Larian Studios
Posted By: Ghost214 arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 08:23 AM
that's all i've got for this one - player characters and enemies both should have limited arrows - period
Posted By: bullse Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 08:25 AM
Even if arrows were craftable like they are say in DOS2, you could still run around with enough arrows to make it seem unlimited. Therefore, not seeing an issue here, at all.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 08:44 AM
a quiver can only hold so many. weight limits would force you to use them wisely, enemies would would run out also- you'd have to change your tactics. I've played D&D pnp and solasta and running out happens to enemies and pcs at times if they're not used wisely - I don't think you're thinking about that at all. besides the fact that this is D&D (hopefully) and not an arcade hack & slash,,,,
Posted By: grysqrl Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 09:05 AM
I've played in PnP games where we track ammo and games where we don't. I understand the rationale behind it, but unless you're playing a wilderness survival game where resources are scarce, it mostly just feels tedious.

People don't tend to bother with things like sharpening and oiling swords or repairing armor in the game - we just assume that characters know how to maintain their gear and abstract away the boring part. I feel like ensuring that you have enough ammo for ranged weapons falls into that category unless there is something about getting enough ammo that is supposed to be a challenge.

From what we've seen of BG3 (especially with the portals), it doesn't seem like getting your hands on ammo would be even remotely difficult.
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 09:32 AM
In a world where magic exists and it's accessible to relatively dumb people, I think the idea that a weapon can be anchanted to conjure simple unenchanted arrows is not too much of a stretch tbh.
Tracking arrows is tedious and annoying. If I must do it, let me carry 10thousand arrows with me. Oh you won't let me because weight limit...
Well I guess I'll just stick to magically appearing projectiles then...
Posted By: Mat22 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 09:42 AM
Well they need to decide which direction they want to go. Personally im the type of person who really like to see gameplay elements like sharpening weapons, using oils, craft arrowheads, repair armor etc. in an RPG. But im probably in the minority here. i think if these are done well, these can be a really cool part of the game instead of being tedious (i think a cool way to design these is that these are necessary only for higher difficulties but not for normal dif, this way it can be an interesting challenge for replay or for players like me but by default it is not necessary for people who doesnt care about it)
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 09:53 AM
I hope you are the minority on that because I absolutely despise crafting in games, especially if I have to farm ingredients for it.
BG2 crafting was fine, because it was tied to the major quests in the game, and you only needed 1 -3 items + 5000 gold.
Skyrim style crafting is tedious and I don't ever want to deal with it again.
PLease let the most powerful weapon in the game be the magical sword/mace/whatever I find in the hoard of the dragon I kill and not the bullshit longsword I can craft.
Posted By: Dexai Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 10:12 AM
I don't really care if they abstract normal arrows away or not.

But they absolutely must allow magical arrows to be shot with normal attacks (and, where appropriate, special type of attacks) instead of each type of arrow having their own special actions.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 11:01 AM
I believe i have seen somewhere around sugestion that special arrows should either be much cheaper, or be sold by stack of 10.
If that would be the case, personaly i would probably never again shooted regular arrow, so ... who gives a damn? laugh

Also, im not quite sure how would you like to manage this ...
I wonder what count of arrows would be apropriate ... 20 seem too little to any serious encounter, but on the other hand if you quadruple it, since every of your characters can drag his own stack of arrows, you have 80, wich on the contrary seem like a little too much, so we are back in "practicaly unlimited". :-/
Also, if you wish to limit arrows just by their weight, i believe our characters should be able to drag around 200 arrows (read as: 10 quivers) each, concidering they dont want to have anything else with them at the time ... and since you can simply "send all loot to camp" there is even no problem with that. So once aggain, practicaly unlimited. :-/
Posted By: Eugerome Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 11:10 AM
Limiting ammo is tedious in PnP and in video games. BG3 is not a survival game, so why bother.
Posted By: Zarna Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 11:11 AM
If not limited, which I would prefer, they should at least take up some weight or something. I know many people would hate this but I would love a survival mode option with exhaustion mechanics, food does not heal and gear, including arrows being really scarce. Also with smarter AI but they need to do that anyway.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 01:21 PM
I totally agree. Management is something I like in RPG and ammo management is something else to think about when you prepare your next journey.

But this is an unpopular opinion.
Players like having so powerfull magical bows/crossbows at the beginning of the game.

Originally Posted by Eugerome
Limiting ammo is tedious in PnP and in video games. BG3 is not a survival game, so why bother.

BG1/2, Solasta, Wasteland, XCOM,... aren't survival games...
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 01:56 PM
Agreed!!!
Posted By: Eugerome Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 02:22 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eugerome
Limiting ammo is tedious in PnP and in video games. BG3 is not a survival game, so why bother.

BG1/2, Solasta, Wasteland, XCOM,... aren't survival games...

My point is that if it isn't a core mechanic then why bother. I think that you should either have every arrow count (survival/horror) or not keep track.

If I can just craft/buy arrows then all that means is that I need to remember to talk to a vendor/craft every so often, which is tedious at best.

Hell, even Elder Scrolls game have limited ammo and I can't remember a time I ever ran out of them in those games.
Posted By: spectralhunter Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 03:00 PM
It’s a bit tedious. As someone who wants this game to be more like 5e, I don’t mind unlimited arrows and thrown weapons.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 03:02 PM
Make this an optional mechanic perhaps, tied to a higher difficulty mode that includes survival stuff, like actually having to eat and drink and equipment durability. With this maybe bring back mending and allow us to use it on broken arrows in corpses (or craft them together) and use it on equipped items, for this mode. So those who actually like survival mechanics and limitations like limited arrows can enjoy it, while those who don't do not have to go through those mechanics.
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I totally agree. Management is something I like in RPG and ammo management is something else to think about when you prepare your next journey.

But this is an unpopular opinion.
Players like having so powerfull magical bows/crossbows at the beginning of the game.

Originally Posted by Eugerome
Limiting ammo is tedious in PnP and in video games. BG3 is not a survival game, so why bother.

BG1/2, Solasta, Wasteland, XCOM,... aren't survival games...

BG1&2 had weapons with the unlimited ammo property
It was so convenient that eveyrone went for those weapons as a default because dealing with ammo sucks.
Posted By: bullse Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Players like having so powerfull magical bows/crossbows at the beginning of the game.

Wait, you are complaining about +1 ranged weapons obtained in this game as being "powerful" but not +1/+2 hand weapons that are likewise obtained?
Yeah, okie dokie.
How's them there Windmill Gobbos coming along boss?
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 05:44 PM
if everyone has limited arrows it does a couple of things: it helps from a strategic element where if you run out in the middle of a big fight, you either pull any unbroken from dead enemies or you go melee or magic. Enemies are limited also, which makes them switch tactics and can figure into your tactics also. It should be rare where someone has an unlimited quiver, and even then - maybe that's an item you can get from an enemy at high level. Again d&d and not Divinity so many of the special arrows shouldn't exist at all. And I don't need or want a survival game, didn't advocate for weapon sharpening or armor maintenance - I specifically said arrows. in addition, I don't think fast travel should exist outside of large towns, there could possibly be random encounters, exhaustion mechanics so that short rests and long rests have additional meaning, and short rest and long rest camps should happen where you are at the time like D&D....
Posted By: JustAnotherBaldu Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
that's all i've got for this one - player characters and enemies both should have limited arrows - period

In WoW Vanilla the Hunter had to gather/produce Ammo for his weapon.
Guess why they got rid of it. No don't guess, I clarify right now
" I would like to play Hunter, but I have no motivation to farm Ammo. "


I hope history does not repeat itself yet again.
Posted By: TheOnlyRealTav Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 03/01/21 11:14 PM
I believe that we should have an option during the start of a new campaign, if we want to have limited arrows, with a possibility of recovering them from defeated enemies. Same goes for long resting. This way, both sides are happy - hardcore rpg fans and a bit more chill casual gamers.
Posted By: Anfindel Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 02:21 AM
A melee character needs only a weapon to do damage - period. The amount of damage is defined by the weapon.

A ranger character would, by your desire, need a weapon - which again defines the damage - and then on top of that normal ammunition, which adds exactly nothing to damage, therefor placing limitations on ranger weapons that do not exist for melee.

Larian has placed limitations on all ammo that causes ADDITIONAL damage, over and beyond that defined by the weapon - thus placing it on an equal level with melee type weapons.

Personally, I find this to be balanced, fair, and appropriate.

If you want to place limitations on ranged - must have a fresh, normal arrow for each use, then how about similar limitations on melee - must re-oil and clean your melee weapon between every swing - requiring a fresh oily rag for each cleaning. I'm betting you aren't in favor of that one.
Posted By: Zarna Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 05:45 AM
Originally Posted by Anfindel
If you want to place limitations on ranged - must have a fresh, normal arrow for each use, then how about similar limitations on melee - must re-oil and clean your melee weapon between every swing - requiring a fresh oily rag for each cleaning. I'm betting you aren't in favor of that one.
I find this rather ridiculous. No one would do this with a melee weapon, you would die. During a fight you would not go and retrieve your arrows, you would die, you might be able to use some of the arrows the enemy shot at you though. After the fight has ended you would clean your weapons, retrieve usable arrows, etc.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 06:18 AM
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I totally agree. Management is something I like in RPG and ammo management is something else to think about when you prepare your next journey.

But this is an unpopular opinion.
Players like having so powerfull magical bows/crossbows at the beginning of the game.

Originally Posted by Eugerome
Limiting ammo is tedious in PnP and in video games. BG3 is not a survival game, so why bother.

BG1/2, Solasta, Wasteland, XCOM,... aren't survival games...

BG1&2 had weapons with the unlimited ammo property
It was so convenient that eveyrone went for those weapons as a default because dealing with ammo sucks.

Speak for yourself wink

BG1/2 had A FEW interresting items with unlimited ammo (1 or maybe 2)... not every single one.

That's exactly why they were interresting.
Powerfull >< Convenient
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 06:42 AM
nah - in pen and paper campaigns and solasta both (and even in a few action rpgs, but that's besides the point) arrows have been limited - if im a rogue or ranger and i haven't been paying attention, or just ran out of arrows, I loot someone for a couple quickly or go melee. As a ranger or rogue should have both weapon sets, otherwise what's the point of more than one weapon set? Also, normally if i have that limitation, so do the enemies - they can't just shoot arrows forever either. And c'mon - having to make sure you buy arrows and quiver limits is not the same as saying that you can't use a sword because its not oiled. Just trying to steer this to "more d&D" and less "arcade" or Divinity (which i like for what it is, but i don't want a d&d like divinity)
Posted By: JustAnotherBaldu Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 06:55 AM
In general I believe it is not a good idea to make normal, unspecial Arrows or Bolts a limited affair.
This will turn off a lot of players who want to play a Ranger, or generally a physical ranged build.
Not the type of dude to say something like this but

" We are playing Baldurs Gate 3. Not 'Archer Simulator'. "
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 11:11 AM
Realism of tedium does not a better fantasy RPG make.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Speak for yourself wink
Take your own advice.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
BG1/2 had A FEW interresting items with unlimited ammo (1 or maybe 2)... not every single one.
BG2 alone has 5 ranged weapons with unlmiited ammo property.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's exactly why they were interresting.
Speak for yourself wink They were more convenient then interesting, given how you needed +5 weapons to damage high level enemies.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 04/01/21 11:23 AM
I think unlimited normal ammo is fine.

- BG3 is not a survival game or a realistic combat simulation.
- Unlike BG1+2 you do not have limited inventory slots and arrows have little weight and arrows were cheap in BG1+2 ( one coin for a stack of regular ammo). Players would just load their inventory with tons of arrows.
- BG2 had so many weapons with infinite ammo that after some time every char would have such a weapon. They were a high priority for me because ammo management is boring.
- Crafting tons of arrows and farming materials for them is just boring.
- casters have infinite cantrips, melee chars can swing their weapon infinitely and only ranged chars have a limited basic action ???
Normal attacks or cantrips would be the default option, especially if we assume that you could not rest after every encounter.

PS: There was one game I quit because of ammo management, MotB.
I created an archer for the OC and I found a bow with infinite ammo, everything is fine.
I imported this char to MotB and there you lose all equipment. The cheapest arrows you could get were +3.
My char used huge amounts of ammo every fight ( 4 base attacks + rapid shot + multi shot + haste ) which made me spend huge amounts of money.
I quit because filling my whole inventory with ammo and spending all my money for ammo, refilling ammo slots after every fight and going back to shop after a few fights was not fun.
I finished this great game with several other chars.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 12:39 AM
Hey - you don't like the proposal? fine. but your response could go to anything:

if someone says:

rests shouldn't be unlimited! this is 5e!
We are playing Baldurs Gate 3 not rest simulator

low level goblins shouldn't all have throwables!
We are playing Baldurs Gate 3 not goblin simulator

and that could go on and on - you don't like it? Thats great. You'd like a more arcade style of play. I want as close to pen & paper and 5e as i can get. Thanks for your input
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 12:42 AM
I'm not saying that you would need to craft arrows, they could be easily bought from shopkeepers or whatever, but like in pen and paper, its something you have to manage if you use a ranged character, just like if you have a strength based character who carries a javelin to throw at range. If he throws it, he's got to switch to his melee gear until he can pick it up, whether that's mid fight or end of fight.
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 12:47 AM
Yeah but I doN't want to deal with ammo at all. It's just an extra annoyance to deal with like invertory space or weight limit on how much I can carry.
Posted By: VioletGrey Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 01:09 AM
I'm pretty happy about the unlimited arrows, personally.
Combat in this game is tricky enough without having to worry about running out of arrows.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 01:18 AM
so this is kind of off - topic, but it sounds like you don't like weight limits per character either?
Posted By: Tarorn Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 02:10 AM
Im for limitation as well - even if it means adding to weight or having to spend cash on purchasing more - it brings a little more realism to the game (yes I know its a fantasy game ....) if everything else impacts weight arrows & quarrels should too.
Posted By: Mat22 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 07:49 AM
If i remember well, Kingmaker has a toggle now to turn off weight limitation, they kept the weight rule but added this toggle to satisfy both camps of people. usually things like weight, ammo and durability divides people - so does the somewhat related crafting. if these are implemented, they have to be careful these can be skipped by people who doesnt care about them or get frustrated by them even. I personally like these because with a 100+ hours game i like if the game gives me more complex systems to learn and master outside of combat (i think RPGs are not just combat simulators) also these can provide ground to some interesting utility spells and actions to repair, create resources (and i think Larian could shine with this with their engine), but i understand thats not everybody's cake.
Posted By: DragonMaster69 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 08:02 AM
Originally Posted by grysqrl
I've played in PnP games where we track ammo and games where we don't. I understand the rationale behind it, but unless you're playing a wilderness survival game where resources are scarce, it mostly just feels tedious.

People don't tend to bother with things like sharpening and oiling swords or repairing armor in the game - we just assume that characters know how to maintain their gear and abstract away the boring part. I feel like ensuring that you have enough ammo for ranged weapons falls into that category unless there is something about getting enough ammo that is supposed to be a challenge.

From what we've seen of BG3 (especially with the portals), it doesn't seem like getting your hands on ammo would be even remotely difficult.


That is unless you are playing one of the Witcher series of games where you have to sharpen your weapons or repair your armor. Which I'll have to admit that I didn't mind at all.
Posted By: Mat22 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 08:12 AM
That was my favourite part of the witcher games. planning ahead, sharpening swords, making sure i have enough resources on me (like bombs), repairing armor and even alchemy was more meaningful in witcher 2 i think (3 has a mod made by one of the devs where these elements are even more meaningful).
Larians motto is basically that we give you multiple systems to overcome obstacles, i would like to see more of these alternative systems added in their games (even if these are skippable for normal difficulty runs). people are to have different ways to beat challenges so they can roleplay by their actions as well
Posted By: DragonMaster69 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 08:29 AM
Originally Posted by Mat22
That was my favourite part of the witcher games. planning ahead, sharpening swords, making sure i have enough resources on me (like bombs), repairing armor and even alchemy was more meaningful in witcher 2 i think (3 has a mod made by one of the devs where these elements are even more meaningful).
Larians motto is basically that we give you multiple systems to overcome obstacles, i would like to see more of these alternative systems added in their games (even if these are skippable for normal difficulty runs). people are to have different ways to beat challenges so they can roleplay by their actions as well


I fully agree with the Witcher series it made you think and plan ahead do I have enough sharpening stones, armor repair kits, etc which made the games fun and interesting as well. And as for the various potions for which you could make that were beneficial.
Posted By: grysqrl Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 08:41 AM
I found armor/weapon maintenance in the Witcher games pretty annoying. There were kits everywhere, so they weren't hard to get ahold of; there was no challenge to equipment maintenance that might have made it interesting. Using them is trivial, so that's not interesting. The worst thing that happens is a sword might go red and be a little less useful in the middle of a fight, that's barely interesting. But you had to lug the kits around, so they took up a little space in your inventory. That's also not interesting. It's all just extra work for no payoff. It doesn't create interesting decisions. It'd be a touch different if neglecting your gear meant you were at risk of it irreparably breaking (and there weren't 100 other swords out there to replace the broken one).

In a D&D game, my main reason for playing (and I totally recognize that different people gravitate towards it for different reasons; that's totally valid - this little rant is about what I'm looking for) is to engage with an interesting story and make decisions about my role in that story. Combat can be a part of that story, but it's a small part. For me, any systems in the game should serve engagement with the story or be removed.

In BG3, almost everything related to the inventory is superfluous - it's extra work for minimal payoff. Looting a thousand containers and bodies is boring. Carrying a thousand little bits of rope and silverware and bones and candles and other junk back to any merchant in the game to sell them is boring (not to mention, why would any of these merchants buy this junk from you?!). Looting every single weapon from every enemy you defeat is boring (and extremely unreasonable). Keeping track of basic consumables when there is no scarcity of those items is boring. Crafting systems where you're just collecting ingredients and following a recipe and there's no creativity involved is boring (I don't see this ever working well in a video game, but it's great on tabletop).

The combat part of a D&D game is primarily interesting because of how powerful and skilled your character is - it's not about all the junk you find along the way. I say we dramatically downsize the inventory: say you have whatever you're wearing/wielding and then you can carry 5 things. Might be a spare weapon. Might be a couple of potions. That weird puzzle box or some spooky tome that you found. That one +1 arrow that you found sitting on a shelf in a shop. Abstract away all of the mundane stuff and just focus on a few really precious things that you might find out in the world. That leaves a lot more room for your character to be awesome.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by grysqrl
I found armor/weapon maintenance in the Witcher games pretty annoying. There were kits everywhere, so they weren't hard to get ahold of; there was no challenge to equipment maintenance that might have made it interesting. Using them is trivial, so that's not interesting. The worst thing that happens is a sword might go red and be a little less useful in the middle of a fight, that's barely interesting. But you had to lug the kits around, so they took up a little space in your inventory. That's also not interesting. It's all just extra work for no payoff. It doesn't create interesting decisions. It'd be a touch different if neglecting your gear meant you were at risk of it irreparably breaking (and there weren't 100 other swords out there to replace the broken one).

In a D&D game, my main reason for playing (and I totally recognize that different people gravitate towards it for different reasons; that's totally valid - this little rant is about what I'm looking for) is to engage with an interesting story and make decisions about my role in that story. Combat can be a part of that story, but it's a small part. For me, any systems in the game should serve engagement with the story or be removed.

In BG3, almost everything related to the inventory is superfluous - it's extra work for minimal payoff. Looting a thousand containers and bodies is boring. Carrying a thousand little bits of rope and silverware and bones and candles and other junk back to any merchant in the game to sell them is boring (not to mention, why would any of these merchants buy this junk from you?!). Looting every single weapon from every enemy you defeat is boring (and extremely unreasonable). Keeping track of basic consumables when there is no scarcity of those items is boring. Crafting systems where you're just collecting ingredients and following a recipe and there's no creativity involved is boring (I don't see this ever working well in a video game, but it's great on tabletop).

The combat part of a D&D game is primarily interesting because of how powerful and skilled your character is - it's not about all the junk you find along the way. I say we dramatically downsize the inventory: say you have whatever you're wearing/wielding and then you can carry 5 things. Might be a spare weapon. Might be a couple of potions. That weird puzzle box or some spooky tome that you found. That one +1 arrow that you found sitting on a shelf in a shop. Abstract away all of the mundane stuff and just focus on a few really precious things that you might find out in the world. That leaves a lot more room for your character to be awesome.

I agree.
I play games ( mostly RPGs ) for story, exploration and combat.
Game mechanics should be there to support the story and create interesting decissions, not to add annoying and boring stuff because it is realistic.
Regarding ammo, things would be different in a setting where ranged weapons and magic are rare and powerful. To give an example with todays technology, when the streets are full with gangsters armed with knives it makes sense to spend lots of efford to get a gun and a few bullits.

I do not play survival games, so my best example is system shock 2. Limited inventory, few resources, degrading weapons and respawning enemies made the player feel vulnerable and paranoid which adds a lot to the atmoshere, unlike many other RPG or action games where the player is supposed to feel powerful.
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
so this is kind of off - topic, but it sounds like you don't like weight limits per character either?
I find it annoying. I am putting up with it in BG2, because there are 18/00 strength items scattered everywhere, but yeah its a mess.
That being said I think limited ammo is more annoying

I hate dealing with crafting and weight limits to such a degree that in Skyrim I only play conjurer stealth archers and I never take any loot with me unless I can equip it right away.
I can summon my own bow and arrows, I barely if ever get hit because I'm striking from the shadows and if I find myself in the open I summon a couple of demons to distract the enemy while I pew pew them with my bow.
This way I don't have to deal with inventory management, weight limits, arrows etc. and I can focus on what this game was meant to be: exploration and killing monsters
I hate crafting/collecting/storing/repairing items, it's not fun.
Posted By: SaurianDruid Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 05/01/21 10:30 PM
It strikes me as pretty unfair to put this limitation on bow users when melee characters need only buy a sword once and be able to use it forever with no maintenance or limitations. Same with a wizard and buying a spell scroll. They now have that spell forever and, of it is a cantrip, can cast it as many times as they like.

Limited arrows just nerfs the physical ranged builds of the game by saying they can't actually use their primary weapon at all times. Alternatively, if there is enough ammo everywhere that they can use the weapon at all times, then the mechanic becomes pointless or just an extra punishment in the form of additional carry weight.

The only games where I like ammo management are survival games or franchises like Fallout where scavenging for ammo is a part of the world and franchise. And even then it can be really frustrating when you buy a bunch of 10mm bullets for your pistol and head out to fight something big just to get hit by a random deathclaw attack, blow all your 10mm ammo, and have to go back to hopefully buy more.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 02:49 AM
it doesn't nerf anything- in pen and paper - alot of the same bonuses that you get for ranged attacks for rogue and ranger - you get for melee also, again - its just d&d - you don't run out of arrows often, but it makes you aware so you thoughtfully attack. This is a turn-based rpg so some of that strategy kind of goes with the territory, unlike a fallout, elder scrolls etc...
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 02:53 AM
i don't do much crafting in games either - but in most hardcore rpgs and Pen and paper - this stuff is kind of standard (weight limits, inventory management) while i'd like them to have items that are useful, (why can't ropes be used to climb or cross chasms?) - i agree that there are too many empty containers, too many hard to unlock or get to chests that contain an item like an apple or something, some inventory management is par for the course for what i hope ends up being a hardcore d&d game vs something more arcadey or casual. To each his own i guess.
Posted By: Eugerome Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 11:45 AM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
it doesn't nerf anything- in pen and paper - alot of the same bonuses that you get for ranged attacks for rogue and ranger - you get for melee also, again - its just d&d - you don't run out of arrows often, but it makes you aware so you thoughtfully attack. This is a turn-based rpg so some of that strategy kind of goes with the territory, unlike a fallout, elder scrolls etc...

This just sounds like pointless admin. There are plenty of impactful decisions in BG3 fights, like what to spell to concentrate on, which targets to prioritize, etc.

Deciding whether or not to run to the nearest vendor to buy arrows has minimal impact on the game, just makes the player waste time doing so.

If there were situations where I couldn't do that, or ammo was expensive, then maybe this made sense. But as BG3 is now I don't see ammo management adding anything to gameplay, but rather detracting from it.
Posted By: Bruh Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 11:58 AM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
i don't do much crafting in games either - but in most hardcore rpgs and Pen and paper - this stuff is kind of standard (weight limits, inventory management) while i'd like them to have items that are useful, (why can't ropes be used to climb or cross chasms?) - i agree that there are too many empty containers, too many hard to unlock or get to chests that contain an item like an apple or something, some inventory management is par for the course for what i hope ends up being a hardcore d&d game vs something more arcadey or casual. To each his own i guess.

If you want to make the game hardcore, how about you do that by making combat harder? I mean I'm here for story and combat and not purse-management.
I mean I don't even care if they remove the weight limit, like I didn't care about much in F:NV or Skyrim either. I found ways to make it work, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and having unlimited ammo is not broken, it's just convenient and it's ok. It won't make the game better if I have to deal with ammo.

Dealing with ammo makes sense in a game like Mass Effect, or F:NV survival mode, because managing resources is kind of part of the game there.

The only acceptable way I see implementing this would be making arrows be like spells for spellcasters. When you go back to camp, your archer characters instead of memorizing spells, crafts arrows for the next day. I mean how realistic is it for any random merchant to just have arrows on hand? Not very much. How ralistic is it that the arrows the merchant sells are the length that is compatible with your bows? Not very much. So if you want limited ammo, make sure that you archers craft a number of arrows everyday. Except that would result in unlimited ammo because people would just rest until they have 2000 arrows. Or if you use less arrows then you craft? Well that means you never have to worry about it ever again.
Also what I mean by "crafting" is not something the player manually does Skyrim style (fuck that system). You just go to sleep and wake up with 100 arrows you crafted last night.
Really what kind of archer are you if you can't even make your own arrows? lol
Posted By: Sharet Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
if everyone has limited arrows it does a couple of things: it helps from a strategic element where if you run out in the middle of a big fight, you either pull any unbroken from dead enemies or you go melee or magic. Enemies are limited also, which makes them switch tactics and can figure into your tactics also. It should be rare where someone has an unlimited quiver, and even then - maybe that's an item you can get from an enemy at high level. Again d&d and not Divinity so many of the special arrows shouldn't exist at all. And I don't need or want a survival game, didn't advocate for weapon sharpening or armor maintenance - I specifically said arrows. in addition, I don't think fast travel should exist outside of large towns, there could possibly be random encounters, exhaustion mechanics so that short rests and long rests have additional meaning, and short rest and long rest camps should happen where you are at the time like D&D....


+1
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by Eugerome
There are plenty of impactful decisions in BG3 fights, like what to spell to concentrate on, which targets to prioritize, etc.

Really ? What food am I going to eat ? Where am I going to go for the high ground advantage ? How am I going to jump to avoid this AOO ?
Impactfull decision rolleyes
Posted By: Eugerome Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 03:48 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eugerome
There are plenty of impactful decisions in BG3 fights, like what to spell to concentrate on, which targets to prioritize, etc.

Really ? What food am I going to eat ? Where am I going to go for the high ground advantage ? How am I going to jump to avoid this AOO ?
Impactfull decision rolleyes

Put it this way - these decisions actually let you win the fight. Checking your arrow count doesn't win you the fight, it just postpones the fight for X irl minutes until you get more arrows.
Posted By: Bossk_Hogg Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 06:19 PM
Nerds do so love their pointless busywork minutia.
Posted By: ealan Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 06:48 PM
I would like to see a combo approach. I don't want to have to craft or buy arrows (or oil weapons/repair armor), but I like the idea of the danger of running out in the middle of a fight, and I like the idea that Larian could throw a survival-type scenario at us.

What if an archer could equip a quiver that holds 20± arrows, and when you camp, it refills? Instead of just reading or praying or meditating, the animations could show armor/weapon maintenance and arrow crafting? Want more arrows? I could see sacrificing an equipment slot (amulet? cloak? off hand?) for the option to equip another quiver. Magical quivers could hold more arrows. Magical arrows could "take a slot" in your quiver.

Quivers could also be refilled while exploring (in boxes and on dead enemy archers), but you can only carry 20 per quiver at a time.

Of course in order for this to work, inventory management would need to be changed. No more free equips, or free steals from your allies smile.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 06/01/21 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eugerome
There are plenty of impactful decisions in BG3 fights, like what to spell to concentrate on, which targets to prioritize, etc.

Really ? What food am I going to eat ? Where am I going to go for the high ground advantage ? How am I going to jump to avoid this AOO ?
Impactfull decision rolleyes

Put it this way - these decisions actually let you win the fight. Checking your arrow count doesn't win you the fight, it just postpones the fight for X irl minutes until you get more arrows.

Or maybe you'll just have to change your strategy until you find arrows on dead bodies wink
Posted By: Anfindel Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 07/01/21 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eugerome
There are plenty of impactful decisions in BG3 fights, like what to spell to concentrate on, which targets to prioritize, etc.

Really ? What food am I going to eat ? Where am I going to go for the high ground advantage ? How am I going to jump to avoid this AOO ?
Impactfull decision rolleyes

Put it this way - these decisions actually let you win the fight. Checking your arrow count doesn't win you the fight, it just postpones the fight for X irl minutes until you get more arrows.

Or maybe you'll just have to change your strategy until you find arrows on dead bodies wink

Like I said before, in both melee and ranged weapons, damage is inherent in the weapon - normal ammunition does not impact damage. Your method would force strategic and economic usage on ranged that do not exist on melee (special arrows which DO convey additional damage are in fact limited, by both availability and cost). If you want to force arrow economy strategically onto ranged, then I propose as an equivalent, you impose that old "favorite", weapon and armor breakage, and mandatory weapon and armor maintenance with rare and expensive oil and rags - couldn't clean your weapon after battle? Oops. Now it's broken and you get to fight bare-fisted, just like the archer who is out of arrows. Hell, let's toss in random body conditions too - that dinner you ate last night was "bad" and now you get to fight with diarrhea - -3 to attack and defense rolls!!
Posted By: Zarna Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 07/01/21 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Anfindel
If you want to force arrow economy strategically onto ranged, then I propose as an equivalent, you impose that old "favorite", weapon and armor breakage, and mandatory weapon and armor maintenance with rare and expensive oil and rags - couldn't clean your weapon after battle? Oops. Now it's broken and you get to fight bare-fisted, just like the archer who is out of arrows. Hell, let's toss in random body conditions too - that dinner you ate last night was "bad" and now you get to fight with diarrhea - -3 to attack and defense rolls!!
An option for all of this would be awesome. smile
Posted By: 7TeenWriters Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 07/01/21 11:52 PM
I have never found ammo tracking to really give you the fun kind of strategic management, and rarely have I found weight mechanics to be interesting. The problem is that, for the most part, your management just means walking back to town more often. I could see it being interesting if it somehow made you make choices (the old XCOM games where inventory space creates an interesting loadout system, or in games where survival is an important mechanic, for example), but in RPGs it mostly just means your time in the game is even more padded out by walking back and forth.

If arrows were super limited maybe it'd make you make more choices, but in the old BG and D&D games it was more of just an obnoxious management task to make sure your archers had enough.
Posted By: soulstalker Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 08/01/21 10:05 PM
Just sounds like some one that likes to play mostly melee griping to me. Even in a dice and paper type dnd game , every DM i ever played with( i have been playing since late 1st edition, ad&d 2nd e, played 3.5 edition stopped before 4th and came back in 5th) has never evened cared about watching arrow economy, or for that matter weight economy like as in how much everyone is holding. A normal game for me usually a bag of holding is being sold for cheap or is found in early game, and no one is counting when you reach if at all the 500lbs limit of the bag of holding. Its just nit picking really.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 08/01/21 11:21 PM
that's funny. I don't play mostly melee with my rogues, but this is the way we play, it makes it more interesting, have i run out of arrows alot? no. It has happened in a couple of long slog dungeons though. And we normally have bags of holding, but in the middle of a fight - If my quiver can only hold 15 arrows - The DM isn't normally gonna let me reach into the bag of holding.... As for "griping" no, not griping - again- making a suggestion based on D&D like everyone else here....I hope you don't have any proposals at all, lest they be called "nit-picky"
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 08/01/21 11:29 PM
says the guy in a D&D game forum
Posted By: 7TeenWriters Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 08/01/21 11:39 PM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
that's funny. I don't play mostly melee with my rogues, but this is the way we play, it makes it more interesting, have i run out of arrows alot? no. It has happened in a couple of long slog dungeons though. And we normally have bags of holding, but in the middle of a fight - If my quiver can only hold 15 arrows - The DM isn't normally gonna let me reach into the bag of holding.... As for "griping" no, not griping - again- making a suggestion based on D&D like everyone else here....I hope you don't have any proposals at all, lest they be called "nit-picky"

But have you had situations where running out of arrows has been interesting? Genuinely curious. That's never come up for me, it's just been another obnoxious thing to manage. The only times it has come up is realizing my arrows are running low and needing to slog back to town. It's done nothing for me ever except slow down the game, both in tabletop and video games. I'm down for "hard" options, and even for inventory management, but I rarely see inventory management or arrows implemented in a way that doesn't just make things slower and add literally nothing else.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 09/01/21 12:00 AM
its not a "hard" option - when it has happened, I had to do the rest of the dungeon in kind of a hybrid state - I managed to pull 1 or two arrows out of enemies and save them for flying stuff but all in all - my sneak attacks and everything worked the same in melee so there was a lot of attacking and disengaging while my tank kept enemies in place. yeah it was interesting. Makes you have to actually have strategy and think a bit in a way that pure melee classes don't have to (or dare i say, get to) a lot of times. Honestly everyone I've seen that plays a rogue or ranger well goes outside of the basic "I'm just gonna shoot arrows the whole time" --- Ive had fights where i had to play "second tank" as a rogue because we were fighting two "boss" type characters at the same time (barbarian, rogue, and warlock - i think we had a cleric who was down at the time) the first guy went after the barbarian and when the other got in the warlocks face, i knew he was done unless i took him. Soooo - High Dex, uncanny dodge,cunning action, swashbuckling and sneak attacks ftw. and i was a mostly ranged rogue. part of the charm of D&D.....either way, I'm hoping we lean more d&d than Skyrim and fallout, like a lot of people keep bringing up - I like those games, but they aren't even close. I feel like for the people that want that style of play, play the divinity games and wait for the sequel for those. Its still turn-based, but more gamey, more "zany" maybe. definitely more arcadey. which is cool - but this needs to be D&d
Posted By: 7TeenWriters Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 09/01/21 12:04 AM
Other classes bring up an important point here: the way 5e works spellcasters get ranged cantrips that are essentially as good as (if not better than) ranged weapons. I agree it's kinda more arcade-y than classic D&D but it's kind of endemic of 5e and more than arrows might have to change for the feel you're wanting.
Posted By: Ghost214 Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 09/01/21 12:08 AM
nah- i play 5e now- spellcasters do have cantrips, but their effectiveness in baldurs gate has more to do with game balance and sticking to 5e rules than anything else. they change that , and they'll still be useful, just not as effective. besides - spellcasters are oh so squishy (as they should be) so its part of the balance
Posted By: SaurianDruid Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 09/01/21 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
it doesn't nerf anything- in pen and paper - alot of the same bonuses that you get for ranged attacks for rogue and ranger - you get for melee also, again - its just d&d - you don't run out of arrows often, but it makes you aware so you thoughtfully attack. This is a turn-based rpg so some of that strategy kind of goes with the territory, unlike a fallout, elder scrolls etc...

If two classes both specialize in a specific weapon and get most of their damage from that weapon and only one of them needs to worry about suddenly not being able to use their weapon in combat then yes, that is a nerf to the guy with a bow.

Also not every DnD group tracks ammo. All the ones I've played we never bothered because tracking each arrow was tedious and we didn't want our bow users to suddenly not be able to use all their feats/fighting style/abilities just because they used their basic attack too many times.

Your comment about adding strategy would make sense of everyone had similar mechanics. Armor degraded. Swords dulled and chipped. But if only one class needs to worry about maintaining their equipment it is an unbalance that adds little actual strategic depth to the overall game. Just busywork.

The way special ammo is handled does add strategic layers, though. Do I want to use my acid arrow now, or save it for later? Or use my fire arrow to set off that oil? Or maybe poison my arrow to do extra damage? Will I need these special, one-off attacks later on? It is a much more compelling choice than "Can I get through the next fight with the arrows I have or should I run back to buy more?"

Spoiler: You should always run back to buy more. It is never a bad idea to run back and buy more.
Posted By: grysqrl Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 09/01/21 01:46 AM
I've played in numerous tabletop D&D games. In the vast majority, we don't bother tracking ammo. There have been two where we actually tracked ammo (one of them was even a wilderness survival game, where it kind of makes sense) and it never became close to relevant in either of those games. No one ever came close to running out in either of those games.

I understand that they're physical objects and theoretically, you could run out of them, but how often does it actually happen to people? In those instances, is it because you didn't have the opportunity to get more ammo or was it because you forgot or just couldn't be bothered with it?

I count keeping enough ammo around as part of weapon upkeep. For melee weapons and spellcasters, that they are taking care of their tools is assumed. Why would we put extra work (and tedious work at that, not even fun stuff) on the ranged weapon users?

I could see interesting situations come up if, say, the DM had a little invisible imp running around stealing all of the PCs' ammo - that would force someone who is normally dependent upon their bow to search for less comfortable solutions to their problems. That's something I can engage with. Maintenance, I cannot.
Posted By: Anfindel Re: arrows shouldn't be unlimited - 09/01/21 10:21 AM
Originally Posted by Ghost214
its not a "hard" option - when it has happened, I had to do the rest of the dungeon in kind of a hybrid state - I managed to pull 1 or two arrows out of enemies and save them for flying stuff but all in all - my sneak attacks and everything worked the same in melee so there was a lot of attacking and disengaging while my tank kept enemies in place. yeah it was interesting. Makes you have to actually have strategy and think a bit in a way that pure melee classes don't have to (or dare i say, get to) a lot of times. Honestly everyone I've seen that plays a rogue or ranger well goes outside of the basic "I'm just gonna shoot arrows the whole time" --- Ive had fights where i had to play "second tank" as a rogue because we were fighting two "boss" type characters at the same time (barbarian, rogue, and warlock - i think we had a cleric who was down at the time) the first guy went after the barbarian and when the other got in the warlocks face, i knew he was done unless i took him. Soooo - High Dex, uncanny dodge,cunning action, swashbuckling and sneak attacks ftw. and i was a mostly ranged rogue. part of the charm of D&D.....either way, I'm hoping we lean more d&d than Skyrim and fallout, like a lot of people keep bringing up - I like those games, but they aren't even close. I feel like for the people that want that style of play, play the divinity games and wait for the sequel for those. Its still turn-based, but more gamey, more "zany" maybe. definitely more arcadey. which is cool - but this needs to be D&d

I've also used a rogue as a second tank, or as a swing melee, swooping from mob to mob for a "clean-up" hit here, a distraction there - but that was always a situational option - I didn't need to run out of arrows to force my hand. Maybe I want to fire an arrow at mob A and then dash behind mob B - to set up an OA down the road - I don't need an artificial arrow economy to decide on that tactic.
© Larian Studios forums