Larian Studios
For those who doesn't know, Sawyer's games always nerfed hard spells. IWD has no good spell(Enhanced Edition fixes it by putting BG2 spells on it), NWN2 is unplayable as a pale master or warlock without mods like spell fixes. I an pretty sure that if Larian decide to nerf the spells more than 5e already nerfed, everyone who enjoys play as a caster will just mod the game and fixes the nerfs.

That said, the lv cap = 4 makes impossible to judge how a fireball is. We can only speculate that maybe Larian did something awful with it like with firebolt spell. Nor animate dead, we all know that Larian had the awful idea of making impossible to have a mage hand and a familiar at the same time which implies that animate dead will become worthless. Honestly, if Larian will nerf necromancy to a single summon limit and the low HD undead 5e style, I would prefer that Larian will chose to NOT implement this class specialization. And let modders mod it into the game.

Is much better than having something so worthless in a game that exists only to cause frustration among the fanbase.

I also wanna add that while Larian seems to see the high tier magic as "non possible to exist on a video game", the predecessor of BG2 had a lot of powerful high tier spells and the 2e versions of then. For eg, disintegrate which is a mid tier magic on 2e OHK the enemy, on 5e only deals a little of damage. And OwlCat is implementing tier 10 magic into the game. The UI is bugged showing lv 6, but here is. Liches on end game can cast this spells.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Meanwhile on BG3, we don't even know if animate dead will gonna work properly...
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
For those who doesn't know, Sawyer's games always nerfed hard spells. IWD has no good spell(Enhanced Edition fixes it by putting BG2 spells on it), NWN2 is unplayable as a pale master or warlock without mods like spell fixes. I an pretty sure that if Larian decide to nerf the spells more than 5e already nerfed, everyone who enjoys play as a caster will just mod the game and fixes the nerfs.

That said, the lv cap = 4 makes impossible to judge how a fireball is. We can only speculate that maybe Larian did something awful with it like with firebolt spell. Nor animate dead, we all know that Larian had the awful idea of making impossible to have a mage hand and a familiar at the same time which implies that animate dead will become worthless. Honestly, if Larian will nerf necromancy to a single summon limit and the low HD undead 5e style, I would prefer that Larian will chose to NOT implement this class specialization. And let modders mod it into the game.

Is much better than having something so worthless in a game that exists only to cause frustration among the fanbase.

I also wanna add that while Larian seems to see the high tier magic as "non possible to exist on a video game", the predecessor of BG2 had a lot of powerful high tier spells and the 2e versions of then. For eg, disintegrate which is a mid tier magic on 2e OHK the enemy, on 5e only deals a little of damage. And OwlCat is implementing tier 10 magic into the game. The UI is bugged showing lv 6, but here is. Liches on end game can cast this spells.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Meanwhile on BG3, we don't even know if animate dead will gonna work properly...

Josh Sawyer doesn't work for Larian, never has. He works for Obsidian. And if you've played either of Larian's previous games, you'll recognise that high level magic was very much possible, essential even.

You can't compare BG3 with WotR. It goes to level 20 with 10 mythic levels on top. BG will be at most 10 or 11. Some of the mythic abilities are over the top. That's why they need to create a game built especially around them, with mythic demons and creatures. Can you imagine any of these spells against a bunch of cultists?
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
Josh Sawyer doesn't work for Larian, never has. He works for Obsidian. And if you've played either of Larian's previous games, you'll recognise that high level magic was very much possible, essential even.

You can't compare BG3 with WotR. It goes to level 20 with 10 mythic levels on top. BG will be at most 10 or 11. Some of the mythic abilities are over the top. That's why they need to create a game built especially around them, with mythic demons and creatures. Can you imagine any of these spells against a bunch of cultists?

I mentioned Sawyer because I din't liked magic in any game that he worked. Firearms in other hands, FNV is amazing. As for comparing BG3 with PF:WoTR, I din't compared, only said that Larian is wrong about what they said about high level magic on D&D. And they said many times that they can't implement spells like Wish(which BG2 implemented in as a "list").

As for larian having "high level magic", I disagree. None of their spells are like stop time, wish, polar midnight, wail of the banshee and so on. Necromancers can only have a single minion and honestly, everything cool has long cooldowns. I honestly hate cooldowns...
Yay, instant death spells, so fun.

Face the ultimate boss, save -> cast insta death spell -> success win.
-> fail : load and try again.

That was an epic fight.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Meanwhile on BG3, we don't even know if animate dead will gonna work properly...
... yet!

When there will be all races and classes and specializations ... i would say its good time to incerase level cap. :-/
Not before.
some comments to the OP:
- I enjoyed playing NWN2 and PoE
- Josh Sawyer is not with Larian
- You have posted mystic lich spells. Those cannot be found anywhere in the official rules.
- At the moment we only have lv4 chars with lv2 spells. Nobody knows how higher level stuff is implemented.
- The game is based on DnD 5E. I agree that some of the DOS stuff is bad, but if you do not like 5E then you will still hate the game even if they implement the rules properly.
Originally Posted by Umsche
Yay, instant death spells, so fun.

Face the ultimate boss, save -> cast insta death spell -> success win.
-> fail : load and try again.

That was an epic fight.

Wrong. Most bosses has immunity to this effects and extremely high saves, not mentioning, multi stages with minions and etc. On 3.5e,, you need to dispel death ward and if the ward is on gear, only disjunction can dispel it. Then lower the enemy saves and SR with minions and spells like cloudkill, then you can OHK the boss.

In many times, there are even more than a boss, and if you wanna try to OHK everyone in sequence, good lucky. See Jon Irenicus final battle on BG2 or the Lantern King on Kingmaker.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
some comments to the OP:
- I enjoyed playing NWN2 and PoE
- Josh Sawyer is not with Larian
- You have posted mystic lich spells. Those cannot be found anywhere in the official rules.
- At the moment we only have lv4 chars with lv2 spells. Nobody knows how higher level stuff is implemented.
- The game is based on DnD 5E. I agree that some of the DOS stuff is bad, but if you do not like 5E then you will still hate the game even if they implement the rules properly.

I know that Sawyer is not Larian, but some comments that I saw from Larian remembers me of him. Sawyer is amazing on designing video games firearms(FNV is a masterpiece) but when designing/adapting spells... As for the mythic path rules, it is a good way to pick a good system and IMPROVE it.

About the game being based on 5e, doesn't seem like Larian is trying to improve aka add more cool things. Seems like Larian is trying to remove cool things.
Looks like we have a different understanding of fun.
- Endless pre buffing before every hard fight is boring, especially if you have to do it again and again. It takes longer and longer as the game progresses.
- Fights where both opponents are buffed to almost perfect immunety against everything and where you need the right spell protection and spell protection removal tools to have a chance are also not very interesting. You have to read a guide or die 100 times until you find out how to defeat that lich and once you found out you just do the same thing again and again. It only helps to frustrate new players.
- I like the new concentration mechanic in 5E. You have to think carefully which spell to use instead of simply using all of them. Plus concentration can be broken easy (a bit too easy in BG3).

BG3 is great because of the high interactivity or reactivity. There are many ways approach almost every situation and it makes some things work that were never expected in a video game.
I do not like game just because they have the most complicated rule set ever. Making things complicated for its own sake is just annoying.
I dislike the large DOS influences in a DnD games because it means you have to repeat some nonsense OP stuff over and over (like jumping to get backstab advantage).

I like Kingmaker and WotR. But I play on normal difficulty because torturing myself with even more inflated monster stats is not my idea of fun too. I recently finished Kingmaker with a sylvan sorcerer, btw the first time I used a pure arcane caster as main char to finish a big DnD like RPG. When WotR comes out I will certainly play a martial char (probably bloodrager) since everyone and their grandmother has spell resistance, elemental resistance and immunity to status effects.
OK, then I just have to bash their skull real hard. (after endless, repetivive pre buffing, fortuanatly now with 24h duration.)
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Looks like we have a different understanding of fun.
- Endless pre buffing before every hard fight is boring, especially if you have to do it again and again. It takes longer and longer as the game progresses.
- Fights where both opponents are buffed to almost perfect immunety against everything and where you need the right spell protection and spell protection removal tools to have a chance are also not very interesting. You have to read a guide or die 100 times until you find out how to defeat that lich and once you found out you just do the same thing again and again. It only helps to frustrate new players.
- I like the new concentration mechanic in 5E. You have to think carefully which spell to use instead of simply using all of them. Plus concentration can be broken easy (a bit too easy in BG3).
(...)

You don't need to end buff on kingmaker. In fact, you use buffs depending on the encounter. For eg, protection vs arrows against the stag lord, protection against electricity against Will'O wisps, is not as if before every trash mob encounter, you need to do something like



And the mobs should be able to cast spells like dispel, greater dispel and disjunction to remove those buffs from the player.

As for the concentration mechanic, it RUINS A LOT OF PERSISTENT spells. I see no reason to pick any other specialization on BG3 besides Evoker. Why I would ever pick a conjuration specialization if spells like cloudkill if I can lost the spell in a single round and dish far less damage than a cone of cold would deal? 5e also ruined non persistent spells. Why pick transformation if disintegrate is extremely weaker and has a usage far more limited? Necromancer for eg, can't raise high HD undead nor OHK enemies.

All spell schools on 5e got severely nerfed. But tehre are a exception. Evokation. Meteor Swarm on 5e deals 20d6 fire + 20d6 budgeoning damage AoE damage which is 140 AVR damage. Power world kill meanwhile can only OHK creatures with less than 100 hp. Why pick Power World Kill over an AoE spell which can kill far more dangerous creatures independent of their hp?

And this not mentioning that Evokers now has tools to protect their party members from team damage.

Evokation is the unique worth school on 5e and we can't even know if Larian will ruin it too or not.

As for playing martial class on WoTR due elemental resistances, see the lich spells which I posted, casters can do far more than throw fireballs there :P

Honestly, there is only thing which I think that BG3 is superior to the competition. The enemy AI. I saw so many enemies with dumb AI in games, clerics casting heal on themselves(which damages then) on NWN1 is the most iconic example.
What is this thread even about? A concern that high level magic won't be absurdly powerful?

I would be talking about the resting system, then. If Larian doesn't include some restrictions on long rest as a core part of the game, high level spellcasters probably SHOULD be neutered.

The more restricted long rests will be, the more powerful magic can potentially be without making the fights trivially easy.

What I really don't want is a situation where D&D spellcasters turn into DOS spellcasters where everything looks overpowered but feels underpowered. Spamming weak magic on cooldowns. D&D casters need to be able to peak when the situation requires it, and play smart rather than with reckless abandon.

I like what 5e did to save or die spells. While those spells still hit really hard and likely will one hit you if you fail the save (which is more likely with the bounded accuracy approach), there is at least some chance to not get utterly disintegrated and having to reload.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
What I really don't want is a situation where D&D spellcasters turn into DOS spellcasters where everything looks overpowered but feels underpowered. Spamming weak magic on cooldowns. D&D casters need to be able to peak when the situation requires it, and play smart rather than with reckless abandon.

That is how magic will probably gonna be.

Also, every spell which a player can cast, an NPC can cast. And fighting an enemy caster able to cast tier 7 magic while you can only cast tier 5 is a nightmare on TT games. This spells would't be "pc only" spells. In fact, is common on games with tiered magicl progression to fight enemies with powerful spells before you can learn this spells.


Originally Posted by 1varangian
I like what 5e did to save or die spells. While those spells still hit really hard and likely will one hit you if you fail the save (which is more likely with the bounded accuracy approach), there is at least some chance to not get utterly disintegrated and having to reload.

Still hit really hard? Are you joking? Pick disintegrate for eg. A lv 20 barbarian with 20 con with average rolls and +5 con mod would have 19 * ( 7 + 5) + 12 + 5 hp or 245 HP. The average damage of disintegrate is 75 damage(10d6 + 40), which means that a barbarian on 5e can survive failing 3 saves and being disintegrated 3 times.

Pathfinder 1e modified spells like finger of death to deal massive damage. At lv 20, it can dish 200 damage. And Disintegrate can dish 40d6 damage. Or 140 damage on average.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Still hit really hard? Are you joking? Pick disintegrate for eg. A lv 20 barbarian with 20 con with average rolls and +5 con mod would have 19 * ( 7 + 5) + 12 + 5 hp or 245 HP. The average damage of disintegrate is 75 damage(10d6 + 40), which means that a barbarian on 5e can survive failing 3 saves and being disintegrated 3 times.

Couldn't think of a more extreme example? :P

You get Disintegrate at level 11. It can one shot many 11th level characters who have taken a small amount of damage from something else and will reliably one shot characters a couple levels lower. Sounds powerful but still balanced to me, assuming you can't spam long rests at will and do it in every fight.

A lvl 20 Wizard can cast Imprisonment and permanently shrink a level 20 Barbarian inside a gemstone and make a pretty amulet out of it. Not powerful enough?
Originally Posted by 1varangian
You get Disintegrate at level 11. It can one shot many 11th level characters who have taken a small amount of damage from something else and will reliably one shot characters a couple levels lower. Sounds powerful but still balanced to me, assuming you can't spam long rests at will and do it in every fight.

A lvl 20 Wizard can cast Imprisonment and permanently shrink a level 20 Barbarian inside a gemstone and make a pretty amulet out of it. Not powerful enough?

No, is not.

Disintegrate should disintegrate, not do damage. Simple as that.

Did you played arcanum? Extremely Fortified walls which can sustain multiple grenades can be reduced into dust with a single disintegrate. On Dark Sun : Shattered Sands, is one of the best psionics in the game.

I honestly don't know why so many people see problems with OHK spells which takes out an enemy but sees no problem with domination spells which not only takes out an enemy but also add the same enemy as an ally.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by 1varangian
You get Disintegrate at level 11. It can one shot many 11th level characters who have taken a small amount of damage from something else and will reliably one shot characters a couple levels lower. Sounds powerful but still balanced to me, assuming you can't spam long rests at will and do it in every fight.

A lvl 20 Wizard can cast Imprisonment and permanently shrink a level 20 Barbarian inside a gemstone and make a pretty amulet out of it. Not powerful enough?

No, is not.

Disintegrate should disintegrate, not do damage. Simple as that.

Did you played arcanum? Extremely Fortified walls which can sustain multiple grenades can be reduced into dust with a single disintegrate. On Dark Sun : Shattered Sands, is one of the best psionics in the game.

I honestly don't know why so many people see problems with OHK spells which takes out an enemy but sees no problem with domination spells which not only takes out an enemy but also add the same enemy as an ally.
It will Disintegrate if you overcome the HP. It's much more balanced like that and it makes sense a weakened target is easier to disintegrate.

I wouldn't expect old school save or die mechanics to return any time soon.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
I honestly don't know why so many people see problems with OHK spells which takes out an enemy but sees no problem with domination spells which not only takes out an enemy but also add the same enemy as an ally.

Have you considered that one of those things can be broken, interrupted, dispelled, or saved out of after the fact, while an actual old school save-or-die cannot be? Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because heir only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies agaisnt their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning form party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM.

A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free. That's a ridiculous idea and a person who suggests that it should is being equally ridiculous.

Disintegrate is plenty powerful in 5e, compared to the setting and backdrop that it is situated in. In fact, it's overpowered for its level bracket in terms of its potential damage output and its character-loss consequences if it zeros someone. It is for that reason that it is one of the only high level spells in 5e that is still an all-or-nothing on the save, rather than a save-for-partial, like the vast majority of other mid to high level damage-dealing spells.
It's been years since I've played. The only thing I know about 5e comes from Baldur's Gate 3. But it sure does sound like DnD players have gotten soft.

Used to be, things like Power Word Kill and Disintegrate kept things exciting. When characters died, it was okay. A new character was made. Stories were told about the old character dying.
If by 'soft' you mean 'generally more invested in the mental and emotional journey of their characters and more inclined towards immersed character play' than the highly disposable burner character style of play that was encouraged by older editions, then sure, call it that. It's a roleplaying game, and the more recent renaissance of D&D has focused more heavily on that - roleplaying - than on having to reroll a new character every few sessions and not really getting attached to any of them because you know you're going to have to reroll again in a few sessions time. To each their own; plenty of groups still play like that, and AL games are generally very min-maxed as well... but it's not the main pitch any more.
Originally Posted by Niara
If by 'soft' you mean 'generally more invested in the mental and emotional journey of their characters and more inclined towards immersed character play' than the highly disposable burner character style of play that was encouraged by older editions, then sure, call it that.

No, I mean what I said.
I mean, when all is said and done, 5E can still be a pretty lethal game. I wouldn't consider it any softer than 3/3.5E.

Power Word: Kill is in particular is far more lethal in 5E than 3.5E - both auto-kills at 100 hp, but 5E is a lower HP game compared to 3.5E (where characters have far higher CON stats). Also, in 3.5E spell resistance can save you from it. Disintegrate does packs less of a punch, but it can also land far more in 5E compared to 3.5E due to the way saves work.


For example, a 5E level 20 wizard with 16 CON, will only have an average 98-ish hp (6+ 19*3.5 + 20*3). That is still in range of a OHK by Power Word: Kill.

They are also in range of a OHK by an upcasted level 9 disintegrate (19d6+40 = average 106.5 damage). A single casting of Meteor Swarm (40*3.5 = 140 avg. damage) will also put them down.

In fact, a level 20 Great Weapon Master (GWM) Fighter can action surge and make 8 attacks @ 22 average damage (2*3.5 + 5 + 10) x8 = 176 total avg. damage)), which will also one-round kill that level 20 Wizard

A GWM bog standard Paladin can smite twice @ 49 damage (2*3.5 + 5 + 10 + 4.5 + 22.5), which is just enough to one round knock out that same level 20 Wizard.
Originally Posted by JoB
No, I mean what I said.

Well, you were very unclear about it, so if all you came into the thread to do was to make a disparaging and derogatory comment about other players, then why don't you actually sit down and define what you mean by 'soft', and make it a conversation rather than an insult.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
It will Disintegrate if you overcome the HP. It's much more balanced like that and it makes sense a weakened target is easier to disintegrate.

I wouldn't expect old school save or die mechanics to return any time soon.

The most balanced D&D edition is D&D 4e. And is by far the worst. If something is cool, it should be in the game. Simple as that. Note that I an playing DDO at moment, doing the Temple of Elemental Evil quest and elementals uses tier 6 magic while my MC can only use tier 4 magic.

My first death with this char was to a "boss" who casted phantasmal killer, a OHK spell on 3e. And was my fault. I an entering in a place full of undead, I should have prepared myself.

Originally Posted by Niara
[quote=SorcererVictor](...)Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because heir only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies agaisnt their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning form party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM.

A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free. That's a ridiculous idea and a person who suggests that it should is being equally ridiculous.

You act as if there are no counter or protection against those spells. Deathward, a tier 4 spell can protect you from wail of the banshee, a tier 9 spell.

Originally Posted by JoB
It's been years since I've played. The only thing I know about 5e comes from Baldur's Gate 3. But it sure does sound like DnD players have gotten soft.

Used to be, things like Power Word Kill and Disintegrate kept things exciting. When characters died, it was okay. A new character was made. Stories were told about the old character dying.

Well said. 5e characters are too durable.

Originally Posted by Niara
If by 'soft' you mean 'generally more invested in the mental and emotional journey of their characters and more inclined towards immersed character play' than the highly disposable burner character style of play that was encouraged by older editions, then sure, call it that. It's a roleplaying game, and the more recent renaissance of D&D has focused more heavily on that - roleplaying - than on having to reroll a new character every few sessions and not really getting attached to any of them because you know you're going to have to reroll again in a few sessions time. To each their own; plenty of groups still play like that, and AL games are generally very min-maxed as well... but it's not the main pitch any more.

No, characters on old school D&D are humans. Sure, they are incredible powerful humans, can cast powerful magic, wield powerful magical items and so on, but still humans. Your lv 20 wizard on 2e will probably have around 40 hp. That means that a bear can mole him to death in a single round if he is caught by surprise without spells or anything supernatural to defend him. That makes me fell far more imersed into my char.

And make adventuring more fun, threatening and interesting.

When you finally reach mid to high levels, you fell acomplished because you saw a lot of other adventurers dying and failing to obtain that power.


Originally Posted by Topgoon
Power Word: Kill is in particular is far more lethal in 5E than 3.5E - both auto-kills at 100 hp, but 5E is a lower HP game compared to 3.5E (where characters have far higher CON stats). Also, in 3.5E spell resistance can save you from it. Disintegrate does packs less of a punch, but it can also land far more in 5E compared to 3.5E due to the way saves work.


Actually 5e is far higher hp than 3.5e which is far higher hp than 2e.

Wizards hit dice per edition.

  • 2e - D4 + maximum of 2 CON """mod""" till lv 9 then +1
  • 3e - D4 + CON mod with no limit
  • 5e - D6 + CON mod with + 5 limit


Monsters? Monsters has a lot of hp on 5e. Examples?

Iron golem - 18d10+30 (129 hp) on 3e VS 20d10+100 (210) hp on 5e
Kraken - 20d10+180 (290 hp) on 3e VS 27d20 + 189 (472) hp on 5e

BTW on 2e the hp values are even smaller.
Originally Posted by Niara
If by 'soft' you mean 'generally more invested in the mental and emotional journey of their characters and more inclined towards immersed character play' than the highly disposable burner character style of play that was encouraged by older editions, then sure, call it that. It's a roleplaying game, and the more recent renaissance of D&D has focused more heavily on that - roleplaying - than on having to reroll a new character every few sessions and not really getting attached to any of them because you know you're going to have to reroll again in a few sessions time. To each their own; plenty of groups still play like that, and AL games are generally very min-maxed as well... but it's not the main pitch any more.

I have to agree.
I want to have an emotional connection with my char, not a set of stats I do not care about because it will die soon after because of an unlucky dice roll.

Please note that we are talking here about a computer game, so creating a new main char in the middle of the game is not an option.
If your main char dies you have to reload. If it happens often enough in a row players will quit.
Which is bad because it means players will miss a great game.

I play computer role playing games because I like the mix of story, exploration and combat.
I do not play them because I expect my char to die any moment because of an unlucky roll.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
You act as if there are no counter or protection against those spells. Deathward, a tier 4 spell can protect you from wail of the banshee, a tier 9 spell.

Ahem, as I said, "Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because their only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies against their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning from party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM."
Your answer bore no relevance to that, especially when the chat was about how someone thinks disintegrate should be a SoD. I reiterate again: "A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free. That's a ridiculous idea and a person who suggests that it should is being equally ridiculous." If you're going to quote me, then at least please address what I'm saying.

Quote
No, characters on old school D&D are humans.

Maybe yours are. Mine are usually halflings. What we are, are mortals.

Quote
Your lv 20 wizard on 2e will probably have around 40 hp. That means that a bear can mole him to death in a single round if he is caught by surprise without spells or anything supernatural to defend him. That makes me fell far more imersed into my char. ... And make adventuring more fun, threatening and interesting. ... When you finally reach mid to high levels, you fell acomplished because you saw a lot of other adventurers dying and failing to obtain that power.

Except it doesn't really lend itself to individual character immersion, due to the fact that the character doesn't last for any reasonable length of time, and you don't feel that sense of satisfaction or accomplishment the vast majority of the time either, because you burn through a dozen different characters for every one that makes it as far as even the mid levels, because the older editions are designed to be harsh character-burners, comparatively speaking, that will frequently and abruptly kill your characters is silly or unfair ways, and you're asked to just accept that as funny and all-in-good-fun, and part of the game. Well, it's not... Not for me, at least, and not for a great margin of modern players in the present day systems. In the older systems, you aren't ever going to trace a character all the way through their personal journey from 1 to 20 because, short of a party wipe, you're going to lose your character several times in a campaign, and bring in a new one to continue on with the rest of the group. You are not going to finish the story with the character that started it; no-one is without a high degree of player meta and mechanical optimising, and likely not even then. A game system riddled with SoD and OHK spells, traps and abilities is inherently not compatible with people who want to play a game where they develop a long-term immersed character experience, and follow them through a personal journey even as you pursue your main campaign. You can't really do that, in a game setting that expects to randomly kill off characters over singular die rolls with little to no warning.

If you need SoD and OHK spells to "Keep things exciting", then I'd politely suggest that you REALLY need to get a better Dm.

Just as an example, I've got a character who is level 8 right now; I've been playing her for several years... I have a lot of strong emotions tied up in that campaign and the story that we as a group are exploring and creating together. Character death can, and ideally should, be dramatic, emotional and poignant; I'll be devastated if it happens, but it's always a possibility. There is plenty of risk and challenge, and we've had a number of very close calls... it has been a very exciting game, as well as a deeply involving and investing one... However, the idea that I might lose this character beyond any possibility of retrieval due to a random trap containing a 5th level spell in the middle of some random ruin would be complete anathema to the entire principle of what I play this game for.

Now, if a system that heavily skews your odds towards sudden death of characters due to a plethora of OHKs and SoDs, and thus a game style that involves moderately frequent character death, and the loss of a decent handful or more for every one that makes it to the end, is your idea of fun, and fulfills your idea of character immersion and investment, that's great; to each their own... it doesn't really sound compatible with the idea of individual character investment to me, but different people have different perspectives, and that's fine...

If being at more risk of sudden character loss is what makes you feel immersed in playing your character, that's great for you. If it is, then I can certainly understand why save-or-die spells sending you to the re-roll table half a dozen times per campaign might be a positive thing, and might legitimately enhance your gameplay experience. For me, the things that make me feel more immersed in my character are character roleplay with others and building connections and relationships with them while we undertake perilous adventures together, and the idea of heading to the re-roll table multiple times per campaign as an expectation, due to the reintroduction of SoD spells, is not a positive thing and would not in any way enhance my gameplay experience. Both of these mindset and ways of playing are perfectly cool.

What is not cool is denigrating other players for favouring different styles and putting their fun value on different things, as the person you're defending and agreeing with was doing... and seemingly came into this thread with the sole purpose of doing.
This is why in Session Zero I ask my players what they love about D&D, and I record their answers. I want to know if I have players who are emotionally attached to their characters. I actually try to get players who are more invested in their characters, it makes it easier to create an immersive experience. They will give me NPCs I can add in, and I don't have to think them all up on my own. It also inspires me to make combat more varied & strategic, "is this an enemy the players can reason with? How much intelligence does this monster have?"

Sure there are players who live for the wild magic TPK or a fumble chart TPK. But I don't want that to happen frequently to characters I wrote two pages of backstory for, with multiple NPCs approved by the DM.

I don't think it's soft to care about the character. In fact we could argue it's soft to create burner characters. If you don't write a backstory and you don't care if the character is killed off, are you playing the game to the fullest? If the DM isn't creating social experiences, is the DM playing the game to the fullest?

Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Your lv 20 wizard on 2e will probably have around 40 hp. That means that a bear can mole him to death in a single round if he is caught by surprise without spells or anything supernatural to defend him. That makes me fell far more imersed into my char. ... And make adventuring more fun, threatening and interesting. ... When you finally reach mid to high levels, you fell acomplished because you saw a lot of other adventurers dying and failing to obtain that power.
It's immersive if the wizard tries to use Animal Handling or Misty Step to just avoid the bear. Not all outcomes should end in combat, what if the bear is starving and just looking for food? Can the party toss food at the bear to satiate it? Could the bear get distracted by Prestidigitation?

It's also un-immersive if characters are dying left and right. Do the characters really have no emotional response to another's death? Would the surviving party members not consider a different career path? Would they turn to the simple life of farming after seeing so many of their friends die? Would the wizard go back to being a cloistered scholar?

Originally Posted by Niara
If you need SoD and OHK spells to "Keep things exciting", then I'd politely suggest that you REALLY need to get a better Dm...


What is not cool is denigrating other players for favouring different styles and putting their fun value on different things.

Agreed 100%
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Please note that we are talking here about a computer game, so creating a new main char in the middle of the game is not an option.
If your main char dies you have to reload. If it happens often enough in a row players will quit.
Which is bad because it means players will miss a great game.

I play computer role playing games because I like the mix of story, exploration and combat.
I do not play them because I expect my char to die any moment because of an unlucky roll.

You again is ignoring hat there are protections against it and a faster and more brutal combat makes the game more interesting.

Also, on mid to high levels, there are ways to revive party members.

Originally Posted by Niara
Ahem, as I said, "Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because their only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies against their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning from party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM."
Your answer bore no relevance to that, especially when the chat was about how someone thinks disintegrate should be a SoD. I reiterate again: "A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free.

1 - Random death happens. I see no problem with it in a game.
2 - You keep ignoring again what I said about protection
3 - What is the problem of starting from char level 7/8? IF the adventure is designed for that level, players who wanna play that adventure should start at that level. Same for video game adaptations. Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager has you starting at lv 8. Baldur's Gate 2 too around lv 7~9 depending on the class. Hordes of the underdark on nwn1? Start at lv 15.
4 - If you throw a necromancer able to cast wail of the banshee against the a low level party(without expecting that they will find a way around)
5 - Disintegrate is a 6th level spell and can't one shot any creature in the existence. On 3e, the DC to resist that spell would be 10 + 6 + INT MOD, assuming greater spell focus transformation, and 22(superhuman) intelligence, the DC will gonna be 24. An mature red dragon only would need to roll 3 to not be OHKilled and it if happened, is a fun lucky situation in the table. This not considering the spell resistance. And note that contrary to 2e, disintegrate on 3e can't OHK sadly.

Originally Posted by Niara
, I've got a character who is level 8 right now; I've been playing her for several years... I have a lot of strong emotions tied up in that campaign and the story that we as a group are exploring and creating together. Character death can, and ideally should, be dramatic, emotional and poignant; I'll be devastated if it happens, but it's always a possibility. There is plenty of risk and challenge, and we've had a number of very close calls... it has been a very exciting game, as well as a deeply involving and investing one... However, the idea that I might lose this character beyond any possibility of retrieval due to a random trap containing a 5th level spell in the middle of some random ruin would be complete anathema to the entire principle of what I play this game for.

That is the game which you are playing. Very low level, very low lethality. Guess what. Only a sadistic dm would ever throw a necromancer capable of casting finger of death against a low or mid level adventure. Raise dead is a 5th level spell.

GURPS is far higher lethality than D&D 2e, mainly on high tech or high magical settings. A .338 lapua magnum rifle can OHK the average players several times with a single shot. People do everything that they can to avoid being exposed to lethal risk and is part of the game. You can say that you don't like higher lethality but IMHO, D&D nowdays lacks any sense of peril.

And Larian with the hp bloat rule is makign it even worse.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's immersive if the wizard tries to use Animal Handling or Misty Step to just avoid the bear. Not all outcomes should end in combat, what if the bear is starving and just looking for food? Can the party toss food at the bear to satiate it? Could the bear get distracted by Prestidigitation?

It's also un-immersive if characters are dying left and right. Do the characters really have no emotional response to another's death? Would the surviving party members not consider a different career path? Would they turn to the simple life of farming after seeing so many of their friends die? Would the wizard go back to being a cloistered scholar?

Of course, but my point is to point out how fragile chars are on 2e.
Arguing over whether or not one hit kill spells are good for gameplay is pretty pointless. 5e doesn't have save or die stuff and I doubt they will suddenly start over and convert BG3 to AD&D 2e just because SorcererVictor wants to Disintegrate level 20 Barbarians left and right.

Larian are obviously not going to start buffing spells beyond what they are in 5e, especially since they already made Long Rest trivially easy to do whenever.

So I would be petitioning for an accurate conversion of the rules here, starting with making Long Rest a more restricted resource so spells don't have to be nerfed eventually. We will reach level 11 at least, and a level 11 Wizard unloading all spell slots in every single encounter would be a balance nightmare no one wants, even if they think they do.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Arguing over whether or not one hit kill spells are good for gameplay is pretty pointless. 5e doesn't have save or die stuff and I doubt they will suddenly start over and convert BG3 to AD&D 2e just because SorcererVictor wants to Disintegrate level 20 Barbarians left and right.

Larian are obviously not going to start buffing spells beyond what they are in 5e, especially since they already made Long Rest trivially easy to do whenever.

So I would be petitioning for an accurate conversion of the rules here, starting with making Long Rest a more restricted resource so spells don't have to be nerfed eventually. We will reach level 11 at least, and a level 11 Wizard unloading all spell slots in every single encounter would be a balance nightmare no one wants, even if they think they do.

I an pretty sure that modders will implement a 2e optional mod. But my point with this thread is not if spells will be nerfed to 5e levels. My concern is if Larian will nerf this spells even more than 5e levels. And not only to OHK spells. 5e already took high CR undead alway from necromancer and OHK spells. Even a lv 20 necromancer on 5e can only get skeletons/zombies. Imagine it + a single summon limit, necromancer which is already very lackluster comapred to the evoker, would become a meme.

But honestly how someone can ever think on surviving this??

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
"Parwyyd Hanifar casts disintegrate to destroy the Great Door." https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Disintegrate
SoecererVictor, are you sure you are a friend of classical role playing games?
You sound a bit like a fan of dark souls or rogue likes.
One single mistake and you are dead. Reload the game (if it is nice) or start again with a new char.
Some games are so sadistic that death means you get a penalty that gets bigger with each try.

BG1+2 are great games.
But I am happy that some game mechanics have changed since then.
Give us BG3 with the 5E rules of Solasta and I am even more happy.
Spoilering this because it's getting a bit off topic:


Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
1 - Random death happens. I see no problem with it in a game.
2 - You keep ignoring again what I said about protection
3 - What is the problem of starting from char level 7/8? IF the adventure is designed for that level, players who wanna play that adventure should start at that level. Same for video game adaptations. Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager has you starting at lv 8. Baldur's Gate 2 too around lv 7~9 depending on the class. Hordes of the underdark on nwn1? Start at lv 15.
4 - If you throw a necromancer able to cast wail of the banshee against the a low level party(without expecting that they will find a way around)
5 - Disintegrate is a 6th level spell and can't one shot any creature in the existence. On 3e, the DC to resist that spell would be 10 + 6 + INT MOD, assuming greater spell focus transformation, and 22(superhuman) intelligence, the DC will gonna be 24. An mature red dragon only would need to roll 3 to not be OHKilled and it if happened, is a fun lucky situation in the table. This not considering the spell resistance. And note that contrary to 2e, disintegrate on 3e can't OHK sadly.

If random, ignoble, unfitting character loss actually *Enhances* your game experience and makes the game *More* fun for you, that's cool. You're in an EXTREME minority of D&D players if that is the case. Most don't like it; many think it's a part of the game sometimes, but few, if any, genuinely think it's something that increases their fun or enhances their game experience. Character loss should be significant when it happens... SoD and OHK spells are, quite simply, the opposite of that.

I'm not ignoring what you say about protectives; nothing 'protects' you from disintegrate, with the exception of Death Ward, and most parties aren't in a position to Death Ward everyone in the group just on the off chance that they run into a caster with disintegrate. It's also not a widely accessible spell - cleric and paladin only, in fact, so if your group doesn't have one of those at a high enough level to burn their limited spell resources on that high level protective for everyone (and at level 8 you won't), then it's pointless to bring it up. As I said, it also doesn't address the point or have any real bearing on it... Which is your contention that disintegrate should be a 6th level spell (i.e. a spell which a level 8 party might realistically face from major caster villains), which is simply a SoD, in a way that such a party would have literally no way to restore a character from the effects of, thus making it a cheap and largely unfair character destroyer in an edition where save failures can be guaranteed in other simpler ways.

The 'problem' which comes into play once the party reaches level 7-8 (more likely 9) or so is that that is the level where main villain caster bosses will start to have 5th and 6th level spells, such as disintegrate, and the party, at their level, will absolutely not have excess 4th level slots to burn on preemptive protectives, nor, more importantly, any hope of having the means to restore a character from disintegration.

Disintegrate is still perfectly powerful in 5e; it will never bounce of spell resistance, which doesn't exist, and there are ways to ensure a dex save failure quite easily, and at the point in the game where characters start having the chance of having to face it down, only the very *sturdiest* classes have much chance of not getting zeroed out by a failure... my level 8 bard, which I mentioned, certainly doesn't - she's only got 30 hit points at level 8; even at level 13, she's only likely to have approximately 50 hit points, if she rolls average, which is still guaranteed death from full hp. At level 20, she'll only have, if she gets average from here on out, 78 hit points. A base level 6 disintegrate would likely kill her even at level 20... if your theoretical barbarian example is good, then so is my actual character example. Disintegrate is plenty strong as it is.

Mentioning all the other limiting factors that Disintegrate had in earlier editions is actually reinforcing the point; suggesting that spells like disintegrate should be made back into OHKs/SoDs, in an edition that does NOT have spell resistance, or unbeatably high save modifiers, and also contains simple ways to guarantee save failures, both on players and on enemies is a ridiculous suggestion.

Quote
That is the game which you are playing. Very low level, very low lethality. Guess what. Only a sadistic dm would ever throw a necromancer capable of casting finger of death against a low or mid level adventure. Raise dead is a 5th level spell.

Level 8 is not 'very low level', it's approaching mid bracket. The campaign is likely to go to about 12 at most, and onto a new adventure after that if we make it. It's also not low lethality at all. We've had a lot of very close calls and a lot of near saves and almost-losses. Raise Dead is indeed a 5th level spell, which is a lovely piece of academic knowledge for a party that doesn't actually contain a cleric and who are currently only level 8. We did have a major caster boss to deal with recently - she had up to 8th level spells; head on was not the way we handled it, in the end, but handle it we did, and it was terrifying, exciting and very nearly cost all four of us our lives. End of the day, you don't need SoD spells to create that excitement and that danger - and the danger feels more legitimate and fair when it's not contingent upon single roll SoDs, and I'll say it again - if your DM thinks they DO need SoD and OHK spells and abilities to keep things interesting or exciting for your party, then they, as a DM, have failed.


Quote
And Larian with the hp bloat rule is making it even worse.

On this score, I absolutely 100% agree with you.
So ask for a resting system where Long Rests are more restricted so they don't have to start nerfing higher level spells and basically any class that operates on a per day basis. This is where BG3 is currently at. It's closer to eliminating all resting completely and turning into DOS rather than D&D style gameplay where smart resource management is part of the game. We can't have powerful magic before that's sorted. Assuming they care the least little bit about class balance in a game that also has multiplayer.
Originally Posted by Madscientist
SoecererVictor, are you sure you are a friend of classical role playing games?
You sound a bit like a fan of dark souls or rogue likes.
One single mistake and you are dead. Reload the game (if it is nice) or start again with a new char.
Some games are so sadistic that death means you get a penalty that gets bigger with each try.

BG1+2 are great games.
But I am happy that some game mechanics have changed since then.
Give us BG3 with the 5E rules of Solasta and I am even more happy.

I an a very CRPG fan
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

I like Souls style of games. And they aren't one mistake and you are dead. Missing an dodge in a boss can make you took a lot of damage and require an healing opening but not OHK you.

As for CRPG's, I mentioned Dark Sun, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Arcanum, VtMB(...) Modern games aren't good as old school ones exactly due this balance cultism "balance is good because balance is good, lets make all player choices the same and remove everything cool for the sake of balance. Everyone should be playing with boring characters".

Low INT runs on FL 1/2 aren't optimal but are fun due how the world react to a brainlet PC. Nosferatu has a hard time navigating in teh city and are so deformed that even prostitutes refuses then making harder to get masquarede risk free blood. But both examples are fun to be played for most players. An modern game dev would remove nosferatu or make the deformity a -1 seduction dot for the sake of balance cultism. Killing the uniqueness of teh clan, game athmosphere and consistency of mechanics and lore or killing variety.

RPG's used to be fictional immersive worlds to live and escape from the harsh reality where a lot of injustices happens on work, university, with your health and so on. Where you can for few moments, forgive the problems of IRL and be a necromancer, be a paladin, do a lot of cool things and see the consequences of your actions. Now, they are just boring work. There are few exceptions to that rule. 5e is not boring like 4e but is not good as 2e either.

---------------

Niara, you are right that due the lack of SR, high save creatures and the fact that everything has exponentially more hp on 5e, OHK spells would't work on 5e. But I still believe that they aren't a problem on 2e.

But again,my concern is not that this spells will not be great like on 2e. My concern is if Larian will nerf then more than 5e already nerfed.
Originally Posted by Niara
If random, ignoble, unfitting character loss actually *Enhances* your game experience and makes the game *More* fun for you, that's cool. You're in an EXTREME minority of D&D players if that is the case. Most don't like it; many think it's a part of the game sometimes, but few, if any, genuinely think it's something that increases their fun or enhances their game experience. Character loss should be significant when it happens... SoD and OHK spells are, quite simply, the opposite of that.

Nonsense. You're the one in the extreme minority. Some players are a bit softer when it comes to certain challenges. If that's more fun for you, that's cool. But please remember, you are the one in the minority.

See how each of us can claim the other is in the minority with zero evidence? Yeah.

When character death is an option then the value of the character actually increases. The character is no longer a pet safety blanket. The character is a treasure. The character has travelled the gauntlet. This is part of what builds the connection.

Decisions get made based on the level of danger. Missions are researched. Perhaps if you learn that your mission would antagonize a powerful wizard who's known to have the disintegrate spell then you might decline the mission. Too dangerous you might think. Or maybe you would plan on a way to take out the wizard by stealth. Or maybe you would plan on having access to a death ward spell, either through another party member or by some other source.

The point is, you navigate the danger or avoid it the best way possible because you care about your character, not because your character is replaceable. Every close call, every scar revealed is a challenge overcome.

The challenge is important. It makes the triumph worthwhile. Yes, sometimes deaths are dirty. That's the way it is. But when you're actually playing a character, you're in the moment with the character, and death doesn't have to be monumental to carry meaning and be memorable.

You asked me to define soft. I think you know perfectly well what soft means, but I'll give you an example: thinking every death must be noble and carefully scripted to not occur simply because of dice rolls or thinking that every challenge should be within a tightly controlled framework that allows for a relatively easy victory or thinking it's "unfair" that you might not "win."

In my opinion, DnD is not a game you win or lose. It's a game you play. If there's no danger of your character dying, I'm not sure it's worth playing.

Just my opinion, of course.
Originally Posted by JoB
You asked me to define soft. I think you know perfectly well what soft means, but I'll give you an example: thinking every death must be noble and carefully scripted to not occur simply because of dice rolls or thinking that every challenge should be within a tightly controlled framework that allows for a relatively easy victory or thinking it's "unfair" that you might not "win."

Ah, very good. In that case, you're mistaken; most D&D players are not what you would define as 'soft' at all, modern day or old school.

No-one has said anything about death not being a present threat and a danger (and most in this discussion have indicated quite the opposite - that it should be). No-one has said anything at all about character deaths needing to be scripted (you're the very first person to mention anything of the sort). No-one has said anything at all about constraining challenge within a framework that makes the challenges relatively easy (No-one has said this, and most in this discussion have indicated the opposite), and no-one has said anything at all about the danger of character loss being 'unfair' (Again, no-one has said that, and most have indicated the inverse). No-one has said any of that at all, except you. You put that there.
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by JoB
You asked me to define soft. I think you know perfectly well what soft means, but I'll give you an example: thinking every death must be noble and carefully scripted to not occur simply because of dice rolls or thinking that every challenge should be within a tightly controlled framework that allows for a relatively easy victory or thinking it's "unfair" that you might not "win."

Ah, very good. In that case, you're mistaken; most D&D players are not what you would define as 'soft' at all, modern day or old school.

No-one has said anything about death not being a present threat and a danger (and most in this discussion have indicated quite the opposite - that it should be). No-one has said anything at all about character deaths needing to be scripted (you're the very first person to mention anything of the sort). No-one has said anything at all about constraining challenge within a framework that makes the challenges relatively easy (No-one has said this, and most in this discussion have indicated the opposite), and no-one has said anything at all about the danger of character loss being 'unfair' (Again, no-one has said that, and most have indicated the inverse). No-one has said any of that at all, except you. You put that there.


You wrote: "If random, ignoble, unfitting character loss actually..."

So not random? Scripted. Planned. Fitting? Deaths must be, after all, noble. Right? How does one ensure a death is noble if not through some measurable level of scripting? Some level of making sure the death isn't accidental or random, yes?

You advocated not having one shot kills. I would say not having one shot kills is *relatively* easier than having one shot kills. Which affirms the comment about a framework that makes challenges *relatively* easy.

Regarding "fairness," you wrote: "...will absolutely not have excess 4th level slots to burn on preemptive protectives, nor, more importantly, any hope of having the means to restore a character from disintegration." <---that sounds an awful lot like it's not fair.

I suggest that if you examine and parse through the things you've said, you'll begin to realize that you've put forward more of these ideas than you realize.

But thank you for your opinion about what I put where.
Nothing I said implies scripting; if you think it does, you probably need a better DM.

OHKs and SoDs do not, in my opinion, inherently add or detract from the potential 'difficulty' of the game situation. Other things that are more fair and respectful to player input do that. Again, if you think difficulty of a challenge needs to be modulated by the presence of OHKs and SODs, then you probably need a better DM.

The game should be fair to the players; it absolutely should. Players should have fair options and fair tools for dealing with the challenges that are set before them. This does not mean it will not be a deadly and dangerous situation. This does not remove or negate the possibility and danger of character death, and should not do so. If you think you need to insert OHKs and SoDs to maintain the danger and possibility of character death, then again, your DM is most likely failing you.
Originally Posted by Niara
Nothing I said implies scripting; if you think it does, you probably need a better DM.

OHKs and SoDs do not, in my opinion, inherently add or detract from the potential 'difficulty' of the game situation. Other things that are more fair and respectful to player input do that. Again, if you think difficulty of a challenge needs to be modulated by the presence of OHKs and SODs, then you desperately need a better DM.

The game should be fair to the players; it absolutely should. Players should have fair options and fair tools for dealing with the challenges that are set before them. This does not mean it will not be a deadly and dangerous situation. This does not remove or negate the possibility and danger of character death, and should not do so. If you think you need to insert OHKs and SoDs to maintain the danger and possibility of character death, then again, your DM is failing you.

Soft.
Originally Posted by JoB
Soft.

If you have nothing to say, then don't.
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by JoB
Soft.

If you have nothing to say, then don't.

What a strange comment. I did have something to say. And I said it.
I agree with Niara.
Nobody ever said that adventuring should not be dangerous or deadly. It should be.
All we say is that it is bad design if the GM or dev thinks that throwing SoD or OHK at the player is the best way to keep the player engaged and to give you the feeling that your adventure is sangerous.

Since SorcererVictor mentioned Kingmaker.
I finished the game recently and I remember 3 enemies that used such attacks.
- Vordakai: You are in a dungeon full of undead and you know you have to fight against a lich, so you are prepared.
- Medusas use true strike + finger of death delivered with an arrow. The first time I was surprized and some chars died. ( I expected petrify but not FoD from a medusa)
Once I knew I could handle them
- The wizard who comes together with the fiend at the lowest levels of the depths cast mass ice prison. Even if you prevent paralysis, the spell does damage every round for over 20 minutes which is a death sentence and he always casts this first against the party. Took countless tries until I could kill him before he could cast a single spell. His fiend buddy was a cakewalk.

Even with only a few enemies that use such spells, I would say that Kingmaker is a great game and it is often very deadly if you are not prepared.
Originally Posted by JoB
What a strange comment. I did have something to say. And I said it.
You are already on notice for your behaviour elsewhere on these forums. I strongly suggest that you either take a self-imposed break from posting, or that you start being a lot less abrasive and confrontational. You will not be warned next time, and a ban will be permanent.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by JoB
What a strange comment. I did have something to say. And I said it.
You are already on notice for your behaviour elsewhere on these forums. I strongly suggest that you either take a self-imposed break from posting, or that you start being a lot less abrasive and confrontational. You will not be warned next time, and a ban will be permanent.

My behavior is fine.

To reiterate, I had something to say, and I said it. The comment I was responding to was, in fact, strange.

This board is full of people vehemently disagreeing with one another.

I said "soft."

Is "soft" a word that gets someone banned? That's goofy.

Soft.

ETA: the suggestion that I can't judge someone else's playstyle while they *actively and aggressively* judge mine is patently ludicrous.
Originally Posted by Madscientist
I agree with Niara.
Nobody ever said that adventuring should not be dangerous or deadly. It should be.

Even with only a few enemies that use such spells, I would say that Kingmaker is a great game and it is often very deadly if you are not prepared.

So, you recognize that SoD doesn't break the game. Just forces you to be more cautious right?

But all SoD is irrelevant. BG3 will be 5e and we will not see spells like wail of the banshee even if the game was 2e. A lot of people also complained about will'o wisps but the game first thows one against you. Then few, so if you saw then casting chain lightning, is a good idea to have protection against electricity, right? As for medusas, is a "workaround" solution. There are no flesh to stone spell in the game(despite stone to flesh existing and having zero usage).

Is ironic to think that if Medusas appears on BG3, they will be less dangerous than BG1 low level Basilisks... Cuz takes a lot of time and you need to fail multiple saves to be petrified. Meanwhile on BG1, not only you are insta petrified but also, can't learna stone to flesh spell due lv cap and the scroll of stone to flesh costs an fortune.
You misunderstand me.
My point is that kingmaker is a deadly environment even though it does NOT use such spells 99% of the time.

I am not sure if the basilisks from BG1 are a good example.
Or to put it better, they are a good example why I agree with Niara.
I could only beat them by distracting them with the animate dead spell (skelletons are immune to petrify and enemies go after the first thing they see)
There are a few stone to flesh scrolls, but I do not remember any protection from petrification spell. (its been ages)
Hoping to win the save or having to reload is not fun.
In BG1+2 its game over when your main char goes down.
Originally Posted by Madscientist
You misunderstand me.
My point is that kingmaker is a deadly environment even though it does NOT use such spells 99% of the time.

I am not sure if the basilisks from BG1 are a good example.
Or to put it better, they are a good example why I agree with Niara.
I could only beat them by distracting them with the animate dead spell (skelletons are immune to petrify and enemies go after the first thing they see)
There are a few stone to flesh scrolls, but I do not remember any protection from petrification spell. (its been ages)
Hoping to win the save or having to reload is not fun.
In BG1+2 its game over when your main char goes down.
Imo BG1 did enemy design better than either BG2 and PK. In BG1 you generally can find warnigns about how dangerous an area is. In the case of basilisks there are petrified statues everywhere. And there are a few solutions available: the protection from petrification spell, a potion with the same effect, summon undead spells and finally, if you arrive on that map without any of the above, there is a friendly ghoul that can practically solo all the basilisks on the map for you.

PK and BG2 don't bother with warnings in the case of some dangerous enemies, while giving them practically instakill abilities. PK devs ended up backtracking and toned down some enemies, that many players complained.
I'll jump into this for a second and contribute.

Personally I don't have a problem with OHK type spells/creature abilities. In fact I fully expect and hope we DO have to deal with at least some. After the Spectator fight I will be seriously let down if the late/end game does not feature a full on Beholder battle at some point, which has more than 1 type of potential OHK if I recall correctly.

While I would not call for it as part of the main quest line, I'm fine with a side quest or extra fight that is next to impossible except under specific circumstances or that only has a limited number of strategies that can successfully overcome it. I fully believe that there should be some things in the game(once more probably not as part of the main quest for the sake of the average player) that are just there for bragging rights and a really tough fight.

D&D has a ton of kewl monsters and enemy types and I'd like to see as many neato ones as possible(preferably as close to the monster manual as possible, hint hint Larian please stop homebrewing the creatures)...even if they are a bit higher up the food chain than ourselves.
Originally Posted by OcO
Personally I don't have a problem with OHK type spells/creature abilities. In fact I fully expect and hope we DO have to deal with at least some. After the Spectator fight I will be seriously let down if the late/end game does not feature a full on Beholder battle at some point, which has more than 1 type of potential OHK if I recall correctly.

Not in 5th, that's kind of the point; it has strong abilities which can definitely kill you, but it does not have SoD abilities or OHKs. The ablities it does have which can result in disintegration, petrification or death at all multi-faceted enough that they still feel fair, despite being dangerous enough to cause party wipes very easily. Here, have a look (from the base beholder block; it gets three rays on its turn, and then three more during the round as legendary actions):

Quote
Charm Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by the beholder for 1 hour, or until the beholder harms the creature.

Paralyzing Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Constitution saving throw or be paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Fear Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be frightened for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Slowing Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target’s speed is halved for 1 minute. In addition, the creature can’t take reactions, and it can take either an action or a bonus action on its turn, not both. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Enervation Ray. The targeted creature must make a DC 16 Constitution saving throw, taking 36 (8d8) necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Telekinetic Ray. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Strength saving throw or the beholder moves it up to 30 feet in any direction. It is restrained by the ray’s telekinetic grip until the start of the beholder’s next turn or until the beholder is incapacitated.
If the target is an object weighing 300 pounds or less that isn’t being worn or carried, it is moved up to 30 feet in any direction. The beholder can also exert fine control on objects with this ray, such as manipulating a simple tool or opening a door or a container.

Sleep Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or fall asleep and remain unconscious for 1 minute. The target awakens if it takes damage or another creature takes an action to wake it. This ray has no effect on constructs and undead.

Petrification Ray. The targeted creature must make a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.

Disintegration Ray. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw or take 45 (10d8) force damage. If this damage reduces the creature to 0 hit points, its body becomes a pile of fine gray dust.
If the target is a Large or smaller nonmagical object or creation of magical force, it is disintegrated without a saving throw. If the target is a Huge or larger object or creation of magical force, this ray disintegrates a 10-foot cube of it.

Death Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw or take 55 (10d10) necrotic damage. The target dies if the ray reduces it to 0 hit points.

The instant kills are still gated behind reducing you to 0Hp as well, though they are heavy damage for their CR and can very easily do so, especially if they come out part way through a fight. Even the petrify, which would normally fall into the SoD category is mitigated by the fact that it takes a full round to happen; you get a second chance at the save, but more importantly, it can be removed or blocked more easily during that time, or players can respond to help ensure their companion saves the next time.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Madscientist
You misunderstand me.
My point is that kingmaker is a deadly environment even though it does NOT use such spells 99% of the time.

I am not sure if the basilisks from BG1 are a good example.
Or to put it better, they are a good example why I agree with Niara.
I could only beat them by distracting them with the animate dead spell (skelletons are immune to petrify and enemies go after the first thing they see)
There are a few stone to flesh scrolls, but I do not remember any protection from petrification spell. (its been ages)
Hoping to win the save or having to reload is not fun.
In BG1+2 its game over when your main char goes down.
Imo BG1 did enemy design better than either BG2 and PK. In BG1 you generally can find warnigns about how dangerous an area is. In the case of basilisks there are petrified statues everywhere. And there are a few solutions available: the protection from petrification spell, a potion with the same effect, summon undead spells and finally, if you arrive on that map without any of the above, there is a friendly ghoul that can practically solo all the basilisks on the map for you.

PK and BG2 don't bother with warnings in the case of some dangerous enemies, while giving them practically instakill abilities. PK devs ended up backtracking and toned down some enemies, that many players complained.

I agree with you in so far, that I liked BG1 more than BG2, especially regarding this topic.
BG1 is a low level game. It is dangerous because you have only a few hit points and its not easy to find or afford magic equiment.
I also liked that the whole world was one map, only split into several maps because of technical limitations. But thats a different topic.
I do not remember an enemy that throws instant death spells at you, but I am not sure.

BG2 uses many such spells and its game over when your main char dies. Except for those players who played those games 100 times already you cannot know where to find what enemy and what this enemy can do. You also cannot cast all protection spells all the time just in case you run into something dangerous. This means you can only find out stuff by fighting this enemy, finding out how it killed you (not easy, when you see the game over screen you cannot look at the log to see what spell has been used), reload and maybe rest to select different spells.

As for Kingmaker: As I have told before, the world is very deadly even though very few enemies use such abilities.
The biggest problem would be the wild hunt enemies. Each of them does try to paralyse the whole group every round. According to PnP rules you should be immune for 24h if you resisted it once. Only blind fight or freedom of movement can protect you from it, but unless you read a guide you will probably die a few times until you find this out. According to PnP rules, blind fight should not prevent gaze attacks, it should only reduce the penalty if you fight with closed eyes to avoid the gaze attack.
Thanks Niara, the beholder looks very deadly indeed.

20 years ago the IE were the only big western RPGs I have played, so I had nothing to compare them with.
Many rules made no sense for me, but I had no alternative.

Now that I have played many other games, I think that 2E is in many regards a totally unintuitive mess.
I have no experiance with 1E and 4E, but I would prefer a 3E or 5E game over 2E any time.
DnD 3E (or Pathfinder) is a nerds wet dream and everybody elses nightmare.
5E seems like a good middle ground between having some complexity and being relatively easy to understand the basics.

I do not play PnP, only computer games. This means I do not have any emotional connection to any system. It is just a set of rules, nothing more and nothing less. I do not care if the rules are based on a PnP system or if they were invented for this computer game (like Dragon age orrigins or PoE).
When I complain that BG3 should stick closer to PnP rules it is because:
- The game uses the licence so it should use the rules
- The changes from Larian just feel wrong for me, such as jumping behind enemies for advantage or flame arrows cause a fire surface, even if they miss the target.
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Now that I have played many other games, I think that 2E is in many regards a totally unintuitive mess.
I have no experiance with 1E and 4E, but I would prefer a 3E or 5E game over 2E any time.
DnD 3E (or Pathfinder) is a nerds wet dream and everybody elses nightmare.
I think PK was quite unintuitive for both Pathfinder players and those new to the system. I remember there were a lot of complaints (when the game came out, later I didn't follow the forums anymore) from Pathfinder players, because the devs have elevated stats on enemies and those familiar with the system didn't expect the stat bloat. So they were struggling with combat. Meanwhile I didn't know about Pathfinder before playing that game, so I wouldn't know what stats & abilities an enemy was supposed to have anyway. On the other hand I've found building characters difficult, because the many bugs and also misleading tooltips made character creation a guesswork.
The more I read stuff, the more I am happy that I am not a PnP player.
I compare a computer game to other computer games and the most importent thing is if I enjoy playing this game.
I can understand that some PnP players will always complain because some changes need to be made when creating a computer game.
You cannot include some spells, skills or stuff that PnP players can do because a) technical limitations (like no flying in a 2D game) b) the efford to include this is very high compared to what you gain c) it could break the game (the devs want to tell a story and some events need to happen that the story makes sense).

Regarding Kingmaker, I finished it recently on normal difficulty in turn based mode and it was great.
I do not know the PnP stats and abilities so I had little to complain as a computer game player.

In the worst case the result is similar to Realm of Arcadia. (trilogy from 1991,1993 and1995, based on the dark eye)
The game uses exactly the PnP rules, skills and spells, all of them.
This means that up to 80% of spells and skills are totally useless or extremely situational.
some examples:
- You could spend points in the riding skill but you could never ride anything.
- There is a spell to purify bad food, but there is no bad food in the game
- Some skills/spells are only useful 1 or 2 times over the whole trilogy, but then you can die if you fail them. There is exactly one situation where you need the "banish ghost" spell, but when you do not have it then you are stuck forever. Not on the critical path but still frustrating. There is one point where all party members have to pass a swim check or die as part of the main quest (you have to escape a pirate ship).
These games were great because they implemented lots of interesting stuff you do usually not find in a computer game, but it was almost impossible to finish them without a guide because half of the skills/spells are totally useless while there are some others you absolutely need to have to finish the game at all.
They fixed this in Drakensang (also based on the dark eye) by implementing only skills and spells that have any use in the computer game. I can understand that some PnP fans were angry that they removed some options and changed some other stuff, but I think that most players are happy that the game removed all of the trap choices that are totally useless.
Well, PK went through a LOT of patches & hotfixes after it came out, it really felt like an early access version on release.

edit: Actually, I've played Drakensang the River of Time, so now I remember that system. Lots of stats. laugh
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by OcO
Personally I don't have a problem with OHK type spells/creature abilities. In fact I fully expect and hope we DO have to deal with at least some. After the Spectator fight I will be seriously let down if the late/end game does not feature a full on Beholder battle at some point, which has more than 1 type of potential OHK if I recall correctly.

Not in 5th, that's kind of the point; it has strong abilities which can definitely kill you, but it does not have SoD abilities or OHKs. The ablities it does have which can result in disintegration, petrification or death at all multi-faceted enough that they still feel fair, despite being dangerous enough to cause party wipes very easily. Here, have a look (from the base beholder block; it gets three rays on its turn, and then three more during the round as legendary actions):

Quote
Charm Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by the beholder for 1 hour, or until the beholder harms the creature.

Paralyzing Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Constitution saving throw or be paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Fear Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be frightened for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Slowing Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target’s speed is halved for 1 minute. In addition, the creature can’t take reactions, and it can take either an action or a bonus action on its turn, not both. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Enervation Ray. The targeted creature must make a DC 16 Constitution saving throw, taking 36 (8d8) necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Telekinetic Ray. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Strength saving throw or the beholder moves it up to 30 feet in any direction. It is restrained by the ray’s telekinetic grip until the start of the beholder’s next turn or until the beholder is incapacitated.
If the target is an object weighing 300 pounds or less that isn’t being worn or carried, it is moved up to 30 feet in any direction. The beholder can also exert fine control on objects with this ray, such as manipulating a simple tool or opening a door or a container.

Sleep Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or fall asleep and remain unconscious for 1 minute. The target awakens if it takes damage or another creature takes an action to wake it. This ray has no effect on constructs and undead.

Petrification Ray. The targeted creature must make a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.

Disintegration Ray. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw or take 45 (10d8) force damage. If this damage reduces the creature to 0 hit points, its body becomes a pile of fine gray dust.
If the target is a Large or smaller nonmagical object or creation of magical force, it is disintegrated without a saving throw. If the target is a Huge or larger object or creation of magical force, this ray disintegrates a 10-foot cube of it.

Death Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Dexterity saving throw or take 55 (10d10) necrotic damage. The target dies if the ray reduces it to 0 hit points.

The instant kills are still gated behind reducing you to 0Hp as well, though they are heavy damage for their CR and can very easily do so, especially if they come out part way through a fight. Even the petrify, which would normally fall into the SoD category is mitigated by the fact that it takes a full round to happen; you get a second chance at the save, but more importantly, it can be removed or blocked more easily during that time, or players can respond to help ensure their companion saves the next time.

Yep I have to agree, while that can still put you in a bad spot, it certainly isn't as big of a deal as they use to be. /Sadpanda
Originally Posted by Madscientist
[ As I have told before, the world is very deadly even though very few enemies use such abilities.
The biggest problem would be the wild hunt enemies. Each of them does try to paralyse the whole group every round.

Freedom of movement is your friend. And is not a hard spell to obtain in scrolls or for your cleric.

Originally Posted by ash elemental
I think PK was quite unintuitive for both Pathfinder players and those new to the system. I remember there were a lot of complaints (when the game came out, later I didn't follow the forums anymore) from Pathfinder players, because the devs have elevated stats on enemies and those familiar with the system didn't expect the stat bloat. So they were struggling with combat. Meanwhile I didn't know about Pathfinder before playing that game, so I wouldn't know what stats & abilities an enemy was supposed to have anyway. On the other hand I've found building characters difficult, because the many bugs and also misleading tooltips made character creation a guesswork.

(...)

like no flying in a 2D game

The devs made earlier fights far easier, due people crying. Kingmaker was the unique game which I ever pre ordered and my first run lasted till Pitax due a infamous bug. A lot of harder encounters(most of then optional) got far easier. And most complains about the combat are nonsensical like "I can't use a sword against an insect swarm, I need to use torches or bombs".

As for flying, Solasta did implemented flying and M&M VI, a 1998 game had flight but kingmaker could at least made flying creatures immune to ground based effects/spells.

But about the ruleset, the best ruleset depends a lot on the game which you wanna to play. For eg, Dark Sun on 4e or 5e would't be the same as Dark Sun on 2e. Dark Sun is a harsh dying world and we need a ruleset that reinforces it. Just like the realms of dread on 2e and on 5e are completely different experiences. Ops, there aren't realms of dread on 5e, only Barovia.

That said, there are so many spells and effects which Larian can't get feedback with lv cap = 4; and 5e is far more low level friendly compared to 2e, paladins only start to get their spells as lv 9 on 2e. This and the fact that modern game market is extremely obsessed with balance, means that the chances of high level gameplay is near zero.

And 5e also suffers from the "oblivion effect"(for those who don't know, oblivion is infamous by having enemies soaking hundreds hits at higher level due hp growing far more than damage), where the hp growth is extremely greater than the damage growth. For eg, on 2e a wizard at lv 5 will deal 5d6 damage with fireball. At lv 10, 10d6, each new level adds d6 to most damaging spells, meanwhile his hp grows by +d4 until lv 9. After it, grows only +1 hp per level and the con mod was far smaller. So higher levels maintain his lethality. Meanwhile, on 5e a wizard gain d6 + CON MOD hp each lv up and spells gain no damage. In fact, a fireball deals 8d6 damage on 5e as a 3rd tier spell. While a freezing sphere deals 10d6 damage. For 3rd tier spell to 6th tier spell, the damage growth with the hypotetical evokation spell is miserably 2d6. Meanwhile, the wizard from lv 5 to 11 gains 6 * d6 + CON MOD. Even with 0 con mod, the hp gain is 3x greater than the damage gain.

And monsters grow up on hp per CR in a much exponentially way. High level encounters on 5e can take dozens of rounds.

Many DM's also complain that is hard to challenge a party on higher levels. Because nothing is a threat to theyr near infinite hp pool. I love high level but for 5e, we should focus more on mid level.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
And monsters grow up on hp per CR in a much exponentially way. High level encounters on 5e can take dozens of rounds.

Many DM's also complain that is hard to challenge a party on higher levels. Because nothing is a threat to theyr near infinite hp pool. I love high level but for 5e, we should focus more on mid level.

I'm curious where you're getting this idea from...

A mid to high level fighter can easily put out upwards of 80 damage a round without burning any resources; a 6th level disintegrate does an average of 70 damage.

Compared to this, even demon princes and deities don't really get much above 300 hit points; There are literally 7 sub-CR20 creatures with more than 300 hit points, and most of them are end-of-module bosses.

Even if you push the bracket as far as it will go, with the most recent high cr books, there are only 14 creatures, ranging from CR 22-28 that break 400Hp, and again, they are almost all end-of-module major bosses.

A party of 4 that are at a level to challenge such creatures without getting chunked in seconds are going to have damage outputs that might see them doing ~200 damage a round as a group, or more.

None of these battles will EVER take more than three or four rounds at most, one way or the other.

Edi: I'll add to that, your wizard with 14Con will average about 110Hp at level 20; That's barely more than one round of damage for most of the above-mentioned creatures, not including legendary actions/reactions - grab a stock standard ancient Blue at that tier; its breath weapon deals average 88 damage. A Marut deals 120 damage to a single target a turn if it wants.

High tier battles are fast and brutal in 5e, the exact opposite of slow and drawn out.
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
And monsters grow up on hp per CR in a much exponentially way. High level encounters on 5e can take dozens of rounds.

Many DM's also complain that is hard to challenge a party on higher levels. Because nothing is a threat to theyr near infinite hp pool. I love high level but for 5e, we should focus more on mid level.

I'm curious where you're getting this idea from...

A mid to high level fighter can easily put out upwards of 80 damage a round without burning any resources; a 6th level disintegrate does an average of 70 damage.

Compared to this, even demon princes and deities don't really get much above 300 hit points; There are literally 7 sub-CR20 creatures with more than 300 hit points, and most of them are end-of-module bosses.

Even if you push the bracket as far as it will go, with the most recent high cr books, there are only 14 creatures, ranging from CR 22-28 that break 400Hp, and again, they are almost all end-of-module major bosses.

A party of 4 that are at a level to challenge such creatures without getting chunked in seconds are going to have damage outputs that might see them doing ~200 damage a round as a group, or more.

None of these battles will EVER take more than three or four rounds at most, one way or the other.

Edi: I'll add to that, your wizard with 14Con will average about 110Hp at level 20; That's barely more than one round of damage for most of the above-mentioned creatures, not including legendary actions/reactions - grab a stock standard ancient Blue at that tier; its breath weapon deals average 88 damage. A Marut deals 120 damage to a single target a turn if it wants.

High tier battles are fast and brutal in 5e, the exact opposite of slow and drawn out.
Niara hit the nail on the head; none of what SorcererVictor is saying sounds at all like 5e. It's very rare for a 5e battle to last more than 3-4 rounds. Recently, I had one very long battle that lasted about 6 rounds; we killed a god.

The only complaints I've heard from DMs about having trouble challenging players have been in games where players get to rest too often, so they come into every battle fresh with full health and all of their spell slots. If you actually make players ration their resources over the course of a full day's worth of activities (with urgency in the story so they can't get a full night's rest 2-3 times a day), challenging them isn't an issue and suddenly players have to make interesting decisions about which abilities are worth using rather than reaching for the big guns in every fight.
Nothing to add but can I just thank you guys for this oddly fascinating read at 6am? ;- )
Originally Posted by Niara
A party of 4 that are at a level to challenge such creatures without getting chunked in seconds are going to have damage outputs that might see them doing ~200 damage a round as a group, or more.

Well, you are assuming that :
1 - Everyone will land hits and spells which is unlikely
2 - Ignoring legendary reactgions
3 - Ignoring that a group VS one enemy is a rare occurrence. A young dragon will probably have Kobold servants which will rush to help his master.

As for hp, here is how much hp, an lv 20 Dark Lord necromancer called Meredoth has according to AD&D book domains of Dread - just 50 hp. His stats on spoiler.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

And the strongest magician who ever lived, the unique guy who managed to become to take a God's place with only magic, which forced Mystra to restrict every magic spell past lv 9. He could surpass epic magic by 2 levels and treat the fabric of reality. A lv 41 archwizard, a genius among genius, the best of the most powerful macocracy who ever existed, who learned how to use magic as a baby. This epic magician has incredible 74 hp According to Netheril: Empire of Magic book - Page 114.

His stats on spoilers.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

If Karsus was ported to 5e with 19 CON, he would have 41*(d6 + 4) hp, maximizing his rolls, he could reach 410 hp.
Niara has already said everything.

SorcererVictor, you compare an enemy from PnP 2E with a computer game in 5E.
Thats comparing apples with oranges.
Saying "If I bring character X from game A into game B with the same stats he would be totally over/under powered" makes no sene.
EVERY computer game changed stats compared to PnP, even your beloved BG1+2.
Its OK if you like other systems more than DnD 5E, but BG3 will be based on 5E, thats a fact.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Well, you are assuming that :
1 - Everyone will land hits and spells which is unlikely

Yes, because that is what you do when calculating average output comparisons between creatures and party members. It's not 100% realistic; it's comparatively sound, which is why we do it.

More precisely: you presume that all attack rolls hit, all saves are failed, all save-out-by-round effects are saved out of by the second attempt, and all AoE damage spells, such as sphere, lines etc., hit two additional targets. That's the math that it is conventional to use when doing statistical comparisons. Is this news to you? This has been the standard way of doing things for many years.

Quote
2 - Ignoring legendary reactgions

No I specifically mentioned legndaries where they were relevant - as part of the enemy's potential damage output calculations.

Quote
3 - Ignoring that a group VS one enemy is a rare occurrence. A young dragon will probably have Kobold servants which will rush to help his master.

Yes, because you were talking about individual characters and claiming that 5e suffered individual hp bloat, causing combats to last into dozens of rounds. It doesn't, and that's incorrect. It's disingenuous for you to make claims like that when they are clearly and demonstrably counter to actual evidence; what is your motive for doing so?

I don't care about your older edition specific figure comparisons; I care about you being factual and honest about the edition that you're denigrating and slandering; you currently are not being so. For example, if we talked about porting your legendary 2e figure to 5e, we'd talk about doing so in the exact same way that we're talking about everything else here... we don't maximise his hp, we state his expected average hp at max level... which in a 5e translation is 150Hp, if we take him to the level 20 cap, or 225 if we give him an extra 10 hit dice to emulate level 30, or 300 at level 40 - which, I must point out, is not a thing in the bounded statistics of 5e as of yet. Leveling past 20 does not give you ANY more hit points at all in 5e; you gain other perks, but you don't gain further hit dice. In 5e, a theoretical 'level 40' wizard has 20 hit dice, and with 19 con averages 150hp, the same as a level 20 wizard...

Regardless of which you choose, it doesn't sound as though you are actually very familiar with 5e at all; most of your information is incorrect (there are many domains of dread in 5e, for example. We only have published adventures for Barovia, as the most centrally famous, but the lore that's been published in other official 5e books supports and even explicitly calls out the existence of many others). It sounds much more like you've developed a negative opinion of it from afar and are repeating the fallacies you've adopted without any substantiation.

So, the question I'd ask would be, if you are set and determined to down-talk 5e, and are not prepared to acknowledge where your information is false, or to revise your position on any part of the conversation as a result of those falsehoods... then what is your actual purpose here? Why have you decided to do this? What's your motive, and what do you get out of it, and how can we help that in this discussion? I'm genuinely curious.

Edit: As part of this I suppose I'm motioning that we're a little bit off topic from the origin of the thread, which I think was the complaint that we can't realistically know or test anything about how the high level magic will work in BG3 while we're level capped... with the underlying understanding that high level magic has a major impact on the game, and we really should have a means of testing and providing feedback on it before official release; this, at least, is a sentiment that I don't entirely disagree with.
© Larian Studios forums