Larian Studios
Watched the panel from Hell....
saw the "weapon abilities" - Then played it a little bit. Its just soooo unnecessary. Look Larian, I get that you're coming from DOS and when you made wizards, druids and sorcerers for Baldurs Gate 3- they have all of these flashy abilities and you feel that fighters are lacking. But that's not the case. As they level up, they get extra attacks, superiority die, all sorts of stuff. And we're not even talking about multi-classing yet. Adding these weapon abilities (especially where a fighter can attack using an action and attack again using a bonus action) takes away the special abilities of the rogue, and helps to not differentiate between the martial classes at all. Please - again, stop doing this. You guys are going to inevitably make a DOS3, and this kind of thing belongs there. That game was built for exploits and a bit of imbalance. You guys said you were making a 5e game. So do that. Give us the branching story, atmosphere, even the dirt thing is kind of cool. But 5e rules have been balanced and the classes differentiated so that it matters. Stop doing things because "a class(fighter) doesn't have enough to do" - as they level up, they will. I think part of this is linked to your reluctance to limit long rests or make them more expensive to take (i know you guys have made some changes to it in patch 5). If you limit it more, you see that while magic users are strong, that the action economy will make them choose to use their more powerful spells when it really counts. (since they only have so many uses per long rest) in addition, limit who can use scrolls like 5e does. Then scrolls become more valuable, and magic users have those to use in lieu of using a spell slot. Then you would see that, while they have powerful options, it's balanced. Stop giving combat actions to bonus actions Larian, please (unless its the rogue, where it belongs). Everytime i think you guys are listening, you do something like this. Give yourselves less work - just stick to the rules and build the world and story...
I agree that limiting rests more will make martials feel better. The new weaponskills feel like giving spells to martials, and it feels a lot less like tabletop 5e.
I support the new weapon stuff it's great just needs tweaking that is all.
Weapon abilities are a good idea in theory. There's a reason lots of 5e fans think that all fighters should have battlemaster abilities. But (as I posted in the other thread about Rush Attack) all weapon actions should involve a tradeoff.

E.g., -5 to hit (or disadvantage) for those weapon abilities that deal damage and impose a status effect. Possibly a larger negative and/or the enemy gets a ST to negate the effect if the status effect is very powerful.

But yes, these things should be Actions, and not bonus actions. Don't mess with the action economy unless you really understand the system.
Disagree, additional opportunities for martial classes are always welcome.
Otherwise it's quite boring to play, especially at low levels
disagreed. But there's an easy solution. If they think martials are boring to play at low levels - start the characters at level 5. then martials have 2 attacks (which is what they're essentially doing anyway) and instead of the game having levels 1-10, it goes from 5-15.
Originally Posted by Ghost214
disagreed. But there's an easy solution. If they think martials are boring to play at low levels - start the characters at level 5. then martials have 2 attacks (which is what they're essentially doing anyway) and instead of the game having levels 1-10, it goes from 5-15.

This solution has basically one huge disadvantage.
In fact, most build choices are made in the first 5 levels, meaning you would have to make them when creating your character.
It is also unfriendly to players unfamiliar with DnD.
A better solution would be just to start the characters at level 5 - then martials get multiattack and other stuff and the need to try to give them stuff before that ceases
As Rhobar said, starting characters at level 5 would be overwhelming to a lot of players. Especially since - if you're playing singleplayer - you'll be controlling 4 characters, which combined is a lot of abilities to start the game with. Starting at level 1 allows you to grow into the characters' abilities.

I'm assuming hoping praying that Larian will improve the game's onboarding (nested tooltips were step in the right direction). But in it's current state, booting up BG3 as your first experience to D&D is difficult enough while starting from level 1.
Im not sure that it would be overwhelming, BUT I'd rather that than what they're doing to actions and abilities. (and in turn, the balance and strengths of each class) I don't mind them starting at level 1 - as a D&d fan, I'm good with it. But if they're worried about martial classes having things to do - I think level 5 is a better solution. otherwise, level one eases everyone into everything - less actions and all.
well thats what levels 1-4 are about. and probably (at least partially) why martials have less actions in the beginning. a counter to that would be to allow a respec option later down the line. (Pathfiner WOTR did this and it helped alot)
Build choice? In D&D 5 there is no choice. You can choose your class that's it. You can not choose from a large pool of feats to build a uniqe class the sytem gives you what suitable for your class. So which chioice?
Martials are not boring at low levels. They have meaningful choices about battlefield positioning even if they don't have a million activated abilities. If only Larian weren't actively working towards making positioning completely irrelevant by placing all fights on vast open battlefields without any choke points and giving everyone new ways to avoid AoO's or jump/teleport.

Larian's battlefields lack dynamics. Completely. Every battlefield is a huge open space with a lot of verticality even when indoors or the Underdark. When did you ever have a hallway fight in BG3 where your frontliners mattered? That's right you didn't. Not only do more closed spaces not exist, but even if they somehow did, the enemies would teleport or start throwing fire bombs and spitting poison pools at your back row, right over the frontliners. This is the only way Larian can do combat, unfortunately. No dynamics.

As the party Fighter I would feel important if I could hold down a damn doorway and actually protect my party. But Larian has me chasing after enemies who jump and teleport around everywhere. And a million gimmicky abilities from weapons aren't going to change that.
I actually agree with you. it seems like Larian though, and al of of other posters haven't actually played much D&D and maybe aren't aware that there are still things to do at lower levels even with one action and therefore one attack
Larian really can't help themselves can they? It's almost compulsive their endless fiddling and finding ways to embellish, undo or change things from a system with an established rule set; to put their OTT stamp on almost everything.

Are martial classes considered boring because they don't shoot fire out of their arses (in the same way Sven stated that players found the Bless spell boring and that players wanted fireworks everywhere)? I just don't get the need to give them all sorts of fancy homebrew abilities, especially at low levels. Where is the sense of progression if all the candy is handed out almost instantly and frequently?
There is maybe to much dynamic in Larians battlefields. Teleporting and jumping feos areeverywhere. They should attack your party head-on and together this would be more realistic. This is one thing the Pathfinder games did a little bit better. But there is no verticality.
Definitely a NO for new bonus actions.
Definitely a YES to new weapons actions, but not the way they designed them. See the other thread.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=792971#Post792971

All those new status increased A LOT the complexity of a game that is already very complex to learn, especially for newcomers.

I find VERY COOL that some of these actions simulate things you could do in a tabletop session but it should only stick to that.
- I charge and attack him
- I use the pommel of my weapon, trying to stunned him
- I try to knock him down with my staff
- I'm foccused on his hands to make him drop his weapons, on his eyes to make him blind, on his feet to reduce his speed and so on...

I haven't try everything yet but first impressions :
- There should NOT have new conditions. We can easily imagine tons of actions with DnD's conditions or mechanics (reduce the speed) and eventually BG3's mechanic (in exemple drop weapons)
- It should be better balanced. In exemple the charge should definitely use your movement and not allow you to disengage. You can also charge through ennemies which looks really wierd.
- None of these weapons actions should be bonus actions. It should deserve it"s own thread but we DON'T need bonus actions at each turn, which is what everyone (AI included) is doing to optimize our turns - hello shove to disengage, something the AI teach me to do...
- Some things should just dissapear : you can try to stun someone with a blow to the head... You cannot try to make someone wearing an armor bleed using a special attack while using your sword... Are you going to bleed if you're slashed with a sword but not if you're pierced with it ?
- It shouldn't be so much different for all weapons. Honnestly I'd rather have the charge for all weapons + 1 specific attack per weapon than a whole bunch of attacks for every weapons. A bit more complexity and variety is absolutely fine but it's way too much imo.
- The special attacks were better where they were before on the UI. Adding them to the hotbar mess does not help at all. If we're definitely going with weapons special attacks they require a specific place OR specific locked slots on the hotbar.
- We should be able to use them whenever we want. If it's well balanced you don't need to make them "one per rest".
+1 to OP ...
-1000 To everything else Autor said in this topic. :-/

I like the attacks ...
Personaly i believe that single special attack per weapon, once per turn OR anytime you want with disadvantage (and it dont really matter if that will be litteraly "disadvantage" or "-5" kind of disadvantage ... second one it probably better tho) ... just as it was originaly was kinda cool, and totally okey for me.

This, feels a little overwhelming. :-/
And i dont even like most of those things ...

And i dont even want to see what will happen when people who are right now celebrating "geting rid of stupid high ground advantage" will do, when they find out that with certain weapons you can "give up your movenent (wich i didnt even used much in the past with sniper-like Rogues) to get advantage (and +2 from high ground) for your next shot". laugh
I think the new attacks are cool and add variety, but agree that they should be Actions, if anything, not Bonus Actions.

Also, Shove as a Bonus Action should come with the Shield Master feat and not given to everybody... Shove is an Action.
The enemy attacking your party head-on would be more realistic? No, absolutely not. I just like the way the foes teleporting and jumping just to find a good position. The key point of the combat in BG3 is you need to find a better position than your enemies, as well as using different spell just to deal with the enemies which is much more dangerous to you party, with higher priority. This is also the key point of the turn-based game. If the enemy always attacking the warrior and ignore your wizard with only 1 HP - this is not what you call realistic, this is stupid.
Originally Posted by GSNDJB1
The enemy attacking your party head-on would be more realistic? No, absolutely not. I just like the way the foes teleporting and jumping just to find a good position. The key point of the combat in BG3 is you need to find a better position than your enemies, as well as using different spell just to deal with the enemies which is much more dangerous to you party, with higher priority. This is also the key point of the turn-based game. If the enemy always attacking the warrior and ignore your wizard with only 1 HP - this is not what you call realistic, this is stupid.

I don't really agree with this analysis. How else do you fight someone but head on, unless it is an ambush? Once the element of surprise is over and you have launched your attack from behind or the side, you can guarantee your foe, provided they are still standing, will the be facing you head on.

Not that bringing reality into a fantasy game holds much weight but I'd hazard a guess that once a fight starts (these aren't battles, given the small number of people involved in the fighting), the last thing you'd want to do is show your back to an enemy in an attempt to get away and find a 'good position'. There is too much emphasis on positioning and the environment in this game.
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Originally Posted by GSNDJB1
The enemy attacking your party head-on would be more realistic? No, absolutely not. I just like the way the foes teleporting and jumping just to find a good position. The key point of the combat in BG3 is you need to find a better position than your enemies, as well as using different spell just to deal with the enemies which is much more dangerous to you party, with higher priority. This is also the key point of the turn-based game. If the enemy always attacking the warrior and ignore your wizard with only 1 HP - this is not what you call realistic, this is stupid.

I don't really agree with this analysis. How else do you fight someone but head on, unless it is an ambush? Once the element of surprise is over and you have launched your attack from behind or the side, you can guarantee your foe, provided they are still standing, will the be facing you head on.

Not that bringing reality into a fantasy game holds much weight but I'd hazard a guess that once a fight starts (these aren't battles, given the small number of people involved in the fighting), the last thing you'd want to do is show your back to an enemy in an attempt to get away and find a 'good position'. There is too much emphasis on positioning and the environment in this game.

You must misunderstand my meaning. There was an opinion in this thread saying that foes are too dynamic right now, and they should attack your party head-on instead of teleporting or jumping to the back of your party trying to find a better position for themselves, which means the player could hide their wizard behind the warrior easily, and I just disagree with this opinion. I agree with you that this game emphasis on positioning and the environment, but I don't find it is harmful, and for other people who love this type of fight, they may find it attractive and strategically challenging. Actually this is one of the core features of this game which they put a lot effort to develop complex fight environments. So in my opinion, such a suggestion is meaningless because they will not change it at this stage of game development. The only thing they can and will do is to balance the advantage of the environment, such as the weakening of the highland advantage in patch 6.
Disagree, don't start characters at level 5, just remove the *&^#$*^# level cap
I like the new actions, but I think some of them need to be rebalanced. I don't mind that some of them are bonus actions -- there's what, two or three of them that are?

5e gave martials a raw deal by removing much of their ability to influence the battlefield in comparison to 3.5 (and relegating them to a Fighter subclass if you still wanted to be a capable warrior), making them less dynamic and less effective at what they do. 5e also made weapons more similar for the sake of simplicity, which while understandable also had the consequence of weapon types losing some personality.

These new weapon abilities aren't perfect, but they do a decent job at returning battlefield agency to martial characters and giving weapon types a bit of definition and profile -- weapon choice now matters beyond the damage die. They also improve collaboration between characters: without them there's no reason to ever have Gale that quarterstaff he's lugging around because of the neglible chance of hitting (of course I do anyway because Gandalf is at his coolest when he's punting fools in the head), but with the trip move there's at least a reason to consider trading the chance of missing for advantage to attacks against the prone enemy with your other characters. Meanwhile, the short rest limit means that using these abilities won't become the standard procedure and that you'll still be saving them for when the best opportunity shows itself rather than using them instead of basic attacks at every turn.

So yeah, some of the abilities need rebalancing. Some of them need reworking. But the general idea is good and they should keep the concept in the game.
Originally Posted by GSNDJB1
If the enemy always attacking the warrior and ignore your wizard with only 1 HP - this is not what you call realistic, this is stupid.

This is only partially true.

In good tactical combat you should have ways to control the battlefield to protect the weak party members. You should be able to soft lock enemies with a melee fighter and threaten AoOs if they try to go for the Wizard. But Larian has even Minotaurs and Hook Horrors jumping wherever they please i.e. on top of Gale without drawing any AoOs.

You should also be able to move the Wizard behind foliage or other terrain for cover. But cover doesn't exist in BG3. Enemies shoot you down through full cover foliage or even through another tanky PC without any penalty or line of sight issues.

We should be able to give the enemy tough choices to go for the 1hp Wizard but right now it's a no brainer for them. If Larian can't create good tactical combat providing us with defensive options, they should balance it out with the AI being less metagaming ruthless (beelining for the lowest AC).
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by GSNDJB1
If the enemy always attacking the warrior and ignore your wizard with only 1 HP - this is not what you call realistic, this is stupid.

This is only partially true.

In good tactical combat you should have ways to control the battlefield to protect the weak party members. You should be able to soft lock enemies with a melee fighter and threaten AoOs if they try to go for the Wizard. But Larian has even Minotaurs and Hook Horrors jumping wherever they please i.e. on top of Gale without drawing any AoOs.

You should also be able to move the Wizard behind foliage or other terrain for cover. But cover doesn't exist in BG3. Enemies shoot you down through full cover foliage or even through another tanky PC without any penalty or line of sight issues.

We should be able to give the enemy tough choices to go for the 1hp Wizard but right now it's a no brainer for them. If Larian can't create good tactical combat providing us with defensive options, they should balance it out with the AI being less metagaming ruthless (beelining for the lowest AC).

I prefer it as it is now than AI mindlessly attacking warriors on the front line. If the player himself can focus on the enemy mages, why can't the enemy do the same?
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I prefer it as it is now than AI mindlessly attacking warriors on the front line. If the player himself can focus on the enemy mages, why can't the enemy do the same?
Agreed. Intelligent enemies should continue as they are, but maybe those that operate on instinct or who aren't intelligent should probably go for the nearest party member. Besides, if you make use of positioning and area spells then you can direct the enemy a bit better into going where you want them.
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I prefer it as it is now than AI mindlessly attacking warriors on the front line. If the player himself can focus on the enemy mages, why can't the enemy do the same?
Agreed. Intelligent enemies should continue as they are, but maybe those that operate on instinct or who aren't intelligent should probably go for the nearest party member. Besides, if you make use of positioning and area spells then you can direct the enemy a bit better into going where you want them.
This was discussed a long time ago, but I'll again bring up my suggestion that enemy tactics could depend on some combination of Int+Wis. E.g.,
Int+Wis < 13 - always attack nearest target
13 < Int + Wis < 23 - still prefer nearby targets, but focus on those with lighter armor, maybe ganging up on a close one within reach.
Int+Wis > 23 - "smart" enemies. Will go for backline casters, gang up on the characters with combination of low hp&low ac. Might make use of high ground & debuffing items/abilities.

It would add some variety to and different tactics for different combats.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
This was discussed a long time ago, but I'll again bring up my suggestion that enemy tactics could depend on some combination of Int+Wis. E.g.,
Int+Wis < 13 - always attack nearest target
13 < Int + Wis < 23 - still prefer nearby targets, but focus on those with lighter armor, maybe ganging up on a close one within reach.
Int+Wis > 23 - "smart" enemies. Will go for backline casters, gang up on the characters with combination of low hp&low ac. Might make use of high ground & debuffing items/abilities.

It would add some variety to and different tactics for different combats.
Something like this could work but I would maybe make the total a bit lower, or just consider it by the type of enemy. Beasts should be more instinctual, most humanoids should be more tactical, etc.
The problem is that even an animal will try to kill the weakest one first. Even the dumbest goblin is rather smarter than a regular wolf, so it should rather be able to recognize which target is easiest to kill and which is the most dangerous (mages happen to fit into these two categories)
I'm open to some uniqueness with each weapon type, but I agree that weapon attacks should not come freely as bonus actions. If they want the "signature move" for each weapon to be different, that's cool, but it shouldn't create a whole bunch of extra attacks, it should just create different types of attacks to choose from with your standard action.
Originally Posted by Ferros
I'm open to some uniqueness with each weapon type, but I agree that weapon attacks should not come freely as bonus actions. If they want the "signature move" for each weapon to be different, that's cool, but it shouldn't create a whole bunch of extra attacks, it should just create different types of attacks to choose from with your standard action.

Honestly, these abilities aren't that powerful.
The charge with the spear seems pretty good, but it's hard to use it sensibly, it requires a straight path to the target.
From what I tested, a simple stone is enough and the whole skill is useless.
The other skills are not very powerful either (I'm talking about bonus actions) and definitely not worth using if they were full of action from what I noticed, they are only on two-handed weapons, but it's still a much better idea to just wear shields.
The only too strong skill seems to be mobilization to have advantage until the end of the round, costing only the move is potentially a bit too strong.
Somebody is going to have to list all of these bonus action abilities because you keep making it sound like there's a lot of them. I've only seen two -- the Pommel Strike one and the Flourish one.
Martial classes boring? i disagree, its just that theres to much unbalanced ranged combat, every encounter i engane the melee oponents are the weak ones and i wait to take em out untill last, it seems to me that Larians weakest point is actually that they want too give to many options to the players and by doing that they wash out the difference in classes and builds the tactical choises and different builds gets watered out when everyone can do everything at any time. a few examples of things that are way to unbalanced and needs to be adressed are
Bonus actions in general
pushing/showing
familliars and pets since they are basicly free to cast or replace (especially flying ones)
throwing items as far as you can shoot an arrow
too many pots/scrolls/arrows that just makes any class a spellcaster.


if you adress theese issues melee characters can hopefullyl find their rightfull place again, im not saying to remove it but just balance it
Originally Posted by Ormgaard
Martial classes boring? i disagree, its just that theres to much unbalanced ranged combat, every encounter i engane the melee oponents are the weak ones and i wait to take em out untill last, it seems to me that Larians weakest point is actually that they want too give to many options to the players and by doing that they wash out the difference in classes and builds the tactical choises and different builds gets watered out when everyone can do everything at any time. a few examples of things that are way to unbalanced and needs to be adressed are
Bonus actions in general
pushing/showing
familliars and pets since they are basicly free to cast or replace (especially flying ones)
throwing items as far as you can shoot an arrow
too many pots/scrolls/arrows that just makes any class a spellcaster.


if you adress theese issues melee characters can hopefullyl find their rightfull place again, im not saying to remove it but just balance it

How is this supposed to positively impact martial classes?
The only thing it will make is that they will be greatly weakened in relation to the magic classes
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Ormgaard
Martial classes boring? i disagree, its just that theres to much unbalanced ranged combat, every encounter i engane the melee oponents are the weak ones and i wait to take em out untill last, it seems to me that Larians weakest point is actually that they want too give to many options to the players and by doing that they wash out the difference in classes and builds the tactical choises and different builds gets watered out when everyone can do everything at any time. a few examples of things that are way to unbalanced and needs to be adressed are
Bonus actions in general
pushing/showing
familliars and pets since they are basicly free to cast or replace (especially flying ones)
throwing items as far as you can shoot an arrow
too many pots/scrolls/arrows that just makes any class a spellcaster.


if you adress theese issues melee characters can hopefullyl find their rightfull place again, im not saying to remove it but just balance it

How is this supposed to positively impact martial classes?
The only thing it will make is that they will be greatly weakened in relation to the magic classes

I'm not sure to understand everything... But about shove he's definitely right.

Shove to disengage : it's something the AI (try to) do A LOT since patch 5. If the ennemy can disengage as a bonus action, it's harder for martial classes to fill their role.
Shove to push : when you're pushed in a hole, your martial classes that is not build to attack at range has to run, and sometimes A LOT to re-engaged an ennemy. And you can bu pushed a lot with shove being a bonus action, even if you care.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Ormgaard
Martial classes boring? i disagree, its just that theres to much unbalanced ranged combat, every encounter i engane the melee oponents are the weak ones and i wait to take em out untill last, it seems to me that Larians weakest point is actually that they want too give to many options to the players and by doing that they wash out the difference in classes and builds the tactical choises and different builds gets watered out when everyone can do everything at any time. a few examples of things that are way to unbalanced and needs to be adressed are
Bonus actions in general
pushing/showing
familliars and pets since they are basicly free to cast or replace (especially flying ones)
throwing items as far as you can shoot an arrow
too many pots/scrolls/arrows that just makes any class a spellcaster.


if you adress theese issues melee characters can hopefullyl find their rightfull place again, im not saying to remove it but just balance it

How is this supposed to positively impact martial classes?
The only thing it will make is that they will be greatly weakened in relation to the magic classes

I'm not sure to understand everything... But about shove he's definitely right.

Shove to disengage : it's something the AI (try to) do A LOT since patch 5. If the ennemy can disengage as a bonus action, it's harder for martial classes to fill their role.
Shove to push : when you're pushed in a hole, your martial classes that is not build to attack at range has to run, and sometimes A LOT to re-engaged an ennemy. And you can bu pushed a lot with shove being a bonus action, even if you care.

Shove hasn't been that big of a problem anymore since its effectiveness has been linked to strength. For most humanoid opponents present in EA, most of them have a very low level of strength, which makes the shove quite ineffective.
From what I've noticed, it's most often used by AI to release allies from CC (which is quite an interesting use).
You can change a shove into an action, but you would have to give it back in order to actually use the bonus action.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by GSNDJB1
If the enemy always attacking the warrior and ignore your wizard with only 1 HP - this is not what you call realistic, this is stupid.

This is only partially true.

In good tactical combat you should have ways to control the battlefield to protect the weak party members. You should be able to soft lock enemies with a melee fighter and threaten AoOs if they try to go for the Wizard. But Larian has even Minotaurs and Hook Horrors jumping wherever they please i.e. on top of Gale without drawing any AoOs.

You should also be able to move the Wizard behind foliage or other terrain for cover. But cover doesn't exist in BG3. Enemies shoot you down through full cover foliage or even through another tanky PC without any penalty or line of sight issues.

We should be able to give the enemy tough choices to go for the 1hp Wizard but right now it's a no brainer for them. If Larian can't create good tactical combat providing us with defensive options, they should balance it out with the AI being less metagaming ruthless (beelining for the lowest AC).

I prefer it as it is now than AI mindlessly attacking warriors on the front line. If the player himself can focus on the enemy mages, why can't the enemy do the same?
Where did I suggest that AI should mindlessly attack front liners or that I should be able to easily focus fire enemy casters?

I was talking about how melee should matter more and how things like cover should exist in a good tactical combat game.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Shove hasn't been that big of a problem anymore since its effectiveness has been linked to strength. For most humanoid opponents present in EA, most of them have a very low level of strength, which makes the shove quite ineffective.
From what I've noticed, it's most often used by AI to release allies from CC (which is quite an interesting use).
You can change a shove into an action, but you would have to give it back in order to actually use the bonus action.
Do goblins have high strength? Because I did Gobbo leader fight yesterday and it was shove central. Sure it didn't [work] more often then it did, but with every goblin getting to do shove almost everyturn while still acting normally odds are in [favour of] shove more or less removing your from the fight sooner or later. 1 character got shoved down as soon as the conversation ended and two others followed later on (some goblin went down as well, as shove was new-high ground in this encounter). I ended up starting the conversation from behind the throne and hugging the wall opposite to the spider pit, because I swear it feels that no matter how far you are from the pit push trajectory will extand and outoadjust just so you end up falling down.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Shove hasn't been that big of a problem anymore since its effectiveness has been linked to strength. For most humanoid opponents present in EA, most of them have a very low level of strength, which makes the shove quite ineffective.
From what I've noticed, it's most often used by AI to release allies from CC (which is quite an interesting use).
You can change a shove into an action, but you would have to give it back in order to actually use the bonus action.
Do goblins have high strength? Because I did Gobbo leader fight yesterday and it was shove central. Sure it didn't more often then it did, but with every goblin getting to do shove almost everyturn while still acting normally odds are in shove more or less removes your from the fight sooner or later. 1 character got shoved down as soon as the conversation ended and two others followed later on (some goblin went down as well, as shove was new-high ground in this encounter). I ended up starting the conversation from behind the throne and hugging the wall opposite to the spider pit, because I swear it feels that no matter how far you are from the pit push trajectory will extand and outoadjust just so you end up falling down.

During that fight 3 of mine also fall in the pit with spiders...
So boring to loose 5 turns to destroy the metal door than dashing to get back in the fight...

I started in the back of the hobgoblin too but as soon as the whole map turns hostile, we had to fight all arround the pit.
But one is going to say that I should have wait far away and wait many turns for them to come (or eventually shout each turn without moving at all)
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Shove hasn't been that big of a problem anymore since its effectiveness has been linked to strength. For most humanoid opponents present in EA, most of them have a very low level of strength, which makes the shove quite ineffective.
From what I've noticed, it's most often used by AI to release allies from CC (which is quite an interesting use).
You can change a shove into an action, but you would have to give it back in order to actually use the bonus action.
Do goblins have high strength? Because I did Gobbo leader fight yesterday and it was shove central. Sure it didn't more often then it did, but with every goblin getting to do shove almost everyturn while still acting normally odds are in shove more or less removes your from the fight sooner or later. 1 character got shoved down as soon as the conversation ended and two others followed later on (some goblin went down as well, as shove was new-high ground in this encounter). I ended up starting the conversation from behind the throne and hugging the wall opposite to the spider pit, because I swear it feels that no matter how far you are from the pit push trajectory will extand and outoadjust just so you end up falling down.

Same here. Had to restart the fight two times cause they always sent my fighter to abyss. Why are goblins so powerful in this game (they look like dwarfs in terms of proportions)? And there is no fight without setting my whol party on fire / or get poisoned you can not protect yourself. So maybe to have no fighter at all for fights against trash mobs is better cause you have to run after them during the whole fight.

At least it should not be so easy for a small size crature to shove or knock over a mid size creature!
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Shove hasn't been that big of a problem anymore since its effectiveness has been linked to strength. For most humanoid opponents present in EA, most of them have a very low level of strength, which makes the shove quite ineffective.
From what I've noticed, it's most often used by AI to release allies from CC (which is quite an interesting use).
You can change a shove into an action, but you would have to give it back in order to actually use the bonus action.
Do goblins have high strength? Because I did Gobbo leader fight yesterday and it was shove central. Sure it didn't more often then it did, but with every goblin getting to do shove almost everyturn while still acting normally odds are in shove more or less removes your from the fight sooner or later. 1 character got shoved down as soon as the conversation ended and two others followed later on (some goblin went down as well, as shove was new-high ground in this encounter). I ended up starting the conversation from behind the throne and hugging the wall opposite to the spider pit, because I swear it feels that no matter how far you are from the pit push trajectory will extand and outoadjust just so you end up falling down.

According to the description, shove takes into account the strength and size of the target as well as the value of the target's athletics or acrobatics. For some reason, shove doesn't appear in the combat log.
I did a few goblin tests in the village. Indeed, athletics and target acrobatics have a great influence on the chances of success.
I tested it on a character with strength 8. One point of athletics / acrobatics reduces the chance of being pushed away by 5%.
This makes acrobatics / athletics quite useful for a melee character. Just having proficiency reduces the enemy's chances by 10% (increases with character level).
I will describe it using the example of Lae'zel. At level 4, she has 18 strength points and proficiency with athlethic, so a character with 8 strength points has only a 20% chance of success. For comparison, after drinking a potion that sets strength to 21 (this is more than most humanoid enemies should have) the chance increases to 50%.
Due to the fact that the shove takes into account the athletics / acrobatics of the target, characters with high strength / dexterity have a rather low chance of becoming its victim, especially if they invest in appropriate proficiency.
At least it makes sense to choose those proficiency

Of course, I do not take into account the bosses because they have their own laws.
Originally Posted by schpas
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Shove hasn't been that big of a problem anymore since its effectiveness has been linked to strength. For most humanoid opponents present in EA, most of them have a very low level of strength, which makes the shove quite ineffective.
From what I've noticed, it's most often used by AI to release allies from CC (which is quite an interesting use).
You can change a shove into an action, but you would have to give it back in order to actually use the bonus action.
Do goblins have high strength? Because I did Gobbo leader fight yesterday and it was shove central. Sure it didn't more often then it did, but with every goblin getting to do shove almost everyturn while still acting normally odds are in shove more or less removes your from the fight sooner or later. 1 character got shoved down as soon as the conversation ended and two others followed later on (some goblin went down as well, as shove was new-high ground in this encounter). I ended up starting the conversation from behind the throne and hugging the wall opposite to the spider pit, because I swear it feels that no matter how far you are from the pit push trajectory will extand and outoadjust just so you end up falling down.

Same here. Had to restart the fight two times cause they always sent my fighter to abyss. Why are goblins so powerful in this game (they look like dwarfs in terms of proportions)? And there is no fight without setting my whol party on fire / or get poisoned you can not protect yourself. So maybe to have no fighter at all for fights against trash mobs is better cause you have to run after them during the whole fight.

At least it should not be so easy for a small size crature to shove or knock over a mid size creature!

This is because the game does not take into account the size of the creature it is pushing (although it would be logical if it did).
It would be good if larian added the appropriate penalty to the shove depending on the size of the attacker and his target.
© Larian Studios forums