Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Eugerome

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.


I have personally witnessed a Firebolt doing 13 damage onto two targets, because of the floor splash, and then one of them took another 1d4 from the floor effect. (I forgot how much it was.) If the other person hadn't been killed by something different, that'd be another 1d4. From a 1d10 cantrip. This is not a hypothetical, it's actually happening.


Originally Posted by Limz
It's overpowered for who and under what conditions?


Everyone, and all conditions, because the game's AC system was not designed around a -2 AC status effect on a cantrip which makes permanent puddles of -2 AC acid on the ground. Hope that helps!


Originally Posted by Limz

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).



You are an idiot. This is not a hypothetical, hyperbolic exaggeration. It is how the system is literally working right now.

Dipping weapons in fire requires being next to a fire source, which is not always available. Poison is a consumable resource.

Yes, higher levels the extra effects mean less. But low levels are what we have. There are no level 20 adventurers in BG3. Don't talk about them, they're irrelevant. There's a reason why most D&D games around the tabletop don't drench players in Alchemist's Fire at level 2.

Last edited by Stabbey; 12/10/20 07:36 PM.
Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Limit surface effects to natural 20 crits. That would fix much of the balance and make crits more fun.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
The overwhelming amount of surface effects was the main reason I really disliked DOS combat. Instead of being something 'dynamic' it became a constant in every fight. Instead of walking you start jumping everywhere. I'm fine with it being a DOS thing, its up to me to deside if I want to play another DOS-game. But if something is heavily advertised as 5e then I expect 5e to be the main game and maybe slightly flavored with some DOS elements that FIT into the 5e system. Repeating the surface gameplay from DOS in the same intensity doesn't fit 5e. Every now and then to make a fight memorable or to exploit a situation? Great - it adds to the game. Having to set a whole part of the map on fire to just notice a difference to another regular fight - sorry that should stay in DOS.

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by biomag
The overwhelming amount of surface effects was the main reason I really disliked DOS combat. Instead of being something 'dynamic' it became a constant in every fight. Instead of walking you start jumping everywhere. I'm fine with it being a DOS thing, its up to me to deside if I want to play another DOS-game. But if something is heavily advertised as 5e then I expect 5e to be the main game and maybe slightly flavored with some DOS elements that FIT into the 5e system. Repeating the surface gameplay from DOS in the same intensity doesn't fit 5e. Every now and then to make a fight memorable or to exploit a situation? Great - it adds to the game. Having to set a whole part of the map on fire to just notice a difference to another regular fight - sorry that should stay in DOS.



+1 This guy said it very well I think

Joined: Oct 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Eugerome

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.


I have personally witnessed a Firebolt doing 13 damage onto two targets, because of the floor splash, and then one of them took another 1d4 from the floor effect. (I forgot how much it was.) If the other person hadn't been killed by something different, that'd be another 1d4. From a 1d10 cantrip. This is not a hypothetical, it's actually happening.


[


So that is only 3 more than you could have rolled on a 1d10? split among 2 targets? Plus, once we hit level 5 i'd assume the firebolt will deal 2d6 as opposed to 2d10 in 5e, while the burning damage will remain static most likely. But this is conjecture.

The Acid Splash effect is strong, but granted we don't have a help action yet to help land an attack yet. I don't see it as that game breaking.

In terms of this being too DOS - no, I don't think it is - compared to DOS2 these environmental effects are massively toned down.

Plus, 5e does not include persistent effects so its easier to resolve and does not bog down combat. You can cast Fireball in a dress shop - all dresses on fire, the one the clerk is wearing - no, at least by RAW. Why? Because if you had to track burning clothes on each NPC that would halt the game to a standstill.

So why not include it in a game where the book keeping is not an issue.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
So in my games of D&D we have some custom rules for what we call Terrain Effect.

Fighting an Alchemist in their Lab, lots of volatile chemicals around so a stray Fire Bolt could cause an explosion.

In a Volcano fighting a Dragon, watch out for those pools of lava.

Caves of ice are slippery and cold.

Stuff like that to make an encounter feel special. I have never see an cantrip create a AOE on a stone dudgeon floor.

I don't have an issue with Fireball leaving some fire behind. Also that why there Wall spells, to create surface effects.

I really hope they give us options to remove Cantrip Surface Effects, Dipping, Elemental Arrows and Bomb so I can have a game closer to what my group plays in 5e. I think have a House Rule tab in options where we can turn off these house rules from Larian Studio would be the best approach, some people want them, I just don't.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Creslin321
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.

Here, you conveniently ignore the HP risk exposure of AoOs and other threats that come with melee range fighting, the massive to-hit penalty fighters take in exchange for that extra damage, you take one of two martial weapons - which are both two-handed mind you - that deal 2d6 damage as the example, and assume that the surface Firebolt ignites will deal damage to only one target. You have to idealize the fighter to compete with an at-will cantrip that is neither gear nor resource dependent.

5E is a carefully balanced game. There are almost no conditions that modify to-hit, and AC spells are few and carefully tuned. Introducing stuff like this might seem fine in EA, but multiclassing will introduce an entirely new level of broken class balance that stems directly from these kinds of thoughtless modifications to the system.


Originally Posted by Sharp
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..

This is a very silly argument. Video games are challenge spaces like any other type of economic game, individual or not. The success of these challenge spaces, as defined by their appeal to intellectual curiosity and mass consumption, has always been strongly correlated with balanced win conditions and/or game states for each distinct player or element of the game.

Also, Larian's latest RPGs featured PVP opportunities as critically important, story-driving gameplay, so I'm not really sure where this assumption is coming from.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Ummm, I don't know about you, but I love using environmental effects in my tabletop game, so no, that's totally D&D.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Thrythlind
Ummm, I don't know about you, but I love using environmental effects in my tabletop game, so no, that's totally D&D.


Do you know of any modules that feature surface effects other than difficult terrain in the first four levels of play?

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Ghosts of Saltmarsh has brown mold, green slime, collapsible floors, slick floors...pretty much all in the 1st level adventure

Last edited by Thrythlind; 12/10/20 08:18 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Thrythlind
Ghosts of Saltmarsh has brown mold, green slime, collapsible floors, slick floors...pretty much all in the 1st level adventure

The first two are types of monstrous traps/dungeon hazard (green slimes have blindsight, ffs...) Collapsible floors are a traditional trap, not a surface, and slick floors are a form of difficult terrain.

Surely you recognize that there's a huge difference between spontaneously igniting Grease for a 30 foot fire blast and a thoughtfully designed 5x5 foot single-target trap without special elemental interactions.

Joined: Oct 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Creslin321
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.

Here, you conveniently ignore the HP risk exposure of AoOs and other threats that come with melee range fighting, the massive to-hit penalty fighters take in exchange for that extra damage, you take one of two martial weapons - which are both two-handed mind you - that deal 2d6 damage as the example, and assume that the surface Firebolt ignites will deal damage to only one target. You have to idealize the fighter to compete with an at-will cantrip that is neither gear nor resource dependent.



I think the increase in damage will drop off as soon as the players hit level 5, if Larian just increases the d6 of Firebolt and does not increase the burn damage (which is what I imagine is the case):

Firebolt + 2 ticks of fire: 2d6 + 1d4 + 1d4 = 4-20 damage,
Fighter with a basic shortsword and 4 str/dex Mod: 1d6+4 x 2 = 10-20 damage.

Sure, the fighter may be exposed to taking more damage, but if anything the AI constantly snipes my wizard, which realistically they should be doing anyway.

Yes, the fighter may miss, reducing the damage, but so can the firebolt which then will do some mild fire damage. which the higher the level the less significant it will become.

Sure, you can argue fighters should shine at lower levels because they get outclassed by spellcasters later on, but since Larian frontloaded fighters with some abilities already I am sure fighting as a fighter at level 10 will be comparable in impact as a wizard at level 10

Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

This is a very silly argument. Video games are challenge spaces like any other type of economic game, individual or not. The success of these challenge spaces, as defined by their appeal to intellectual curiosity and mass consumption, has always been strongly correlated with balanced win conditions and/or game states for each distinct player or element of the game.

Also, Larian's latest RPGs featured PVP opportunities as critically important, story-driving gameplay, so I'm not really sure where this assumption is coming from.

You conveniently left out the part where 1) this is a team based game, so over all, team performance is what matters more than individual performance and 2) even though divinity 2 featured that mechanic, it was not a selling feature of the games at all, it was more like a side gimmick. This is not DOTA or League, its an RPG, which is primarily played cooperatively. The only way balance really plays into it here is in 2 places, the first is being "jealous of your neighbor," where you see someone else controlling a character and doing far more than you and you feel bad because of it. The second is balance against the AI. The 2nd can be dealt with by making the AI take advantage of these mechanics as well.

Don't get me wrong, I love tactical games, in fact, that is the part I like about RPGs the most, hard, tactical combat. The only other genres of games I play are RTS and TBS, the combat is what I like. I would rather have combat that is hard and somewhat unbalanced, but has more tactical depth, than combat which is hard, balanced, but lacks in terms of depth. Right now, the combat is not hard, in fact it is really easy, but it has potential in the depth department and if you invest enough into making the AI take advantage of surfaces it can provide an appropriate challenge.

5e as a system is not a deep, tactical system. For those of us who liked D&D because of its roots in war gaming, its a very shallow edition, which is why I would rather have depth added, even if it unbalances the system, then the system left as is.


Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Surfaces ignoring AC, and a bunch of archers starting combat on high ground and throwing bombs and special arrows are a pain.

No bedroll to use and no cooldown system, with no armor. 3 things that made the DOS system bearable and even fun from time to time, we don't have those here. And I don't want to do long rest after every fight to have full resources before each annoying fight.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 here.

The idea of environment effects perhaps works, for instance, if you hit something flammable (which there are way too many barrels laying around anyway smile But just to ignite the whole floor or fill it with acid, number 1) Doesn't make sense in a D&D setting, because number 2) as OP stated the systems are different, and there is a reason why it is a higher level spell that creates a "lasting" effect, or require concentration from the caster.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Yes!!! Pleaaase fewer environmental effects. They trash entire groups too easily.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharp
snip

I'm not particuarly interested in an argument about what you like about video games. It's just that the component of your argument that relies on the cooperative nature of the experience as an excuse to dismiss balance concerns that's deeply flawed.

You can tell that the balance of game states both with respect to historical game states and potential future game states (i.e. how a game has, will, or could unfold) is important to single-player and cooperative experiences with a simple application of reduction to the absurd: If you modify solitaire such that you can name yourself the winner every time you lay down a card, you have made the game far less interesting to most people, and insofar as we're talking about quality as a function of appeal, worse for it.

There's no reason to believe that increasing the order of complexity would change that conclusion. People seek carefully orchestrated challenges within a set of rules that are either sufficiently complicated or sufficiently obfuscated such that they cannot guarantee greater odds at victory with one method over another regardless of whether or not the game is competitive in nature. If this is not the case, you're probably talking about a craft or profession. No game obfuscates, confounds, or challenges perfectly, but all games should strive to. This is an accepted design principle almost anywhere you go, and it's why live balanced games - including D:OS 2 for most of its lifecycle - see so much effort spent on confounding, or increasing the number of, metagame strategies. (Both approaches are intended to give rise to a greater number of metagame strategies, however, as, again, no game can challenge players perfectly and an emergent metagame is a consequence of imperfect balance.)

Then you can look at it from a content perspective, as greater balance tends to have a multiplicative effect on the amount of content a game effectively offers without conditions that are detrimental to most players. For example, if Rogue and Wizard were to be grossly overpowered, a conditional gate would be introduced for all other classes, which would look something like "I will choose [Barbarian/Warlock/Bard/etc.] if I am looking for a greater challenge," or "I will choose [Barbarian/Warlock/Bard/etc.] if my feelings about their creative appeal outweighs my interest in clearing the game efficiently." It's slightly more complicated than this since you introduce conditional gates for the overpowered classes, and you need to know a lot about player motivation, but that's where design is supplanted by user analytics, which we don't have access to. Anyway, contrast this theoretical state of affiars to one where all the classes are balanced, and those conditional gates don't exist, effectively offering a greater number of options to a greater number of players.

These gates can have their place, say when implementing difficulty settings for example, but generally speaking they must be implemented with great intention, and it will very, very frequently produce shoddy design if they sneak their way into a game by accident.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Eugerome

So that is only 3 more than you could have rolled on a 1d10? split among 2 targets?


No. Read the last part where the surface area (on the bare stone floor) ticked a second time, which killed one enemy, and could have killed another if another attack hadn't already finished it. That is 3 + (2 enemies affected *(1d4)), or 5 to 11 more than I could have rolled on a single d10.

The fire surface ticks damage twice - once on impact, again at the start of the enemy turn, no saving throw. That's 2-8 more damage on a single target beyond whatever the 1d6 of the initial hit and 1d4 from the burning status do.


Quote
Plus, once we hit level 5 i'd assume the firebolt will deal 2d6 as opposed to 2d10 in 5e, while the burning damage will remain static most likely. But this is conjecture.


That assumption doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't it be 2d6 + 2d4, given that they changed 1d10 to 1d6 + 1d4? You have no grounds for assuming they won't change the Burning or surface damage to scale.


Quote
The Acid Splash effect is strong, but granted we don't have a help action yet to help land an attack yet. I don't see it as that game breaking.


Who uses their action to help others land an attack instead of attacking themselves? Especially because that needs to be carefully set up with proper positioning, and two PC's coordinating. I would be surprised if the Help action gets put in to the game for attacking.


Quote
So why not include it in a game where the book keeping is not an issue.


That's a strawman argument. The issue has nothing to do at all with bookkeeping and everything to do with balance.


Originally Posted by Eugerome

Yes, the fighter may miss, reducing the damage, but so can the firebolt which then will do some mild fire damage.


It shouldn't do any damage at all. That's what missing is supposed to mean. I believe Melf's Acid Arrow is one of the few spells which can do some damage on a miss, and that expends a second-level slot. If you can find some infinite-usage cantrips with attack rolls which can miss and deal damage in the tabletop game that I missed, I'd be glad to hear about them.

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

Everyone, and all conditions, because the game's AC system was not designed around a -2 AC status effect on a cantrip which makes permanent puddles of -2 AC acid on the ground. Hope that helps!



That's blatantly false because your first move isn't going to be to use acid under many conditions, same goes for ray of frost, etc. Nor will it often be your second or third action. Nor is party of four wizards only using cantrips going to be a superior composition over every other combination - EA or not. So, the answer is no it's not overpowered. You can argue that it is strong, but when you take a look at action economy and actual game play you won't be using those cantrips in first order of priority.


Originally Posted by Stabbey


You are an idiot. This is not a hypothetical, hyperbolic exaggeration. It is how the system is literally working right now.

Dipping weapons in fire requires being next to a fire source, which is not always available. Poison is a consumable resource.

Yes, higher levels the extra effects mean less. But low levels are what we have. There are no level 20 adventurers in BG3. Don't talk about them, they're irrelevant. There's a reason why most D&D games around the tabletop don't drench players in Alchemist's Fire at level 2.


You're literally the person who made a comparison of a physical fighter not being able to match a cantrip as an example of cantrips being overpowered -- you are the one who said that, in the current version of the game, a fighter is WEAKER than a cantrip. That's how stupid you are.

Dipping weapons in a fire source is fucking freely available if you actually play the game, it's called a candle, and can be freely dropped and lit.

And, again, pay in mind that all of this is a direct response to you saying that cantrips out scale physical damage dealers. Yes, you are that stupid to make the comparison.

The reason I even brought up the level 20 example is a complete aside on what methods low level creatures have to resort to be able to handle higher level parties. Those goblins are basically fodder as soon as you reach level 3 and having them armed with alchemists fire or using environmental abilities gives them parity with the party, otherwise you could start just inflating their stats (which they already have) or adding more numbers (which grinds combat down even more). It's actually balanced.

But yeah, feel free to say stupid shit like this:
Originally Posted by Stabbey

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


Yup. Clearly the apex of everyone else not using cantrips is 1d6 or 1d8 per action.

The only real argument you have here is that maybe ray of frost is a bit too strong with its ability to prone an opponent.



Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Sharp
snip

You can tell that the balance of game states both with respect to historical game states and potential future game states (i.e. how a game has, will, or could unfold) is important to single-player and cooperative experiences with a simple application of reduction to the absurd: If you modify solitaire such that you can name yourself the winner every time you lay down a card, you have made the game far less interesting to most people, and insofar as we're talking about quality as a function of appeal, worse for it.


You are dismissing the fact that there are 2 ways to consider balance here. The first is balance in terms of a character against the environment and the second is in respect to 1 character in comparison to another. I am very much interested in having a game where the environment is balanced against the player, the challenge is after all, part of what makes the game interesting. However, I have very little interest in whether 1 class is balanced against the other. Your absurd case thus does not sufficiently fulfill the criteria here, because, as I pointed out above, you can very well make the game itself challenging to a player who is using these mechanics, simply by making the game itself take advantage of them as well.

Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

Then you can look at it from a content perspective, as greater balance tends to have a multiplicative effect on the amount of content a game effectively offers without conditions that are detrimental to most players. For example, if Rogue and Wizard were to be grossly overpowered, you would be introducing a selection bias for all other classes, which would look something like "I will choose [Barbarian/Warlock/Bard/etc.] if and only if I am looking for a greater challenge," or "I will choose [Barbarian/Warlock/Bard/etc.] if and only if my feelings about their creative appeal outweighs my interest in clearing the game efficiently." Whereas if all the classes are balanced, those selection biases wouldn't exist, effectively offering a greater number of options to a greater number of players.

These biases can have their place, say when implementing difficulty settings for example, but generally speaking they must be implemented with great intention, and it will very, very frequently produce shoddy design if they sneak their way into a game by accident.


The 5e rules are incredibly basic and there is not much to keep track of, which is great, if you are playing a tabletop game and don't want to be boggled down by small details and the game is driven more on roleplaying than on combat, but when you have a computer keeping track of all of that, it makes for a really barebones experience. There is not much room for creativity in combat and your options are exceptionally limited. Adding mechanics like surfaces does help to remedy that situation and adds depth back to the game. And yes, the rules, if implemented 1:1 as per the rulebook, are simple enough so that most encounters are "solved" for me on the very first round of combat. I can lay out exactly how the fight will go and what I need to do to win. That makes for a very boring game, from my perspective.

Originally Posted by Yawning Spider


Then you can look at it from a content perspective, as greater balance tends to have a multiplicative effect on the amount of content a game effectively offers without conditions that are detrimental to most players. For example, if Rogue and Wizard were to be grossly overpowered, you would be introducing a selection bias for all other classes, which would look something like "I will choose [Barbarian/Warlock/Bard/etc.] if and only if I am looking for a greater challenge," or "I will choose [Barbarian/Warlock/Bard/etc.] if and only if my feelings about their creative appeal outweighs my interest in clearing the game efficiently." Whereas if all the classes are balanced, those selection biases wouldn't exist, effectively offering a greater number of options to a greater number of players.

These biases can have their place, say when implementing difficulty settings for example, but generally speaking they must be implemented with great intention, and it will very, very frequently produce shoddy design if they sneak their way into a game by accident.

This over here was what I talked about when I mentioned the idea of being, "jealous of your neighbor." The fact of the matter is, the game is probably going to be balanced around a party of 4, where the party has a rogue, cleric, wizard and fighter. Whether or not surfaces are included is not really going to change that, because the casters there would have access to surfaces as well and even if surfaces do not exist, you can already skew the balance by taking different party compositions. Being, "jealous of your neighbor" is imo not a good enough reason to make a game less interesting.

Last edited by Sharp; 12/10/20 09:31 PM.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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