Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
X
Xemeron Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
X
Joined: Oct 2020
First of: I love playing with the enviroment in DOS. Its one of the things that makes Battles way more dynamic, even though just setting stuff on fire was the answer way too often, I feel like it had more pros than cons by far...

But I was worried, that you guys would go the same route in BG3, and I seem to be right. And it just doesnt work for a game based on D&Ds System.

You see, in DOS; Spells were only limited by Cooldowns and Action points. That meant manipulating the enviroment was way easier and more dynamic. When your Mage could cast Rain, you could just use it against enemies fire attacks to get your party out of a bad situation, with the only ressources needed being AP and putting the spell on a short Cooldown.

Now we go to D&D. Spells are limited here, everything you do takes spellslots and you only have one action per turn. Suddendly that burning floor becomes way harder to deal with than it was in DOS; because not only does your Wizard have to spend his Action on casting Create Water, but also use one of his valuable Spellslots to do so. That Goblin who just threw Alchemie Fire and set the Oil Barrel on fire had used its Action to deal alot of Damage AND basically stun your Wizard this turn, because he had to waste his action now.

D&D and DOS work on two very different systems. There is a reason why Spells that have lasting effects in D&D always costs concentration, because just having permanent ground effects is just not what the System was balanced around.

Please, use your time to rework the system. At least give us Spells like rain as a bonus Action Cantrip or something if you really want to keep enviroment effects in as they are, because in their current state, they are way too strong and will become the only way to play the game if they stay.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Bangkok
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Bangkok
+1
Well explained.

Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I think the persistent effects are fine.

They are less prominent in DnD 5e because they require a lot of bookkeeping, something you don't have to do in a video game.

There are examples of persistent damage effects in dnd that do not require concentration - oil.

If it were up to me I would catapult barrels of oil in at my enemies in dnd and set them on fire. And then wait for my DM to tick off that damage for 2 turns from each enemy.

But that would take too much of our time, so I don't do that.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I think they hit a good balance of environmental effects compared to 5e and D:OS - I'd have been disappointed if it weren't in at all, since that is something Larian's known for, but it's also a lot more reduced in scope compared to the D:OS games - the entire floor isn't awash in blood and acid and other effects in every combat.

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Xemeron

Now we go to D&D. Spells are limited here, everything you do takes spellslots and you only have one action per turn. Suddendly that burning floor becomes way harder to deal with than it was in DOS; because not only does your Wizard have to spend his Action on casting Create Water, but also use one of his valuable Spellslots to do so. That Goblin who just threw Alchemie Fire and set the Oil Barrel on fire had used its Action to deal alot of Damage AND basically stun your Wizard this turn, because he had to waste his action now.


The premise is that a wizard must dispel the fire to be useful and that is false.

You can just take the damage and inflict damage instead and have someone else use Rally or give you a source of temporary HP.

Better yet, why don't you learn that HP is just a resource (cue MTG sayings) like everything else and not care about the fire (and even in death you only pay 200g).

So far in the EA, it's perfectly fine and gives a wizard something to do and consider beyond just spamming cantrips thoughtlessly.







Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I think the persistent effects are fine.


You are objectively wrong. They are not.

My 1d10 cantrip actually deals 1d6 direct, plus 1d4 from the instantly created fire surface, plus 1d4 burning, plus an additional 1d4 - without any saving throw - on the creature's turn when they try to move out of the fire surface, for a range of 4 to 18. And if there is more than one creature in the radius of the fire surface created, they take damage from the surface as well. Oh, and when you miss, you still deal 1d4 surface damage.

Meanwhile those characters using physical weapons are dealing 1d6 or 1d8. It's completely unbalanced.


Quote
They are less prominent in DnD 5e because they require a lot of bookkeeping, something you don't have to do in a video game.


They ARE less prominent in 5e because they're tricky. But you fail to follow that train of thought to the station: they're not prominent in 5e and so the rules are based around surfaces not being prominent.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ramien
I think they hit a good balance of environmental effects compared to 5e and D:OS - I'd have been disappointed if it weren't in at all, since that is something Larian's known for, but it's also a lot more reduced in scope compared to the D:OS games - the entire floor isn't awash in blood and acid and other effects in every combat.



On that note, I hope there is no equivalent of the Blackpits fight, where everything is on fire.

Joined: Apr 2014
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2014
EVERY opponent armed with magic arrows/potions that cause AoE damage = dead parties in D&D.

Last edited by Suhiira; 12/10/20 05:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with the original poster! (and an inspirational poster at that!)
DnD is fundamentally different to DOS's way of handling effects.

The status effects of BG3 need a total overhaul indeed.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Xemeron

Now we go to D&D. Spells are limited here, everything you do takes spellslots and you only have one action per turn. Suddendly that burning floor becomes way harder to deal with than it was in DOS; because not only does your Wizard have to spend his Action on casting Create Water, but also use one of his valuable Spellslots to do so. That Goblin who just threw Alchemie Fire and set the Oil Barrel on fire had used its Action to deal alot of Damage AND basically stun your Wizard this turn, because he had to waste his action now.


The premise is that a wizard must dispel the fire to be useful and that is false.

You can just take the damage and inflict damage instead and have someone else use Rally or give you a source of temporary HP.

Better yet, why don't you learn that HP is just a resource (cue MTG sayings) like everything else and not care about the fire (and even in death you only pay 200g).

So far in the EA, it's perfectly fine and gives a wizard something to do and consider beyond just spamming cantrips thoughtlessly.



However, if you have to move through a persistent effect (and they are pretty large), you will take unmitigated damage, since your armor class does not matter. Also the random nature of initiative and the turn-based system itself, might mean that you can only dispel or deal with the effect in the next round. Even further nobody tells you that this game's combat is SOLELY about resource and action management. You deny enemy actions and use ALL your actions. You use ALL your resources. But since resources are scarce and rests are somewhat limited and awkward (like having to go to camp, taking time and several loading screens), players tend to not feel comfortable using everything they have in every fight.
Environmental effects are a big part in this. A field of fire can represent 6 points of damage or more, which in turn can need several actions, bonus actions, spells and consumables. That is an awful lot to grasp.
And BG3 does an awful job at explaining this to the player.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I think the persistent effects are fine.


You are objectively wrong. They are not.

My 1d10 cantrip actually deals 1d6 direct, plus 1d4 from the instantly created fire surface, plus 1d4 burning, plus an additional 1d4 - without any saving throw - on the creature's turn when they try to move out of the fire surface, for a range of 4 to 18. And if there is more than one creature in the radius of the fire surface created, they take damage from the surface as well. Oh, and when you miss, you still deal 1d4 surface damage.

Meanwhile those characters using physical weapons are dealing 1d6 or 1d8. It's completely unbalanced.


Quote
They are less prominent in DnD 5e because they require a lot of bookkeeping, something you don't have to do in a video game.


They ARE less prominent in 5e because they're tricky. But you fail to follow that train of thought to the station: they're not prominent in 5e and so the rules are based around surfaces not being prominent.


You are giving a perfect damage output of the firebolt cantrip. Character's don't always set on fire, may not move thus not take fire damage, etc.

Physical characters can deal (let's take a 1d6 single handed weapon) 1d6+Str/Dex for up to a max for a range of 4 to 9 with a +3 modifier. Then either add +2 ac from a shield or a 1d6 for a bonus action off hand attack (actually now it is 1d6 + str/dex even without two weapon fighting style for some reason, with a lower chance to hit) for an output of 15, which is not that far off.

I don't think the game should shy away from trying to implement things that would never work in 5e

Joined: Oct 2020
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Even if characters dont always set on fire, if the floor is on fire that constant ticking damage that is way more than a cantrip should ever rightfully do.
Then theres the -2AC acid surface that is just... insanely overpowered for a cantrip.

Surface effects are a DOS thing not a DnD thing. It's telling that playing this DnD game is easier when using DOS playstyle and slamming your head on a wall when doing it in a way you'd play DnD.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
+1. Well explained.

Some things lime grease+source of fire has been in dnd for a.long while as well but having cantrips do that is just way overboard.

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by blazerules
Even if characters dont always set on fire, if the floor is on fire that constant ticking damage that is way more than a cantrip should ever rightfully do.
Then theres the -2AC acid surface that is just... insanely overpowered for a cantrip.

Surface effects are a DOS thing not a DnD thing. It's telling that playing this DnD game is easier when using DOS playstyle and slamming your head on a wall when doing it in a way you'd play DnD.


It's overpowered for who and under what conditions?



Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I think the persistent effects are fine.


You are objectively wrong. They are not.

My 1d10 cantrip actually deals 1d6 direct, plus 1d4 from the instantly created fire surface, plus 1d4 burning, plus an additional 1d4 - without any saving throw - on the creature's turn when they try to move out of the fire surface, for a range of 4 to 18. And if there is more than one creature in the radius of the fire surface created, they take damage from the surface as well. Oh, and when you miss, you still deal 1d4 surface damage.

Meanwhile those characters using physical weapons are dealing 1d6 or 1d8. It's completely unbalanced.


Quote
They are less prominent in DnD 5e because they require a lot of bookkeeping, something you don't have to do in a video game.


They ARE less prominent in 5e because they're tricky. But you fail to follow that train of thought to the station: they're not prominent in 5e and so the rules are based around surfaces not being prominent.


You are giving a perfect damage output of the firebolt cantrip. Character's don't always set on fire, may not move thus not take fire damage, etc.

Physical characters can deal (let's take a 1d6 single handed weapon) 1d6+Str/Dex for up to a max for a range of 4 to 9 with a +3 modifier. Then either add +2 ac from a shield or a 1d6 for a bonus action off hand attack (actually now it is 1d6 + str/dex even without two weapon fighting style for some reason, with a lower chance to hit) for an output of 15, which is not that far off.

I don't think the game should shy away from trying to implement things that would never work in 5e


I don't know why he made such a brain dead comparison.

But it's actually far worse because, lol, you can factor in elemental damage from dipping your weapon (or poisoning your weapon) which cantrips, currently, don't get access to so when you're scaling rogue / thief damage it goes up even higher. Also 1d4 damage matters less and less the higher level you go and it's some times the only way for lower level creatures to compete or offer a remote challenge; kobolds who use liberal amounts of oil and alchemist fire to take on level 20 adventurers etc.

I don't think he understands what 'unbalanced' means, but in an act of good faith if I were to play the devil's advocate I would say stuff like creating ice could be a bit troublesome when looking at balance due to being knocked prone for such a low price (one action).

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

Don't be afraid to make BG3 feel like it's own game instead of drawing so heavily from DOS.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Gamertown USA
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Gamertown USA
I personally like surfaces. They add a layer of dynamic action and planning not in pnp.

Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I think the persistent effects are fine.


You are objectively wrong. They are not.

My 1d10 cantrip actually deals 1d6 direct, plus 1d4 from the instantly created fire surface, plus 1d4 burning, plus an additional 1d4 - without any saving throw - on the creature's turn when they try to move out of the fire surface, for a range of 4 to 18. And if there is more than one creature in the radius of the fire surface created, they take damage from the surface as well. Oh, and when you miss, you still deal 1d4 surface damage.

Meanwhile those characters using physical weapons are dealing 1d6 or 1d8. It's completely unbalanced.


Quote
They are less prominent in DnD 5e because they require a lot of bookkeeping, something you don't have to do in a video game.


They ARE less prominent in 5e because they're tricky. But you fail to follow that train of thought to the station: they're not prominent in 5e and so the rules are based around surfaces not being prominent.


I will concede that it may be unbalanced, but that does not mean they aren't also fine. Environmental effects make combat much more interesting. 5e as it stands is a very dull system when adapted 1:1 to a computer game, in terms of tactical combat, it lacks a lot of depth compared to earlier editions, or even compared to custom rulesets invented by some games. Furthermore, this is not a competitive game, its a party based game, which is played against AI, whether 1 class is "objectively better" than another is not nearly as important as in a PVP game and in my opinion, should not be a driving factor in whether or not something is included.

Adding surfaces to the game adds some depth which is lacking in the 5th edition ruleset and their existence can be balanced by having both the enemy and the party take advantage of them, provided the AI knows how to properly manage them. Furthermore, even if they are present, you would still likely want a fighter in the group, even if it is just to soak damage up front.

Joined: Jul 2014
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Jul 2014
Surfaces are great, they really don’t do that much raw damage unless you have a run through a huge one...which seems relatively rare unless you are using barrels or something.

The point about melee being “useless” because fire bolt does 1d6 + 1d4 and then 1d4 from burning per round is also wrong. It’s great at like level one, but even then a fighter can do 2d6+3 in one hit. And at level 4, they can do 2d6+13 with great weapon master.

That’s hardy useless.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5