fight to coat the ground in water and reveal invisible enemies. My archer had elemental arrows to help facilitate the status effects if needed. This usually resulted in most enemies having their first turn completely denied if they didn't immediately die. If an enemy survived and was able to move, another party member would just teleport them right back in if they lacked the ability to cast Fortify on themselves. And if they did use Fortify, their health was usually already low enough that they'd be finished off by any magic attack anyway. Note that you can also use Nether Swap to swap living characters with dead bodies.)

5: Spend the following turns cleaning up.

That's really D:OS2 combat in a nutshell. Don't do anything like this, and the game outside of specific boss fights suddenly becomes 5x as hard. Field effects didn't actually matter much for damage reasons if you were playing optimally, they were far more dangerous because of any status effects tied to them, due to everyone's extreme mobility and the armor system blocking the damage portion unless you were dumb enough to actually move within those field effects.

That said, what I just described about D:OS2 requires a lot of effort and smart tactical thinking with how skills interacted in that game.

It's very clear that at the moment, a lot of the same design philosophy seeped into BG3. Yet it is somehow even MORE restrictive in options than D:OS2 was on that front, with most fights summed up as 'get to high ground ASAP and have everybody else attack/shove/barrelmancy things from stealth'', and it doesn't help when a lot of the core tactical features like player controlled reactions and ready actions are missing. It's rather disheartening for lack of a better word.

Your spoiler tactic would work very well in BG3. How utterly depressing.
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.

Dont sweat it, we are all free to ignore the mechanics which Larian spends time coding into the game.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.

Admittedly my description is actually one of the more complicated tactics suited for a full party.

If you were to ask other veterans, you’d get these answers most of the time.

1) Use Pyroclastic Flow. That’s it.
2) Use Blood Rain + Grasp of the Starved.
3) Use some tactic highly reliant on the use of Skin Graft's ability to reset cooldowns and/or Apotheosis' ability to ignore source costs for source abilities.
3) Have a full ranged or a full physical party. This is encouraged by how the armor system works.

There is a common pattern in most tactics though. They abuse high ground and stealth ambush mechanics. Hell, even thievery is made super trivial by having a party member talk to a shopkeeper in order to lock them in dialogue, preventing them from moving at all, while another party member comes up from behind to rob them blind.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.
Is it really forcing? If multiple people agree there's an issue, they will keep talking about it while the issue exists. This happens with a wide range of topics from business systems to social issues on Twitter. Combat in Baldur's Gate 3 is no exception.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Scribe
Backstab can also just be modded out.

So far I've found the following can be cleaned up.

Fire/Acid Explosion Arrows.
Height Advantage.
Backstab.
Dodge/Jump (Kinda).
Barrels.
Dipping (lol!)

At this point, unless Larian actively screws us over, we can fix this game...

Hmm, hopefully you guys also figure out how to get rid of the 'Target Too Close' malus, and reduce 'Threatened' range to just whether or not you're eligible to take an opportunity attack if you move away. I am not entirely sure modding out height advantage is a good idea without those two being addressed at the same time, or else it's still going to be a race to high ground and needing bonus action shove just for the simple idea of staying a mile away from enemies to avoid the threatened penalty at all times.

I'll check on this and flanking.

Flanked is available, I've not found anything for target too close yet.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.

Admittedly my description is actually one of the more complicated tactics suited for a full party.

If you were to ask other veterans, you’d get these answers most of the time.

1) Use Pyroclastic Flow. That’s it.

2) Use Blood Rain + Grasp of the Starved.

3) Have a full ranged or a full physical party. This is encouraged by how the armor system works.

There is a common pattern in most tactics though. They abuse high ground and stealth ambush mechanics.
Just there much more options, even imbalanced options. So saying that there only one way, and all other is 5 times worse, is untrue at least.

1) Five star Diner talent which double effect of every potions. You will have 100% dodge chance, 150% + resist all elemental resist without any downside.
2) Living on the edge scrolls. 2 turn immortality and you can recast as many you want. You can exchange your 1 hp vs full hp bosses or equlise to deal 50% of armor\hp damage, and always be under 100% more dmg with death wish buff.
3) Torturer talent with roots (pierce magic armor) make every melee enemy useless for 3 turn. With smoke bomb, ranged disabled too.
4) Ambidextrous talent and teleport scroll, and you can stack 6 enemies in one spot in one turn with adrenaline. Cast pyroclast source skill and fight done.
5) Swap surface skill with lava. In act2 wolf boss and ogre dying instanly.
And there a lot more, like charm enemies for 2-4 turn with grenades with huge aoe, which is lame, but there no limitation for it.

So am i really can say that the only way to play dos2 is swapping surface with lava and teleport enemies into it or being immune to dmg, or just charm enemies?! For me, no. Game have a lot more strategies. Even this pattern "Have a full ranged or a full physical party. This is encouraged by how the armor system works". For me it sound same as "why i need think in tactical game, if i can put death fog barrel and break it". I completed game with phys archer and fire mage, just 2 char without lone wolfs, and it was easy all time without any source skills.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Just there much more options, even imbalanced options. So saying that there only one way, and all other is 5 times worse, is untrue at least.

1) Five star Diner talent which double effect of every potions. You will have 100% dodge chance, 150% + resist all elemental resist without any downside.
2) Living on the edge scrolls. 2 turn immortality and you can recast as many you want. You can exchange your 1 hp vs full hp bosses or equlise to deal 50% of armor\hp damage, and always be under 100% more dmg with death wish buff.
3) Torturer talent with roots (pierce magic armor) make every melee enemy useless for 3 turn. With smoke bomb, ranged disabled too.
4) Ambidextrous talent and teleport scroll, and you can stack 6 enemies in one spot in one turn with adrenaline. Cast pyroclast source skill and fight done.
5) Swap surface skill with lava. In act2 wolf boss and ogre dying instanly.
And there a lot more, like charm enemies for 2-4 turn with grenades with huge aoe, which is lame, but there no limitation for it.

So am i really can say that the only way to play dos2 is swapping surface with lava and teleport enemies into it or being immune to dmg, or just charm enemies?! For me, no. Game have a lot more strategies. Even this pattern "Have a full ranged or a full physical party. This is encouraged by how the armor system works". For me it sound same as "why i need think in tactical game, if i can put death fog barrel and break it". I completed game with phys archer and fire mage, just 2 char without lone wolfs, and it was easy all time without any source skills.

Cool. We're basically in agreement about how cheesy D:OS2 gets then.

That said, D:OS2 still has plenty of tactical variety despite the cheese, because the game was deliberately designed to a level where everything is cheese if used properly. Even barrelmancy isn't much of a problem there, because the effort/reward ratio was pretty low compared to the things that some skills were capable of.

DnD does not work that way.

The entire point I am trying to make is that D:OS2's cheese is largely enabled by high ground/stealth ambush mechanics in some way. It was those that got imported into BG3, even if the former was changed from higher damage into straight up advantage. And the end result is that particular mechanic (and backstab advantage, which did exist in D:OS2 as a guaranteed critical hit) in combination with disengage/shove being switched from standard to bonus (and the omission of things like proper reactions and dodge action) has overpowered all of the base DnD mechanics in terms of tactical emphasis.

So all we're left with is something that's rather shallow at the end of the day. Even if we're currently locked to level 4 in BG3, the later levels won't really change that, because nothing in DnD exists that is anywhere near as powerful in order to act as a tactical counterbalance to what Larian did to the base mechanics. Combat in D:OS2 can be pretty fun once you figure things out, though you can get burned out rather quickly if you don't mix it up. Combat in BG3 is a straight up chore in comparison, because the changes have more or less powercrept half the spells into irrelevancy, and everything largely boils down to a race to high ground/shove spam. And maybe other party members attacking/shoving from stealth to burst down an enemy or two at the start of a fight.

(And again, there's also a reason I don't go after barrelmancy and field effects - they are symptoms rather than an actual problem. At the end of the day, they actually do add tactical variety to BG3 in their own way, while the high ground stuff and everything else I mentioned specifically takes that away.)
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.
Is it really forcing? If multiple people agree there's an issue, they will keep talking about it while the issue exists. This happens with a wide range of topics from business systems to social issues on Twitter. Combat in Baldur's Gate 3 is no exception.
From my side, yea. I understand that some people may not like some moments, and its okay that they talking about it.
But It seems like people trying to convince you and others that you need feel bad about height, advantages and some other stuff. And if you not, so you type of person, who don't understand how good game\balance looks like and no point to talk with you, and play your DOS3_not_baldur_game alone.
But may be im wrong smile
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.
Is it really forcing? If multiple people agree there's an issue, they will keep talking about it while the issue exists. This happens with a wide range of topics from business systems to social issues on Twitter. Combat in Baldur's Gate 3 is no exception.
From my side, yea. I understand that some people may not like some moments, and its okay that they talking about it.
But It seems like people trying to convince you and others that you need feel bad about height, advantages and some other stuff. And if you not, so you type of person, who don't understand how good game\balance looks like and no point to talk with you, and play your DOS3_not_baldur_game alone.
But may be im wrong smile
I don't think it's fair to say that people explaining a point as to how particular mechanics cause huge ongoing balance issues is somehow morally wrong. If you have an argument otherwise that's cool, I'd be happy to read it, but if you're just going "i disagree" to a well thought out argument of course people are going to assume your opinion isn't worth engaging with?

I'm not sure what else you'd really expect someone to do there. Saying it's "utterly depressing" and that it's always the same people "forcing same ideas" every thread is just really not constructive in any way. Same deal with "well you can just not use X mechanic", like everyone knows you can do things in other ways, the argument is that we should have an actual reason to.
I think it'd be nice if Baldur's Gate 3 actually explained that "Advantage" is Max(2d20) and "Disadvantage" is Min(2d20).

I can understand that it's confusing when people read forum posts and see members talking about Advantage from higher ground being over-tuned and some folks misinterpret it as any height advantage.

Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.
Is it really forcing? If multiple people agree there's an issue, they will keep talking about it while the issue exists. This happens with a wide range of topics from business systems to social issues on Twitter. Combat in Baldur's Gate 3 is no exception.
From my side, yea. I understand that some people may not like some moments, and its okay that they talking about it.
But It seems like people trying to convince you and others that you need feel bad about height, advantages and some other stuff. And if you not, so you type of person, who don't understand how good game\balance looks like and no point to talk with you, and play your DOS3_not_baldur_game alone.
But may be im wrong smile
I usually like to point out that were not talking about removing all benefits of high ground. It's just that Advantage (Max 2d20) on attacks and disadvantage (Min 2d20) on attacks from enemies is too much for moving a few pixels in the game.

Moving up to higher ground doesn't even count as rough terrain or climbing speed, so we're talking about how lobsided combat can be when higher ground already has the benefits it does in 3D space + favorable Advantage and Disadvantage. It has other distortions to game balance, but that's the shortest explanation I have.

Here are threads you can read through if you are interested in learning more. smile
Megathread on Height Adv/Dis and Backstab
How the Current Meta Limits Tactical Options
Originally Posted by LordGiggles
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Same people forcing same ideas on every threads. And pretend that this is the only way to do (like this dos2 tactic description). This is what utterly depressing.
Is it really forcing? If multiple people agree there's an issue, they will keep talking about it while the issue exists. This happens with a wide range of topics from business systems to social issues on Twitter. Combat in Baldur's Gate 3 is no exception.
From my side, yea. I understand that some people may not like some moments, and its okay that they talking about it.
But It seems like people trying to convince you and others that you need feel bad about height, advantages and some other stuff. And if you not, so you type of person, who don't understand how good game\balance looks like and no point to talk with you, and play your DOS3_not_baldur_game alone.
But may be im wrong smile
I don't think it's fair to say that people explaining a point as to how particular mechanics cause huge ongoing balance issues is somehow morally wrong. If you have an argument otherwise that's cool, I'd be happy to read it, but if you're just going "i disagree" to a well thought out argument of course people are going to assume your opinion isn't worth engaging with?
But this is exactly what im talking about. smile "huge ongoing balance issues"? Is it? For me this like 25 pages thread "how bad movement in this game" . After 30 hour with friends and alone, i never had this thoughts. But may be i should be mad as other people, i don't know.

If talk about height stuff, i found this good for me in this game (know nothing about dnd)
1) It make some fight harder, than it is. It always good for me. Harpy, goblin ambush in village, many other. You have this disadvantage and you need deal with it somehow. May be you will rush to them, may be use x10 jump and attack\push, may be will use damaging flask (which have 100% accuracy). This is strategy and opportunity to move you character, and i like it (in dos2 you just staying and attacking from one position, which is boring).
Without disadvantage, you can switch to crossbow for every character and focus fire every enemy with no problem. Why move, why hide.
2) Height advantage not always free. Many times you fight for this exactly because it good (rush with melee char, to clear it for your team), or not. Your choice again.
3) Height stuff not make 56 or something spells useless (but i don't know skill for sure). Highground not totally free, and not always available, so skills which gives you advantage, still will be useful, just because should remove disadvantage\give advantage as usual.
4) It still accuracy right? Not double damage or something. I guess if calculate damage for one player in act1, who sometimes was on highground, sometimes not, you damage probably will be same, because again, its accuracy and not 100% extra dmg.

And even if you no need 500 iq to reach highground, it still something. And this push\jump stuff. I played as warlock with friends(i thought warlock is mage with some cool skills). Omg, 17 hours of eldrich blast. At least he have imp. I don't wanna say boring, but most fun was exactly when i did something "fun" as larian added in game. So if you remove height stuff, jump\push because it broken, some surface fire+acid combo, what should i do in game? Just keep clicking on button with no brain?

Backstab in opposite side for me. This not add any complexity in game, AI not using it at all. So it not good, not bad (but why true strike still in game). Just cheap accuracy to make melee character no feel like trash i guess.

So i will be angry, if Larian will listen community and remove all this stuff. i hope they not xd
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
But this is exactly what im talking about. smile "huge ongoing balance issues"? Is it? For me this like 25 pages thread "how bad movement in this game" . After 30 hour with friends and alone, i never had this thoughts. But may be i should be mad as other people, i don't know.

If talk about height stuff, i found this good for me in this game (know nothing about dnd)
1) It make some fight harder, than it is. It always good for me. Harpy, goblin ambush in village, many other. You have this disadvantage and you need deal with it somehow. May be you will rush to them, may be use x10 jump and attack\push, may be will use damaging flask (which have 100% accuracy). This is strategy and opportunity to move you character, and i like it (in dos2 you just staying and attacking from one position, which is boring).
Without disadvantage, you can switch to crossbow for every character and focus fire every enemy with no problem. Why move, why hide.
2) Height advantage not always free. Many times you fight for this exactly because it good (rush with melee char, to clear it for your team), or not. Your choice again.
3) Height stuff not make 56 or something spells useless (but i don't know skill for sure). Highground not totally free, and not always available, so skills which gives you advantage, still will be useful, just because should remove disadvantage\give advantage as usual.
4) It still accuracy right? Not double damage or something. I guess if calculate damage for one player in act1, who sometimes was on highground, sometimes not, you damage probably will be same, because again, its accuracy and not 100% extra dmg.

And even if you no need 500 iq to reach highground, it still something. And this push\jump stuff. I played as warlock with friends(i thought warlock is mage with some cool skills). Omg, 17 hours of eldrich blast. At least he have imp. I don't wanna say boring, but most fun was exactly when i did something "fun" as larian added in game. So if you remove height stuff, jump\push because it broken, some surface fire+acid combo, what should i do in game? Just keep clicking on button with no brain?

Backstab in opposite side for me. This not add any complexity in game, AI not using it at all. So it not good, not bad (but why true strike still in game). Just cheap accuracy to make melee character no feel like trash i guess.

So i will be angry, if Larian will listen community and remove all this stuff. i hope they not xd


Sure, but again here you're just not really explaining why things are the case, you're just kind of insisting that they are. I think this does stem from you not knowing much about the system, but advantage is a huge deal in DnD, there are some incredibly powerful spells dedicated to giving you advantage and enemies disadvantage against you.
Simply claiming that it doesn't make spells useless because sometime you might fail to gain the high ground doesn't really make much sense, because why wouldn't you be better off spending your spells on gaining the high ground? What about all the abilities that give melee attackers advantage that are useless because you can always walk behind an enemy?

I don't believe it's much of an argument to say "well some fights don't have high ground so entire major abilities being turned into niche uses is fine". Like come on man, your point 3 here is "These 56 skills aren't useless, but also I don't know what they are" lol

From the EA so far, it's incredibly easy to gain and maintain the high ground in almost every fight, and the AI does a very poor job at forcing you off it. It also removes any real creative tactics, because it is almost always the main goal of every fight. It is generally the strongest position, drastically increases how much damage you're putting out, drastically decreases how much damage you're taking, there's not really any situation where you aren't going to want to just take high ground and stay there.

I'm not sure what your point about warlock is here either, like you picked a warlock, a class primarily focused on blasting, and are annoyed you spent a lot of time blasting? You get a few limited spell slots (that should be stronger because normally there's a limit on long resting), and you throw around eldritch blast a lot. That's what pretty much all warlocks do. it's still pretty much all you're doing in BG3 too, that's just the classes identity.

I think a lot of your points here have some validity, early game DnD combat can absolutely be a bit boring, but you're neglecting the other issues created by the solutions.
The issue here isn't that they tried to incorporate new stuff, it's that there's very little consideration about how that impacts other things. Jumping around constantly heavily reduces your need to care about protecting your backline, and takes away a lot of the rogue classes identity. Giving you effectively permanent advantage in most fights, and often effectively permanent disadvantage against you, hurts the amount of freedom you have in positioning and makes classes that can create similar as an effect later on much less impactful feeling. It also makes abilities that don't use a roll to hit much less impactful feeling.

I honestly feel as if you might benefit from rereading some of the discussions people have had on this topic, because like the answer to your last part in point 1 has been talked about a heap. You're not just going to be standing still like an idiot if you don't have permanent disadvantage against enemies, they're still trying to kill you and the high ground is still absolutely an advantageous position, it's just not universally the most important element of every single relevant fight in the game anymore.


If you're not keen on rereading those discussions, at least read up on bounded accuracy a bit, or skim through some of the core rules for 5e, they're all pretty easily found online. I don't think it's fair for others if you're hopping into a discussion about a system you admit you don't really understand, and declaring their takes on the changes wrong or that it's somehow depressing to read them.
Height advantage just don't use it? Backstab advantage don't use it?

That's what i got when i was complaining about barrels and aoe arrows so just apply it here??.Don't use it ??... If those didn't go away, no way height advantage is changing the only thing that actually makes sense and is cool.
Even if you don't use those things the game is still ridiculously easy..

i agree backstab is broken but that's in part because jump/disengage - Attack of opportunity is broken.


If you remove situational Height advantage there is really nothing to do in the game tactically. 5e is so vanilla - boring due to the fuckin concentration limit and max 4 party limit. So the cross class combos are hardly there. And all you do is Auto attack especially at this low levers. Ow yeah i get Menacing Attack big deal it's still a glorified auto attack. :))

Why even bother with other stuff when you can just surprise and AA kill everything in two turns. Even if you don't use H.advantage and B.advantage you extend combat by one turn 2 MAX and that's if you unlucky... Everything still dies because base HP is so low for everything. And spells and abilities that do stuff are so rare thx to idiotic concentration limit.
Better of just throwing stuff, boot, other enemies whatever and enjoy how ridiculous everything is.

if you think changing Height advantage to +2 will make huge difference well whatever. Nothing will change.

Oh and lets not forget the AI. Stupid bad be it in Bg 3 or in Solasta it's so fucking bad it makes everything broken and easy.

And now you want them to remove the only good situational thing in the game and that's fighting for high ground. Meanwhile jump/disengage AoO will stay broken yeah sure GJ, way to make the game better.
Yea so you're litteraly asking not to enjoy any verticality in the game^^

Advantage is not the only thing highground could give as a bonus.

No more advantage for highground = many more viable and balanced possibilities to have an advantage = more tactical decision/choices.

Highground could give other bonuses than advantage : +2 to attack rolls, +2 to AC, better range, with a few adjustment to the maps it could also be a kind of "cover" mechanics (because you can often hide more easily or break the ennemie's lign of sight).

It could still be very interresting without being THE only thing.

What would change is that highround and/or backstab wouldn't probably be enough to have a satisfying %to hit. Players would have meaningfull choices to make : spend ressources to have advantages ? use bless ? trying to attack with a %to hit that is not that good ?

Players would have to be more creative and they would have a better control of their %to hit with choices and tactical decisions to make (there are many ways in D&D both for melee and ranged characters including basic actions like help, shove to prone, hide, flanking,...)

My personnal opinion is that something like that would be better but I'm totally fine with those enjoying Highground as it is... But all this looks like facts and personnal preferences aside, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why something like this would be bad for the game.

Those that doesn't want to think about their %to hit already have loaded dices.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Yea so you're litteraly asking not to enjoy any verticality in the game^^

Advantage is not the only thing highground could give as a bonus.

No more advantage for highground = many more viable and balanced possibilities to have an advantage = more tactical decision/choices.

Highground could give other bonuses than advantages. +2 to attack rolls, +2 to AC, better range, with a few adjustment to the maps it could also be a kind of "cover" mechanics (because you can often hide or break the ennemie's lign of sight).

What would change is that highround and/or backstab wouldn't probably be enough to have a satisfying %to hit. Players would have to be creative to increase it (there are many ways in D&D both for melee and ranged characters including basic actions like help, shove to prone, hide, flanking,...)
Well that's what apparently passes as a fix in BG 3 not to use it. Why i don't know but that's the take from Larian so far.

THere is no reason to be creative when best option is always just to nuke stuff due to low HP. Why cast bless or whatever when you can just use something that will give you more damage you only have 4 Concentrations to use and low action economy. Even stuff with more hp dies fast..

And without good highground bonus i will not even bother with that. Right now it's the only rewarding thing in the game. When i get to highground i get the feeling a actually did something tactical. Maybe that just me. But i do agree that backstab feels like chees due to jump/disengage. Melee are now just frogs..:)
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Yea so you're litteraly asking not to enjoy any verticality in the game^^

Advantage is not the only thing highground could give as a bonus.

No more advantage for highground = many more viable and balanced possibilities to have an advantage = more tactical decision/choices.

Highground could give other bonuses than advantages. +2 to attack rolls, +2 to AC, better range, with a few adjustment to the maps it could also be a kind of "cover" mechanics (because you can often hide or break the ennemie's lign of sight).

What would change is that highround and/or backstab wouldn't probably be enough to have a satisfying %to hit. Players would have to be creative to increase it (there are many ways in D&D both for melee and ranged characters including basic actions like help, shove to prone, hide, flanking,...)
Well that's what apparently passes as a fix in BG 3 not to use it. Why i don't know but that's the take from Larian so far.

THere is no reason to be creative when best option is always just to nuke stuff due to low HP. Why cast bless or whatever when you can just use something that will give you more damage you only have 4 Concentrations to use and low action economy. Even stuff with more hp dies fast..

And without good highground bonus i will not even bother with that. Right now it's the only rewarding thing in the game. When i get to highground i get the feeling a actually did something tactical. Maybe that just me. But i do agree that backstab feels like chees due to jump/disengage. Melee are now just frogs..:)

That's really strange to talk with you because I agree with many things but we really think differently^^

What you said also apply to highround and how Larian give us advantages smile
There is no reason to be creative when best option is always just to go higher to increase your % to hit.
Why cast bless for a +2 to +4 bonus to attack roll when you can just backstab or go higher to have a way better bonus to your %to hit ?

A +2 bonus is a good bonus, especially if it stack with usual advantages or bless. As I said a few tweaks on the maps could also lead to more possibilities to "cover" in many situations. In BG3 all weapons have the same range. Isn't it a good bonus to have a better range than your ennemies ? isn't that one of the MAIN goal of being higher in history ?

I also have the feeling that going higher is something tactical in the game... But I'd love to have MORE than only 1 or 2 tactical possibilities and reading to you I'm sure we would agree.
Keep also in mind that a lot of D&D stuff to have an advantage are build on synergies between your characters... And I'm sure you'll agree that BG3 lacks of synergies.
˄Height advantage is HUGE in combat especially where you have range elements be it defense, accuracy, range, moral, everything it's the biggest advantage you can get combined all of those and you can stop huge numbers...

So i'm totally ok with a bigger numbers granted. I would be more happy if you could go prone to counter it but that would be asking to much just like overwatch. IF you were on ladder in the middle of nothing i would be fine with just range bonus...:)

As is, i know how important normal terrain height advantage is i mean +3 or whatever would be fine as well but that's not gonna fix the problems you have with combat. Because IF highground advantage is to big, then advantage it's to big for everything.
Due to the things i said before Hp and stuff... i was exaggerating a bit but still you get the point.


Like i said already they need to fix jump/disengage first before anything else. If you wasted 1 or two turns just to get to high ground no one would cry it's op.

But it looks like nothing is gonna change anyway so it's all pointless... and is just random forum fighting. So i'll use my Height advantage thank you and hope for mods and really hard and not a gimmicky Nighmare mode.
Originally Posted by LordGiggles
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
But this is exactly what im talking about. smile "huge ongoing balance issues"? Is it? For me this like 25 pages thread "how bad movement in this game" . After 30 hour with friends and alone, i never had this thoughts. But may be i should be mad as other people, i don't know.

If talk about height stuff, i found this good for me in this game (know nothing about dnd)
1) It make some fight harder, than it is. It always good for me. Harpy, goblin ambush in village, many other. You have this disadvantage and you need deal with it somehow. May be you will rush to them, may be use x10 jump and attack\push, may be will use damaging flask (which have 100% accuracy). This is strategy and opportunity to move you character, and i like it (in dos2 you just staying and attacking from one position, which is boring).
Without disadvantage, you can switch to crossbow for every character and focus fire every enemy with no problem. Why move, why hide.
2) Height advantage not always free. Many times you fight for this exactly because it good (rush with melee char, to clear it for your team), or not. Your choice again.
3) Height stuff not make 56 or something spells useless (but i don't know skill for sure). Highground not totally free, and not always available, so skills which gives you advantage, still will be useful, just because should remove disadvantage\give advantage as usual.
4) It still accuracy right? Not double damage or something. I guess if calculate damage for one player in act1, who sometimes was on highground, sometimes not, you damage probably will be same, because again, its accuracy and not 100% extra dmg.

And even if you no need 500 iq to reach highground, it still something. And this push\jump stuff. I played as warlock with friends(i thought warlock is mage with some cool skills). Omg, 17 hours of eldrich blast. At least he have imp. I don't wanna say boring, but most fun was exactly when i did something "fun" as larian added in game. So if you remove height stuff, jump\push because it broken, some surface fire+acid combo, what should i do in game? Just keep clicking on button with no brain?

Backstab in opposite side for me. This not add any complexity in game, AI not using it at all. So it not good, not bad (but why true strike still in game). Just cheap accuracy to make melee character no feel like trash i guess.

So i will be angry, if Larian will listen community and remove all this stuff. i hope they not xd


Sure, but again here you're just not really explaining why things are the case, you're just kind of insisting that they are. I think this does stem from you not knowing much about the system, but advantage is a huge deal in DnD, there are some incredibly powerful spells dedicated to giving you advantage and enemies disadvantage against you.
Simply claiming that it doesn't make spells useless because sometime you might fail to gain the high ground doesn't really make much sense, because why wouldn't you be better off spending your spells on gaining the high ground? What about all the abilities that give melee attackers advantage that are useless because you can always walk behind an enemy?

I don't believe it's much of an argument to say "well some fights don't have high ground so entire major abilities being turned into niche uses is fine". Like come on man, your point 3 here is "These 56 skills aren't useless, but also I don't know what they are" lol

From the EA so far, it's incredibly easy to gain and maintain the high ground in almost every fight, and the AI does a very poor job at forcing you off it. It also removes any real creative tactics, because it is almost always the main goal of every fight. It is generally the strongest position, drastically increases how much damage you're putting out, drastically decreases how much damage you're taking, there's not really any situation where you aren't going to want to just take high ground and stay there.

I'm not sure what your point about warlock is here either, like you picked a warlock, a class primarily focused on blasting, and are annoyed you spent a lot of time blasting? You get a few limited spell slots (that should be stronger because normally there's a limit on long resting), and you throw around eldritch blast a lot. That's what pretty much all warlocks do. it's still pretty much all you're doing in BG3 too, that's just the classes identity.

I think a lot of your points here have some validity, early game DnD combat can absolutely be a bit boring, but you're neglecting the other issues created by the solutions.
The issue here isn't that they tried to incorporate new stuff, it's that there's very little consideration about how that impacts other things. Jumping around constantly heavily reduces your need to care about protecting your backline, and takes away a lot of the rogue classes identity. Giving you effectively permanent advantage in most fights, and often effectively permanent disadvantage against you, hurts the amount of freedom you have in positioning and makes classes that can create similar as an effect later on much less impactful feeling. It also makes abilities that don't use a roll to hit much less impactful feeling.

I honestly feel as if you might benefit from rereading some of the discussions people have had on this topic, because like the answer to your last part in point 1 has been talked about a heap. You're not just going to be standing still like an idiot if you don't have permanent disadvantage against enemies, they're still trying to kill you and the high ground is still absolutely an advantageous position, it's just not universally the most important element of every single relevant fight in the game anymore.


If you're not keen on rereading those discussions, at least read up on bounded accuracy a bit, or skim through some of the core rules for 5e, they're all pretty easily found online. I don't think it's fair for others if you're hopping into a discussion about a system you admit you don't really understand, and declaring their takes on the changes wrong or that it's somehow depressing to read them.

Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.
Originally Posted by Lastman
˄Height advantage is HUGE in combat especially where you have range elements be it defense, accuracy, range, moral, everything it's the biggest advantage you can get combined all of those and you can stop huge numbers...

So i'm totally ok with a bigger numbers granted. I would be more happy if you could go prone to counter it but that would be asking to much just like overwatch. IF you were on ladder in the middle of nothing i would be fine with just range bonus...:)

As is, i know how important normal terrain height advantage is i mean +3 or whatever would be fine as well but that's not gonna fix the problems you have with combat. Because IF highground advantage is to big, then advantage it's to big for everything.
Due to the things i said before Hp and stuff... i was exaggerating a bit but still you get the point.


Like i said already they need to fix jump/disengage first before anything else. If you wasted 1 or two turns just to get to high ground no one would cry it's op.

But it looks like nothing is gonna change anyway so it's all pointless... and is just random forum fighting. So i'll use my Height advantage thank you and hope for mods and really hard and not a gimmicky Nighmare mode.

The main problem to me is not especially that "advantage is too big".
The main problem is that A LOT of tactical options (spells/actions/features) are now useless.

Those options are useless because something cheaper in regards of action economy give the same bonus.

I guess it would be fine if verticality was a part of very specific combats. You would still use faery fire and so on in other situations... But that's not how BG3 is build and I'm totally fine with it.

Keep also in mind that things has to be balanced because if stacked bonuses are too important, the %to hit himself become useless..

The easiest way to unlock MANY tactical possibilities and synergies between companions (without breaking the balance even more and keeping the verticality) is to remove the advantage to highground and rework it's bonuses so there are less meaningfull than advantages (+2 to attack roll + better range than the ennemy + better cover is huge enough according to me...).

But of course they could also rework every D&D spells/features/action that gives advantage to give them another utility or change their cost... But that would be very very risky for many reasons.

I'm not a game devs but it looks obvious to me that the easiest way is to rework 1 or 2 custom rules instead of all D&D spells and features^^
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage just don't use it? Backstab advantage don't use it?

That's what i got when i was complaining about barrels and aoe arrows so just apply it here??.Don't use it ??... If those didn't go away, no way height advantage is changing the only thing that actually makes sense and is cool.
Even if you don't use those things the game is still ridiculously easy..

i agree backstab is broken but that's in part because jump/disengage - Attack of opportunity is broken.


If you remove situational Height advantage there is really nothing to do in the game tactically. 5e is so vanilla - boring due to the fuckin concentration limit and max 4 party limit. So the cross class combos are hardly there. And all you do is Auto attack especially at this low levers. Ow yeah i get Menacing Attack big deal it's still a glorified auto attack. :))

Why even bother with other stuff when you can just surprise and AA kill everything in two turns. Even if you don't use H.advantage and B.advantage you extend combat by one turn 2 MAX and that's if you unlucky... Everything still dies because base HP is so low for everything. And spells and abilities that do stuff are so rare thx to idiotic concentration limit.
Better of just throwing stuff, boot, other enemies whatever and enjoy how ridiculous everything is.

if you think changing Height advantage to +2 will make huge difference well whatever. Nothing will change.

Oh and lets not forget the AI. Stupid bad be it in Bg 3 or in Solasta it's so fucking bad it makes everything broken and easy.

And now you want them to remove the only good situational thing in the game and that's fighting for high ground. Meanwhile jump/disengage AoO will stay broken yeah sure GJ, way to make the game better.


At the moment, you can ignore backstab because the enemy AI does too. But if the enemy AI went for backstab as much as some players do, that would become miserable too. The game balance forces any range dependent class to go to the high ground or else their attacks roll at disadvantage, that's dull and boring. It incentivizes the player to use Magic Missile over everything else. Ranged attacks don't really get a choice when it comes to high ground, if the player doesn't go for high ground they get arbitrary disadvantage. (From Threatened, other enemies being on high ground).

Lastly, this is why I'm leaning towards all the situations ranged attacks can be at disadvantage compared to melee as possibly the real root cause of the issue. Fighter gets to choose, wizard doesn't (Not limited to those two classes).

Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.
It is okay for someone to say they enjoy the game. However when someone discounts discussion points from another forum member, it makes sense to supplement that with evidence (anecdotal or theoretical).

Person A) discusses with evidence
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
Person C) "We had a discussion going on here"

Why quote and reply? Why try to distract the thread from someone else's opinion? 5e is a comparable game because the rules are very similar. So similar it's almost as if Baldur's Gate 3 is derived from 5e's ruleset. (It actually is).

It is 100% Okay to compare BG3 to composite games, whether that is 5e, Fire Emblem, XCOM 2, D:OS2, Solasta. It is easier to discuss and compare with games people could actually play, than keep discussing further in abstract.

It's okay for forum members to discuss how combat could be made better, AND you don't have to derail discussions with "I don't know anything about 5e, I'm having fun now and couldn't imagine having more fun, swear words, I'm not sure about the terminology being used but I'm going to argue anyways, etc."
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

In the fewest words as possible, nobody likes having things mansplained to them about why they don't see things as a problem and why their proposals suck from a position of ignorance.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
And to add to this, people aren't just saying make the game closer to 5e. People are protesting because the some of the changes (and the total omission of certain features) have only served to create wildly worse imbalance rather than make the game any interesting on a tactical level. Going 'lol DnD isn't balanced!' as a defense means you don't actually have a real argument, because it's actually more balanced than whatever we have now.

The thing is ... I often read arguments that go like "in the PHB it says..." or "Solasta this, Solasta that"

Actually I even agree at least partially with most of the criticism brought up in these forums. laugh

However D&D is not a particularly amazing system, especially considering that we are talking about a video game, so the PHB is not the be all end all.

Do not forget we are in early alpha stage and I sincerely hope that Larian can design a game system around D&D that is more suited for a computer game and overall more interesting.
Well, like i said i'm fine with +2 +3 or +1d3 - 1d4 as long as we keep the height advantage. But seeing how Larian does things it's all or nothing. I just want o keep it in that's is all..

THe only reason it stands out now is because for some reason Larian forgot to make a cover system for characters on the ground...and you can't go prone. If you had cover AC bonus, that high ground advantage would not be a problem at all. If AI could actually use the combat mechanics that is.

Anyway, like i said your suggestions of +2 wouldn't do anything... the High advantage, backstab would be even more broken because it would stack with other advantages. And then you got to nerf the stacking and round we go!!..

i think all of that would be a overcomplicated for Larian anyway. They have problems as is and don't want to change anything anyway...

We need to fix jump first then move on from there..
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
The game balance forces any range dependent class to go to the high ground or else their attacks roll at disadvantage, that's dull and boring. It incentivizes the player to use Magic Missile over everything else. Ranged attacks don't really get a choice when it comes to high ground, if the player doesn't go for high ground they get arbitrary disadvantage. (From Threatened, other enemies being on high ground).

Lastly, this is why I'm leaning towards all the situations ranged attacks can be at disadvantage compared to melee as possibly the real root cause of the issue. Fighter gets to choose, wizard doesn't (Not limited to those two classes).
Its true, but why this is boring? if you remove highground and you no need to deal with enemy on hg too, how it can be less boring? I assume that you will just attack from your starting position, why move or anything?

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.

PS For me biggest problem in game is AI, which attacking my fallen allies, but can't kill because them need 3 hits (i game with 1 action per turn), so i can help him and situation repeat. This free turns for 2 other characters makes me sad.
Originally Posted by Lastman
We need to fix jump first then move on from there..

Can you expand on this please? Some of Jump is mod available.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Its true, but why this is boring? if you remove highground and you no need to deal with enemy on hg too, how it can be less boring? I assume that you will just attack from your starting position, why move or anything?
Again, we're not asking for all benefits of high ground to be removed, so range-dependent classes will still have an incentive to go to high ground. Just not a lob-sided "roll with Disadvantage or go to high ground"

In general if the player doesn't move they will be swarmed by enemies. Ranged casters have additional incentive to move because they're squishy. For example, wizard should have the opportunity to use scorching ray on a priority enemy without having disadvantage because combat started with an enemy ~3-4 meters away. Then they can move to safety. It's more fun to have player choice and it's more fun to have spell variety. Using magic should be as fun as playing fighter.

Also, having to always move to high ground slows down combat. The wizard in the prior example will always be in a sub-optimal position to deal damage if they're always chasing higher ground. So the player has to rely on guaranteed to hit spells like Magic Missile and Shatter to ignore disadvantage, while positioning the wizard where they need to be. (Being over-incentivized to use the same spells over and over isn't fun).

If the player doesn't use Magic Missile or Shatter and chases the high ground:
They have to move to high ground, now they're priority enemy may be out of range, now they have to start damaging another enemy that isn't a priority. (which slows down combat)

Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.
There are a lot of forum posts explaining why, it's worth it to take the time to read through other forum posts. If you're really curious about skills in D&D, there are plenty of online resources. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
one more crap thing from Dnd 5e... boring rules like i said.. but for some reason bless does stack. Whatever

And this is why i wouldn't bother with high ground at +2
Originally Posted by Scribe
Can you expand on this please? Some of Jump is mod available.

yeah i know mods are around...and we all know what's wrong with jump, loads of different ways to fix it... the main thing is, it makes AoO pointless...
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
one more crap thing from Dnd 5e... boring rules like i said.. but for some reason bless does stack. Whatever

And this is why i wouldn't bother with high ground at +2
Originally Posted by Scribe
Can you expand on this please? Some of Jump is mod available.

yeah i know mods are around...and we all know what's wrong with jump, loads of different ways to fix it... the main thing is, it makes AoO pointless...

Right, so beyond the AoO, was there anything major? I want to try and fix things if Larian won't, that's why I'm asking.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
one more crap thing from Dnd 5e... boring rules like i said.. but for some reason bless does stack. Whatever

And this is why i wouldn't bother with high ground at +2
LOL dude even though you deride D&D 5e, it is rather popular.

I don't see how that would be a boring rule, especially when earlier you said if it stacks it'll be a problem. If you think advantage and +2 stacking would be more fun, be honest. Larian has already homebrewed enough of the game, they could homebrew more.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

Because making an argument about why a change to a system is good while openly admitting you don't know anything about the system is ridiculous. He outright says a point is wrong, but then immediately follows that up by saying he doesn't really know what the point is. He has no idea what is a good or bad design decision here, like he's outright arguing that advantage isn't that big a deal. It's not fair on anyone else to get into an argument like that without putting in even a tiny bit of effort to understand the topic. It's not like I didn't try to explain points to him.

100s of thousands of players won't ever get halfway through the game, building a game entirely around the casual audience is never a good idea. Should they just not bother including a good ending because only like 10% of people will even see it, and even less will be able to articulate why they have issues with it?

If you've got nothing constructive to add to a discussion, just don't comment.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.
There are a lot of forum posts explaining why, it's worth it to take the time to read through other forum posts. If you're really curious about skills in D&D, there are plenty of online resources. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
I don't wanna spoilers for me smile
But i read about entangle. so if you cast entangle on enemy on highground, it will remove disadvantage from your archers on low ground, who attacking this enemy. Or give advantage if it just plain territory. So spell still works great and improve you chances by a lot (if we saying that disadvantage have big impact). So why it (or any other spells with advantages) call useless in game with height advantages?

I guess i can answer by myself, becuase people only talking about situations, when you already on highground, and there no point to cast this type of spells to get advantage (because you already have it). True, but in act1 you not always on highground. And plus as you said, you can be out of range, so no point to rush on roof in each fights, when you just cast spell. So again, spells fine as for me.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.
There are a lot of forum posts explaining why, it's worth it to take the time to read through other forum posts. If you're really curious about skills in D&D, there are plenty of online resources. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
I don't wanna spoilers for me smile
But i read about entangle. so if you cast entangle on enemy on highground, it will remove disadvantage from your archers on low ground, who attacking this enemy. Or give advantage if it just plain territory. So spell still works great and improve you chances by a lot (if we saying that disadvantage have big impact). So why it (or any other spells with advantages) call useless in game with height advantages?

I guess i can answer by myself, becuase people only talking about situations, when you already on highground, and there no point to cast this type of spells to get advantage (because you already have it). True, but in act1 you not always on highground. And plus as you said, you can be out of range, so no point to rush on roof in each fights, when you just cast spell. So again, spells fine as for me.

Would you really use your action + 1 spell slots to try to remove the advantage of 1 ennemy ? (highgrounded ennemies aren't often packed and saving throw mean you're absolutely not sure to succeed).
I guess you'd try to go higher and/or dash because it doesn't cost any spell slot, wouldn't you ? Verticality is everywhere. There are very few situations where you can't go highground very fast.

Entangle doesn't look useless at all to me if you're highgrounded. It's main effect is to stop a pack of ennemies coming to you (i.e melee ennemies rushing your positions).
Originally Posted by LordGiggles
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

Because making an argument about why a change to a system is good while openly admitting you don't know anything about the system is ridiculous. He outright says a point is wrong, but then immediately follows that up by saying he doesn't really know what the point is. He has no idea what is a good or bad design decision here, like he's outright arguing that advantage isn't that big a deal. It's not fair on anyone else to get into an argument like that without putting in even a tiny bit of effort to understand the topic. It's not like I didn't try to explain points to him.

100s of thousands of players won't ever get halfway through the game, building a game entirely around the casual audience is never a good idea. Should they just not bother including a good ending because only like 10% of people will even see it, and even less will be able to articulate why they have issues with it?

If you've got nothing constructive to add to a discussion, just don't comment.
All you do is try to make me looks like idiot. You exactly person from my first comment, and keep confirm it. Why i have no idea what is good or bad design? Why its big deal, if it not, and explained why. Or my opinion not legit, because i don't know names of spells? I smart enought to imagine what a type of spells it can be, if it was described as "spells and attack which give advantages"

Overall as i said before, on this forum only 1 option. You agree with maintain idea that movement\height stuff\shove bad, or you casual\moron and your opinion not important. Because if you smart, you should be agreed with it, obvious.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
I don't wanna spoilers for me smile
But i read about entangle. so if you cast entangle on enemy on highground, it will remove disadvantage from your archers on low ground, who attacking this enemy. Or give advantage if it just plain territory. So spell still works great and improve you chances by a lot (if we saying that disadvantage have big impact). So why it (or any other spells with advantages) call useless in game with height advantages?

I guess i can answer by myself, becuase people only talking about situations, when you already on highground, and there no point to cast this type of spells to get advantage (because you already have it). True, but in act1 you not always on highground. And plus as you said, you can be out of range, so no point to rush on roof in each fights, when you just cast spell. So again, spells fine as for me.

Would you really use your action + 1 spell slots to try to remove the advantage of 1 ennemy ? (highgrounded ennemies aren't often packed).
I guess you'll try to go higher and/or dash because it doesn't cost any spell slot, won't you ? Verticality is everywhere. There are very few situations where you can't go highground very fast.

Entangle doesn't look useless at all to me if you're highgrounded. It's main effect is to stop a pack of ennemies coming to you (i.e melee ennemies rushing your positions).

It's still Larian's homebrew picking winners and losers with spell value. If the enemy didn't have disadvantage on incoming attacks, restrained would give the player advantage, not a normal attack. I'd like to add Entangle is coming in patch 4, so it hasn't been in the game yet. But it looks like you would need to jump around to get the full value out of entangle. (When the player should not have to).

If high ground didn't offer disadvantage on incoming attacks entangle would have more value in casting it.
It also costs concentration, when there are other uses for a concentration spell besides making the next ranged attack not roll with disadvantage. Entangle is also not guaranteed to succeed as the enemy can make a saving throw. It circles back around to why not just cast Magic Missile? Why not just jump over there? Why not go to equal ground or higher and attack with a crossbow?

It's rather boring what superfluous disadvantage for ranged attacks has done to the action economy. It would be so fun to have a druid cast entangle so that the next character could follow up with scorching ray with advantage. The characters could also follow up with with more optimized positioning.
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
All you do is try to make me looks like idiot. You exactly person from my first comment, and keep confirm it. Why i have no idea what is good or bad design? Why its big deal, if it not, and explained why. Or my opinion not legit, because i don't know names of spells? I smart enought to imagine what a type of spells it can be, if it was described as "spells and attack which give advantages"

Overall as i said before, on this forum only 1 option. You agree with maintain idea that movement\height stuff\shove bad, or you casual\moron and your opinion not important. Because if you smart, you should be agreed with it, obvious.

No, you can absolutely make an argument for particular points, but like a few people have said it's not terribly fair to come in, claim that everyone else is wrong and that it's depressing to read their posts, and then say you don't really know what they're talking about. There's a few people here I pretty vehemently disagree with on things, but they're coming from a place of at least understanding the system and being able to explain why they feel the way they do, or believe particular points are wrong. I just don't think it's very fair to expect people to engage in a more meaningful way with your arguments when you won't at least read why people who disagree with you feel the way they do.

I don't think you're an idiot and I'm not aiming to make you look like one, as I said I agree with a good amount of the criticisms of low level 5e that you mentioned. I just think you should skim some of the stuff people have said before, or some of the rules behind 5e so that you can better understand why people feel the way they do, before you argue that they shouldn't feel that way. It's not fair to argue that the skills aren't made useless but then also refuse to read what the skills or spells in question even are.
Problem is, forums still have a few Die hards(less and less most left) that defend anything and i mean any feature even if they don't care about it at all. Just because they like Larian and in their opinion they make prefect games and suggestions will ruin the next one somehow and those people are indeed...idiots.

Every game can be better no matter how good it is. SO yeah height advantage could be changed or other things could be changed to make it better. As long as they don't remove it and it stays useful.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Problem is, forums still have a few Die hards(less and less most left) that defend anything and i mean any feature even if they don't care about it at all. Just because they like Larian and in their opinion they make prefect games and suggestions will ruin the next one somehow and those people are indeed...idiots.
Do not insult other posters. It's not generally a difficult rule to follow.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Lastman
Problem is, forums still have a few Die hards(less and less most left) that defend anything and i mean any feature even if they don't care about it at all. Just because they like Larian and in their opinion they make prefect games and suggestions will ruin the next one somehow and those people are indeed...idiots.
Do not insult other posters. It's not generally a difficult rule to follow.

Calling someone an idiot is not insult it just explanation of the state they present themselves in the moment in question.

You chose to be an idiot it's related to ego. Idiot comes from Greek idios - “own, private, layman, “ idiot is somebody who’s though flow is blocked by his ego/superiority, and can change at anytime if they so wish. Idiots can recover from this state. Here i'll do it right now. I was an idiot for posting that and i'm sorry... See i recovered from the state done! And if they did it we would have a better community.


You were confusing it with stupid common mistake.
I don't see how anyone sane still has any kind of hope for BG3 to be a reasonably faithful rendition of the rules, not after that last stream. Larian basically had Jeremy Crawford there for the sole reason of telling you rule-lovin' nerds to f**k off, LOL! laugh

Don't get me wrong, I feel for you, guys & gals, I also have the 2nd, 3rd and 5th edition PHBs in my library, but it is rather obvious that it IS going to be this Larian's jumpy, cartoony, DOS-like combat system with dipping, barrels, eating stuff during combat (there is still some little hope that this might go away, but...) and (basically) misty-stepping badgers. The best we can hope for is that the future updates (though patch 4 is not going to fix anything, if I understand correctly) are going to at least fix the combat a bit so it does not suck as much and becomes at least a bit more tactical and encounter-specific (rather than the optimal strategy being abusing the same OP aspects almost every time). The dumbest scenario I'm afraid of right now is Larian keeping the current system BUT refusing to change/rebalance most spells/abilities to reflect the fact that this is in fact not 5e - that would be really dumb, rendering a huge chunk of spells/abilities useless and another chunk OP. If Larian clearly cannot let go of the DOS combat system fundamentals, they should just change everything to make it at least more-or-less as enjoyable as those games.
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Do not insult other posters. It's not generally a difficult rule to follow.

Calling someone an idiot is not insult it just explanation of the state they present themselves in the moment in question.

You chose to be an idiot it's related to ego. Idiot comes from Greek idios - “own, private, layman, “ idiot is somebody who’s though flow is blocked by his ego/superiority, and can change at anytime if they so wish. Idiots can recover from this state. Here i'll do it right now. I was an idiot for posting that and i'm sorry... See i recovered from the state done! And if they did it we would have a better community.


You were confusing it with stupid common mistake.
If you thought that trying to be clever was a good idea then you are very much mistaken. Have a week off to think about why.
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
I don't see how anyone sane still has any kind of hope for BG3 to be a reasonably faithful rendition of the rules, not after that last stream. Larian basically had Jeremy Crawford there for the sole reason of telling you rule-lovin' nerds to f**k off, LOL! laugh

Don't get me wrong, I feel for you, guys & gals, I also have the 2nd, 3rd and 5th edition PHBs in my library, but it is rather obvious that it IS going to be this Larian's jumpy, cartoony, DOS-like combat system with dipping, barrels, eating stuff during combat (there is still some little hope that this might go away, but...) and (basically) misty-stepping badgers. The best we can hope for is that the future updates (though patch 4 is not going to fix anything, if I understand correctly) are going to at least fix the combat a bit so it does not suck as much and becomes at least a bit more tactical and encounter-specific (rather than the optimal strategy being abusing the same OP aspects almost every time). The dumbest scenario I'm afraid of right now is Larian keeping the current system BUT refusing to change/rebalance most spells/abilities to reflect the fact that this is in fact not 5e - that would be really dumb, rendering a huge chunk of spells/abilities useless and another chunk OP. If Larian clearly cannot let go of the DOS combat system fundamentals, they should just change everything to make it at least more-or-less as enjoyable as those games.

I've come to this line of thought as well. I'd certainly prefer that they START with a 5E adaptation and then modify from there... but given that they do not seem to be doing that, it would probably be better to just abandon 5E altogether and just do Larian rather than create an unholy amalgam of the two.
Originally Posted by dwig
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
I don't see how anyone sane still has any kind of hope for BG3 to be a reasonably faithful rendition of the rules, not after that last stream. Larian basically had Jeremy Crawford there for the sole reason of telling you rule-lovin' nerds to f**k off, LOL! laugh

Don't get me wrong, I feel for you, guys & gals, I also have the 2nd, 3rd and 5th edition PHBs in my library, but it is rather obvious that it IS going to be this Larian's jumpy, cartoony, DOS-like combat system with dipping, barrels, eating stuff during combat (there is still some little hope that this might go away, but...) and (basically) misty-stepping badgers. The best we can hope for is that the future updates (though patch 4 is not going to fix anything, if I understand correctly) are going to at least fix the combat a bit so it does not suck as much and becomes at least a bit more tactical and encounter-specific (rather than the optimal strategy being abusing the same OP aspects almost every time). The dumbest scenario I'm afraid of right now is Larian keeping the current system BUT refusing to change/rebalance most spells/abilities to reflect the fact that this is in fact not 5e - that would be really dumb, rendering a huge chunk of spells/abilities useless and another chunk OP. If Larian clearly cannot let go of the DOS combat system fundamentals, they should just change everything to make it at least more-or-less as enjoyable as those games.

I've come to this line of thought as well. I'd certainly prefer that they START with a 5E adaptation and then modify from there... but given that they do not seem to be doing that, it would probably be better to just abandon 5E altogether and just do Larian rather than create an unholy amalgam of the two.

Why I don't expect much to change but I'll keep stressing that I want them to be closers to the 5e rules. If we just stop talking about the 5e rules, I know nothing will be done. If we keep discussing them, there is still hope Larian will hear and make more changes.
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem
Why I don't expect much to change but I'll keep stressing that I want them to be closers to the 5e rules. If we just stop talking about the 5e rules, I know nothing will be done. If we keep discussing them, there is still hope Larian will hear and make more changes.
Panel From Hell 2 made it pretty clear that this is not happening. I will take anything that doesn't suck.
© Larian Studios forums