Larian Studios
Accepting Orbax advice, I’d like to state that I’m not native so go easy on me. That said, here are the arguments:

As everybody could see, Larian implemented a large number of homebrew rules in the Early Access of the game. Out of those new rules, only three of them have the greatest potential to render some classes useless and completely break the overall balance of the game.

My intention through this post is: Not to repeat what is being repeated over and over in this echo chamber of “this game feels like DOS3”. Instead, I’ll get the scenario “AS IS” of the game and explain what are the impacts of that changes in the current scenario & final release.

After reading this extensive text, is up to you to decide if you like it or not. I’m not here to convince you. Yet, if you think that this thing must be changed I’d like to ask for your help to pump the reach of this thread to reach as many comrades as possible and let them to decide whether it’s good or not.

I’ll throw those homebrews over the table:

Increased HP / Decreased AC
Advantage being given by high ground & backstab
Surfaces Effect

(just for this time being I'm leaving out of the debate dumb rules related to Actions to bonus actions for some features like shove and disengage)

I’m handling those 3 at the same time because the way they intertwine jeopardize the whole DnD5e mechanics.


Now, how Increased HP/Decreased AC harms the gaming experience? In the end you are hitting more so there’s a counterbalance to your foe HP to maintain the same number of turns needed to finish them. Well, that could be true IF the spell casters were out of the game.

I’ll start with spell values and action economy:

Even for the those who don’t have a deep understanding of DnD5e have already noticed that the number of spells you can cast is limited by the number of spells slots available to you (which are recovered every long rest). That means that spells are UNRELIABLE source of damage/utility. Once you spend all your spell slots, you’re done for and you can then only use Cantrips (which are a RELIABLE source of damage yet with the trade off of dishing smaller outputs of damage per round).

That said, those spells grows in value given the fact that they can definitely changes the odds of a battle. And why the hell am I using this spell slots as an argument for HP/AC?

Larian changed many things during the course of the Early Access. One thing they didn’t is the damage output of the weapon/cantrips attacks, spells damage & monsters attributes. Also, the number of spell slots remained the same.

It’s important to say that 99% of the spells forces your enemies to roll a saving throw based in a specific attribute (which was not altered). Which means: Spells in DnD5e & BG3 have THE SAME CHANCE TO HIT. Spell attacks like cantrips still targets foes AC but their scaling in damage output is very small compared to other classes like fighters (who get bonus attacks).


Case scenario:

Given an enemy with 7 HP 15AC (DnD5e) and the other with 13 HP 9AC (one of Larian’s goblins),

You cast Shatter(2nd level): Evocation 3d8 (BARD, SORC, LOCK, WIZ) – Dex saves for half – means that: even under a failure your UNRELIABLE spell slot would deal an average of 12 damage therefore killing the 7HP foe and not killing the 13 HP foe. Not to mention its value increase if multiple targets are within 10 foot radius.

First conclusion: Blasting Spells worth LESS in BG3 compared to DnD5e.

On the other hand, weapon attacks receive a boosted chance to hit due to the low AC & were given a new rule of getting advantage in high ground & backstab, boosting the chance to hit even further.

Second conclusion: Blasting Spells lost its value even more. (2x Nerf)


What about utility spells? Now let’s get deeper into the Advantage system in DnD5e and I’ll mention spells that can benefit out of some of them

There’s a list of situations where you’ll get advantage and I’ve added the spells that causes it.

Attack rolls made by a blinded creature have disadvantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against a blinded target have advantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against an invisible target have disadvantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls made by an invisible creature have advantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls against a paralyzed target have advantage. (Hold Person)
Attack rolls against a petrified target have advantage. (Flesh to Stone)
Attack rolls and ability checks made by a poisoned creature have disadvantage. (ray of sickness)
Attack rolls against a prone target have advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet, or disadvantage otherwise. (Tashas hideous laughter, Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls made by a prone creature have disadvantage.(Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls against a restrained target have advantage.(Poor Grapple :()
Attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws made by a restrained creature have disadvantage.(Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Mental Prison, Telekinesis, Web, Whirlwind, Transmute Rock, Snare, and many more)
Attack rolls against a stunned target have advantage. (Stunning strike – Monk, Contagion, Divine Word, Psychic Scream, Symbol)
Attack rolls against an unconscious target have advantage. (Catnap, Eyebite, Sleep, Symbol)
A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight. (Fear, Eyebite, Hallow, Illusionary Dragon, Phantasmal Killer, Symbol, Wrathful smite)

It gets better:
Fairie Fire: advantage 60ft against enemies who fail a dex saving throw

Stealth Attacks : advantage for any attacks against an enemy that cannot see you

& Increased/decreased accuracy spells: True Strike (Yeah this cantrip sucks), Bless & Bane (when you have advantage those spells adds so little to your chance to hit compared to when you have them under normal circumstances)

Barb Reckless Attack (CORE MECHANIC): You receive advantage to your melee attacks while getting disadvantage against you. & Barb path of the totem warrior (wolf) which make closer targets to get disavantage

Cleric Guiding Bolt, shadow blade, Ottos irresistible dance, shocking grasp, and some more

Phew, that was a large list of things that got their outputs diminished by that simple homebrew smile


Why is it bless (or any spell that boots your accuracy) less effective in BG3:

Let’s do some math with actual numbers:

Goblin 15 AC : Standard hero with +2 prof +3 Attribute modifier = +5 attack rolls

Chance to hit: 55%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 65%

65/55=+18% variation

Now take the hero with advantage:

Chance to hit:75%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 85%

85/75=+13% variation to your accuracy


If Advantage is dished every single turn your spells will worth less frown


Isn't it silly to have bless output diminished? now let's do the very same exercise of Bless in BG3



Goblin 9 AC : Standard hero with +2 prof +3 Attribute modifier = +5 attack rolls

Chance to hit: 85%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 95%

95/85=+11% variation

Now take the hero with advantage:

Chance to hit:99%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 99%

99/99=+0% variation to your accuracy

Yes, your valuable bless spell lost 100% of its value!



Dear tactical adventurer that loves the flavor that Larian added with advange homebrew, do you still thinks it’s a good idea to lower the outputs of that spells granting advantage in abundance?

I’m not done yet

Now, lets add surfaces into play.

Now, your utility spell that rely on concentration (the great majority of them by the way) can be easily broken with a goblin trowing a bomb smile

That UNRELIABLE spell that you’ve saved for that magical situation were broken by a bomb. Oh, not to mention that you’ve succeed the Save but you took that surface damage that is RELIABLE because it do not miss.

Also, more HP means that against that paralyzed foe will takes more times to be defeated because of the HP bloat, meaning that you’ll need more turns to keep concentrating on and higher are the chances to have your concentration broken until your enemy is dealt with…

Conclusion:

Spell value DnD5e >>>>>>>>>>>>Spell value of BG3

Who cares? Spells don’t even exist in RL.

You know why people who knows DnD5e don’t complain about weapon skills homebrew? Guess what? Because they simply don’t break the game.

Larian’s reasons are: Players do not like to miss.

WotC agree with this, that’s why they’ve added TONS of spells to give you that desirable accuracy.

Want to balance the game
Easy – Reduce the values of attributes & Attributes Evenly and/or double damage value outputs.
Hard - Reduce the values of attributes & Attributes Evenly and/or cuts in half damage value outputs.


Want to feel that you’re the king of the hill with homebew– Adds a RAW +2 damage
Or implement cover system from DnD5e. All of that works. Advantage don’t.

There’s no need for breaking the value outputs of the spells to in order to see that hp value popping out of your foes heads every single turn.
Do we really need another topic about the same?
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


Seriously?
I can see what Larian is trying to do but it throws off 5e design balance too much. If I were DMing I'd never run these values; my casters would be furious.

Also..it's ok to miss attacks. That's kind of the point of D&D
Interresting.

Even if I'm strongly against HP+/AC- for many reasons, as a non D&D player this kind of topic allow me to understand a little bit more the entire consequences, and allow me to think about other exemples and things I wouldn't have necessarily thought of.

Thank you, another fact that tend to show Larian's decisions unbalanced the experience more than they should.
+1 the many homebrew rules mixed into DnD 5e combat system have created a slippery slope that will get even worse deeper into the PC levels and CR of monsters
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


This is actually making a different point than just spells r different rabble rabble, it is talking about the ultimate outcome of the matrix of spells, advantages, and ac/hp the class effect. I thought it was pretty thought provoking.
Originally Posted by CinderV
I can see what Larian is trying to do but it throws off 5e design balance too much. If I were DMing I'd never run these values; my casters would be furious.

Also..it's ok to miss attacks. That's kind of the point of D&D


I quite agree. If our DM would use homebrew rules like BG 3, at least 3 players out of a 5 man group would most likely rage & quit in disgust. Using some homebrew is ok, of course, but not when it throws balance and/or core mechanics out of the window.


Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


Yes, we do. Because it's already an issue and it will only get more pronounced with more classes, feats, spells and levels.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


Yes, because it is a problem. The more topics explaining with reasons and examples, the more visible it get, the more likely it'll be fixed.
+1

Very well laid-out, cudos on raising an important issue Sludge Khalid! I have been thinking the same the past few days. I kind of regret my early defence of Larian with regards to this game becoming more like DOS3 than BG3 and the radical homebrew situation makes me wonder if they ever tried to be more faithful to the D&D system.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

Very well laid-out, cudos on raising an important issue Sludge Khalid! I have been thinking the same the past few days. I kind of regret my early defence of Larian with regards to this game becoming more like DOS3 than BG3 and the radical homebrew situation makes me wonder if they ever tried to be more faithful to the D&D system.


Thank you, Seraphael.

That’s a single line of the thread that I’ve pulled off. Yet, there’s plenty of another problems that should be addressed. For now, focusing in that 3 points would solve 80% of the balance problems. The more people talk about it, the better will be its reach. If you participate in other communities feel free to use it the way you like it.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


My thoughts exactly, same posters opening same shitty topics every day.

Will they give it a rest already? This has to be consolidated into some megathreads and let them duke it out there, instead of them opening bloody same topic every day with a different toppings and side dishes.
Great feedback with good examples. +3
The point of existence of this forum are these kind of posts.

Too bad that for Larian the forum area is more of a <steam relief> area than anything else.
Haven't seen a single post by them showing they care of what people think here. And they should, since it takes time to address these changes.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


My thoughts exactly, same posters opening same shitty topics every day.

Will they give it a rest already? This has to be consolidated into some megathreads and let them duke it out there, instead of them opening bloody same topic every day with a different toppings and side dishes.


Simple tip. See a topic about something that you want to hear, don’t open it.
Nice arguments by the way. Bye smile
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


My thoughts exactly, same posters opening same shitty topics every day.

Will they give it a rest already? This has to be consolidated into some megathreads and let them duke it out there, instead of them opening bloody same topic every day with a different toppings and side dishes.


Simple tip. See a topic about something that you want to hear, don’t open it.
Nice arguments by the way. Bye smile


OR... you can just post in that one same thread that serves absolutely same purpose and not spam forums with this obsessive garbage rebuilding castles out of sand every other day.

It's really irksome at some point and as you can see, I'm not the only one thinking this way.

Yes we know the elevation advantage is the devil and Larian using optional rule from page 252 of the book about positional advantage is the destroyer of vaunted 5e balance. And clearly goblins with more HP and less AC is the sacrilege against the holy scripture that is Monster Manual. We got it already. We don't need 500th thread for this.

Cheers.
Did you give it a charitable, honest try at understanding what it is saying? Because I hadn't seen this point made before and I thought it was fairly surprising what the implications were for spell and martial efficacy and where the economy gets channeled for spell casters. AFter 280 hours, reading that clicked and I had subconsciously fallen into that pattern. I don't play like this at all in D&D when im spell casting, but this game totally changed where my focus goes to.

I understand if you had arrived at those conclusions already, but I hadn't seen it. Can you link to one of the threads?
You are honestly arguing that BG3 makes casters less powerful than martials? You do realize the power of casters increases exponentially at every level while martials do so in a linear way, right? You also know spellcasters derive a lot of utility from their spells while martials can only hit things, I suppose?
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
You are honestly arguing that BG3 makes casters less powerful than martials? You do realize the power of casters increases exponentially at every level while martials do so in a linear way, right? You also know spellcasters derive a lot of utility from their spells while martials can only hit things, I suppose?


Did you actually read my thread? I guess not because my whole point was to dive deep into utility spells and how the game mechanics as is don’t favor them at all in the long run.
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


My thoughts exactly, same posters opening same shitty topics every day.

Will they give it a rest already? This has to be consolidated into some megathreads and let them duke it out there, instead of them opening bloody same topic every day with a different toppings and side dishes.


Simple tip. See a topic about something that you want to hear, don’t open it.
Nice arguments by the way. Bye smile


OR... you can just post in that one same thread that serves absolutely same purpose and not spam forums with this obsessive garbage rebuilding castles out of sand every other day.

It's really irksome at some point and as you can see, I'm not the only one thinking this way.

Yes we know the elevation advantage is the devil and Larian using optional rule from page 252 of the book about positional advantage is the destroyer of vaunted 5e balance. And clearly goblins with more HP and less AC is the sacrilege against the holy scripture that is Monster Manual. We got it already. We don't need 500th thread for this.

Cheers.


Bye smile
My takeaway from that information is that given the way it is set up, certain classic "gimme" spells, the kinds where you almost feel like they shouldn't count towards your spell selection because you WILL pick and use them...I don't use them as much. I know its fashionable to dump on martials, but ive played juuust about all classes in D&D and I think all classes are great. I love being a battlemaster fighter and as much as I love my wizard and trickery cleric. What I am doing now in this game is using spells like ray of sickness and acid arrow as "fuck it" spells, magic missile is a joke and is mainly to clean up enemies that have 3 hp left so I don't waste a martial's turn. Or I am buffing them, or debuffing enemies. I save spell slots as the cleric for healing which, if you play D&D, clerics tend to be more damage oriented than healing oriented these days. Now I just hang out, sacred flame, and keep everyone running and ignore a lot of fun spells because of the round length introduced by hp & initiative length in fights means more healing.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
You are honestly arguing that BG3 makes casters less powerful than martials? You do realize the power of casters increases exponentially at every level while martials do so in a linear way, right? You also know spellcasters derive a lot of utility from their spells while martials can only hit things, I suppose?


Did you actually read my thread? I guess not because my whole point was to dive deep into utility spells and how the game mechanics as is don’t favor them at all in the long run.



You honestly believe this crap given how powerful surfaces are and how plentiful they will be with level 3+ spells? KEKW.

You might be begging Larian to nerf magic back after release when you will have whole battlegrounds swimming in fire, ice and static clouds. You already have a very tiny preview with Firebolt and Ray of Frost... just wait until you will have this with Ice Storm and Fireball then a well placed lightning spell to create a huge static loud of fu to everything.

But hey, I bet you don't give a ...much... about this anyway because it's 50th thread on same bloody topic and you sure heard this response and ignored it anyway for 100th time.

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
You are honestly arguing that BG3 makes casters less powerful than martials? You do realize the power of casters increases exponentially at every level while martials do so in a linear way, right? You also know spellcasters derive a lot of utility from their spells while martials can only hit things, I suppose?


Did you actually read my thread? I guess not because my whole point was to dive deep into utility spells and how the game mechanics as is don’t favor them at all in the long run.



I did read your post and I disagree with your conclusions that the "homebrewed" rules introduced by Larian upset game ballance making martials better than casters. Sure Astarion backstabbing is powerful but so is using command or hex on an opponent (btw I completely shut down auntie Ethel with this combo, while magic missiles helped me deal with her clones, as a fact, dealing with her with 4 martials would have been a lot more difficult) and this on top of the current system allowing you to "recharge" after every encounter by taking a long rest which makes your caster going nova much easier than it should be. Let me add I think Larian should not allow wizards to be able to cast cleric spells (I tenbd to think it's a bug more than a choice on their part though).
Originally Posted by Tulkash01

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
You are honestly arguing that BG3 makes casters less powerful than martials? You do realize the power of casters increases exponentially at every level while martials do so in a linear way, right? You also know spellcasters derive a lot of utility from their spells while martials can only hit things, I suppose?


Did you actually read my thread? I guess not because my whole point was to dive deep into utility spells and how the game mechanics as is don’t favor them at all in the long run.



I did read your post and I disagree with your conclusions that the "homebrewed" rules introduced by Larian upset game ballance making martials better than casters. Sure Astarion backstabbing is powerful but so is using command or hex on an opponent (btw I completely shut down auntie Ethel with this combo, while magic missiles helped me deal with her clones, as a fact, dealing with her with 4 martials would have been a lot more difficult) and this on top of the current system allowing you to "recharge" after every encounter by taking a long rest which makes your caster going nova much easier than it should be. Let me add I think Larian should not allow wizards to be able to cast cleric spells (I tenbd to think it's a bug more than a choice on their part though).


Well, I welcome any kind of positioning regarding this topic. If you read the thread, I do say in the first lines that I’m not trying to convince anyone. Yet, even though you disagree with my view of the impacts generated by those rules you failed to give me a solid argument. I didn’t mention casters as obsolete. I’ve done a pure analysis based in facts and numbers to prove the casters lost their spells slots values. Nevertheless, thank you for disagreeing with respect. smile
Well argued. The problem might as well be fixed by some further balancing to spells, but minimising RNG risks breaking core DND systems. I am shocked that surfaces in BG3 don’t require a save roll - providing a reliable damage via surfaces threatens to completely nullify all other systems.
Quote
I’ll throw those homebrews over the table:

Increased HP / Decreased AC
Advantage being given by high ground & backstab
Surfaces Effect


I want to add one more homebrew that is gamebreaking. Max range of a ranged attack being 60 feet. If Eldritch Blast/Longbow/whatever caps out at 60 feet that means any creature in the game can dash from the frontline to your squishy casters.

Particularly rogues/any NPC that can dash as a bonus action can go from maxrange to stabbing your wizard in the same turn and that's a huge issue.This nerfs ranged characters big time and makes them never be safe.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
HP Bloat Stuff


I'm not going to address every single item on your list, but I will address the point of "HP Bloat" because I really am not seeing it. Yeah, the goblins have slightly more HP than in the Monster Manual. There are also many enemies within the game that do not have more stats than in the monster manual. Do the goblins feel bloated when you fight them? Well, lets do a little bit of analysis. Shatter does 3d8 damage. The average damage of a cast of shatter is 13.5 (not 12) and the result of casting shatter is most of the goblins within it usually die. How about single target attacks? Ok, sure if you arbitrarily select the damage range of a longsword without any modifiers, you aren't going to be killing a goblin in a single blow, but you do not use unmodified damage ranges when making an attack anyhow. If you are approaching this fight at level 4 (which is when you are likely intended to fight it) you will probably have 18 strength, so for arguments sake you have +4 from strength. Lets say you are using a +1 greatsword (these are really easy to acquire at this point in the EA), so thats 2d6+5 damage. The average damage of an attack in this scenario is 12. Not instantly dying, but pretty close. If you count the dip mechanic (which I consider to be a stupid mechanic, there is nothing believable about it at all) then the average damage is pushed up to 14.5 and they are dead. Pretty much any other class has additional mechanics to close the gap. Warlock has hex, Hunter has Hunter's Mark and Rogue has sneak attack. These Goblins will almost certainly die in 1 hit.

Now, here is the thing. The Goblin camp is intended to be an encounter for level 4 adventurers. It is not intended to be an encounter for level 1 adventurers. Following that logic, it makes sense to either throw a lot more of them at you, or to tweak the HP of some of them. The interesting thing is, there are some Goblins which have 8 hp. What makes those Goblins different from the others? They are only Goblins. All the other Goblins are given 1 or more levels in a player class and the HP bonuses they receive mirror the bonus they would get for having that respective number of levels within that class. The Sharpshooters are I think the most common and are the ones sitting at 12. But lets assume this was not the case, lets assume that all the Goblins did not have player class levels. The HP of a generic Goblin in the MM is 2d6. The maximum roll of which is 12. So you could justify a "by the book" goblin with 12 HP and 15 AC, which is statistically more defensive than both of the examples you gave.

The more important question is: Does the combat "feel" bloated. My answer to this is very clearly no, it does not. Encounters end very quickly, even the set piece battles. If both the HP and the AC of the Goblins was increased further, I personally would not care much, because I don't even notice it as it currently stands in terms of the feel of gameplay. Let me be clear, I do not like HP bloat. There are fights in RPGs that I outright refuse to do because they are bloated, for example, the giant ooze in pillars of eternity 2. That fight is probably the single worst example of HP bloat in RPGs to date. The fights in BG 3 do not feel HP bloated at all. It feels more like, the developers took some liberties to scale an encounter with low level enemies to a slightly higher level party and that is perfectly acceptable.

You want to make some noise about HP Bloat? Sure, do it when you have an actual example of HP bloat instead of making a big nothing about a situation which doesn't look bloated at all. I will be there, right behind you, complaining about that bloat as well, but this is not that situation.


The reasons you are not addressing all the items in this thread are the reasons you cannot see the problem.

I brought 3 mechanics and how they intertwine into a new metagame. Addressing solely one wouldn’t make it, although the bloat itself is bad enough. The only way to increase damage output of that spells is to upcast it and that’s why the effectiveness of the spells decreased comparing to dnd5e.

I advice to read the whole thread before spotting the word “blot” and start to rage against it.

The whole thread was all about spell value & effectiveness and you’ve failed to point why they’re still effective compared to dnd5e.

If you can point that and if they’re still reasonable other than just distilling rage, I’d might review my thoughts about it.

There’s plenty of spells mentioned through the post, so get one of them and tell me how the game highlight their potential.
I would point out the 2d6 for hp for goblins...I know 4 DMs as well as myself (sorry we dont all know each other 4 is what I have) and through the streams I watch and DMs on youtube and all that...I have never seen anyone roll for creatures. It would be such a pain in the ass. You might have 6 goblins with 2 hp. The variability of the encounter then makes you say "well thats too weak, lets just keep adding them until its challenging" because youre a DM and you know how numbers work and you know what your PCs are so you have a prettty dialed in understanding of what it will take. It would also make you decide if you want pack tactics or individual initiative depending on the HP and number of gobbos and you run the risk of a band of 12 goblins TPKing on a good initiative because of damage output instead of just 5 being a reasonable fight that has a more controlled swing.

If it says 2d6 its 7. Hobgoblin is 2d8+2 thats 11. You do the average, then round the hit dice (down), then halve that number and add it to the average. Young Red dragon? 17D10+85. Which is 17*5+85 = 170. 17 rounded is 16/2 8 = 178. If a DM adjusts bosses and stuff like that, fine. Your rank and file is gonna be straight out of the book though, so I wouldn't use hit die rolling as a factor, it just doesn't happen unless the DM has said ALL goblins in this encounter have 10 instead of 7. No one manages that crap by hand, its prohibitively time consuming to run and track the minis to their sheets.
As to Hit Dice, they're mainly there due to a number of spells affecting a set number of Hit Dice.

In the Monster Manual it typically lists things like:

Hit Dice: 5d8 (22).

So they're 5 Hit Dice monsters, and have 22 HP.

I mean normally every level except first you're supposed to roll your characters HP. They decided to go with "max HP at first, average HP after 1st" which has been a common house rule for a long time. They might have even made it a "standard" option for 5e.
Just adding a little feedback from someone who has never played d&d tabletop
Firstly this is the first post that actually made me understand why some people are complaining about HP bloat and AC changes so thumb's up to OP

But as someone who loves the forgotten realms and has read 200ish novels, and played every d&d game ever i really do care about the world and that the game is fun

recently i played solasta which is supposed to have implemented the rules perfectly and i must say that at times combat in the game was frustratingly slow and annoying, one fight near the end of EA all 4 of my companions missed all attacks
5 turns in a row, that's 20 misses in a row - i must say for the average player this is not fun and if Larians homebrew rules fix this and it makes for a better video game they should keep the changes

I do hope they have difficulty levels and one of them is CORE that mimics 5E faithfully and a normal mode(what they have now) for players like me
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Tulkash01

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
You are honestly arguing that BG3 makes casters less powerful than martials? You do realize the power of casters increases exponentially at every level while martials do so in a linear way, right? You also know spellcasters derive a lot of utility from their spells while martials can only hit things, I suppose?


Did you actually read my thread? I guess not because my whole point was to dive deep into utility spells and how the game mechanics as is don’t favor them at all in the long run.



I did read your post and I disagree with your conclusions that the "homebrewed" rules introduced by Larian upset game ballance making martials better than casters. Sure Astarion backstabbing is powerful but so is using command or hex on an opponent (btw I completely shut down auntie Ethel with this combo, while magic missiles helped me deal with her clones, as a fact, dealing with her with 4 martials would have been a lot more difficult) and this on top of the current system allowing you to "recharge" after every encounter by taking a long rest which makes your caster going nova much easier than it should be. Let me add I think Larian should not allow wizards to be able to cast cleric spells (I tenbd to think it's a bug more than a choice on their part though).


Well, I welcome any kind of positioning regarding this topic. If you read the thread, I do say in the first lines that I’m not trying to convince anyone. Yet, even though you disagree with my view of the impacts generated by those rules you failed to give me a solid argument. I didn’t mention casters as obsolete. I’ve done a pure analysis based in facts and numbers to prove the casters lost their spells slots values. Nevertheless, thank you for disagreeing with respect. smile


Disagreement is fine of course. I just feel your analysis does not take all changes/factors in account.

1.Most spells are not just raw damage. Stuff like command can actually shut down extremely powerful opponents (I mentioned how I used it to make the auntie Ethel encounter trivial and she can be a nightmare if you try to face her without spells). This will obviously become more and more relevant as long as levels keep increasing.

2. The current amount of damage spells can do is still superior to what most martial characters can do with a single attack with spells like Magic Missile automatically hitting target and causing force damage (which means no resistance in 99% of situations). If you don't believe me search the topic on YouTube. You'll find people rolling wizards that deal 40+ damage per round, something a martial is currently hard pressed to do unless we are talking about a rogue sneak attacking with good weapons and venom (which means investing consumable resources).

3. Even this early in the game some spells have the potential to hit multiple opponnets on a consistent basis increasing the total amount of damage accordingly. Martials cannot do this unless in very specific circumstances (basically a once per short rest power that triggers if you are using the correct weapon type).

4. Spells drammatically increase in power when you unlock new spell slots, attacks do not (unless you are a paladin and use divine smite, obviously, but then you are actually using spell slots).

5. You ignore the fact that under the current system you can recharge your spells after each encounter by taking a long rest whenever you want. That's actually a huge bonus for casters who can always go nova because of this instead of having to manage their resources. This fact alone makes casters way more powerful than they would be in a normal D&D campaign.

Bottom line: you seem upset that Larian introduced some rules that benefit everyone (casters included when you occasionally need to attack with weapons instead of using spells) as long as you know how to position yourself, exploit high ground, attack from the shadows and so on and that they tweaked monsters hps so they don't die after one spell hit (not all of them btw, you can easily get rid of 12hp goblins with single target spells). You seem to feel like making martials an edge when fighting makes casters less viable and I think that's simply not the case at all.
Hi Tulkash,

I wonder if my language problems turned your life harder while diving deep into this text. Because by reading your comments seems that you couldn’t understand the analysis I’ve done.

1. Yes. I know. Half of this thread is about utility spells and how they lost value compared to dnd5e.

2. Yes, that’s why they are limited by spell slots? Damage dealers are fighters/Barbarians/Paladins. Of course all classes can deal damage but the martialists are superior because of the reliability

3. ?????????

4: do you actually have played DnD? No upcast can be compared to fighters multiple attacks per turn. Again, their “thing” is consistency and reliability.


5: now you are using a broken system to justify another. Resting system sucks in BG3. And that’s my main “that’s why people cant see how Casters sucks compared to dnd5e”

Reviewing your bottom line:

No. Actually I do feel boredom. Combat feels cheap because again, it’s unbalanced. Try to read this post again because so far you couldn’t capture the essence of it.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Hi Tulkash,

I wonder if my language problems turned your life harder while diving deep into this text. Because by reading your comments seems that you couldn’t understand the analysis I’ve done.

1. Yes. I know. Half of this thread is about utility spells and how they lost value compared to dnd5e.

2. Yes, that’s why they are limited by spell slots? Damage dealers are fighters/Barbarians/Paladins. Of course all classes can deal damage but the martialists are superior because of the reliability

3. ?????????

4: do you actually have played DnD? No upcast can be compared to fighters multiple attacks per turn. Again, their “thing” is consistency and reliability.


5: now you are using a broken system to justify another. Resting system sucks in BG3. And that’s my main “that’s why people cant see how Casters sucks compared to dnd5e”

Reviewing your bottom line:

No. Actually I do feel boredom. Combat feels cheap because again, it’s unbalanced. Try to read this post again because so far you couldn’t capture the essence of it.


1. I don't see it. On the contrary, if properly used the utility of some spells in BG3 makes encountes much easier to deal with (example provided above btw).

2. That's actually how D&D 5th edition is supposed to be ballanced. A single spell does more damage than a single attack or even 2 attacks later on but spells are consumable resources so you need to use them when they really matter. In BG3 spells do more damage than attacks and they are trivially easy to renew which means on a single encounter casters can just go nova, outdamage martials, rest and then do the same when next encounter pops up. You seem to complain about the fact Larian introduced rules that make martials more likely to hit as long as you can position yourself correctly on the battlefield exploiting those advantages. Therefore removing such "homebrews" would just exacerbate the problem of caster dominance over martials but you seem oblivious to this.

3. I meant spells can reliably be used to hit multiple targets from early on while martials are limited to single/double attacks. With correct positioning you can use a simple spell like buring hands to finish off 3/4 weakened opponents in one go or damaging them enough to make it trivially easy to kill them off afterwards. Martials can't really do this in a reliable way, in BG3 they can focus their attacks on an opponent and take it out in a couple of rounds or more depending on rolls (I had Lae/zel fail 3 attacks in a row with 94% chance of hitting XD...).

4. I both play and DM D&D, I did so in the last 25 years, thank you. As said above in D&D 5th edition damage spells are designed to do more than attacks while attacks are obviously more consistent because they are not limited by spell slots. You either use damage spells to get rid of a single opponent ("save or suck" spells work better in this rergard though) or to weaken/kill monds of weaker enemies. Generally speaking martials don't work that way and can't do those things (paladins can effectively go nova thoiugh... if they spend spell slots!).

5. Yes, BG3 resting system doesn't work (imo) as it is now it just makes casters better than they are in D&D because they don't need to manage resources and can always go nova this fact currently makes your claims about spellcasters getting less from spellcasting null & void imo.

I completed BG3 EA twice and combat felt just fine if a bit easy. You claim you feel boredom at how combat works... but the current system encourages you to position yourself and to move tactically (which requires a bit ot thought on the player's part) while you ask for the nerfing of opponents so that your spells can do more than they already do (read: a lot) and the removal of those modifiers that make martials better at attacking the enemy while positioning themselves in order to gain those advantages (advantages that btw, work for casters as well as martials, try to cast a cantrip from higher ground than your target, your chances to hit will be better than what you'd have doing the same while on the same level as your opponent). Basically you are saying you are bored because your spells can't kill stuff on the spot (and they actually can, btw) without you needing to position yourself tactically in order to gain advantage/defend yourself from reprisal.

To you a game where you point your finger at opponents and they die would be less boring than a game where you actually need to plan your moves it seems... To each is own I guess but allow me to disagree with this notion completely.
Dear Tulkash,

Yeah, I guess you couldn’t capture the essence of the text at all,

Let me summarize: I’m comparing DnD5e vs BG3 spell effectiveness. That’s all. I’m not saying that spells don’t work. I’m not saying that they aren’t good.
I’m not saying that we should one shot foes. I’m also not saying that spells don’t do damage.

I’m a lore bard player. I play it 80% of the time. I hate blaster spells and love control spells. I feel tactical by manipulating the odds of the battle by using spells. And personally I foresee that those homebrews aren’t contributing to that kind of play style. That’s my personal feelings related to how this new meta will undermine some classes.

Vicious mockery will be less effective
Bardic inspiration will be less effective
Buffs and debuffs will be less effective

That’s it smile

That’s an analysis. Not my opinion.
My opinion is: this meta sucks.

The more advantage is on the board, the less buffs worth.

I’m very happy that you and some other folks are happy with the mechanics.
I can understand that and if the game follow that path till the very end I’m not going to drop it because it doesn’t fit to my play style. I have already the perfect metagame to destroy battles with the game AS IS

I expected to see people that don’t have the same opinion sharing actual numbers to show me that I’m wrong. I hope I am. So far? Not convinced
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Dear Tulkash,

Yeah, I guess you couldn’t capture the essence of the text at all,

Let me summarize: I’m comparing DnD5e vs BG3 spell effectiveness. That’s all. I’m not saying that spells don’t work. I’m not saying that they aren’t good.
I’m not saying that we should one shot foes. I’m also not saying that spells don’t do damage.

I’m a lore bard player. I play it 80% of the time. I hate blaster spells and love control spells. I feel tactical by manipulating the odds of the battle by using spells. And personally I foresee that those homebrews aren’t contributing to that kind of play style. That’s my personal feelings related to how this new meta will undermine some classes.

Vicious mockery will be less effective
Bardic inspiration will be less effective
Buffs and debuffs will be less effective

That’s it smile

That’s an analysis. Not my opinion.
My opinion is: this meta sucks.

The more advantage is on the board, the less buffs worth.

I’m very happy that you and some other folks are happy with the mechanics.
I can understand that and if the game follow that path till the very end I’m not going to drop it because it doesn’t fit to my play style. I have already the perfect metagame to destroy battles with the game AS IS

I expected to see people that don’t have the same opinion sharing actual numbers to show me that I’m wrong. I hope I am. So far? Not convinced


Fun fact, just yesterday I completed my second playthrough of BG3 EA and I thought how much more powerful my party could be when including a bard making it easier for everyone to hit stuff...
All I need is a "jump scroll" to be introduced. That is the only reason I even have a Ranger...otherwise I'd run 4 half wood elf rouges. Which I have and mopped every battle thrown at me. I'm not sure if this what OP's overall point is? But If I interrupted it correctly, yes spellcasters are completely useless in my playthroughs. But maybe I'm offbase. *Shrugs*
Originally Posted by Orbax
I would point out the 2d6 for hp for goblins...I know 4 DMs as well as myself (sorry we dont all know each other 4 is what I have) and through the streams I watch and DMs on youtube and all that...I have never seen anyone roll for creatures. It would be such a pain in the ass. You might have 6 goblins with 2 hp. The variability of the encounter then makes you say "well thats too weak, lets just keep adding them until its challenging" because youre a DM and you know how numbers work and you know what your PCs are so you have a prettty dialed in understanding of what it will take. It would also make you decide if you want pack tactics or individual initiative depending on the HP and number of gobbos and you run the risk of a band of 12 goblins TPKing on a good initiative because of damage output instead of just 5 being a reasonable fight that has a more controlled swing.

If it says 2d6 its 7. Hobgoblin is 2d8+2 thats 11. You do the average, then round the hit dice (down), then halve that number and add it to the average. Young Red dragon? 17D10+85. Which is 17*5+85 = 170. 17 rounded is 16/2 8 = 178. If a DM adjusts bosses and stuff like that, fine. Your rank and file is gonna be straight out of the book though, so I wouldn't use hit die rolling as a factor, it just doesn't happen unless the DM has said ALL goblins in this encounter have 10 instead of 7. No one manages that crap by hand, its prohibitively time consuming to run and track the minis to their sheets.

And that is very nice and all and sure, for a table it makes sense because it would take forever to roll the HP of every single goblin and there is no real reason to, but the rules don't say, "Goblins have 7 hp" it says, "Goblins have 2d6" hp. A Goblin can have anywhere within that HP range of 2 to 12 and it will be per the official rules. You know the great thing about computers though, they could roll the HP for every single monster in the game in under a second and it would not slow down gameplay at all. I am personally fine with Goblins that have 15 AC and 12 HP, as per the rules if Larian decides they only want to use maximum HP rolls for monsters. Sounds good?

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
The reasons you are not addressing all the items in this thread are the reasons you cannot see the problem.

I brought 3 mechanics and how they intertwine into a new metagame. Addressing solely one wouldn’t make it, although the bloat itself is bad enough. The only way to increase damage output of that spells is to upcast it and that’s why the effectiveness of the spells decreased comparing to dnd5e.

I advice to read the whole thread before spotting the word “blot” and start to rage against it.

The whole thread was all about spell value & effectiveness and you’ve failed to point why they’re still effective compared to dnd5e.

If you can point that and if they’re still reasonable other than just distilling rage, I’d might review my thoughts about it.

There’s plenty of spells mentioned through the post, so get one of them and tell me how the game highlight their potential.

No, the problem is you are not reading my post. Your post started off with the assertion that monsters have bloated HP and then went on to use that assertion, combined with some other rule changes, to make some claims about spell efficiency. Those claims about spell efficiency by the way, are probably true regardless of whether or not HP is bloated, I am not here to argue about that. I am just tired of the outright, blatant lie that monster HP is bloated in this game. Here is a screenshot for you of a fight where you engage every single goblin in the goblin camp.
[Linked Image]
Goblins have, as per the rules, 2d6 HP. There are a sum total of 2 goblins in this picture with have more than 12 hitpoints. You know which ones those are? They are the 2 Goblins which have player levels and they are intentionally modified to have more statistics to represent the fact that they are more like "boss" encounters.

You made the assertion, in your post, that monster HP is bloated in this game. The burden of proof is on you to show that this is the case. I wish you luck with that, because I can quote those very rules which you are complaining Larian is not following, which shows that the HP values these Goblins have is perfectly valid, as per the rules as written. You should probably complain their AC is too low though, if anything, there is not enough bloat and they should have 12 HP and 15 AC, because that would be a Goblin of this type implemented by the rules. Saying, "monsters have bloated HP" does not make it automatically so. You need to prove it. If there was actual HP bloat btw, I would be right behind you complaining, but there isn't and encounters feel relatively fine in terms of monster HP.

And here is the thing. Larian is the DM here, maybe, perhaps, they do not want this encounter to be won using the list of utility spells which you would prefer to have used. They are the one designing this setting, not you. Either way, whilst your complaints about rule changes for backstabs/height are perfectly valid, I am still waiting for someone to show me an example of a legitimately bloated creature, which does not have a very valid reason for having higher stats (for example, being a boss encounter).
I can understand where people are not totally happy with the way things are working right now. I do know that Larian has said one purpose for this EA is for them to learn to tweak the game to make sure it is the level of challenge they want but not too harsh. Thus they have maps showing where people die, what they die from, etc. Using that data (with some feedback), they will slowly tweak the game to be where they want.

Now personally, I would prefer things to be closer to the handbooks than not. I would prefer to see a RANGE of hit points and armor classes among goblins. Some with lower AC, some higher. Some with 7 HP and some with Higher. I can even see why an area would have higher HP due to their ties to the Absolute. Perhaps the 'branding' is making them stronger. It does not do this for you because you are infected by a parasite already.

The way advantage is handed out may need some tweaking. High ground should not always get advantage (IMO), but if they want to rule that is their call as it is NOT addressed in the core books (IE the PHB or the DMG neither one says High Ground does/does not grant advantage, instead they leave granting advantage/disadvantage up to the DM). In playing this game we are not the DM but the player.
Sharp, I see that in the end we don't think in oposite directions.

I’ll throw those homebrews over the table:

Quote
Increased HP / Decreased AC
Advantage being given by high ground & backstab
Surfaces Effect


https://imgur.com/kpULBht
https://imgur.com/c6s2HrT

Two examples of higher HP than the monster manual could possibly allow? Well, the example was given.

I'm adult enough to accept some cases where the HP is higher than the MM HP. My whole point was a thesis to debate spell efficiency.

One of the rules that I brought was this bloat + Decrease AC - TOGETHER. How it does favour spell efficiency? A martial fighter would have an easier like with his reliable damage output per turn against a caster who struggle to dish damage because we rules remained unchanged. See the point?

Please, pay attention where I do say that those 3 homebrews INTERTWINE. Even if you dont aknowlege the bloat (which is fine), you do aknowlege the rest of them. They exist. They are real and they are affecting spell eficiency. Is it good? Well, that depends on your play style.

Quote
And here is the thing. Larian is the DM here, maybe, perhaps, they do not want this encounter to be won using the list of utility spells which you would prefer to have used. They are the one designing this setting, not you. Either way, whilst your complaints about rule changes for backstabs/height are perfectly valid, I am still waiting for someone to show me an example of a legitimately bloated creature, which does not have a very valid reason for having higher stats (for example, being a boss encounter).


Well, I agree 100% with you. ALL of this is Larian's Campaign. We're the customers. I'm not happy with the balance but WHO AM I? I'll manage to survive.

Hold down your anger, Sharp. Just breathe.

I'm here to debate and by your arguments on the first reply I somehow got more in accordance to their scrambled hp? Not so bad as I thought at first, maybe? Do we agree that maybe the HP matters less than the decreased AC in that encounters regarding spell efficency?
Do we agree that Bless spell is less effective in the current meta compared to DnD5e?
Do we agree that the action economy is playing a minor role compared to DnD5e?
Do we agree that some ppl bought the game because they were looking for DnD5e?

We can find accordance among discordance.


Can we for once look at ourselves as clients instead of beta testers hired by Larian? I'm not receiving any money to review the game and I hope you too...

Have you ever though about how would you like it to be? When you play a game do you feel that you are a customer instead of thinking that the company is making you a favor by releasing a game?

I'm just being a disapointed client. But again, who am I?
Originally Posted by Sharp

And that is very nice and all and sure, for a table it makes sense because it would take forever to roll the HP of every single goblin and there is no real reason to, but the rules don't say, "Goblins have 7 hp" it says, "Goblins have 2d6" hp. A Goblin can have anywhere within that HP range of 2 to 12 and it will be per the official rules. You know the great thing about computers though, they could roll the HP for every single monster in the game in under a second and it would not slow down gameplay at all. I am personally fine with Goblins that have 15 AC and 12 HP, as per the rules if Larian decides they only want to use maximum HP rolls for monsters. Sounds good?


I think youre missing the point. As a DM/game designer you are sitting there saying I have 4 level 3 PCs with 24 hp and 15 AC avg.

So there is 100hp on the field in 25 hp chunks. At 1d20+4 to attack from goblins that puts goblins at a 50/50 to hit the PC.

Shortbow 1d6+2 = 5 damage on average. So, with focus focus on a single PC, which the AI does, 10 creatures with a 50/50 means 1 pc dead a round.

Now, why would you do 10 goblins? thats a lot for 4 people, they have no way of killing 10 goblins with even 7hp because they have ac15 and youre 50/50 as well and fine you have 8 damage per round or 10 even per PC. At 50/50 you still are only talking 2 goblins a round. Well, next round, you heal up someone to 5. Well you get that same person down again with 2 goblins 50/50 on them. You got 6 left, and someone else is 3/4 down with the 50/50. Another 2 goblins go down. Down to 6 and they take the 2 that went down again down. PCs are out of spells nows, 2 are down or low single digits and you got a few left. Thats if no natural 20s happened, the goblins werent rolling well & or the PCs werent rolling poorly. Realistically, you have a very strong possibility of a TPK with a goblin group that size. Add a hobgoblin with martial advantage and you need half the amount of goblins to get a TPK.

Ok, so thats 10 goblins with 7hp. You run that scenario and you look at the averages and that what happens if they roll well. So you drop the number down because in ONE ROUND regardless of HP, the damage output is enough to easily drop a PC. So you say they can also roll poorly. Ok so not 10, not 5, give a buffer with 7 or throw 5 in with a hobgoblin. Lets keep 3 back in range and 2 goblins to walk in with the hobgoblin.

Ok, now I am a computer running numbers. What algorithm are you going to run to balance HP rolled versus the damage output? The fact is that first round is the important part and HP isn't calculated into it because the PCs have limited attacks and even with 1hp, 1ac, 10 goblins is enough to down a PC, easily.

So when do you roll hp? After you decide the damage output per goblin? Random the HP based on the fact that 7 or 5 and a hobgoblin is a good fight and then the variable is how much it is to take the damage output down? Well that changes it. You add another round to a 7hp goblin with 14hp and you just doubled the number of goblins on the field. So do you delete 3 goblins from your 7 goblin encounter because you tripled the hp on the field and they'll be getting as many turns as 7 goblins would?

The argument doesn't really hold up for that method. The things you are considering stay the same and youre controlling the power swing per round and determining the number of rounds you can survive. A rule of thumb in D&D is creatures die within 3 rounds. If you want it to be tough on players, we start talking unique enemies - orc bosses or something - you might push to 4 or 5, but thats still rare. Usually, the 3 round rule just becomes a lot scarier because the power swing can be so great from the enemy youre fighting. A natural 20 on the bossman can 1 shot a PC, the whole fight just changed.

So, yeah, after running 1000+ D&D sessions, Im not saying just because its tedious, its a fundamentally flawed concept that the HP of the enemy changes the damage output and survivability of the PCs. It just doesnt work like that.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Sharp, I see that in the end we don't think in oposite directions.

I’ll throw those homebrews over the table:

Quote
Increased HP / Decreased AC
Advantage being given by high ground & backstab
Surfaces Effect


https://imgur.com/kpULBht
https://imgur.com/c6s2HrT

Two examples of higher HP than the monster manual could possibly allow? Well, the example was given.

I suspect the HP changes in your example may have been made independently of the AC changes. If you look at the example I gave in my post, those goblins all have MM HP, but they still have lowered AC, which technically means they were nerfed in comparison to the MM. A possible other reason then for the higher HP which may make more sense in the context, is larian wanted to have a fight that only had a few combatants, but those few combatants are more challenging to the player. They could have just picked some other enemy in the MM which fit the description and achieved the same result, but I guess for the sake of the story they went with goblins and this disagreement over monster HP is the result.

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

I'm adult enough to accept some cases where the HP is higher than the MM HP. My whole point was a thesis to debate spell efficiency.

One of the rules that I brought was this bloat + Decrease AC - TOGETHER. How it does favour spell efficiency? A martial fighter would have an easier like with his reliable damage output per turn against a caster who struggle to dish damage because we rules remained unchanged. See the point?

Please, pay attention where I do say that those 3 homebrews INTERTWINE. Even if you dont aknowlege the bloat (which is fine), you do aknowlege the rest of them. They exist. They are real and they are affecting spell eficiency. Is it good? Well, that depends on your play style.

I'm here to debate and by your arguments on the first reply I somehow got more in accordance to their scrambled hp? Not so bad as I thought at first, maybe? Do we agree that maybe the HP matters less than the decreased AC in that encounters regarding spell efficency?
Do we agree that Bless spell is less effective in the current meta compared to DnD5e?
Do we agree that the action economy is playing a minor role compared to DnD5e?
Do we agree that some ppl bought the game because they were looking for DnD5e?


Yeah, I understand you are upset about spell efficiency and in the case of Advantage and Surfaces, there upset is probably justified. I do think the HP bloat discussion though is upset which has been misplaced. If you look at that Goblin Camp above, sleep there would be more or less as useful as it is intended to be as per the rules. If those examples you have given over there had instead been say bugbears with 27 hp, would you still be complaining? My point being, for the purposes of the narrative here, they wanted to use a specific enemy type (Goblins), but for the kind of encounter they wanted to present, they needed a different stat block, so they adjusted it to suit the encounter. There are still encounters elsewhere, where sleep is hypothetically as useful as it would be per the rules, but that encounter is not intended to be 1.

This particular HP adjustment to fit the narrative, does not seem to be an issue to me. It is not like every single fight in the game is adjusted, or that they are adjusting them at random, it seems to be based on the type of encounter they are trying to present. The encounters do not feel bloated. A GM at a tabletop would do something similar if it fit within their narrative and the original baldur's gate games did the same thing when the situation demanded it, the developers said as much. The majority of enemies in Throne of Bhaal had their statistics modified for that matter, because stat tables for enemies were not built with epic level adventures in mind.

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Can we for once look at ourselves as clients instead of beta testers hired by Larian? I'm not receiving any money to review the game and I hope you too...


I'm just being a disapointed client. But again, who am I?

I guess its a difference of expectations. I was expecting there to be rule changes, in fact, I am expecting that the majority of rule changes that would be made, would be made prior to players getting a hold of the game in the EA to test. Why is this? Well, it is because of expectations. The lead developer of Path of Exile gave a very good talk on this at one point, he said, when you design a game a certain way and players start to play it, it instills in them a certain expectation that this is what they are going to get out of the final product and there will be a large amount of resistance to change away from that.

In the speech he gave an example of this. In Path of Exile, when you enter a town, you automatically refill your flasks. This is not how he intended for flasks to work. In his original vision of the game, when you entered a town, you would have to go to an NPC to refill your flasks. In the beta for the game, they implemented this as a "quick solution" because they wanted to test the flask mechanics, but didn't have the NPC ready yet. They are now in a state however, that if they would ever implement flasks as they had originally intended it would cause massive uproar, even though if that had been how flasks had initially been implemented, there likely would have been no complaining at all as to players, that is how it had always worked.

This is, incidentally, why you are very resistant to changes to the 5e rules, because your expectation is that it follows those rules. Larian is trying to cater to more than 1 audience however and they only have 1 chance to make that first impression. This means that if they want to make changes (which it is clear that they do) it is in their best interest to make as many of the changes they want as possible before we get a hold of the game to play, because it means we won't have any previous expectations of what the game was like before those changes were made clouding our view.


Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Have you ever though about how would you like it to be? When you play a game do you feel that you are a customer instead of thinking that the company is making you a favor by releasing a game?

Yes, I have thought a lot about how I would want games to be, but over time I have come to accept that unless I personally make the game I want to play, I will never get to play it. Everyone has their own vision of a perfect game and from person to person, this game will differ, either slightly, or very drastically indeed. I could describe to you the game I want to play, it does not resemble any game that currently exists on the market. So instead, I try to appreciate other people's vision of the game they want to play, rather than force them to try and make mine.
Just a +1 to OP and I hope you are also sending via the feedback link. Let's hope the devs listen and we get to option to play with D&D rules.
Originally Posted by Tulkash01

4. I both play and DM D&D, I did so in the last 25 years, thank you. As said above in D&D 5th edition damage spells are designed to do more than attacks while attacks are obviously more consistent because they are not limited by spell slots. You either use damage spells to get rid of a single opponent ("save or suck" spells work better in this rergard though) or to weaken/kill minds of weaker enemies. Generally speaking martials don't work that way and can't do those things (paladins can effectively go nova thoiugh... if they spend spell slots!).



If you look at the spells I just pulled from a few of my players, the differences in spells aren't really in damage. I circled the things in purple that are consistently different. Now, Clerics and Warlock (limited spells) are the truest casters in the game. The wizard needs some work. You talk about big damage but the wizards really don't have it because if you are talking % of total enemy health per round relative to a 5e game, they are doing significantly less than your normal caster due to the nature of the encounter. Spiritual weapon, Tashas, Toll the dead, Spike growth, Spare the dying, Absorb elements, SHIELD, and sanctuary are spells that drastically change not only the DPR, but the shutdown for movement (spike growth), and advantage (tashas). This is a difficult conversation to have considering some of the most commonly chosen and used spells are missing from the book. Casters doing damage is nice, but there are other ways to guarantee SOME damage - spiritual weapon and spike growth especially are crazy good to just throw out there and now you have a spell that is pretty much guaranteed to succeed. Things like Tasha's are such a staple because of the prone condition that they have to *continue to save on* (without making an ice patch your own team can eat shit on).

And the point, again, is combined with HP bloat that line of "Take out a single enemy" is no longer an accurate statement.

[Linked Image]

Originally Posted by Tulkash01


5. Yes, BG3 resting system doesn't work (imo) as it is now it just makes casters better than they are in D&D because they don't need to manage resources and can always go nova this fact currently makes your claims about spellcasters getting less from spellcasting null & void imo.


Cant sleep in the middle of a 7 round fight, now sure where you are getting Null & Void from.

Originally Posted by Tulkash01

I completed BG3 EA twice and combat felt just fine if a bit easy. You claim you feel boredom at how combat works... but the current system encourages you to position yourself and to move tactically (which requires a bit ot thought on the player's part) while you ask for the nerfing of opponents so that your spells can do more than they already do (read: a lot) and the removal of those modifiers that make martials better at attacking the enemy while positioning themselves in order to gain those advantages (advantages that btw, work for casters as well as martials, try to cast a cantrip from higher ground than your target, your chances to hit will be better than what you'd have doing the same while on the same level as your opponent). Basically you are saying you are bored because your spells can't kill stuff on the spot (and they actually can, btw) without you needing to position yourself tactically in order to gain advantage/defend yourself from reprisal.




Half the time "tactics" means climbing up a rope or a ladder, burning it so the melee cant get to you and hiding out of LOS and just dumping arrows and firebolts and then dodging out of LOS again until they die. I wouldn't call it particularly clever, its holing up repeatedly so you don't get burned down and you save your spells for when you need it instead of using spells because they might work. The round economy breaks the 3 round fight and spell slot usage because of how long it takes to decrease enemy DPR from HP bloat. So, what do you do, you give as much advantage to martials as you can because they're the ones who are going to consistently hit and do damage. Its way better to empower them than blow 3 2nd level MMs for 12 damage on a creature that has 25hp instead of 10. Now you'll knock them down with ice and let that martial go to town. Thats the economy change that starts coming down the pipe because of the matrix. Again, this game does not play like D&D. You dont use the same spells in the same way for the same reason. You position martials and casters differently than you would. You are playing on a retreating action consistently and its dropping the "5e players are impossibly strong" theme that DMs run into time and time again. 5e favors the player significantly, and this is definitely not.
Well Sharp, no one is complaining about weapon skills. In fact, I really liked them and they could be recharged every short rest instead of long rests.

Now, that we have a less attacking debate, can we at least agree that from the client perspective my post is reasonable?

Regarding PoE, GGG is the company in the world who most get out of clients feedbacks. But we’re talking about different game scenario, where the meta must be changed every single update for the sake of the diversity. It’s not a game “sold” based in known rules.
If Larian was 10% of what GGG is in terms of client orientation we would have a better game, I guess.
Originally Posted by Orbax


So, yeah, after running 1000+ D&D sessions, Im not saying just because its tedious, its a fundamentally flawed concept that the HP of the enemy changes the damage output and survivability of the PCs. It just doesnt work like that.



At no point did I make this claim, so lets dismiss that assumption shall we?

Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Sharp

And that is very nice and all and sure, for a table it makes sense because it would take forever to roll the HP of every single goblin and there is no real reason to, but the rules don't say, "Goblins have 7 hp" it says, "Goblins have 2d6" hp. A Goblin can have anywhere within that HP range of 2 to 12 and it will be per the official rules. You know the great thing about computers though, they could roll the HP for every single monster in the game in under a second and it would not slow down gameplay at all. I am personally fine with Goblins that have 15 AC and 12 HP, as per the rules if Larian decides they only want to use maximum HP rolls for monsters. Sounds good?


I think youre missing the point. As a DM/game designer you are sitting there saying I have 4 level 3 PCs with 24 hp and 15 AC avg.

So there is 100hp on the field in 25 hp chunks. At 1d20+4 to attack from goblins that puts goblins at a 50/50 to hit the PC.

Shortbow 1d6+2 = 5 damage on average. So, with focus focus on a single PC, which the AI does, 10 creatures with a 50/50 means 1 pc dead a round.

Now, why would you do 10 goblins? thats a lot for 4 people, they have no way of killing 10 goblins with even 7hp because they have ac15 and youre 50/50 as well and fine you have 8 damage per round or 10 even per PC. At 50/50 you still are only talking 2 goblins a round. Well, next round, you heal up someone to 5. Well you get that same person down again with 2 goblins 50/50 on them. You got 6 left, and someone else is 3/4 down with the 50/50. Another 2 goblins go down. Down to 6 and they take the 2 that went down again down. PCs are out of spells nows, 2 are down or low single digits and you got a few left. Thats if no natural 20s happened, the goblins werent rolling well & or the PCs werent rolling poorly. Realistically, you have a very strong possibility of a TPK with a goblin group that size. Add a hobgoblin with martial advantage and you need half the amount of goblins to get a TPK.

Ok, so thats 10 goblins with 7hp. You run that scenario and you look at the averages and that what happens if they roll well. So you drop the number down because in ONE ROUND regardless of HP, the damage output is enough to easily drop a PC. So you say they can also roll poorly. Ok so not 10, not 5, give a buffer with 7 or throw 5 in with a hobgoblin. Lets keep 3 back in range and 2 goblins to walk in with the hobgoblin.

Ok, now I am a computer running numbers. What algorithm are you going to run to balance HP rolled versus the damage output? The fact is that first round is the important part and HP isn't calculated into it because the PCs have limited attacks and even with 1hp, 1ac, 10 goblins is enough to down a PC, easily.

So when do you roll hp? After you decide the damage output per goblin? Random the HP based on the fact that 7 or 5 and a hobgoblin is a good fight and then the variable is how much it is to take the damage output down? Well that changes it. You add another round to a 7hp goblin with 14hp and you just doubled the number of goblins on the field. So do you delete 3 goblins from your 7 goblin encounter because you tripled the hp on the field and they'll be getting as many turns as 7 goblins would?

The argument doesn't really hold up for that method. The things you are considering stay the same and youre controlling the power swing per round and determining the number of rounds you can survive. A rule of thumb in D&D is creatures die within 3 rounds. If you want it to be tough on players, we start talking unique enemies - orc bosses or something - you might push to 4 or 5, but thats still rare. Usually, the 3 round rule just becomes a lot scarier because the power swing can be so great from the enemy youre fighting. A natural 20 on the bossman can 1 shot a PC, the whole fight just changed.


I claimed that firstly, if you wanted to roll the HP of every single enemy in the game using a computer, you could and it would not slow down gameplay at all. BG 3 does not do this, the HP of Goblins appears to be fixed, but the values are fixed within an acceptable bracket and were probably intentionally chosen for the type of encounter they are trying to present. Most Goblins have low HP, with a few (4?) bosses going into the high 20's and low 30s. For HP bloat to even be a discussion, you need to define what you mean by HP bloat. If by HP bloat you mean, "any deviation away from the number 7," great, but that is not helping anyone, is being disingenuous and is completely overlooking what it means to design an encounter to begin with. These encounters do take 2-3 turns when played, I know this because I have done them, more than once. Furthermore, they do not "feel bloated" at all.
Originally Posted by Sharp
[ For HP bloat to even be a discussion, you need to define what you mean by HP bloat. If by HP bloat you mean, "any deviation away from the number 7," great, but that is not helping anyone, is being disingenuous and is completely overlooking what it means to design an encounter to begin with. These encounters do take 2-3 turns when played, I know this because I have done them, more than once. Furthermore, they do not "feel bloated" at all.


You claimed it is overlooking what it means to design and encounter to begin with. Explain this to me, as it seems like you have some definition I don't have access to. You keep dismissing arguments with vague hand gestures saying "those numbers and math you did are disingenuous". Yeah, how?

You saying it doesn't "Feel bloated" is useless. This is a math equation. Feelings don't matter. Explain your position using mechanics and math.

Strawman Argument: "Any deviation from 7". No one said its a deviation from 7. You are inventing dumb arguments and then arguing against them. Don't do that. My definition: If it is double the MM or more. What is your definition?

All you do is take potshots without using mechanics, math, definitions, or anything concrete. You have a lot of feelings and, while its good to know the game is evocative, those are all either unfounded or unusable pieces of information. Justify what they are doing other than "I played da game a few times". Cool, me too. To the tune of 280 hours so far. So playing the game obviously isn't an influencing factor here because the numbers don't change. Make a real argument or stop potshotting a bunch of bullshit and pulling every invalid argument and fallacy you can make when having an adult discussion where people actually what to find the truth and don't have emotional investment in the outcome. Theres an ad hominem for you wink
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Well Sharp, no one is complaining about weapon skills. In fact, I really liked them and they could be recharged every short rest instead of long rests.

Now, that we have a less attacking debate, can we at least agree that from the client perspective my post is reasonable?

Regarding PoE, GGG is the company in the world who most get out of clients feedbacks. But we’re talking about different game scenario, where the meta must be changed every single update for the sake of the diversity. It’s not a game “sold” based in known rules.
If Larian was 10% of what GGG is in terms of client orientation we would have a better game, I guess.

I think you would be surprised at what GGG would do, if they were the ones making BG 3. I have played PoE since its open beta and followed its news very actively, ever since then. Sure, they do listen to feedback, when they believe the feedback aligns with their vision of what they want the game to be. Here are some topics that the community has been vocally asking for, for years, which they are not only unmoved on, but they have outright said they will never change because it does not align with their vision of what they want the game to be.

• PoE does not have an auction house. Players want an auction house. The developers have said, they will never add an auction house. Here is the trade manifesto for example, which illustrates this.
• Players want items to be easier to pick up. They want loot vacuums to suck in items that are around them. This is another example of something which the developers consider a core pillar of Path of Exile and have said would never change.
• Just recently (as of Harvest League) there was a massive outcry about players wanting deterministic crafting. Deterministic crafting goes against the core pillar that powerful items are hard to obtain and as of such, it is not going to happen.

I could go on and on and on, but the point is, there are a number of topics where there is a very vocal part of the community that wants a change, where the developers have said, it will never happen. I suspect that if they were the ones making BG 3, the result may be very similar, if not the same. They may be more active when talking to the community and they may write very long manifestos explaining why they are not willing to budge on a particular topic, but do not for one moment believe that this means that they implement every change which is popular within the community.
Mr Sharp,


As you I'm an old school player of PoE.


• PoE does not have an auction house. Players want an auction house. The developers have said, they will never add an auction house. Here is the trade manifesto for example, which illustrates this.
• Players want items to be easier to pick up. They want loot vacuums to suck in items that are around them. This is another example of something which the developers consider a core pillar of Path of Exile and have said would never change.
• Just recently (as of Harvest League) there was a massive outcry about players wanting deterministic crafting. Deterministic crafting goes against the core pillar that powerful items are hard to obtain and as of such, it is not going to happen.

Not altering 3 things (which I'd hate to have them changed the way they are right now because the game is supposed to be hardcore) when they've done hundreds of thousand other ajustments based in a client base is simply the worst argument in the world possible to justify yours concerning BG3.

Those 3 comments you've posted are like asking Pokemon to remove the Pokeballs. Asking Street Fighter to remove Ryu. Asking Dota 2 to be turn based and so on and so forth.

Why the hell is that comparable to ask a DnD5e game based to CARE about spell balance? lol

BG3 would get so much out of POE

Economy to begin with. Law of Scarcity in economics were perfectly implemented in that game. Scarcity is not a BG3 thing frown
Originally Posted by Orbax


Strawman Argument: "Any deviation from 7". No one said its a deviation from 7. You are inventing dumb arguments and then arguing against them. Don't do that.



There has been plenty of whining due to not sticking to the number 7 which has been arbitrarily chosen because it is the midpoint between 2 and 12, that was why I mentioned it. I did not expect you to realistically use it as an argument, I mentioned it because I wanted you to actually define something useful so that a debate can actually productively occur.

Originally Posted by Orbax

My definition: If it is double the MM or more. What is your definition?

All you do is take potshots without using mechanics, math, definitions, or anything concrete. You have a lot of feelings and, while its good to know the game is evocative, those are all either unfounded or unusable pieces of information. Justify what they are doing other than "I played da game a few times". Cool, me too. To the tune of 280 hours so far. So playing the game obviously isn't an influencing factor here because the numbers don't change. Make a real argument or stop potshotting a bunch of bullshit and pulling every invalid argument and fallacy you can make when having an adult discussion where people actually what to find the truth and don't have emotional investment in the outcome. Theres an ad hominem for you wink


The maximum HP roll for a Goblin is 12. So if I double this, a Goblin with 24 or more HP constitutes as bloated? There are a sum total of 4 Goblins in the EA which has more than 24 HP and all of them are bosses, which are very clearly designed to be a boss encounter and they each have custom gear. I could go on and on about this, but defining a fixed amount of HP as being bloated is actually a meaningless metric, because an appropriate amount of HP depends on the party itself. If you have a level 20 party and for some reason you want to run a Goblin against them, you could come up with a plot where there is some archmage who magically enchanted a Goblin and made it far more dangerous than its ordinary brethren. The point being, given the circumstances, a foe will or will not feel bloated relative to the party. You do however, give another useful metric further down of 2-3 turns, which I will use as a definition, because its actually a meaningful tool of measurement and can be used as a gauge independent of party level.

Originally Posted by Orbax
[quote=Sharp]

You claimed it is overlooking what it means to design and encounter to begin with. Explain this to me, as it seems like you have some definition I don't have access to. You keep dismissing arguments with vague hand gestures saying "those numbers and math you did are disingenuous". Yeah, how?

You saying it doesn't "Feel bloated" is useless. This is a math equation. Feelings don't matter. Explain your position using mechanics and math.


Debates are done based on definitions, unless you define HP bloat to mean something, it is a vague and meaningless term and there is no point to arguing over it. How much HP is too much? For now, I will take your definition of a "non bloated" encounter to be 2-3 turns, although I could also use, "double the MM" as your definition but since very few enemies have actually got more than double the MM's stats and all of those who do have justifiable reasons for being that way, I see it as not much of an argument to begin with.

Originally Posted by Orbax

All you do is take potshots without using mechanics, math, definitions, or anything concrete. You have a lot of feelings and, while its good to know the game is evocative, those are all either unfounded or unusable pieces of information. Justify what they are doing other than "I played da game a few times". Cool, me too. To the tune of 280 hours so far. So playing the game obviously isn't an influencing factor here because the numbers don't change. Make a real argument or stop potshotting a bunch of bullshit and pulling every invalid argument and fallacy you can make when having an adult discussion where people actually what to find the truth and don't have emotional investment in the outcome. Theres an ad hominem for you wink


I gave numbers further up in that screenshot. I even gave numbers before that, showing how on average Goblins will die in a single hit, but ok, let me make it easy for you, since apparently connecting the dots is a little bit challenging for you. In that screenshot above there are 16 Goblins with a total HP of 188 and an average HP of 11.75 (which is below the maximum roll of 12 for a Goblin). All of them have 12 AC. Shatter does 3d8 damage. If you are looking at probability, there is a 68.35% chance that shatter will roll for 12 or higher. Most of the Goblins in that screenshot however, have 10 HP. If you adjust for that, it is an 83.59% chance of landing for 10 or higher. From experience, these Goblins have a habit of climbing up that structure on the left, clustering there and firing arrows down on your party. You can realistically expect to have quite a few Goblins within the AoE, so at minimum you can expect it to hit lets say 4 Goblins and at the very least 1 of them will die, while the rest will be injured.

Then lets look at the rest of the party members. Well, in that screenshot above, you have a Fighter wielding a greatsword, which, after accounting for all modifiers, deals 2d6+5 damage excluding superiority die as well as the dipping mechanic. 12 HP goblins, on hit die 58.33% of the time. Against the 10 HP Goblins, 83.33% of the time. I could go on with examples for the rogue and priest, but you get the idea. You can reasonably expect 4-5 enemies to die every single round in that example above, if you account for finishing off partially wounded enemies due to enemies which were not killed but wounded by shatter. Well, what about parties that don't have a wizard or a warlock who has shatter? Well, your warrior may have cleave, but you might also be playing say for example a PC light cleric and have access to tools like the light domain channel divinity power which has a very big AoE and could realistically hit 10 or so of those Goblins for over 2d10 damage.

The point being, there are lots of tools, in this specific example, which make this encounter not only manageable without resorting to things like dip or the additional advantage rules, but actually rather easy. If you ignore every single 1 of Larian's extra rules, you can end it within 4-5 turns. But wait, you might argue, this falls outside of the expected 2-3 turns! Well the thing is, unless you run through the entire camp like I did, you will only be engaging 7-8 of them at a time. This significantly lowers that "4-5" and basically cuts the encounter in half. Tell me, if a player at your table went charging into a war camp of enemies and made a big mess of himself, pulling them all onto the party at once, would you not be fine with this being either a party wipe, or an encounter that extends beyond your, "2-3 turns?"

But now, instead of looking at the resolution of the encounter, let us look at the encounter itself and see what we can conclude about it. Does it take overly long to resolve? In terms of time, because there are so many combatants moving, it does have the potential to take a long time to resolve. This is not because the player will spend much time actually doing anything, but because an option does not exist to skip the movement animations of combatants, which is something which should clearly be implemented. In terms of actual combat however? If you define an encounter as, "something which should take 2-3 actions on the part of each combatant to resolve," then this can easily fall within that. Especially if you don't go completely mad like I did and attack every single goblin at once.

Obviously however, the number of turns an encounter takes is dependent on the party, a more experienced party can end an encounter much quicker than a less experienced party. Larian is "GMing" for 100's of thousands of different party types at once and they cannot customize the experience to all of them at the same time, but they can (and probably will) offer different difficulty tiers, to somewhat allow players to customize the difficulty to their liking. The question is, can these encounters (without resorting to the "rules" like dip) be ended within your expected timeframe of 2-3 turns and the answer to that question is a definite yes.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


Seriously?

Seriously... the difficulty settings haven't been implemented yet. They are coming.

Divinity 2
[Linked Image]

Baldur's Gate EE
[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do we really need another topic about the same?


Seriously?

Seriously... the difficulty settings haven't been implemented yet. They are coming.

Divinity 2
[Linked Image]

Baldur's Gate EE
[Linked Image]


Can you see the differences in difficulty level settings of BG2 compared to dos?

In BG 3 If you increase the HP or Ac without raising at the same time attribute modifiers you’re clearly going to unbalanced the classes. That’s my main argument to begin with. Please, read the post to understand it. Difficulty level is not debated there. The game looks easy to me as it is right now. That’s not the subject of this thread. Come on guys, you can do better than that...

Seriously...
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
Seriously... the difficulty settings haven't been implemented yet. They are coming.


Can you explain, in detail, precisely how different difficulty settings in BG 3 will change gameplay?

Of course you can't, because you don't know. I'm pretty sure that not even Larian knows what different difficulty settings will and will not change at this point.

Your position is essentially "stop complaining, I'm sure it will be fixed in the final release", based on absolutely no information and not even any public indication from Larian of the direction they intend to go with the game and difficulty settings. There's no point in us playing EA if we're supposed to shut up about anything we don't like and wait for the full game.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
Seriously... the difficulty settings haven't been implemented yet. They are coming.


Can you explain, in detail, precisely how different difficulty settings in BG 3 will change gameplay?

Of course you can't, because you don't know. I'm pretty sure that not even Larian knows what different difficulty settings will and will not change at this point.

Your position is essentially "stop complaining, I'm sure it will be fixed in the final release", based on absolutely no information and not even any public indication from Larian of the direction they intend to go with the game and difficulty settings. There's no point in us playing EA if we're supposed to shut up about anything we don't like and wait for the full game.


Guys, for those who like the game storywise and lorewise, this post is all about bringing meaningful subjects that will turn the game better as a whole diving deep into the battling system. We are NOT sabotaging the game by saying it would feel more reasonable to have some changes here and there.
Everyone in this community wants the game to succeed. You know why Larian launched both of the DOS with enhanced editions? Because the game wasn’t polished enough in the final release.

I’ll ask again for those who are coming here and distilling poison: have you tried to read the post? Do you understood it? You came here with the intention to know what is being debated here? What is your opinion about the subject? How are your feedbacks contributing to the game besides points bugs?
ok...again. 7 comes up because if you are a DM when you use creature sheets, it says "7(2d6)". The HP is 7. There is no minimum and no maximum. Their HP is 7. Thats it. End of story. Goblins have 7hp. Young reds have 178. Thats it, end of story, no questions. You don't roll 17d10 and maybe end up with a 255hp dragon. You fight against a young dragon with 178 hp. There is no range, ever. They have what they have. So saying 12 could be doubled to 24 on a max rolled goblin - there is no maxed roll goblin. There are goblins - they have 7 hp. A DM might custom tailor an encounter or a particular tribe, or whatever but that is a DM being very comfortable with the game mechanics and THAT SPECIFIC PARTY to say "they can handle this"or "this would be a shit stomp, lets bump gobbo attack to +5 and increase AC by 1 and add 5hp". You need to know how the math works on that. This is math. You can't just do it and be like "yeah im pretty sure any party of 4, regardless of configuration, should be good with this". The game just doesn't work like that. If you look at rollable encounters for a level 4 party:

Two winged kobolds, one drake (This is from Hoard of the Dragon Queen)

[Linked Image]

Field HP = 114. Drake resistant to weapons = 214 hp effective, 3 targets.

For a party of 5 level 4s, you are running into 114hp with a 55% hit chance from kobolds doing 6 damage - so 6 a round. Pack Tactics makes that 90+% so we call that 10 around from the kobolds. A drake doing a 70% chance to hit on bite at at 10 + con save 75% chance to save 5 poison and disadvantage as well as the 55% chance to hit tail doing 6. So about 12DPR from that. Total of 22 DPR. AC 13 on kobolds means that first round theyre probably both dead but knocked out 10 damage. You can play them ranged and send in the drake for a round and add another 12 before players take them out. So you rotate into round 2 with ranged another 22. 44 damage in 2 rounds now. Kobolds drop we're back to doing 12DPR on a drake with 200hp. 5 level 4s at 45hp on the high which puts them at roughly 200 hp across 5 targets. Well we just took 1 almost out of the fight in 2 rounds with only 3 creatures. Add 2 more winged creatures and on is definitely down and on lost saves because they keep targeting them.

Players go - Barbarian, makes 1 +6 (55% chance to hit) with a greataxe - 1d12+4 (with 18 str). 10 damage reduced to 5, so 2.5DPR. Rogue goes, dual wielding short swords. +5 to attack (55%) for 1d6+3 (6) and sneak attack 2d6 (6) = 12/2 is 6 plus another 55% chance with 3 on 1d6 because no dual wield feat, reduced to 1 = 7/2 3 DPR. We'll just say that average is going to work for a ranger as well and then we have a cleric and a wizard. 2d6 force on cleric for spiritual weapon is 6 at 55% = 3, not reduced force damage and a wizard is probably going to use either catapult, mm, or a chill touch/toll the dead. So, now you are added 6 average.

Add all of that up and you get 2.5 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 6 = 18 DPR v the 12 of the drake, each at 200hp. 5 rounds doing average but rogues exist and you might get 32 total on a crit from a sneak attacking that changes life significantly. Having poisoned PCs attacking at disadvantage levels the DPR. We all know dice exist and there are clever things to do so that moves the 5 rounds of the averages only taking everyone to 0 and moves it to about 3 with some healing done. Lo and behold, a 3/4 round fight that was 3 creatures and still a challenge.

But, like I said, 10 goblins with 45% doing 5 damage so 2DPR is 20DPR. Lethal to a level 5 party.

I don't know how you got killing 4+ of them a round?

Quote
a Fighter wielding a greatsword, which, after accounting for all modifiers, deals 2d6+5 damage excluding superiority die as well as the dipping mechanic. 12 HP goblins, on hit die 58.33% of the time. Against the 10 HP Goblins, 83.33% of the time. You can reasonably expect 4-5 enemies to die every single round in that example


Fighter gets 1 hit, so even if its for literally infinite damage, just one dies. Also ON HIT, hes hitting 60% of the time. 40% of that time on a 12hp goblin, it doesn't die. You have 3 other people who do less damage - barring a rogue - and they are *certainly* not killing one a round. So the concept of killing 4+ is right out, and youll be lucky to get 2 based on the math for hitting their AC and the average DPR. So, the math doesn't jive beyond what I said above regarding 10 with 2 dropping a round, I haven't seen anything that changes that. If you want to take a video of you starting a fight against 10 goblins and without cheesing the absolute shit out of it, kill 4 a round. The numbers you posted for Shatter and Channel divinity are, again, for that particular configuration and they still have a surprisingly good save rate against it so assume max 75% of the damage on the board and thats if they havent already taken your wizard out and the cleric is spending the entire fight healing people and casting aid.

While, yes, its possible, and I can do it, it also requires a fair amount of optimization and cheesing. Want to run two wizards because you are on and you like gale? Well, good luck! So while having to be challenging for the hardest core min-maxed 4 PC MP game and also give something beatable to "WTF is a D&D lol?" player is difficult, the way you simplify it is reduce headcount. Bodies means DPR, flat out. If you are using utility spells, lockdowns, CC, it falls apart when you realize that holding 1/10 of the force in Hold Person was silly, its meaningless based on what their output as a collective is still. There are no real "impact" spells because the round length and crowded fields. So, what do you do? You make encounters like the ones that come as rollable encounters from the D&D modules that have a hell of a lot more playtesting behind them than this. 4 goblins with 2 pet drakes? Wow, crazy ass fight. Locking down a drake is a HUGE DEAL now. Casters and Druids, when they get introduced, are being neutered by the spam. So, what do you do? Give the dual wielding martial classes a bunch of buffs and push around the scatter a bit so they aren't getting attacked so much and roll until a side is dead.

The tactics being used right now are to reduce the effect of the HP and headcount on the field. They are not things you do in D&D. You think what ability would do the most interesting thing and tilt this. No one runs and finds a doorway or a ladder in D&D. That just isn't in the DNA. They saw a 3D world and decided to use that battle map as an excuse to litter the world with bodies. I think the most true-to-D&D encounters in the game currently are the madcaps, bulette (although its jump aoe damage is bullshit), and minotaurs.

Beginner DMs make the mistake of thinking an epic battle is an army coming after you and when its 45 minutes a round and everyone is bored to tears you learn to not do that anymore. Get some tough things in there, drop that headcount, and make spells and abilities matter because youre taking out a larger percentage of their round DPR by holding, sickening, weakening, or knocking down something while granting your martials some advantages and areas for them to take advantage of the chaos and chip damage youre creating so that 1 swing WILL kill something.

Long fights always favor martial classes, pick a game with expendable resources, that is a true statement. What the point of this is with the spread, bloat, and duration decreasing the effective DPR of casters, it relegates them to cheerleaders instead of battlefield manipulators. You dont use a 2nd level spell slot on X spell because if it hits it wont kill them. you may as well have done 0 damage if its got 1hp left because next round it has the same DPR. That 1-5hp grace period they keep getting left with essentially adds another enemy in for another round that wouldn't have been there otherwise. So the spell that kills just hurts now and martial is cleanup, or you waste a turn using firebolt to kill some asshole with 1hp left, AGAIN.
Originally Posted by Orbax


If you look at the spells I just pulled from a few of my players, the differences in spells aren't really in damage. I circled the things in purple that are consistently different. Now, Clerics and Warlock (limited spells) are the truest casters in the game. The wizard needs some work. You talk about big damage but the wizards really don't have it because if you are talking % of total enemy health per round relative to a 5e game, they are doing significantly less than your normal caster due to the nature of the encounter. Spiritual weapon, Tashas, Toll the dead, Spike growth, Spare the dying, Absorb elements, SHIELD, and sanctuary are spells that drastically change not only the DPR, but the shutdown for movement (spike growth), and advantage (tashas). This is a difficult conversation to have considering some of the most commonly chosen and used spells are missing from the book. Casters doing damage is nice, but there are other ways to guarantee SOME damage - spiritual weapon and spike growth especially are crazy good to just throw out there and now you have a spell that is pretty much guaranteed to succeed. Things like Tasha's are such a staple because of the prone condition that they have to *continue to save on* (without making an ice patch your own team can eat shit on).

And the point, again, is combined with HP bloat that line of "Take out a single enemy" is no longer an accurate statement.


If you want to say BG3 EA current selection of utility spells is a bit lacking I can agree with that, but the wizard class causing big amounts of damage is in the game. Stuff like scortching ray (especially when coupled with hex, and yes, you can have both as a wizard) does ton of damage for example (read 40+ danage). Stuff like thunderwave when correctly applied (i.e. when you position yourself so you can throw several opponents down a cliff...) is deadly. No martial character can hope do do the same in early game (barring lucky criticals and potions of speed which are way more unreliable than casting a spell with right positioning) or to give the party the same utility. So yes you can easily take down single enemies of even groups of them with spells in BG3 EA but it requires you to plan your moves carefully, luring them where you can hurt them the most. Also... Tasha is in the game already.

Quote


Cant sleep in the middle of a 7 round fight, now sure where you are getting Null & Void from.


Yes but you can sleep right afterwards and recharge everything, have another encounter, go nova again, then sleep and so on, that way your caster doesn't need to manage resources at all. As a DM I can tell you that resource management and recomended number of encounters per day are basically the of the main ways used to ballance caster classes compared to martial classes.

Quote

Half the time "tactics" means climbing up a rope or a ladder, burning it so the melee cant get to you and hiding out of LOS and just dumping arrows and firebolts and then dodging out of LOS again until they die. I wouldn't call it particularly clever, its holing up repeatedly so you don't get burned down and you save your spells for when you need it instead of using spells because they might work. The round economy breaks the 3 round fight and spell slot usage because of how long it takes to decrease enemy DPR from HP bloat. So, what do you do, you give as much advantage to martials as you can because they're the ones who are going to consistently hit and do damage. Its way better to empower them than blow 3 2nd level MMs for 12 damage on a creature that has 25hp instead of 10. Now you'll knock them down with ice and let that martial go to town. Thats the economy change that starts coming down the pipe because of the matrix. Again, this game does not play like D&D. You dont use the same spells in the same way for the same reason. You position martials and casters differently than you would. You are playing on a retreating action consistently and its dropping the "5e players are impossibly strong" theme that DMs run into time and time again. 5e favors the player significantly, and this is definitely not.


I destroyed a ladder the grand total of once (in the Zhent hideout to be precise). The most bloated and unfun fights I had in BG3 were in the goblin camp after I killed the 3 leaders and that's not because it was a difficult fight. It was actually pretty easy as I used my casters and archers to get rid of lower hp enemies (a lot of them with 12 hps so killing them in one hit with spells or sneak attack was not a problem), the problem was the time it took for the thing to end when the outcome was never really in doubt. As for your final lines... you are making a lot of assumptions about D&D. Yes, PCs are supposed to be powerful but depending on the group playstyle and level of experience they are not guaranteed to just walk around winning every fight, I for one don't DM the game that way although I also try to refrain from killing PCs due to sheer bad luck (on the other hand I'm the kind of DM who believes actions have consequences, if you do something utterly stupid in one of my games you are probably going to pay a price for it). If all I threw my players were easy encounters designed to make them feel great about themselves they would just ask me for more challenging encounters. And again the recomended number of encounters in D&D 5th edition is 6-8 encounters per day!

Edit: forgot to mention that currently wizards can learn any spell in the game, cleric spells included. This is wrong and needs to change imo but it certainly gives wizards a lot of utility they don't usually have at their disposal, especially not early on.
Kind of wonder where you get these percents at for advantage/disadvantage. I could be wrong but isn't the rule roll a additional d20 an high goes to advantage an low goes to disadvantage. If you have both it's nullified except for halflings that can reroll 1s.

If this is the case bless an the other spell will have more value than you say since the percent is not 100% accurate.
Thanks for the detailed and well elucidated write-up. I don't know the in-depth rules of DnD 5e, but even as a casual player, I've found that my play style has been narrowed down to:

1. sneak my way up to somewhere high above the enemies
2. Astarion sneak attacks with bow
3. the whole party then rains arrows/cantrips down on the enemies
4. profit

I don't even care about team composition and whether certain spells can complement certain strategies, because they all pale in comparison to what getting a height advantage can get you. Even Shadowheart with a crossbow is a pretty decent shot with height advantage and the target is not obscured in shadows. And if an enemy does get close, it's so easy to disengage and jump behind the enemy to backstab. Gaining Advantage this way is so powerful and easy that the part of DnD that encourages the interplay of different class spells and abilities is being left by the wayside as I make my way through the game.

So the effect this has on my gameplay is that casting support spells aren't as useful as direct damage spells when cast from a height advantage. Astarion is incredibly powerful since he has so many ways of gaining Advantage, either from height or from jumping and then backstabbing. He doesn't need any spells from the party to help him, other than an occasional heal.

It could very well be the case that this kind of gameplay is what Larian wants us to have, but DnD combat is much more than merely sneaking up a ladder and then raining down arrows/bolts/cantrips, no?
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Tasha is in the game already.



its save at turn start, unfortunately (guessing bug), and I don't think you can start with it as a wizard during character creation...maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a way to get it like a goolock or anything.

Originally Posted by Tulkash01
[Regarding sleeping] Yes but you can sleep right afterwards and recharge everything, have another encounter, go nova again, then sleep and so on, that way your caster doesn't need to manage resources at all. As a DM I can tell you that resource management and recomended number of encounters per day are basically the of the main ways used to ballance caster classes compared to martial classes.



It was more that the resource drain in during the fights, not that by the third one you are drained. We will target the gobbo fight, specifically, because its tedious and annoying to restart if you end up having to. Parties aren't meant to do with 2 encounters at once, it isn't a linear scale of "well if we add twice the people and 1 encounter takes half, the double should use all". The enemy DPR kicks up and wipes you out, you just cant mitigate it with a certain headcount because of how many people spells at that level affect.

Quote

I destroyed a ladder the grand total of once (in the Zhent hideout to be precise). The most bloated and unfun fights I had in BG3 were in the goblin camp after I killed the 3 leaders and that's not because it was a difficult fight. It was actually pretty easy as I used my casters and archers to get rid of lower hp enemies (a lot of them with 12 hps so killing them in one hit with spells or sneak attack was not a problem), the problem was the time it took for the thing to end when the outcome was never really in doubt. As for your final lines... you are making a lot of assumptions about D&D. Yes, PCs are supposed to be powerful but depending on the group playstyle and level of experience they are not guaranteed to just walk around winning every fight, I for one don't DM the game that way although I also try to refrain from killing PCs due to sheer bad luck (on the other hand I'm the kind of DM who believes actions have consequences, if you do something utterly stupid in one of my games you are probably going to pay a price for it). If all I threw my players were easy encounters designed to make them feel great about themselves they would just ask me for more challenging encounters. And again the recomended number of encounters in D&D 5th edition is 6-8 encounters per day!

Edit: forgot to mention that currently wizards can learn any spell in the game, cleric spells included. This is wrong and needs to change imo but it certainly gives wizards a lot of utility they don't usually have at their disposal, especially not early on.


My party is level 8 in Avernus and they are going to walk into a room thats 50' high and 100' wide (circular). 2 Erinyes that can polymorph into giant spiders, 2 phase spiders, a shadow demon, and a fomorian. The place is littered in webs that will halve the speed and the room is hot and gives them a level of exhaustion every 2 rounds on a failed DC12 Con Save. I don't really run easy fights haha. The 2 chain devils riding wyverns and dropping them from 200 feet after they were taking crush damage was a rough one, just some random encounter. By powerful I mean a fully charged party focusing on one thing is powerful. I ran tomb of annihilation. 5 level 10s almost killed a CR23 Lich AFTER fighting something that was a DC19 con save to not because exhausted every round and that thing had 250 hp of its own. Lich had power word kill, maze, all sorts of nasty shit. The way the map is though, he cant really move around. Thats crazy though. It why all bosses have escape, legendary, or minions because players will annihilate solos. That is the issue though is for every head you put onto the initiative tracker, that power gets more and more and more diffused. It should be a battle of skills, spells, and being clever. At a certain point a large number of individually mediocre enemies A. Isn't fun B. removes utility from a lot of abilities and spells as it just doesn't accomplish much. 100 skeleton? You thunderwave and kill 10. 90 left. Cool spell?

This is up to DMs and players as to what they enjoy, of course, but I have found over the years that a spell landing or an ability sticking having a marked effect on the field is a lot more gratifying.than saying "Hey I got Goblin 34 in hold person for like 1 round until I got hit, im out of spells now". People like seeing that impact, like having the spell slot that this forum and others have already hammered on needing to be more important (resting mechanic), so if Im going to use a spell it should be friggin important, I dont have a lot of those. Resting afterwards takes away that decision making but, realistically, people using spells should still be a cool thing and its a lot more toned down than what I am used to seeing from 5e casters.
Originally Posted by Orbax
ok...again. 7 comes up because if you are a DM when you use creature sheets, it says "7(2d6)". The HP is 7. There is no minimum and no maximum. Their HP is 7. Thats it. End of story. Goblins have 7hp. Young reds have 178. Thats it, end of story, no questions. You don't roll 17d10 and maybe end up with a 255hp dragon. You fight against a young dragon with 178 hp. There is no range, ever. They have what they have. So saying 12 could be doubled to 24 on a max rolled goblin - there is no maxed roll goblin. There are goblins - they have 7 hp. A DM might custom tailor an encounter or a particular tribe, or whatever but that is a DM being very comfortable with the game mechanics and THAT SPECIFIC PARTY to say "they can handle this"or "this would be a shit stomp, lets bump gobbo attack to +5 and increase AC by 1 and add 5hp".

No, the 7 is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only, because if you rolled the HP for every single monster at a table it would be time consuming and so it gives someone a quick reference point if they do not want to do so. The monsters HP is a variable range, with a min and a max, if it was not, there would be literally no reason of providing the additional data (2d6) because it is a redundancy. As much as I assume you would like to be the arbiter of truth and all that is right in the world (your ego is certainly big enough for it), that is not the way things works.

Originally Posted by Orbax
You can't just do it and be like "yeah im pretty sure any party of 4, regardless of configuration, should be good with this". The game just doesn't work like that. If you look at rollable encounters for a level 4 party:

Two winged kobolds, one drake (This is from Hoard of the Dragon Queen)

[Linked Image]

Field HP = 114. Drake resistant to weapons = 214 hp effective, 3 targets.

For a party of 5 level 4s, you are running into 114hp with a 55% hit chance from kobolds doing 6 damage - so 6 a round. Pack Tactics makes that 90+% so we call that 10 around from the kobolds. A drake doing a 70% chance to hit on bite at at 10 + con save 75% chance to save 5 poison and disadvantage as well as the 55% chance to hit tail doing 6. So about 12DPR from that. Total of 22 DPR. AC 13 on kobolds means that first round theyre probably both dead but knocked out 10 damage. You can play them ranged and send in the drake for a round and add another 12 before players take them out. So you rotate into round 2 with ranged another 22. 44 damage in 2 rounds now. Kobolds drop we're back to doing 12DPR on a drake with 200hp. 5 level 4s at 45hp on the high which puts them at roughly 200 hp across 5 targets. Well we just took 1 almost out of the fight in 2 rounds with only 3 creatures. Add 2 more winged creatures and on is definitely down and on lost saves because they keep targeting them.

Players go - Barbarian, makes 1 +6 (55% chance to hit) with a greataxe - 1d12+4 (with 18 str). 10 damage reduced to 5, so 2.5DPR. Rogue goes, dual wielding short swords. +5 to attack (55%) for 1d6+3 (6) and sneak attack 2d6 (6) = 12/2 is 6 plus another 55% chance with 3 on 1d6 because no dual wield feat, reduced to 1 = 7/2 3 DPR. We'll just say that average is going to work for a ranger as well and then we have a cleric and a wizard. 2d6 force on cleric for spiritual weapon is 6 at 55% = 3, not reduced force damage and a wizard is probably going to use either catapult, mm, or a chill touch/toll the dead. So, now you are added 6 average.

Add all of that up and you get 2.5 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 6 = 18 DPR v the 12 of the drake, each at 200hp. 5 rounds doing average but rogues exist and you might get 32 total on a crit from a sneak attacking that changes life significantly. Having poisoned PCs attacking at disadvantage levels the DPR. We all know dice exist and there are clever things to do so that moves the 5 rounds of the averages only taking everyone to 0 and moves it to about 3 with some healing done. Lo and behold, a 3/4 round fight that was 3 creatures and still a challenge.

But, like I said, 10 goblins with 45% doing 5 damage so 2DPR is 20DPR. Lethal to a level 5 party.


Firstly, I never said that any party regardless of configuration should be able to beat it, so do not put words in my mouth. Secondly, I would not say such a thing, because I do not believe it to be true, in fact, I solidly believe that if a party is not right for an encounter, they should die, horribly and as much sympathy as I may have for them, that is perfectly fine and is the way of things. Thirdly, as nice as this lecture is, this is not an encounter that exists within the game and nor is it entirely relevant as not all encounters (and parties) are the same. Your "lethal" encounter for 1 party, may be an easy encounter for another group. Power Gamers exist and so do players who want to experience nearly no combat at all and are mostly there for socializing, a good GM is 1 who is able to accurately judge their players and build the right experience for them.

Larian is building a "GM" which reacts the same to every party, in a different medium. They cannot do nuanced gameplay and make goblins play like tactical geniuses for a power gamer, or be more fair to someone who is just there to socialize, so there needs to be some compromise. They cannot predict what the players will do and to be able to account for that, the size of a "fair" encounter, will probably vary greatly from your source book.

Originally Posted by Orbax

I don't know how you got killing 4+ of them a round?

Quote
a Fighter wielding a greatsword, which, after accounting for all modifiers, deals 2d6+5 damage excluding superiority die as well as the dipping mechanic. 12 HP goblins, on hit die 58.33% of the time. Against the 10 HP Goblins, 83.33% of the time. You can reasonably expect 4-5 enemies to die every single round in that example


Fighter gets 1 hit, so even if its for literally infinite damage, just one dies. Also ON HIT, hes hitting 60% of the time. 40% of that time on a 12hp goblin, it doesn't die. You have 3 other people who do less damage - barring a rogue - and they are *certainly* not killing one a round. So the concept of killing 4+ is right out, and youll be lucky to get 2 based on the math for hitting their AC and the average DPR. So, the math doesn't jive beyond what I said above regarding 10 with 2 dropping a round, I haven't seen anything that changes that. If you want to take a video of you starting a fight against 10 goblins and without cheesing the absolute shit out of it, kill 4 a round. The numbers you posted for Shatter and Channel divinity are, again, for that particular configuration and they still have a surprisingly good save rate against it so assume max 75% of the damage on the board and thats if they havent already taken your wizard out and the cleric is spending the entire fight healing people and casting aid.

While, yes, its possible, and I can do it, it also requires a fair amount of optimization and cheesing. Want to run two wizards because you are on and you like gale? Well, good luck!

The fighter has an 80% chance of hitting, without advantage. 96% chance if you do have advantage.
[Linked Image]
The game provides you with potions of speed and other consumables, which, if you use intelligently during challenging encounters, it makes that "4-5 dying per turn" not much of an achievement. Please, keep telling me how super optimized this party is. Its a Warlock, a Fighter, a Cleric and a Rogue and we all know what Shadowheart's statistics look like. If I was trying to be optimized, I would have ditched either her or the fighter for Gale. Why? Because Thunderwave and Magic Missile with the necklace do far more damage than a fighter or Shadowheart could hope to do, especially with all the vertical terrain elements available within the game. As much as you "disbelieve" 4-5 enemies die per turn, its happening.

The fact that your mindset is, "set the cleric to casting healing word or aid" already tells me why you struggle to see this happening, that is not how I am playing the game. You know what the cleric is doing? Nuking things with either a longbow or guiding bolt. The best damage mitigation is dead goblins.
Originally Posted by Orbax

So while having to be challenging for the hardest core min-maxed 4 PC MP game and also give something beatable to "WTF is a D&D lol?" player is difficult, the way you simplify it is reduce headcount. Bodies means DPR, flat out. If you are using utility spells, lockdowns, CC, it falls apart when you realize that holding 1/10 of the force in Hold Person was silly, its meaningless based on what their output as a collective is still. There are no real "impact" spells because the round length and crowded fields. So, what do you do? You make encounters like the ones that come as rollable encounters from the D&D modules that have a hell of a lot more playtesting behind them than this. 4 goblins with 2 pet drakes? Wow, crazy ass fight. Locking down a drake is a HUGE DEAL now. Casters and Druids, when they get introduced, are being neutered by the spam. So, what do you do? Give the dual wielding martial classes a bunch of buffs and push around the scatter a bit so they aren't getting attacked so much and roll until a side is dead.


Beginner DMs make the mistake of thinking an epic battle is an army coming after you and when its 45 minutes a round and everyone is bored to tears you learn to not do that anymore. Get some tough things in there, drop that headcount, and make spells and abilities matter because youre taking out a larger percentage of their round DPR by holding, sickening, weakening, or knocking down something while granting your martials some advantages and areas for them to take advantage of the chaos and chip damage youre creating so that 1 swing WILL kill something.

Fortunately for you, Larian has realized this and not every enemy is a wave of Goblins. For example, there are 2 Minotaurs in the underdark which are intended as a challenging fight, all on their lonesome. I can also give examples of fights like the Bulette, but I think you see my point. But, just because not every enemy needs to be a wave of Goblins, does not mean that a wave of Goblins does not need to exist.

The EA has 2 set piece battles, which are both potentially entirely optional. There is nothing forcing a player to do them and even if you feel compelled to complete 1 of the quest lines (either to defend the druid camp, or kill the druid camp), the 2nd set piece battle (killing the goblin camp) is still pretty much entirely optional. Set piece battles have their place, provided they are scarce. There are a sum total of 2 in the entire first chapter and neither of them are forced on you, I would say this fully meets the definition of "scarce."
Originally Posted by Orbax

The tactics being used right now are to reduce the effect of the HP and headcount on the field. They are not things you do in D&D. You think what ability would do the most interesting thing and tilt this. No one runs and finds a doorway or a ladder in D&D. That just isn't in the DNA. They saw a 3D world and decided to use that battle map as an excuse to litter the world with bodies. I think the most true-to-D&D encounters in the game currently are the madcaps, bulette (although its jump aoe damage is bullshit), and minotaurs.


Maybe its not what you do. Maybe to you, D&D is a theater of the mind and you are, "just here to see pretty explosions" but D&D has its roots in war gaming and if you look to those origins, things like using line of sight, taking advantage of height and forcing enemies through choke points would certainly be in the DNA of D&D. That is what D&D is to me, it is a glorified fantasy squad based tactics simulator and like it or not, I am a part of this game's audience just as much as you are.

Originally Posted by Orbax

Long fights always favor martial classes, pick a game with expendable resources, that is a true statement.

Provided casters are the ones with the limited resource, yes, this is the case and that is fine. In D&D this is the case. A class doesn't need to feel useful in every circumstances, I am perfectly fine with casters feeling useless every now and again and my preferred class in D&D, for your information, is a Sorcerer. Yes, a good GM will occasionally make me feel useless within the context of the game, because it adds a touch of realism to the setting.
Originally Posted by Orbax


My party is level 8 in Avernus and they are going to walk into a room thats 50' high and 100' wide (circular). 2 Erinyes that can polymorph into giant spiders, 2 phase spiders, a shadow demon, and a fomorian. The place is littered in webs that will halve the speed and the room is hot and gives them a level of exhaustion every 2 rounds on a failed DC12 Con Save. I don't really run easy fights haha. The 2 chain devils riding wyverns and dropping them from 200 feet after they were taking crush damage was a rough one, just some random encounter. By powerful I mean a fully charged party focusing on one thing is powerful. I ran tomb of annihilation. 5 level 10s almost killed a CR23 Lich AFTER fighting something that was a DC19 con save to not because exhausted every round and that thing had 250 hp of its own. Lich had power word kill, maze, all sorts of nasty shit. The way the map is though, he cant really move around. Thats crazy though. It why all bosses have escape, legendary, or minions because players will annihilate solos. That is the issue though is for every head you put onto the initiative tracker, that power gets more and more and more diffused. It should be a battle of skills, spells, and being clever. At a certain point a large number of individually mediocre enemies A. Isn't fun B. removes utility from a lot of abilities and spells as it just doesn't accomplish much. 100 skeleton? You thunderwave and kill 10. 90 left. Cool spell?

This is up to DMs and players as to what they enjoy, of course, but I have found over the years that a spell landing or an ability sticking having a marked effect on the field is a lot more gratifying.than saying "Hey I got Goblin 34 in hold person for like 1 round until I got hit, im out of spells now". People like seeing that impact, like having the spell slot that this forum and others have already hammered on needing to be more important (resting mechanic), so if Im going to use a spell it should be friggin important, I dont have a lot of those. Resting afterwards takes away that decision making but, realistically, people using spells should still be a cool thing and its a lot more toned down than what I am used to seeing from 5e casters.


Players dominate solo encounters because of action economy and when the DM allows them to reach those encounters with full resources. Playing the game as reccomended means whittling down player's resources with minor encounters forcing them to make hard choices not to face every encounter at full strength, otherwise yes they'll just wipe everything going nova. A single monster however powerful can't dish out the same amount of moves a group of 4 to 6 PCs can. That's why we give the BBEG minions. As for spells if a player wastes hold person on goblin #34 that's entirely his fault, if he uses that same hold person spell at the right moment against the right opponent (that pesky spellcaster NPC? That huge hill giant who's weak against wisdom saves?) then the spell is not wasted at all and allows the party to suceed.
Here is jeremy crawford regarding changing hit points on monsters:

[Linked Image]

Those are not the words of someone saying 7, 10, 12, its all the same /shrug. Hes saying if getting your ass beat is fun, go for it. Yes, I know hes referencing damage in that line but his point was that "range" is a slider and the end is considered lethal. Its not a small tweak. People use that number because its what the standard experience is centered around. For all of the math reasons regarding enemy DPR that I explained. Speaking of which, their math is not something I would putting a lot of faith in. Their modifiers and conditions are unreliable and even with that 80% hit (still not 100 and rules apply for not killing) I have had times where there is one person thats 45% and another thats 70% and its the white ring, no explanation on why its different. So, I have no idea how they get these things when youre running at level 4 a +6 to hit on an AC15 and its still telling you you have a 40% chance to hit. Im just not gonna run by their numbers as they defy the numbers on the character sheet v AC. The Novice Crusher is a boss and has 25 hp and 12ac, which is why hes easier to hit, other stats

Sharp-eyes, Three, One - 15 HP, 9 AC

Novice Muzul, Mrak (Shield) - 15 HP, 14 AC

Novice Greez - 12 HP, 8 AC

Lookout Nrog, Trinza (melee) - 16 HP, 12 AC

Lookout Tizg, Fezk (archers) - 13 HP, 9 AC

Novice Skrut (Boss) - 35 HP, 13 AC

Rozzak (Boss) - 24 HP, 16 AC

With a swing from 9-16 that 80 drops to a 60% chance at 15 ac, 55% at 16, etc...Now, to the point of this thread, you start adding in all of the disadvantage stuff and sight line issues and youre seeing that drop into the 30s and 40s. With the same # of enemies thats annoying even without all that bullshit. and the same HP that is annoying without it being pumped up. That is specifically the issue the enemy count + hp + ac + your mods + status + LOS + elevation can take what might be a fairly reasonable encounter otherwise and turn it into a drawn out clusterfuck where you just use cantrips because why bother wasting a spell half the time. Thats the issue. Its not whether or not you can beat goblins, its the gestalt of the factors theyve put into play except in this case, you end up lower than the sum of your parts because of the dampeners and hey while we are at it, make them harder to kill.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Mr Sharp,


As you I'm an old school player of PoE.


• PoE does not have an auction house. Players want an auction house. The developers have said, they will never add an auction house. Here is the trade manifesto for example, which illustrates this.
• Players want items to be easier to pick up. They want loot vacuums to suck in items that are around them. This is another example of something which the developers consider a core pillar of Path of Exile and have said would never change.
• Just recently (as of Harvest League) there was a massive outcry about players wanting deterministic crafting. Deterministic crafting goes against the core pillar that powerful items are hard to obtain and as of such, it is not going to happen.

Not altering 3 things (which I'd hate to have them changed the way they are right now because the game is supposed to be hardcore) when they've done hundreds of thousand other ajustments based in a client base is simply the worst argument in the world possible to justify yours concerning BG3.

Those 3 comments you've posted are like asking Pokemon to remove the Pokeballs. Asking Street Fighter to remove Ryu. Asking Dota 2 to be turn based and so on and so forth.

Why the hell is that comparable to ask a DnD5e game based to CARE about spell balance? lol

BG3 would get so much out of POE

Economy to begin with. Law of Scarcity in economics were perfectly implemented in that game. Scarcity is not a BG3 thing frown




Whilst I absolutely agree with you that PoE would be a much worse game to me if it ever did those things, that was not my point. My point was that, the developers for PoE have a vision for what they want the game to look like and they are nearly uncompromising on trying to achieve that and it is that vision which has made the game so successful. I imagine that if they were to try to make BG 3 they would have pillars here which they would be unwilling to compromise on as well, some of which, not everyone would agree on and those people would be voicing their dislike for those pillars very vocally on the forums, just like people are currently voicing their dislike for the lack of easy trade right now.

We do not know if these are changes that Larian are unwilling to compromise on (unfortunately, they are not very forthcoming. A "surfaces manifesto" giving their thoughts on things would be nice), but I expect that just like GGG, they have some "core design pillars" which they are unwilling to compromise on. We should absolutely complain about the stuff we don't like, but don't be too disappointed if something we don't like turns out to be 1 of these pillars. In my opinion, whilst there are some negatives to a game development company being uncompromising on certain design pillars, its the companies that do have these pillars which are ultimately producing the games with the most "soul" for the lack of a better word.
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Orbax


My party is level 8 in Avernus and they are going to walk into a room thats 50' high and 100' wide (circular). 2 Erinyes that can polymorph into giant spiders, 2 phase spiders, a shadow demon, and a fomorian. The place is littered in webs that will halve the speed and the room is hot and gives them a level of exhaustion every 2 rounds on a failed DC12 Con Save. I don't really run easy fights haha. The 2 chain devils riding wyverns and dropping them from 200 feet after they were taking crush damage was a rough one, just some random encounter. By powerful I mean a fully charged party focusing on one thing is powerful. I ran tomb of annihilation. 5 level 10s almost killed a CR23 Lich AFTER fighting something that was a DC19 con save to not because exhausted every round and that thing had 250 hp of its own. Lich had power word kill, maze, all sorts of nasty shit. The way the map is though, he cant really move around. Thats crazy though. It why all bosses have escape, legendary, or minions because players will annihilate solos. That is the issue though is for every head you put onto the initiative tracker, that power gets more and more and more diffused. It should be a battle of skills, spells, and being clever. At a certain point a large number of individually mediocre enemies A. Isn't fun B. removes utility from a lot of abilities and spells as it just doesn't accomplish much. 100 skeleton? You thunderwave and kill 10. 90 left. Cool spell?

This is up to DMs and players as to what they enjoy, of course, but I have found over the years that a spell landing or an ability sticking having a marked effect on the field is a lot more gratifying.than saying "Hey I got Goblin 34 in hold person for like 1 round until I got hit, im out of spells now". People like seeing that impact, like having the spell slot that this forum and others have already hammered on needing to be more important (resting mechanic), so if Im going to use a spell it should be friggin important, I dont have a lot of those. Resting afterwards takes away that decision making but, realistically, people using spells should still be a cool thing and its a lot more toned down than what I am used to seeing from 5e casters.


Players dominate solo encounters because of action economy and when the DM allows them to reach those encounters with full resources. Playing the game as reccomended means whittling down player's resources with minor encounters forcing them to make hard choices not to face every encounter at full strength, otherwise yes they'll just wipe everything going nova. A single monster however powerful can't dish out the same amount of moves a group of 4 to 6 PCs can. That's why we give the BBEG minions. As for spells if a player wastes hold person on goblin #34 that's entirely his fault, if he uses that same hold person spell at the right moment against the right opponent (that pesky spellcaster NPC? That huge hill giant who's weak against wisdom saves?) then the spell is not wasted at all and allows the party to suceed.



We are in 100% agreement. With a note that if there are 34 goblins on the field you grabbing that one spellcaster doesnt matter as much because youre about to get 33 arrows in your face while you stand in acid getting -2ac while also being on fire.The reason someone is "key" is because they are a high value target. Every time you add another head to the initiative, everyone else gets a little less important. You can still have someone whos gonna ruin your day and you want to stop him, but at a certain point thats delaying the inevitable, the swarm youre fighting is too powerful as an entity to make reducing it by even a powerful 1 as important as your typical D&D encounter would. I say typical by using the D&D rollable encounter tables that they publish with their modules to give DMs playtested encounters that are area and level appropriate. Adjust at DMs discretion per what you feel justified given the players at your table. This is a playtest, they have posted maps about where peopel are dying, they are testing encounter lethality. They don't think it is perfect either and Im confused why people are defending it when Larian very reasonably could say "99% of our players die at the goblin camp, we have changed it". Yeah, its too hard. They probably will. The staunch defense of that encounter for what is supposed to be the beginning of a huge game where im sure youll get your ass handed to you later is just bizarre to me right now.
Originally Posted by Orbax



We are in 100% agreement. With a note that if there are 34 goblins on the field you grabbing that one spellcaster doesnt matter as much because youre about to get 33 arrows in your face while you stand in acid getting -2ac while also being on fire.The reason someone is "key" is because they are a high value target. Every time you add another head to the initiative, everyone else gets a little less important. You can still have someone whos gonna ruin your day and you want to stop him, but at a certain point thats delaying the inevitable, the swarm youre fighting is too powerful as an entity to make reducing it by even a powerful 1 as important as your typical D&D encounter would. I say typical by using the D&D rollable encounter tables that they publish with their modules to give DMs playtested encounters that are area and level appropriate. Adjust at DMs discretion per what you feel justified given the players at your table. This is a playtest, they have posted maps about where peopel are dying, they are testing encounter lethality. They don't think it is perfect either and Im confused why people are defending it when Larian very reasonably could say "99% of our players die at the goblin camp, we have changed it". Yeah, its too hard. They probably will. The staunch defense of that encounter for what is supposed to be the beginning of a huge game where im sure youll get your ass handed to you later is just bizarre to me right now.


I don't get your example. In BG3 there's a couple of fights where you are forced to deal with an horde, and the game provides you with ways to deal with said hordes easily enough (you don't have fireball yet... but you have flame spells and loads of explosives...). Goblin camp isn't an hard encounter, it's just terribly boring because those easy to kill goblin "moving targets" and their lumbering ogre friend take a long time to die as there are so many of them.

The game actually has some challenging encounters and they are not about hordes. One is in the Hag's lair (the party of 4 masked servants), the Duergars can be problematic if you can't focus the right targets at the right time, facing the kuo-toas without proper positioning may also be diffcult and the beholder fight can also be complex as long as the spectator manages to build itself enough servants. None of those encounters is an horde encounter though.
Originally Posted by Sharp
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Mr Sharp,


As you I'm an old school player of PoE.


• PoE does not have an auction house. Players want an auction house. The developers have said, they will never add an auction house. Here is the trade manifesto for example, which illustrates this.
• Players want items to be easier to pick up. They want loot vacuums to suck in items that are around them. This is another example of something which the developers consider a core pillar of Path of Exile and have said would never change.
• Just recently (as of Harvest League) there was a massive outcry about players wanting deterministic crafting. Deterministic crafting goes against the core pillar that powerful items are hard to obtain and as of such, it is not going to happen.

Not altering 3 things (which I'd hate to have them changed the way they are right now because the game is supposed to be hardcore) when they've done hundreds of thousand other ajustments based in a client base is simply the worst argument in the world possible to justify yours concerning BG3.

Those 3 comments you've posted are like asking Pokemon to remove the Pokeballs. Asking Street Fighter to remove Ryu. Asking Dota 2 to be turn based and so on and so forth.

Why the hell is that comparable to ask a DnD5e game based to CARE about spell balance? lol

BG3 would get so much out of POE

Economy to begin with. Law of Scarcity in economics were perfectly implemented in that game. Scarcity is not a BG3 thing frown




Whilst I absolutely agree with you that PoE would be a much worse game to me if it ever did those things, that was not my point. My point was that, the developers for PoE have a vision for what they want the game to look like and they are nearly uncompromising on trying to achieve that and it is that vision which has made the game so successful. I imagine that if they were to try to make BG 3 they would have pillars here which they would be unwilling to compromise on as well, some of which, not everyone would agree on and those people would be voicing their dislike for those pillars very vocally on the forums, just like people are currently voicing their dislike for the lack of easy trade right now.

We do not know if these are changes that Larian are unwilling to compromise on (unfortunately, they are not very forthcoming. A "surfaces manifesto" giving their thoughts on things would be nice), but I expect that just like GGG, they have some "core design pillars" which they are unwilling to compromise on. We should absolutely complain about the stuff we don't like, but don't be too disappointed if something we don't like turns out to be 1 of these pillars. In my opinion, whilst there are some negatives to a game development company being uncompromising on certain design pillars, its the companies that do have these pillars which are ultimately producing the games with the most "soul" for the lack of a better word.


I’d never ask Pokémon to remove pokeballs. It’s just that Larian isn’t saying much about popular threads that are being debated.
GGG pairs with CD as the greatest studios nowadays because they’re simply honest to their concept and pillars. GGG due to their position regarding users feedback and CD due to their disruptive approach. Larian opened their early access to scrutiny. It’s up to them to show how compromised they are with this concept.

Glad to see that we could debate gaming without being aggressive to each other in the end.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Kind of wonder where you get these percents at for advantage/disadvantage. I could be wrong but isn't the rule roll a additional d20 an high goes to advantage an low goes to disadvantage. If you have both it's nullified except for halflings that can reroll 1s.

If this is the case bless an the other spell will have more value than you say since the percent is not 100% accurate.


Statistical modeling is where understanding the effectiveness of Advantage/Disadvantage comes from.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

The chances of rolling a 10 or greater on a D20 are 55%. Every single number has a 5% chance to come up with a single roll.
If you have disadvantage, where you roll two d20 and take the lower, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater drop to 30.3%
If you have advantage, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater increases to 79.8%.

If anything, the OP's use of 10% increase for advantage is understating things.
I have played D&D since the early 80s, played every version. I always roll HP for monsters. I will bump them up more in game if the party is steam rolling the encounters, and lower them if they are taking too much damage and using too many resources. To tell me that all goblins have 7 hp is laughable. They have a range.

The conversation given above regarding max DAMAGE does not equate to Max Hit points. IF I handed down max damage for every hit that would be really craptastically unfair.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by fallenj
Kind of wonder where you get these percents at for advantage/disadvantage. I could be wrong but isn't the rule roll a additional d20 an high goes to advantage an low goes to disadvantage. If you have both it's nullified except for halflings that can reroll 1s.

If this is the case bless an the other spell will have more value than you say since the percent is not 100% accurate.


Statistical modeling is where understanding the effectiveness of Advantage/Disadvantage comes from.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

The chances of rolling a 10 or greater on a D20 are 55%. Every single number has a 5% chance to come up with a single roll.
If you have disadvantage, where you roll two d20 and take the lower, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater drop to 30.3%
If you have advantage, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater increases to 79.8%.

If anything, the OP's use of 10% increase for advantage is understating things.


Thanks Stabbey. I love to use the “dumb” math philosophy in DnD to simplify it.

Every +2 = 10%
Advantage as +4 = +20%.

Then why is it advantage bad for spell effectiveness if it’s an absolute increase of +20%? Because the impact of increasing 10% when you have 55% to hit is greater than a +10% over 75% basis smile it was explained in the main thread but here it goes again.

I’ve used bless average as a 2 but in fact is 2,5. That was done to simplify the calculation. Would that be a 2,5 the impact would be even greater.
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have played D&D since the early 80s, played every version. I always roll HP for monsters. I will bump them up more in game if the party is steam rolling the encounters, and lower them if they are taking too much damage and using too many resources. To tell me that all goblins have 7 hp is laughable. They have a range.

The conversation given above regarding max DAMAGE does not equate to Max Hit points. IF I handed down max damage for every hit that would be really craptastically unfair.



Ive met a lot of people who've "played for 30 years" which usually means you played in middle school a couple times, twice in college, had a 20 year gap and recently decided to start playing again and have been having a hard time keeping a group together. How many games, groups, campaigns, and how many players have passed beyond the screen might be a better way to tack it. 15 enemies on the board that have different Hps for thousands of battles - what exactly is the method there and what on earth is the net benefit of spending that time for every single encounter? If you read what I wrote regarding that photo I mentioned that it was regarding the slider bar and specifically referencing damage as well, so I appreciate your reiterating what I said.
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have played D&D since the early 80s, played every version. I always roll HP for monsters. I will bump them up more in game if the party is steam rolling the encounters, and lower them if they are taking too much damage and using too many resources. To tell me that all goblins have 7 hp is laughable. They have a range.

The conversation given above regarding max DAMAGE does not equate to Max Hit points. IF I handed down max damage for every hit that would be really craptastically unfair.



Ive met a lot of people who've "played for 30 years" which usually means you played in middle school a couple times, twice in college, had a 20 year gap and recently decided to start playing again and have been having a hard time keeping a group together. How many games, groups, campaigns, and how many players have passed beyond the screen might be a better way to tack it. 15 enemies on the board that have different Hps for thousands of battles - what exactly is the method there and what on earth is the net benefit of spending that time for every single encounter? If you read what I wrote regarding that photo I mentioned that it was regarding the slider bar and specifically referencing damage as well, so I appreciate your reiterating what I said.



No, you never met me. I played for years straight all through HS (from freshman year to graduation, every weekend). In College we had a regular Sunday game that went on for years, rotating between 4 dms and campaigns it only ended breaking up as we graduated and moved away for work. Short gap when I moved for work but ended up playing regularly at a gaming store for years, and a few long trips to play with the College gang every now and then. etc. I played D&D, Arduin, Gurps, Rollmaster, ShadowRun, Cyberpunk, Runequest, etc.

But hey, great time with you taking that attitude right off!

Damage does not equal HP. Max Damage is a major increase. Max HP is not. You used a post about slider bar for damage and said it was basically the same for hit points. It is not. Even Jeremy Crawford stated in the Dragon Talk that he bumps hp up and down at will depending on what is going on in the game. The hp range is on purpose to allow customization. Quick and easy - use 7 hp, want more challenge up the hp. It is made that way on purpose.
Ok cool, so you have a lot of experience - how do you justify rolling each individual creature's HP and tracking it for every encounter over thousands of meaningless (sorry players!) encounters when its just there to give a little zazz to the game, get some XP, add some story, some items maybe, and now that theyre down some resources have a real fight that matters? Will I update a character sheet where its a creature 14 ac and 32 hp and a +5 to attack doing 1d6 and say these creatures at all 16ac, 40 hp, +7 to acck and its 1d6+3 damage? Yeah. But treating them as individuals? I honestly am interested in hearing how swapping HP and maintaining the same NUMBER you planned for combatants and saying "I dont care what I roll for these 5 creatures, I chose 5, and ill stick to that max hp or minimum hp" and theyre gonna have a cake-walk (kind of a waste of time) a normal or a hard (why was that so hard, we are just on our way to take a poop in the woods?). Because, again, DPR with an enemy that you cant quite kill in the same round economy means DPR is up, theyre taking N% more damage per round just with a little change that keeps 25% of the force alive 2 rounds more and now youre looking at lethal. Or...just follow the book. You want a harder fight? Swap in some hobgoblins. Add some wolves. Keep the headcount low and increase difficulty with abilities or auras, or any of the things the MM gives you. Adding a bunch of HP just to drag it out is just time consuming and miserable and rolling for the honor of wasting a bunch of time on a meaningless encounter...I don't see the upside.
Really well done post OP.

Surprised long rest spam and spell slot economy wasn't mentioned as that's definitely a big factor. You don't have to be conservative with spells since you can get all your spell slots back after every encounter, which leads to casters outperforming martials easily. I think if they can put some form of a limit on resting, going back to 5e AC and hp values would be ideal.

I think elevation works for a defensive advantage like cover(as in +2 AC and dex), but not as an offensive advantage. Backstab should require flanking or stealth.

Now for surface effects, I'd really like for those to remain in the game as they add more complexity to fights. Would adding saving throws for surfaces and maybe making concentration harder to break be enough to balance out the surfaces?
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Really well done post OP.

Surprised long rest spam and spell slot economy wasn't mentioned as that's definitely a big factor. You don't have to be conservative with spells since you can get all your spell slots back after every encounter, which leads to casters outperforming martials easily. I think if they can put some form of a limit on resting, going back to 5e AC and hp values would be ideal.

I think elevation works for a defensive advantage like cover(as in +2 AC and dex), but not as an offensive advantage. Backstab should require flanking or stealth.

Now for surface effects, I'd really like for those to remain in the game as they add more complexity to fights. Would adding saving throws for surfaces and maybe making concentration harder to break be enough to balance out the surfaces?


Hustle, I’m not fan of surfaces as is. We can definitely work them out in favor of the DnD rules. There’s the raw that says that you’ll only take damage if you end your turn over it. That would work. The other one is to add an extremely easy saving throw DC. But most importantly, If you miss the spell the surface won’t be created by it. So you guarantee that it’ll only be applied if you fail your attack save. The only thing that cannot pass is to have them in it’s current state. It’s just silly
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.
Originally Posted by fallenj
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.


Brilliant analysis, delete the thread I guess, no way to argue against that.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.


It’s easy to talk about HP and forgetting to talk about the AC 10 instead of 15 and how that damage the spell efficiency balance. Again, this is not about a problem generated by a single homebrew. It’s the problem generated by a combination of them. Elite goblins should have even higher AC by your terms (16 would do just fine)
No, just don't state stuff is useless "bless" when your stating a estimate on a roll. You want only 10s on a d20. Doesn't always run that way.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by fallenj
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.


Brilliant analysis, delete the thread I guess, no way to argue against that.


Guys, I was caught. I’m sorry for manipulating the math to make you have a worst game. I couldn’t imagine that Russel Crowe (beautiful mind) was playing the game and was participating in this very forum. Sorry to disappoint you all. Bye
Bye
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by fallenj
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.


Brilliant analysis, delete the thread I guess, no way to argue against that.


Guys, I was caught. I’m sorry for manipulating the math to make you have a worst game. I couldn’t imagine that Russel Crowe (beautiful mind) was playing the game and was participating in this very forum. Sorry to disappoint you all. Bye


Get out of here you bum
I have no idea how you create your encounters, or how you play, etc. I know that 90% of the time I build everything custom for my players. I have 3x5 cards for each encounter if there are 5 creatures it has 5 sets of ac/hp/weapons and saves. I do this for several encounters for each session (most do not get used) and if they did not level up I use the rest next time. I have boss monsters detailed out more, etc. Everything is tweaked live as things happen, so say they meet a group of 5 goblins with 2 archers, 2 fighter types and a caster (3x5 card has all that and a rough treasure list). The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders.

If they are too much for some reason, I may have a couple run away to get help, allowing the group to kill the couple left and choose to follow or flee, Or I may drop the hp of a couple of them, etc. There are times when a player rolls well for damage or to hit (say the party is hurting badly and the fighter finally rolls a nat 20. The monster has 5-10 hp more hp than the final damage count ends up, i may still say it died, giving the fighter that awesome moment). But that is all live. It is not hard to have custom encounters, in a live game everything changes on the fly as players move through the world anyway. It just seems highly lazy to say "ALL goblins have 7 hp".

That said, I have zero problem with the HP I have seen so far in this game.
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have no idea how you create your encounters, or how you play, etc. I know that 90% of the time I build everything custom for my players. I have 3x5 cards for each encounter if there are 5 creatures it has 5 sets of ac/hp/weapons and saves. I do this for several encounters for each session (most do not get used) and if they did not level up I use the rest next time. I have boss monsters detailed out more, etc. Everything is tweaked live as things happen, so say they meet a group of 5 goblins with 2 archers, 2 fighter types and a caster (3x5 card has all that and a rough treasure list). The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders.

If they are too much for some reason, I may have a couple run away to get help, allowing the group to kill the couple left and choose to follow or flee, Or I may drop the hp of a couple of them, etc. There are times when a player rolls well for damage or to hit (say the party is hurting badly and the fighter finally rolls a nat 20. The monster has 5-10 hp more hp than the final damage count ends up, i may still say it died, giving the fighter that awesome moment). But that is all live. It is not hard to have custom encounters, in a live game everything changes on the fly as players move through the world anyway. It just seems highly lazy to say "ALL goblins have 7 hp".

That said, I have zero problem with the HP I have seen so far in this game.


Hakka. Now we know how you build your encounters. Now tell me: you actually read my thread? If yes, why you keep talking about hp?
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.

It’s easy to talk about HP and forgetting to talk about the AC 10 instead of 15 and how that damage the spell efficiency balance. Again, this is not about a problem generated by a single homebrew. It’s the problem generated by a combination of them. Elite goblins should have even higher AC by your terms (16 would do just fine)

Oh I totally agree with you here. The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I actually think a similar argument holds true for your suggested addition to these "elite goblins": An AC and HP buff preserves the strength of saving-throw spells but now to-hit spells are doubly nerfed (harder to hit and do less proportional damage). To be truly "balanced," enemy saving throws should also be increased. (AC 15->16, HP 7->10, All STs+1)

I think the best combination of simple and balance-preserving is to only adjust either HP or AC. However, the simple requirement is only relevant for PnP. A video game should use the slightly more complex solution of increasing all 3 enemy parameters.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.

It’s easy to talk about HP and forgetting to talk about the AC 10 instead of 15 and how that damage the spell efficiency balance. Again, this is not about a problem generated by a single homebrew. It’s the problem generated by a combination of them. Elite goblins should have even higher AC by your terms (16 would do just fine)

Oh I totally agree with you here. The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I actually think a similar argument holds true for your suggested addition to these "elite goblins": An AC and HP buff preserves the strength of saving-throw spells but now to-hit spells are doubly nerfed (harder to hit and do less proportional damage). To be truly "balanced," enemy saving throws should also be increased. (AC 15->16, HP 7->10, All STs+1)

I think the best combination of simple and balance-preserving is to only adjust either HP or AC. However, the simple requirement is only relevant for PnP. A video game should use the slightly more complex solution of increasing all 3 enemy parameters.


We’re not that far from a consensus mate! And I’m happy that you could capture that the point of a this thread is not an empty speech about ac and hp. We’re here talking about balance of the spells in the game. Add that seasoning of advantage system added by Larian and the surfaces and the casters from BG 3 will simply vanish in the meta (compared to dnd5e of course)
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have no idea how you create your encounters, or how you play, etc. I know that 90% of the time I build everything custom for my players. I have 3x5 cards for each encounter if there are 5 creatures it has 5 sets of ac/hp/weapons and saves. I do this for several encounters for each session (most do not get used) and if they did not level up I use the rest next time. I have boss monsters detailed out more, etc. Everything is tweaked live as things happen, so say they meet a group of 5 goblins with 2 archers, 2 fighter types and a caster (3x5 card has all that and a rough treasure list). The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders.

If they are too much for some reason, I may have a couple run away to get help, allowing the group to kill the couple left and choose to follow or flee, Or I may drop the hp of a couple of them, etc. There are times when a player rolls well for damage or to hit (say the party is hurting badly and the fighter finally rolls a nat 20. The monster has 5-10 hp more hp than the final damage count ends up, i may still say it died, giving the fighter that awesome moment). But that is all live. It is not hard to have custom encounters, in a live game everything changes on the fly as players move through the world anyway. It just seems highly lazy to say "ALL goblins have 7 hp".

That said, I have zero problem with the HP I have seen so far in this game.


I think the difference is that it sounds like you alter encounters during the encounter to make adjust the difficulty- "The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders."

Here is an encounter I have for avernus in one of my online games. This is a total bait because the little things explode and do acid damage when you hit them and they are rolling around in a mad max infernal war machine and would obviously lol and go for the run-over. Otherwise, this is realistically a fight against the Goristro and the
Chasme. Whatever this turns out to be, is what its going to be. They have the option to just bail if they want too. I set these up as "whatever happens, happens. Pretty sure they can do it". I have their character sheets and I can do all the DPR calculations in my head for what they'll do, take, and how many spells theyd need to heal worst and best case scenarios. I remove bodies when that extra 5 little shits might mean an extra 40 damage and drop 3 more spell slots because I have other things I want them to accomplish as well. Now, players exist, so they drive off (which they did) or they come up with something clever and steamroll or anything in between. For this meaningless fight, I have no interest in changing this stuff. The math is there, the fight will roughly accomplish what I need as far as an encounter and if they hadnt been pussies, theyd have gotten some rad shit.

[Linked Image]


Now, this is a boss fight. They walk in, there are 2 Erinyes that have been unchanged other than boths having whips that also act as ropes of entanglement. They get in a fight, one turns into a spider, webs someone up and is a pain in the ass while the other shoots poison arrows 40 feet in the air. Then they swap places when the other one gets hit back into form. If its going too easy, then 2 phase spiders burst out of the chest. Theyre not super strong but they will help diffuse the focus by the PCs. Depending on how it goes down, that lever near the coffin doesnt open the coffin. It open a rift into the underdark and a fomorian comes out. I have levers to pull now. But making the gals have 300hp so they get a chance to do more damage or making it up on the fly so an arachnomancer was hiding in the coffin and to just start introducing elements I havent done the math for...I like standing by my encounters and after a thousand + you can dial it in pretty well and not worry about it. I just have never been thinking "man, I wish I was managing individual health pools for all of these". Having a standard makes it so you can dial it in. Those weird swings in HP means a DM can't - as reliably - determine the math on the DPR.

[Linked Image]



In a game - you have to standy by whatever the hell you just put on the field. So the "computers can rando generate" thats saving about 5 minutes of rolling for a number of predetermined creatures that if you playtest youll just add more if it was too easy. And that is the point where, if you are doing that, why not just put standardized creatures in and swap a weakling for a tougher individual because now you are bloating initiative to make up for a line of glass cannons and you and looking for a certain difficulty. That is where I am, in the context of a game, not understanding that if they had a blank map why theyd make these particular decisions when they don't have the chance to course correct mid fight. Why not make it standard, repeatable, predictable - maybe not to the players, but to them at least. The original post was about how these changes may make the fight more dynamic or whatever they're trying to do, but what it does is, with the combination of the other elements of the combat system that have been introduced, to reduce efficacy of the PC abilities in sacrifice to this particular mindset they have displayed. As a DM, I would feel bad about it as it reduces the cool factor of their abilities and I want people to enjoy using those as opposed to dreading the fact it just isn't going to do quite enough (always a risk as a caster, but this is pushing it down more). That is why I don't see a justification for running it that way when they do not have a DM adjusting. It seems whimsical and I can't imagine what would be needed to be in my head for me to make that decision as opposed to just sticking with it. I just don't see the logic on starting from nothing and choosing that path. From what I can tell, the OP is correct in the ultimate impact of the decision and the questions have to be is that what you wanted to do, is worth it, and is that the best way to do so? Im having a hard time sitting back in my chair slow clapping and saying "You did it again you beautiful bastards, masters of your D&D craft".
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Hakka. Now we know how you build your encounters. Now tell me: you actually read my thread? If yes, why you keep talking about hp?




I was responding to the first post on page 4 by Orbax stating that a picture he posted was in regards to hitpoints for creatures by Jeremy Crawford. It was not. It was about changing damage to max damage. He stated that doing that was punishing for players, etc.

Orbax then stated "Those are not the words of someone saying 7, 10, 12, its all the same /shrug. Hes saying if getting your ass beat is fun, go for it." which again, is NOT what that post said. In the actual Dragon Talks episode JC stated that they gave the HP Range for a reason, to play with as you wanted in the game. AND That he does so on the fly depending on how he wants the encounter to go. He had zero issues with hp, it was in regards to max damage output by monsters that he said it was punishing. (BUT again, go for it if you are DM).

For your first post laying out your position, your first item was increased HP and Lowered AC. IMO Increased HP is not an issue here as it is a range not a set number in the rules on purpose (there sometimes does seem to be several bosses, but on the whole it was reasonable to me). Decreased AC does not impact me as I just hit more often.

I can not find a rule stating advantage is given for elevational purposes. THE rules are purposely vague on when to give Advantage or disadvantage. So, while I think it sucks 90% of the time, It is in their right to do so as DM. I will learn to work within that ruling. Now the way advantage/disadvantage works in BG3 is kind of wonkey to me, but I can live with it.

Surfaces are over powered. I hope they get toned down, I do like to exploit them at times to set traps, etc. but they are way to common. I would gladly loose that exploit for removal all together. Again, it is their game, and they can do it if they want, it just irritates me a lot. I would prefer the cantrips, etc. work like the rules, but it is their world and the way they are currently working does not break anything horribly for me yet. Acid pools should go away at the very least after a round or so. Yes I know water will wash them away, but they should go away anyways. Every freaking goblin has acid arrows. There is some guy in this area who made mad bank selling all the acid arrows. Barrelmancy should not be a thing.

Again, I do not rest all the time, I do not cast spells and then just rest and recharge, I conserve, use terrain, etc. as best I can and adapt to the rules I am given.
Well, the sentence after that quote by me was me saying "Yes, I know hes referencing damage in that line but his point was that "range" is a slider and the end is considered lethal. Its not a small tweak."
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Hakka. Now we know how you build your encounters. Now tell me: you actually read my thread? If yes, why you keep talking about hp?




I was responding to the first post on page 4 by Orbax stating that a picture he posted was in regards to hitpoints for creatures by Jeremy Crawford. It was not. It was about changing damage to max damage. He stated that doing that was punishing for players, etc.

Orbax then stated "Those are not the words of someone saying 7, 10, 12, its all the same /shrug. Hes saying if getting your ass beat is fun, go for it." which again, is NOT what that post said. In the actual Dragon Talks episode JC stated that they gave the HP Range for a reason, to play with as you wanted in the game. AND That he does so on the fly depending on how he wants the encounter to go. He had zero issues with hp, it was in regards to max damage output by monsters that he said it was punishing. (BUT again, go for it if you are DM).

For your first post laying out your position, your first item was increased HP and Lowered AC. IMO Increased HP is not an issue here as it is a range not a set number in the rules on purpose (there sometimes does seem to be several bosses, but on the whole it was reasonable to me). Decreased AC does not impact me as I just hit more often.

I can not find a rule stating advantage is given for elevational purposes. THE rules are purposely vague on when to give Advantage or disadvantage. So, while I think it sucks 90% of the time, It is in their right to do so as DM. I will learn to work within that ruling. Now the way advantage/disadvantage works in BG3 is kind of wonkey to me, but I can live with it.

Surfaces are over powered. I hope they get toned down, I do like to exploit them at times to set traps, etc. but they are way to common. I would gladly loose that exploit for removal all together. Again, it is their game, and they can do it if they want, it just irritates me a lot. I would prefer the cantrips, etc. work like the rules, but it is their world and the way they are currently working does not break anything horribly for me yet. Acid pools should go away at the very least after a round or so. Yes I know water will wash them away, but they should go away anyways. Every freaking goblin has acid arrows. There is some guy in this area who made mad bank selling all the acid arrows. Barrelmancy should not be a thing.

Again, I do not rest all the time, I do not cast spells and then just rest and recharge, I conserve, use terrain, etc. as best I can and adapt to the rules I am given.


Well, the only part we disagree is that we were given a chance to test the game and contribute to its development. You say you don’t cast too much because it feels natural not to cast and just cast cantrips. I used the very same strategy and I couldn’t notice why. Until I’ve done some theory crafting regarding the hit chances and I found the flaw. That’s why this post was created.

Also, I don’t have that vision of “Larian is making a favor to develop this game”. That’s capitalism baby. Profit is the target. That’s not how things work in RL. It don’t have to be like this in gaming industry.

If the players behave as customers as they should we would have better games in the world.

Nevertheless I really appreciate that even disagreeing with me you at least capture the essence of the post.

Very good in-depth explanation why Larian messing with the rules this much won't make it fun for most players with 5E background.

Though honestly I wish they'd give a statement already, even if they just said "we won't make it our priority to follow 5E rules".
Because then we could stop arguing here and instead focus on preparing a 5E community mod that fixes all rules issues (and maybe also renders all barrels and surface effects that don't come from the PHB inert while we're at it).
+1 to OP
Originally Posted by endolex
Very good in-depth explanation why Larian messing with the rules this much won't make it fun for most players with 5E background.

Though honestly I wish they'd give a statement already, even if they just said "we won't make it our priority to follow 5E rules".
Because then we could stop arguing here and instead focus on preparing a 5E community mod that fixes all rules issues (and maybe also renders all barrels and surface effects that don't come from the PHB inert while we're at it).



Yeah. The waiting is killing me. I don’t wanna rely on modding for a DnD game to actually feel DnD frown
Originally Posted by endolex

Though honestly I wish they'd give a statement already, even if they just said "we won't make it our priority to follow 5E rules".
Because then we could stop arguing here and instead focus on preparing a 5E community mod that fixes all rules issues (and maybe also renders all barrels and surface effects that don't come from the PHB inert while we're at it).


They won't. When you know that an answer would be disliked by a lot of customers its better to say nothing and leaving them in the dark so they still buy it.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

Hustle, I’m not fan of surfaces as is. We can definitely work them out in favor of the DnD rules. There’s the raw that says that you’ll only take damage if you end your turn over it. That would work. The other one is to add an extremely easy saving throw DC. But most importantly, If you miss the spell the surface won’t be created by it. So you guarantee that it’ll only be applied if you fail your attack save. The only thing that cannot pass is to have them in it’s current state. It’s just silly


Yes, I'd agree with surfaces shouldn't be created on a miss. Don't agree with the raw rule. Running across 15 feet of fire or ice without any risk would be silly. There's room for tweaking, but I wouldn't make the saving throws too easy because then what's even the purpose of them being there? Most of the surfaces in the game do you use a saving throw, but you usually fail it and sometimes the success dice doesn't play above your head after you ran across something. Fire doesn't seem to have a saving throw(oversight/bug?), walking across water doesn't apply wet, and acid only affects you while you're in it. That's what I've noticed from testing.


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.


I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.
HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a constant value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible throw (which will be a huge buff)

Please note that the current level is not the normal difficulty level. At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.


HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a fixed value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible cast (which will be a huge buff)

From what I can remember, Larian mentioned that the current difficulty level is closer to hard than normal.
At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.
Rhobar, that’s what I call a pertinent argumentation for this post.
I simply have no clue of that you are talking about and again you show that you didn’t read the post and is completely unaware of dnd5e rules to comprehend it nevertheless.

Regarding the double trouble of martial vs casters, mrfuji explained perfectly:

Hp is NOT the problem in the comparison:

Low AC values are +1 to martial attacks
Advantage are + 1 to martial classes

That’s a raw +2 for martialists compared to the balance of traditional dnd5e

Again, you have also to add that considering that currently we can rest spam.
Even under that circumstances, martialists are better due to the advantage spree.
@Sludge Khalid
I appreciate the defense, but to be fair I did bring up HP spells in a (small) part of my post:
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a fixed value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible cast (which will be a huge buff)

From what I can remember, Larian mentioned that the current difficulty level is closer to hard than normal.
At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.

This is true, HP spells (different than Saving Throw Spells) now do have a fixed value. And I believe that the value chosen for Sleep (28HP) is actually above it's expected value when rolling (5d8=22.5)? But it is still a nerf.
Advantage basically increases your chances to hit by ~50(?)% (chances of rolling a 10 or higher go from 55% to 80%). Thus, an equivalent increase in sleep would be 22.5HP->33.75HP, more than what is given.
Also, goblin HPs are generally increased by ~50% or more. (7 HP goblins to 12HP is a 70% increase). Again, this overwhelms the slight increase in Sleep's HP
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
@Sludge Khalid
I appreciate the defense, but to be fair I did bring up HP spells in a (small) part of my post:
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a fixed value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible cast (which will be a huge buff)

From what I can remember, Larian mentioned that the current difficulty level is closer to hard than normal.
At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.

This is true, HP spells (different than Saving Throw Spells) now do have a fixed value. And I believe that the value chosen for Sleep (28HP) is actually above it's expected value when rolling (5d8=22.5)? But it is still a nerf.
Advantage basically increases your chances to hit by ~50(?)% (chances of rolling a 10 or higher go from 55% to 80%). Thus, an equivalent increase in sleep would be 22.5HP->33.75HP, more than what is given.
Also, goblin HPs are generally increased by ~50% or more. (7 HP goblins to 12HP is a 70% increase). Again, this overwhelms the slight increase in Sleep's HP


I would use different argument to the hp matter
Weapon damage & spell damage are not rescaled. Therefore the damage output scaling is DnD raw
Caster gains spells upcast and martialists gains extra attacks. So far so good

In an environment where the dm increase hp, caster gets a minor debuff because the spell slots are limited (unreliable).

Again, I know that’s a debuff but it’s minor compared to the AC problem.
Sacred flame is a perfect example of how this homebrew damage them (even though it’s a cantrip). Under normal DnD5e the standard attack & sacred flame will have a minor difference in the hit rate. Now it’s abissal.

I can survive with hp slightly boosted. I’ll manage to survive. On the other hand that 3 rules combines works like an atomic bomb in the game.

I simply love bards (college of lore) - that’s an S tier class because of the versatility. Now:

Save scum makes the social interaction of the bard (which is the greatest strength) less effective.
Bards debuffs & buffs are less effective (fairie Fire, hypnotic pattern etc)
Inspiration dices are bad as well due to the advantage spree


So this S tier class is under the d-c tier

Sad but true
@Sludge Khalid
It's all linked, right? That's the problem. At the highest level, we are talking about dpr (damage-per-round) which is affected by HP, AC, to-hit, weapon/spell damage, etc. Thus, an enemy AC reduction is basically the same thing as a PC martial/spell attack damage increase. Larian could have easily chosen to do the latter instead of the former for roughly the same effect.
The goal should be to affect the dpr of all classes/attack types equally. Which, for HP-affecting spells that don't allow saving throws, means buffing them to correspond to the to-hit bonus of martial attacks.

I think we're pretty much in full agreement. All the changes combine to make something exponentially worse.

Bards: yeahhhh they'll suffer a decent amount. The only redeeming factor is that, last I checked, advantage/disadvantage in BG3 partially stack. Like, if you get 2 sources of advantage and 1 source of disadvantage, you'll end up with a net "1 level of advantage." (This only allows a net 1 level of adv/disadv; 2 advantages are still only 1 level of advantage). I like this decision. I like this decision a lot.

This will allow for a bit more use of bard buffs/debuffs, e.g., high ground (adv) + enemy in darkness (disadv) + faerie fire (adv) will net give advantage.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.


Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

Again, you have also to add that considering that currently we can rest spam.
Even under that circumstances, martialists are better due to the advantage spree.


Oh I don't know about that. In my playthroughs, my casters were definitely outperforming my martials. Much stronger aoes, sleep, and magic missile spam was more than enough to deal with encounters. Now a solo rogue can cheese things because the AI won't search your last hiding spot(glowing dot) if it's too far away. So they can just shoot and hide forever. That's a different subject though
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.


Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

Again, you have also to add that considering that currently we can rest spam.
Even under that circumstances, martialists are better due to the advantage spree.


Oh I don't know about that. In my playthroughs, my casters were definitely outperforming my martials. Much stronger aoes, sleep, and magic missile spam was more than enough to deal with encounters. Now a solo rogue can cheese things because the AI won't search your last hiding spot(glowing dot) if it's too far away. So they can just shoot and hide forever. That's a different subject though


Hustle, when I say better read: better than DnD5e. My post was all about the comparison between those two systems. Analyzing it inside BG3 only is a mistake but I could comprehend your positioning.

Spells are supposed to outdamage martial fighters in DPR because they have spells slots to retain that power. Under no resting circumstances their damage tends to fall and the martialists to maintain. Think in action economy as a thing to analyze the situation: imagine that you have 5 battles before the long rest - the DPR of casters at 5th battle will be lower compared to the first battle. That’s what action economy is. If you spam all your spells slots in your first battle you won’t have enough damage in the following battles.

Martial fighters brings consistency through the time. They are the reliable part of the battle.
Casters are the disruptive part of the battle as they add utility & damage spells from a limited source

The post was all about saying: casters tends to lose their value compared to dnd5e standards. The only question mark that it’s so far unknown is to know if Larian will review their resting system in the final release. If they do it, I’m already foreseeing many complaints ahead due to how much the casters will be undermined. That’s a technical conclusion smile

If they decide to maintain AS IS, I’d like to be able to rest after every single battle because the damage will be HUGE in the balance
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

I would be so happy with a scaling +1 to +5 height bonus to AC & Dex Saves. That would solve so many problems. I'd prefer the maximum bonus be +2 or +3, but that's nitpicking details instead of structural.

backstabbing: Flanking is better than requiring stealth imo. Running behind someone, entering stealth, then hitting them is silly.

In conclusion: At Least either/or. Either take away the extra advantage sources or increase hit chances on saving throw spells would greatly help. This would also still allow people to hit more, which is "fun"
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

I would be so happy with a scaling +1 to +5 height bonus to AC & Dex Saves. That would solve so many problems. I'd prefer the maximum bonus be +2 or +3, but that's nitpicking details instead of structural.

backstabbing: Flanking is better than requiring stealth imo. Running behind someone, entering stealth, then hitting them is silly.

In conclusion: At Least either/or. Either take away the extra advantage sources or increase hit chances on saving throw spells would greatly help. This would also still allow people to hit more, which is "fun"


Boosted ranged distance attacks would be enough. Maybe a +2 in raw damage? There was so many good ways of adjusting it, they’ve gone for the worst
One thing to note is that we don't have many of the powerhouse spells yet-I suspect the game would be exponentially easier for a blaster wizard with a good fireball, simply because you could slam one into some of these high enemy encounters and start really knocking enemies down. Some other key spells are 3rd level as well-hypnotic pattern, for instance. Yes, they are save based, and Larian very favorably interprets advantage from height and backstab, but I'm kinduve okay with that? It's okay that attack rolls are better than normal, casters would otherwise completely dominate the game.

That said...

The HP bloat slows down combat more than anything. Combat as it makes hitting easy, but enemies require multiple hits to kill. If a goblin requires two hits to kill at 90% odds, then that's 2 turns regardless. If a goblin requires 1 hit to kill but there is a 60% chance to hit, then that's, on average, less than one turn to kill. And advantage actually matters more when the hit chances are closer to 50-50 to start-meaning that this easy advantage with planned positioning and bloating HP favors enemies more than the players objectively.

(in addition to the uncommon dirth of actually worthwhile studded leather and chainmail, stupid half-plate favortism...)
@Sludge Khalid
Then perhaps I misunderstood the post I quoted you from. It seemed you were suggesting that even with with rest spam, martial classes were still doing better than casters. That's what I was disagreeing with. Ideally, yes there should be an economy where you have to decide do I use my spell slot now or save it for the next battle. Now if you're making the argument that if Larian did change the resting to be closer to 5e standards, that martials would maintain their "buff" from lower AC while casters would eventually lose it, resulting in maritals being more valued in the long run. There would be a case for debate there and it would depend on how often we would get to rest and the difficulty of encounters in that version of the game.

@mrfuji3
Yeah I went with +5 because that's what three-quarters cover uses and I'd imagined pretty rare. Like attacking from the beams in the goblin castle or from bridge over the gith patrol. I'm not hard set on it.

Yeah I had already figured hide and other actions would go back to being actions and hide would just be a bonus action for rogues. I think it would suit them and tie in well with sneak attack. The target wouldn't be aware of you, so they wouldn't be able to guard against it just like they wouldn't be able to guard against attacks from two directions like with flanking

Wait why it would be either/or now? Shouldn't we want both? Taking away the advantage sources brings the martial buff from 1 to net 0 and increasing the saving throw spells hit chance brings their nerf from -1 to net 0
Currently, casters do not have any serious problems due to the lack of any rest limits.
The system must be relatively simple so that it is understandable to players. Balancing a long rest will be the most difficult thing.
The problem is that the current system is not very flexible. Most interactions with companions (and some important story events) are based on rests.
Even if we remove this problem somehow, the question remains how to limit it.
Time limits will not pass in such a game (Unless you want to upset a lot of players).
Limited places where you can rest also don't matter as long as fast travel exists.
Items that restrict rest? If they are unlimited with sellers they are also pointless by the fast travel. However, if they are limited, it can lead to the player jamming without the possibility of further progress (which they will not do at 99%). If the price of these items is small, they are pointless. When it is large, it can again block the player.
Food? Only in EA I found so much food that it should be enough for half the game. It is the same with gold.
Maybe a cooldown? There is no daily system in the game (and it will not be).
The cooldown itself encourages the player to minimize the game, especially if it is short. A long cooldown can make the player wait due to lack of any resources.
This is probably why the system now works as it does.


Fixing a backstab is fairly easy.
The main culprit here is the jump, without being able to easily get behind the enemy the system would be much fairer.
If disengage were reintroduced (even as a bonus action) and it would be much more balanced.
In addition, the advantage should apply only when one of the allies is next to the target.
Combining both of these changes would make gaining an advantage much more difficult and would require efficient positioning.
If we're throwing out ideas for rests, I'd vote for there to be an exhaustion meter that goes up a little with a short rest and a lot with long rest. Suffer conditions the more the meter is filled up. 25% filled, ability check penalty, 50% speed penalty, 75% attack and save rolls penalty, 100% hp penalty, and I'm basing this off of 5e exhaustion rules. Consume food or drink to bring the meter back down. Not too complex of a system and prevents blocking players out. You can even have harvestable cooking ingredients that respawn. Ultimately, it's costing the player personal time for gathering supplies to rest often. Some, maybe even a lot would be against this, but I'd even support a rest limit for quest events. Like, okay, you've long rested an entire week, the druids have completed the ritual and there are only a few Tiefling survivors after they've been attacked on the road.
Originally Posted by HustleCat
If we're throwing out ideas for rests, I'd vote for there to be an exhaustion meter that goes up a little with a short rest and a lot with long rest. Suffer conditions the more the meter is filled up. 25% filled, ability check penalty, 50% speed penalty, 75% attack and save rolls penalty, 100% hp penalty, and I'm basing this off of 5e exhaustion rules. Consume food or drink to bring the meter back down. Not too complex of a system and prevents blocking players out. You can even have harvestable cooking ingredients that respawn. Ultimately, it's costing the player personal time for gathering supplies to rest often. Some, maybe even a lot would be against this, but I'd even support a rest limit for quest events. Like, okay, you've long rested an entire week, the druids have completed the ritual and there are only a few Tiefling survivors after they've been attacked on the road.


PoE have interesting rules for resting system with the introduction of the affordable tents. You’ll have to use your money and weight if you gonna invest in expensive tents to rest or gear up. That’s clever and brings back economy of resources long lost in the current game.
I know that those tents are a JRPG thing but seems to work very well as we can see it even in the nowadays games. Currently BG3 is not a game about hard decisions where you can chose a path that you might regret in the future and face the consequences.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by HustleCat
If we're throwing out ideas for rests, I'd vote for there to be an exhaustion meter that goes up a little with a short rest and a lot with long rest. Suffer conditions the more the meter is filled up. 25% filled, ability check penalty, 50% speed penalty, 75% attack and save rolls penalty, 100% hp penalty, and I'm basing this off of 5e exhaustion rules. Consume food or drink to bring the meter back down. Not too complex of a system and prevents blocking players out. You can even have harvestable cooking ingredients that respawn. Ultimately, it's costing the player personal time for gathering supplies to rest often. Some, maybe even a lot would be against this, but I'd even support a rest limit for quest events. Like, okay, you've long rested an entire week, the druids have completed the ritual and there are only a few Tiefling survivors after they've been attacked on the road.


PoE have interesting rules for resting system with the introduction of the affordable tents. You’ll have to use your money and weight if you gonna invest in expensive tents to rest or gear up. That’s clever and brings back economy of resources long lost in the current game.
I know that those tents are a JRPG thing but seems to work very well as we can see it even in the nowadays games. Currently BG3 is not a game about hard decisions where you can chose a path that you might regret in the future and face the consequences.


The PoE system did not work well. In fact, it did not limit anything but what it did was forcing players to return for supplies (which was pointless anyway because you could come back at any time without any penalties). The system was not very liked by the players. There is a reason the system has been completely reworked into PoE2.
The PoE2 system required only one unit of any food to heal the wounds (so food healed somehow magically).
Most of the resource management was very limited anyway, most of the skills were per combat (instead of per rest).
Trying to implement a system that has already failed in PoE is not a good idea, especially since the game is intended for a much larger audience than just fans of old RPGs.

The moral of this is that people do not like too much management.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Accepting Orbax advice, I’d like to state that I’m not native so go easy on me. That said, here are the arguments:

As everybody could see, Larian implemented a large number of homebrew rules in the Early Access of the game. Out of those new rules, only three of them have the greatest potential to render some classes useless and completely break the overall balance of the game.

My intention through this post is: Not to repeat what is being repeated over and over in this echo chamber of “this game feels like DOS3”. Instead, I’ll get the scenario “AS IS” of the game and explain what are the impacts of that changes in the current scenario & final release.

After reading this extensive text, is up to you to decide if you like it or not. I’m not here to convince you. Yet, if you think that this thing must be changed I’d like to ask for your help to pump the reach of this thread to reach as many comrades as possible and let them to decide whether it’s good or not.

I’ll throw those homebrews over the table:

Increased HP / Decreased AC
Advantage being given by high ground & backstab
Surfaces Effect

(just for this time being I'm leaving out of the debate dumb rules related to Actions to bonus actions for some features like shove and disengage)

I’m handling those 3 at the same time because the way they intertwine jeopardize the whole DnD5e mechanics.


Now, how Increased HP/Decreased AC harms the gaming experience? In the end you are hitting more so there’s a counterbalance to your foe HP to maintain the same number of turns needed to finish them. Well, that could be true IF the spell casters were out of the game.

I’ll start with spell values and action economy:

Even for the those who don’t have a deep understanding of DnD5e have already noticed that the number of spells you can cast is limited by the number of spells slots available to you (which are recovered every long rest). That means that spells are UNRELIABLE source of damage/utility. Once you spend all your spell slots, you’re done for and you can then only use Cantrips (which are a RELIABLE source of damage yet with the trade off of dishing smaller outputs of damage per round).

That said, those spells grows in value given the fact that they can definitely changes the odds of a battle. And why the hell am I using this spell slots as an argument for HP/AC?

Larian changed many things during the course of the Early Access. One thing they didn’t is the damage output of the weapon/cantrips attacks, spells damage & monsters attributes. Also, the number of spell slots remained the same.

It’s important to say that 99% of the spells forces your enemies to roll a saving throw based in a specific attribute (which was not altered). Which means: Spells in DnD5e & BG3 have THE SAME CHANCE TO HIT. Spell attacks like cantrips still targets foes AC but their scaling in damage output is very small compared to other classes like fighters (who get bonus attacks).


Case scenario:

Given an enemy with 7 HP 15AC (DnD5e) and the other with 13 HP 9AC (one of Larian’s goblins),

You cast Shatter(2nd level): Evocation 3d8 (BARD, SORC, LOCK, WIZ) – Dex saves for half – means that: even under a failure your UNRELIABLE spell slot would deal an average of 12 damage therefore killing the 7HP foe and not killing the 13 HP foe. Not to mention its value increase if multiple targets are within 10 foot radius.

First conclusion: Blasting Spells worth LESS in BG3 compared to DnD5e.

On the other hand, weapon attacks receive a boosted chance to hit due to the low AC & were given a new rule of getting advantage in high ground & backstab, boosting the chance to hit even further.

Second conclusion: Blasting Spells lost its value even more. (2x Nerf)


What about utility spells? Now let’s get deeper into the Advantage system in DnD5e and I’ll mention spells that can benefit out of some of them

There’s a list of situations where you’ll get advantage and I’ve added the spells that causes it.

Attack rolls made by a blinded creature have disadvantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against a blinded target have advantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against an invisible target have disadvantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls made by an invisible creature have advantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls against a paralyzed target have advantage. (Hold Person)
Attack rolls against a petrified target have advantage. (Flesh to Stone)
Attack rolls and ability checks made by a poisoned creature have disadvantage. (ray of sickness)
Attack rolls against a prone target have advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet, or disadvantage otherwise. (Tashas hideous laughter, Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls made by a prone creature have disadvantage.(Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls against a restrained target have advantage.(Poor Grapple :()
Attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws made by a restrained creature have disadvantage.(Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Mental Prison, Telekinesis, Web, Whirlwind, Transmute Rock, Snare, and many more)
Attack rolls against a stunned target have advantage. (Stunning strike – Monk, Contagion, Divine Word, Psychic Scream, Symbol)
Attack rolls against an unconscious target have advantage. (Catnap, Eyebite, Sleep, Symbol)
A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight. (Fear, Eyebite, Hallow, Illusionary Dragon, Phantasmal Killer, Symbol, Wrathful smite)

It gets better:
Fairie Fire: advantage 60ft against enemies who fail a dex saving throw

Stealth Attacks : advantage for any attacks against an enemy that cannot see you

& Increased/decreased accuracy spells: True Strike (Yeah this cantrip sucks), Bless & Bane (when you have advantage those spells adds so little to your chance to hit compared to when you have them under normal circumstances)

Barb Reckless Attack (CORE MECHANIC): You receive advantage to your melee attacks while getting disadvantage against you. & Barb path of the totem warrior (wolf) which make closer targets to get disavantage

Cleric Guiding Bolt, shadow blade, Ottos irresistible dance, shocking grasp, and some more

Phew, that was a large list of things that got their outputs diminished by that simple homebrew smile


Why is it bless (or any spell that boots your accuracy) less effective in BG3:

Let’s do some math with actual numbers:

Goblin 15 AC : Standard hero with +2 prof +3 Attribute modifier = +5 attack rolls

Chance to hit: 55%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 65%

65/55=+18% variation

Now take the hero with advantage:

Chance to hit:75%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 85%

85/75=+13% variation to your accuracy


If Advantage is dished every single turn your spells will worth less frown


Isn't it silly to have bless output diminished? now let's do the very same exercise of Bless in BG3



Goblin 9 AC : Standard hero with +2 prof +3 Attribute modifier = +5 attack rolls

Chance to hit: 85%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 95%

95/85=+11% variation

Now take the hero with advantage:

Chance to hit:99%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 99%

99/99=+0% variation to your accuracy

Yes, your valuable bless spell lost 100% of its value!



Dear tactical adventurer that loves the flavor that Larian added with advange homebrew, do you still thinks it’s a good idea to lower the outputs of that spells granting advantage in abundance?

I’m not done yet

Now, lets add surfaces into play.

Now, your utility spell that rely on concentration (the great majority of them by the way) can be easily broken with a goblin trowing a bomb smile

That UNRELIABLE spell that you’ve saved for that magical situation were broken by a bomb. Oh, not to mention that you’ve succeed the Save but you took that surface damage that is RELIABLE because it do not miss.

Also, more HP means that against that paralyzed foe will takes more times to be defeated because of the HP bloat, meaning that you’ll need more turns to keep concentrating on and higher are the chances to have your concentration broken until your enemy is dealt with…

Conclusion:

Spell value DnD5e >>>>>>>>>>>>Spell value of BG3

Who cares? Spells don’t even exist in RL.

You know why people who knows DnD5e don’t complain about weapon skills homebrew? Guess what? Because they simply don’t break the game.

Larian’s reasons are: Players do not like to miss.

WotC agree with this, that’s why they’ve added TONS of spells to give you that desirable accuracy.

Want to balance the game
Easy – Reduce the values of attributes & Attributes Evenly and/or double damage value outputs.
Hard - Reduce the values of attributes & Attributes Evenly and/or cuts in half damage value outputs.


Want to feel that you’re the king of the hill with homebew– Adds a RAW +2 damage
Or implement cover system from DnD5e. All of that works. Advantage don’t.

There’s no need for breaking the value outputs of the spells to in order to see that hp value popping out of your foes heads every single turn.








Good stuff!!!!
Rain gives Electricity weakness to enemies in a big area for a few rounds, party of four storm wizard/sorcerer!!!

Dunno why I mention this here, but it feels like their homebrew just making things worse.
Backstabbing is really a variation of optional flanking rule, however I do agree that ditching out the flanking requirement (which basically is ganging up on a single enemy) makes advantage a bit too easy to come by.
On the other hand it's weird that I've never seen anyone complaining about threatened rule, it should only be applied to ranged attack when you are in melee range. Meanwhile in BG3 it seems to be a small aura.

About the Armor&HP changes, really ? Sure shatter no longer instantly kills a bunch of goblins, but what you are seeing is actually a modest nerf to the monster. Goblins stayed at CR 1/8 bracket HP wise (7-35), while their armorclass crashed pretty hard (nerf by just 2 AC is lowering them by bracket, their CR armor wise dropped to 0) (DMG p274), but in the end we take the average which puts them at CR 1/8, instead of 1/4 as in MM. As far as homebrewing goes it's pretty much sticking to the D&D rulebooks. And even if we ignore the DMG, majority of your offensive casts will be (or at least should be) cantrips, majority of which are attack rolls which are benefiting from the change.
Originally Posted by Bearhugger
Backstabbing is really a variation of optional flanking rule, however I do agree that ditching out the flanking requirement (which basically is ganging up on a single enemy) makes advantage a bit too easy to come by.
On the other hand it's weird that I've never seen anyone complaining about threatened rule, it should only be applied to ranged attack when you are in melee range. Meanwhile in BG3 it seems to be a small aura.

About the Armor&HP changes, really ? Sure shatter no longer instantly kills a bunch of goblins, but what you are seeing is actually a modest nerf to the monster. Goblins stayed at CR 1/8 bracket HP wise (7-35), while their armorclass crashed pretty hard (nerf by just 2 AC is lowering them by bracket, their CR armor wise dropped to 0) (DMG p274), but in the end we take the average which puts them at CR 1/8, instead of 1/4 as in MM. As far as homebrewing goes it's pretty much sticking to the D&D rulebooks. And even if we ignore the DMG, majority of your offensive casts will be (or at least should be) cantrips, majority of which are attack rolls which are benefiting from the change.



Haven’t you read the whole post? My main complaint is how this lower ac undermine the later spells efficiency. I think the armor class is more of a threat than the hp issue.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Bearhugger
Backstabbing is really a variation of optional flanking rule, however I do agree that ditching out the flanking requirement (which basically is ganging up on a single enemy) makes advantage a bit too easy to come by.
On the other hand it's weird that I've never seen anyone complaining about threatened rule, it should only be applied to ranged attack when you are in melee range. Meanwhile in BG3 it seems to be a small aura.

About the Armor&HP changes, really ? Sure shatter no longer instantly kills a bunch of goblins, but what you are seeing is actually a modest nerf to the monster. Goblins stayed at CR 1/8 bracket HP wise (7-35), while their armorclass crashed pretty hard (nerf by just 2 AC is lowering them by bracket, their CR armor wise dropped to 0) (DMG p274), but in the end we take the average which puts them at CR 1/8, instead of 1/4 as in MM. As far as homebrewing goes it's pretty much sticking to the D&D rulebooks. And even if we ignore the DMG, majority of your offensive casts will be (or at least should be) cantrips, majority of which are attack rolls which are benefiting from the change.



Haven’t you read the whole post? My main complaint is how this lower ac undermine the later spells efficiency. I think the armor class is more of a threat than the hp issue.


Undermine the efficiency ? Only of the spells, and abilities that force a saving throw. Spells that require an attack roll are buffed by this change, which are the majority of your casts anyway. But even then it hardly matters, because Shatter dropping a bunch of goblins to two HP means they will be very likely moped down in the same turn. 8 AC is pretty much 90% to hit chance, as opposed to 50% chance at AC 15, and it's very likely that the party damage output at very least stays the same (because the fighter or rogue who were going to miss their attacks will finish off the goblins), meaning you've still spent your premium spellslot pretty well. And that's assuming you want to commit to casting Shatter, instead of throwing down cantrips at chaff.
So the solution for this is relying on attack spells level 0 (cantrips) to recover the spell efficiency? Lol
This post was all about spell slots. Cantrips do not use it.

Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.

Please bring spells slots to the discussion which is clearly the main point of this post. Saying that cantrips help casters to feel less nerfed won’t help you.
I don't want any house rules. Can I please have a version of 5E that simply implements 5E: house rules are always a bad idea in a game as playtested as this.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.




I love when someone says something super smug and sassy like "just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don't know" . . . and then follows it with something completely incorrect.
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
I don't want any house rules. Can I please have a version of 5E that simply implements 5E: house rules are always a bad idea in a game as playtested as this.


I want house rules. I don't want to have to find diamonds to raise the dead. Heck, I don't want any spell components. I don't want to spend hours scribing new spells or to made to chase down the ink and paper to scribe them.

What I don't want is the presumption that the rules don't port well to video games and need to be improved. And I certainly don't want the devs to think they have advice on how to improve D&D. The house rules should be in line with the sort of house rules that other D&D games have implemented.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.




I love when someone says something super smug and sassy like "just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don't know" . . . and then follows it with something completely incorrect.


I love when someone says that something is completely incorrect but don’t bring the arguments over the table. Please, share with the community the spells that have an spell attack property and target the target AC instead of forcing a saving throw.

See you later
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
I don't want any house rules. Can I please have a version of 5E that simply implements 5E: house rules are always a bad idea in a game as playtested as this.


I want house rules. I don't want to have to find diamonds to raise the dead. Heck, I don't want any spell components. I don't want to spend hours scribing new spells or to made to chase down the ink and paper to scribe them.

What I don't want is the presumption that the rules don't port well to video games and need to be improved. And I certainly don't want the devs to think they have advice on how to improve D&D. The house rules should be in line with the sort of house rules that other D&D games have implemented.


Yes exactly; no one would complain about Larian extrapolating spell components away to mere flavor text, gp, or whatever.

Presupposing the rules don't work in a videogame, especially because they so obviously work really well as evidenced by the success of Solasta (a janky, indie, labor of love to 5E), is an arrogant mistake.


Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.




I love when someone says something super smug and sassy like "just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don't know" . . . and then follows it with something completely incorrect.


I love when someone says that something is completely incorrect but don’t bring the arguments over the table. Please, share with the community the spells that have an spell attack property and target the target AC instead of forcing a saving throw.

See you later


He was attacking your hyperbole of exactly 99%, not your essential statement that most spells require a saving throw. I haven't even checked, but I'm pretty sure that you're correct. That being said, his attack was in bad faith because I think everyone understood your premise.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
I love when someone says that something is completely incorrect but don’t bring the arguments over the table. Please, share with the community the spells that have an spell attack property and target the target AC instead of forcing a saving throw.

See you later


Inflict wounds, Scorching Ray, Fire Bolt, Ray of Frost, Eldrich Blast, Witch Bolt, Ray of Sickness, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc.

Most damage spells are "ranged attack" not CON/DEX/STR saves. That's why Gale ends up being a Magic Missile spam boat because casters can't hit crap unless they pump DEX in addition to their main stat.
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
Inflict wounds, Scorching Ray, Fire Bolt, Ray of Frost, Eldrich Blast, Witch Bolt, Ray of Sickness, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc.

Most damage spells are "ranged attack" not CON/DEX/STR saves. That's why Gale ends up being a Magic Missile spam boat because casters can't hit crap unless they pump DEX in addition to their main stat.

Spell to-hit bonuses are based off of the spellcasting stat, not Dex.
Same as saving throw DCs

It'd be more fair to say that "most single target damage spells are ranged attack," and even then I'm not sure if that is true...
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

Spell to-hit bonuses are based off of the spellcasting stat, not Dex.
Same as saving throw DCs

It'd be more fair to say that "most single target damage spells are ranged attack," and even then I'm not sure if that is true...


I was just coming back to fix that LoL. Tired. Still stands though with your qualification. "most single target damage spells are ranged attack,"
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
So the solution for this is relying on attack spells level 0 (cantrips) to recover the spell efficiency? Lol
This post was all about spell slots. Cantrips do not use it.

Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.

Please bring spells slots to the discussion which is clearly the main point of this post. Saying that cantrips help casters to feel less nerfed won’t help you.


I know you're speaking in hyperbole, but for the record / fun facts:

Total Spells in the Player's Handbook = 376

Spells that target any saving throws = 133

Spells that use attack (range/melee) = 26

There are 7 spells that fit into both categories above (i.e. make an attack and then a saving throw).

Source: D&D Beyond (Filtered by Source, Attack Type, and Saves)
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
So the solution for this is relying on attack spells level 0 (cantrips) to recover the spell efficiency? Lol
This post was all about spell slots. Cantrips do not use it.

Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.

Please bring spells slots to the discussion which is clearly the main point of this post. Saying that cantrips help casters to feel less nerfed won’t help you.


I know you're speaking in hyperbole, but for the record / fun facts:

Total Spells in the Player's Handbook = 376

Spells that target any saving throws = 133

Spells that use attack (range/melee) = 26

There are 7 spells that fit into both categories above (i.e. make an attack and then a saving throw).

Source: D&D Beyond (Filtered by Source, Attack Type, and Saves)



Not to mention that this post is about spells slots and out of the list the there’s a huge amount of attacking cantrips which don’t use spell slots and can be casted at will.

Being hyperbolic is something tricky in here. But I guess it’s better to attack the hyperbole instead of focusing the main purpose of the OP. But for the convinence let’s take back what I’ve said and state “the great majority”

“Most damage spells are "ranged attack" not CON/DEX/STR saves. That's why Gale ends up being a Magic Missile spam boat because casters can't hit crap unless they pump DEX in addition to their main stat.“

This phrase is completely incorrect but I sympathize with your opinion because there’s the bias of BG3 and it feels correct using that as a standard.
Now, regarding Dex, even in BG3 is incorrect e.g:
Bards, sorcs, warlocks : cha
Clerics:wis
Wizards: int

This post is all abou trying to look into the future. The more you grow in levels, the less you’ll see those attacking spells compared to saving throws.
If the attribute stats remains unchanged and only ac is modified, there’ll be a huge impact in the spell efficiency.
© Larian Studios forums