Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
X
Xemeron Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
X
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 0Muttley0


This works two ways though. You can do the same to them as what they can do to you. When I DM sessions the players want to do things like throw a jar of oil into a pit then set it alight to kill the monsters in said pit. And I let them because its innovative thinking.

I abuse the shit out of the push function to make combats easier. But at one point a clacker did the same to me. Pushed a character of my party over a cliff and one shotted her. It was awesome, and now I think more carefully where I place my characters.

The same goes for surfaces. I make sure I am not vulnerable by planning where I go and what I do. At the same time doing things like throwing explosive objects to create area effects.



Its not really that easy.

NPCs can just unload their whole arsenal onto you, but D&D is designed around limiting the players ressources and making every spell count, especially at lower levels. Sure, in BG3 you can just long rest everywhere at any time with no penalty, you can literally take a long rest 5 feet away from triggering an enemy encounter and nothing happens, but is that really how you want to play a D&D game? Long rest after every fight because you have to blow every single spellslot each fight to be on equal ground with the enemy throwing Fire and Acid at you? That kinda beats the point of playing a D&D game in the first place and we can just go back and say "lets just make it DOS3, give spells cooldown and remove spellslots".

There is a reason the Monster manual doesnt give each goblin a bottle of alchemist fire in D&D.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
P
Joined: Oct 2020
+1
Please lets remove all those bombs, surface arrows, grease vials and others, really doesn't fit the game, for me by far the biggest problem with combat mechanics.
Actually doesn't even need removal, if it was just limites, but I basically can cast grease at will, and enemies are so loaded with bombs as well. If they were Very rare, only some special alchemist mobs had them it'd probabbly be fine

Last edited by pgmoro; 13/10/20 11:55 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Eugerome

A:

I do think the Burning effects needs to be in a game. It baffles me that in a game where you have fire based spells, fire elementals and dragons spewing fire there are no consistent rules for burning things. Fire elementals, Wall of Fire, Alchemist fire, Oil, Create Bonfire, etc all apply persistent fire damage but do so in completely different way. Streamlining these I think is a good idea, and making them do 1d4 is appropriate.

The Acid effect I am not sure - doesn't make much sense to me. At least at a -2 to AC, if it were -1 then I think would be more reasonable, but I am not sure why it is in the game.

B:

Should cantrips be able to apply these effects. I think so. Whether FireBolt is a good choice - if it is scaled down. There is a Create Bonfire cantrip that would probably be a better candidate though. Perhaps make it do 1d4 fire damage on a dex save and apply a burning effect?

Acid splash applying the Acid status effect makes sense and I think it is ok. Maybe a reduction in area would be appropriate and a reduction of the cantrips damage to a 1d4?


good points, i would support such a streamline if consistent to the way most status effects are handled, namely Saves to avoid. All cantrips with any kind of save share the same design: Save to avoid completely, be it damage or some status, never Save to half.
Currently acid and burning statuses doesnt impose a save to avoid, contrary to most spells (like Arms of Hadar or Thunderwave) where status effect is avoided after successful save and more traditional surfaces (like these darn vines, various greasy stuff) again where you save to avoid getting prone or restrained.
Another inconsistency is the way those procs are triggered: most procs happens 1 time per character turn, be it end or beginning, and i dont recall multiple procs per feet moved. Some times these procs happens on spell cast, like Grease force a save when the surface is created and then every time a creature enter the area or begin its turn here, this unfortunately consistent with Ray of Frost ice surface (actually it lacks the 'every time it begins/ends its turn').
Worst in the class is acid surface, you can and will save for the damage but surface debuff procs anyway and never wears off until that surface is under your feet

Maybe with such revisions i could bear surface gameplay

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by pgmoro
+1
Please lets remove all those bombs, surface arrows, grease vials and others, really doesn't fit the game, for me by far the biggest problem with combat mechanics


+1

I absolutely love the mecanic but it hasn't to be a part of every single combat...
If everything is special, nothing is special. I'd like these mecanics to be special in a D&D game.

Just remove the arrows and potions to every ennemies and rework cantrip so they d'ont create surfaces and you have it.
Only spells that are not lvl 0 should create a surface.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 13/10/20 11:59 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kasakoff
Originally Posted by Eugerome

A:

I do think the Burning effects needs to be in a game. It baffles me that in a game where you have fire based spells, fire elementals and dragons spewing fire there are no consistent rules for burning things. Fire elementals, Wall of Fire, Alchemist fire, Oil, Create Bonfire, etc all apply persistent fire damage but do so in completely different way. Streamlining these I think is a good idea, and making them do 1d4 is appropriate.

The Acid effect I am not sure - doesn't make much sense to me. At least at a -2 to AC, if it were -1 then I think would be more reasonable, but I am not sure why it is in the game.

B:

Should cantrips be able to apply these effects. I think so. Whether FireBolt is a good choice - if it is scaled down. There is a Create Bonfire cantrip that would probably be a better candidate though. Perhaps make it do 1d4 fire damage on a dex save and apply a burning effect?

Acid splash applying the Acid status effect makes sense and I think it is ok. Maybe a reduction in area would be appropriate and a reduction of the cantrips damage to a 1d4?


good points, i would support such a streamline if consistent to the way most status effects are handled, namely Saves to avoid. All cantrips with any kind of save share the same design: Save to avoid completely, be it damage or some status, never Save to half.
Currently acid and burning statuses doesnt impose a save to avoid, contrary to most spells (like Arms of Hadar or Thunderwave) where status effect is avoided after successful save and more traditional surfaces (like these darn vines, various greasy stuff) again where you save to avoid getting prone or restrained.
Another inconsistency is the way those procs are triggered: most procs happens 1 time per character turn, be it end or beginning, and i dont recall multiple procs per feet moved. Some times these procs happens on spell cast, like Grease force a save when the surface is created and then every time a creature enter the area or begin its turn here, this unfortunately consistent with Ray of Frost ice surface (actually it lacks the 'every time it begins/ends its turn').
Worst in the class is acid surface, you can and will save for the damage but surface debuff procs anyway and never wears off until that surface is under your feet

Maybe with such revisions i could bear surface gameplay


I think adding saving throws for Burning/Acid statuses would be a good middle ground. Dex on Burning and Con on Acid would probably make the most sense to me. Would also make Acid less scary for tank/frontliners who probably have high con and/or proficiency. Although you could argue that once on fire you should make Con saves similar to Heat Metal?

Apply these effects on stepping onto a surface.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
The acid pool should be completely removed from the game except maybe for flavor in certain areas like alchemists laboratories. It lasts forever and applies a strong debuff. And the debuff doesn't make sense.

Why do I have -2 AC because I'm standing in acid? Are the enemies targeting the bottom of my boots? Of course not.

If Larian absolutely is in love with the idea of Acid Splash dealing -2 AC, that should be treated like this: On in initial attack, target makes a Dex save for no damage and no status. If they fail, they receive the -2 AC Acid debuff, which ends at the end of their next turn. No pool of forever-acid is created. It's a cantrip.


Originally Posted by Limz
You're moving the goal posts, we're now talking about the amount of effort? You know what's actually effortless? Just running up to something and smacking it with melee weapons and giving zero fucks because there are no limitations on rests.


Rest balance is a separate issue. If they change rests to be more restricted, will you go "oh, maybe this is an issue after all"?


Quote
The only reason that was brought up was an example of melee output, since I thought you were actually going to post a discussion and action economy was important here. But you're not, you're here to bitch about ground effects 24/7 and complain about something is being OP yet being unable to prove that it is anything other than competitive.



Quote

Pay attention to the last bit where you say physical weapons are dealing 1d6 or 1d8. That's why you're argument is stupid, you're literally comparing damage over time plus initial hit plus status effect to base weapon damage without modifiers while also factoring in essentially two turns.


Okay, fine, add the modifier 1d8 + 3. Max damage is 11, which is less than 13.5, the average damage of a Firebolt. The maximum damage of a single melee attack is less than the average of a cantrip.

At best, only the last d4 happens on the target's second turn. The additional ticks of damage are triggered by the target moving when they get their first turn after being hit. If they don't jump clear out of the burning surface, they take a third d4 of damage, before they get to act, and if they're still alive at the top of their second turn, they take a fourth d4. From one single cantrip attack.



Quote
Stop defending that point and own up to it. There's actually a better thing to point out AGAINST having environments. Let's also take your stupid example up top where you deliberately run over the surface to take damage, you might as well have just expended all your movement in it to produce the most amount of damage to make a point.


I did run over the surface deliberately, yes. Enemies don't have a disengage jump, so enemies have no choice. I wanted to see what would happen, for purposes of analysis.

I did not spend my entire turn running in circles in the fire.


Quote
All environmental effects like burning, grease, etc. should tick once when entering and once if you end your turn on it. I believe grease doesn't follow this and ticks per set amount of move just like burning ground. I think that's an actual issue over cantrips creating terrain.


I agree and I'm sure I said that already. Perhaps in another thread.



Originally Posted by Eugerome
After testing and shooting 2 Firebolts at the same target on the same turn the target takes 1d6 + 1d6 damage from the Firebolt while the 1d4 is not applied the second time from the second FireBolt.

Similarly with Acid Splash, the AC reduction does not stack.

I do not want these conditions to scale with level and I doubt they will.


That's another valid point. By splitting Firebolt into two parts, it becomes less effective than intended if the target is already burning. The only reason that is not a problem at the moment is because Firebolt is already overturned to do an third 1d4 on impact.

If the Burning damage from the Firebolt does not scale with levels, that is a problem, because the damage was lowered from 1d10 to 1d6 because the 1d4 Burning was added, meaning that the cantrip, intended to be somewhat useful as a last-ditch spell, no longer scales as it was intended. And 1d4 becomes less and less impactful the higher level you go.

Last edited by Stabbey; 13/10/20 12:53 PM. Reason: acid pools
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Quote
I think adding saving throws for Burning/Acid statuses would be a good middle ground. Dex on Burning and Con on Acid would probably make the most sense to me. Would also make Acid less scary for tank/frontliners who probably have high con and/or proficiency. Although you could argue that once on fire you should make Con saves similar to Heat Metal?

Apply these effects on stepping onto a surface.


different saves for same effect feels weird to me for a 'simple' cantrip.

It came to my mind that turn timing isnt a thing outside of combat in bg3: on tabletop a round takes 6 seconds, naviganting thru a dangerous surface should force a save every 6 seconds instead of every 5 feets like now. This would make traversing a room on fire less deadly. I would also argue about a dice of direct damage of fire surface along a dice of fire proc seems too much: as of 5e a torch smacked at you or stepping into a fire camp awards you 1 point of fire damage on the spot

Last edited by kasakoff; 13/10/20 01:01 PM.
Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Stabbey
The acid pool should be completely removed from the game except maybe for flavor in certain areas like alchemists laboratories. It lasts forever and applies a strong debuff. And the debuff doesn't make sense.

Why do I have -2 AC because I'm standing in acid? Are the enemies targeting the bottom of my boots? Of course not.

If Larian absolutely is in love with the idea of Acid Splash dealing -2 AC, that should be treated like this: On in initial attack, target makes a Dex save for no damage and no status. If they fail, they receive the -2 AC Acid debuff, which ends at the end of their next turn. No pool of forever-acid is created. It's a cantrip.


You could also simply make it so that the pool of acid disappears in a round and have higher tier spells create longer lasting ones or stronger ones if you want to trigger more people into a rage. Because it is a cantrip doesn't necessarily mean that something needs a duration - the consideration of a cantrip's power can however include duration if it has one.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

Rest balance is a separate issue. If they change rests to be more restricted, will you go "oh, maybe this is an issue after all"?


They would also have to change consumables and the amount floating around the world. In the current iteration of the EA, it's not an issue because you can beat all the content with various parties with or without abusing rests and without reliance on cantrips only.

The reason I bring this up is that I am going to

Originally Posted by Stabbey

Okay, fine, add the modifier 1d8 + 3. Max damage is 11, which is less than 13.5, the average damage of a Firebolt. The maximum damage of a single melee attack is less than the average of a cantrip.

At best, only the last d4 happens on the target's second turn. The additional ticks of damage are triggered by the target moving when they get their first turn after being hit. If they don't jump clear out of the burning surface, they take a third d4 of damage, before they get to act, and if they're still alive at the top of their second turn, they take a fourth d4. From one single cantrip attack.


Cool. Glad you're being reasonable about this.

It's actually lower on both ends when you factor in accuracy, but as soon as you get gear it changes, or if you're min-maxing damage such as using candles (which are free to drop and free to activate) or if you're factoring in great weapon master. Also, the average damage for things like weapons increases drastically based on advantage/disadvantage. The thing with firebolt is that its scaling is very limited and by level 4 physical dps has the potential to catch up whether you feel that the curve is okay is separate issue that can be discussed.









Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
You're moving the goal posts, we're now talking about the amount of effort? You know what's actually effortless? Just running up to something and smacking it with melee weapons and giving zero fucks because there are no limitations on rests. Or you know just casting level 2 magic missiles with the magic amulet that adds 1d4 per. Zero ground effects, zero waiting around for burning to do its thing, pure damage and zero requirements to hit

This is a rich piece of forum arguments for the ages.

"You're moving the goalposts"
*methodically distracts from the argument with a number of irrelevant statements amounting to pure whataboutism*

The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

Joined: Oct 2020
H
member
Offline
member
H
Joined: Oct 2020
While I think surface are great and kinda unique, and I love how they were in DOS2, I feel too that they should be toned back a bit. Its nothing extreme, but fight like the gnoll one for example kinda threw me off.
In Baldurs gate 2 , you had these zone spell option, like stinking and killing cloud. Alright. You had sarment too, fireball, abi dalzim and some other stuff. But these were very specific spell you used with caution, usually only to initiate the fight as they could do extreme AoE dmg to your party.

I'm not a huge fan of having many little puddle around because its make navigating difficult in combat, laborious even. And the blood puddle are huge, like for the gnoll, its seems a bit overkill to me.
Another thing that is annoying is that the cinder , flame puddle for example last forever after the fight . I had this weird accident where, after killing three ogres in the village, Gayle died. After the fight. By the time I searched in my inventory for a scroll, and tried to navigate in the tight environment around the many puddle, his necrotic aura had killed one more character, then my whole party. I was like, ''whaaat?''

I think surface initiated during a fight should not last too long after. What the point of having a giant scorched earth that block you for like 20/30 turn afterward? Especially the cinder/fire one, its lasts likes forever.

Another issue I had is with canonpowder. You know, in that goblin fortress, you have three slave merchant that are surrounded by powder. You can ignite it, but the explosion is so huge its ll kill your whole party and set the whole floor ablaze. And there is no way to ignite it without killing the character that does it. I tried this strategy, and waited for the fire to end, and even after 2 - 3 minutes it was still there .

And please, make character circle around dangerous surface. Having my char take 5-10 dmg walking through a fire he could have avoided is annoying. Or he could jump over it, especially if he is just a IA-controlled character that is following the main character. I suggest they either walk around it or jump over it, or just wait if they can do none. You could also have a toggle for character not to care about surface, for people who just want to go super fast and don't care about dmg.

Last edited by Hachina; 13/10/20 04:36 PM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharp
Whilst you could make an AI which is designed to be more vindictive than a human, that same AI would not also be able to do more considerate decisions, because of the way AI works. Until AGI is a thing, you aren't going to have a computer making as naunced decisions as a human is. Whilst it is nice to make arguments in an idealized world where time doesn't exist and we have super intelligent AIs, its not the world we live in so we might as well stick to the real world constraints.

Citations desperately needed. You slip verbiage into your arguments all the time without thinking about it or how its relevant to the discussion you're having. When did nuance become a concern? What makes you think AGI is necessary for a deep learnt model to emulate human behavior? We get more effective results from deep learning than your average player is capable of across a number of games, and games are just sets of behaviors approaching a manufactured goal.

The number and type of tangents you spin off into makes it seem like you have a potentially exceptional amount of raw intelligence, but you really, really need to pursue a fitting education or its wasted on total nonsense statements like this.

Originally Posted by Sharp
Yes, I did mean the number of quality game states would be reduced

Then you have to grapple with the intervention additive balance has on your argument.

EX: I add a suit to solitaire in the interest of further obfuscating player means. I have increased the number of game states in the interest of balance.

I can walk you through a formal presentation of this argument, including explicit premises, if that would be helpful in cultivating more logically sound strategies for countering arguments.

Originally Posted by Sharp
I just drew distinctions between different kinds of balance and said that I care more about one than another. System balance is in my opinion important, where the system as a whole is seen as balanced, while individual class vs class balance is not something I am particularly interested in. So long as classes have their niches and there isn't 1 class which is ideal for every single situation, I see it as more or less ok outcome. Actually, it makes for a far more interesting game when classes have different strengths and weaknesses


Difference is an object of balance, not contrary to it. Balance becomes meaningless if all game states are identical. System balance formally contains class balance, classes are inextricably embedded in the system you're talking about.

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

This is a rich piece of forum arguments for the ages.

"You're moving the goalposts"
*methodically distracts from the argument with a number of irrelevant statements amounting to pure whataboutism*

The lack of self-awareness is stunning.


The premise was that effort should be factored in and we both agreed to discard it because that in itself is a distraction, so kindly fuck off, and focus on Sharp.



Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
The premise was that effort should be factored in and we both agreed to discard it because that in itself is a distraction, so kindly fuck off, and focus on Sharp.

If you want to have a private conversation, a forum seems like the wrong venue for it.

Accusing someone of moving the goalposts around a point you "mutually discarded" before launching into several sentences about that very point is funny, and nobody would feel bad for laughing about it.

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Limz
The premise was that effort should be factored in and we both agreed to discard it because that in itself is a distraction, so kindly fuck off, and focus on Sharp.

If you want to have a private conversation, a forum seems like the wrong venue for it.

Accusing someone of moving the goalposts around a point you "mutually discarded" before launching into several sentences about that very point is funny, and nobody would feel bad for laughing about it.



It's pretty obvious that the entire follow up highlights why accepting the premise would be a bad idea. Now was my method of going about it the best way? Most likely not since I did commit a string of fallacies.

I also misspoke and should have said that Stabbey decided not to follow up on that point and I did not further add to the pile of whataboutisms, I think we can all agree that we dropped it. As should you.

Stay on the subject at hand, your energies should be focused on educating Sharp or enlightening us why 5e must be strictly adhered to in order to produce a better product rather than iterating towards the audience.

So, I say to you kindly, fuck off. Pretty please. <3

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
was my method of going about it the best way? Most likely not since I did commit a string of fallacies.

True.
Originally Posted by Limz
also misspoke and should have said that Stabbey decided not to follow up on that point and I did not further add to the pile of whataboutisms,

Yep.
Originally Posted by Limz
Stay on the subject at hand, your energies should be focused on educating Sharp or enlightening us why 5e must be strictly adhered to in order to produce a better product rather than iterating towards the audience.

The subject at hand is whatever feedback or argumentation people have to share, however asinine it may be. Laughing at your posting suits me just fine.

Originally Posted by Limz
So, I say to you kindly, fuck off. Pretty please. <3

In your headcanon, did I meekly and profusely apologize before slinking off to another thread? How did you think your assertive keyboard combat was going to pay off?

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
I find the surfaces to be really annoying. The OP made some good points; I have a couple to add.

1) Cantrips should have very limited effects. I'm fine with a cantrip creating a surface, but that should be the only thing that it does. Throwing a bolt of frost at someone for damage should be a separate thing from creating a sheet of ice beneath their feet. When you get into higher-level spells, maybe it makes sense to have a single action do both, but not with cantrips. This is especially annoying when you've got a wizard that needs a way to deal some damage, but doesn't want to create a surface as a result. If you're going to create surfaces as a character, it needs to be intentional.

2) Surfaces shouldn't last forever. Fires should burn out. Ice should melt. Acid should eat through things until it's neutralized. It's frustrating to finish a battle and be stuck behind a wall of fire and not be able to wait it out or dismiss it or anything. I understand wanting to use surfaces as a tactical element in combat, but I want walking around outside of combat to be easy (outside of instances where a surface is placed specifically to be a challenge, of course, but then it had better have some explanation for persisting).

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

In your headcanon, did I meekly and profusely apologize before slinking off to another thread? How did you think your assertive keyboard combat was going to pay off?


Did I state you needed to apologize? And is this assertive to you? I am asking you nicely.

But more to the point, I am trying to steer your attentions to something more interesting and seeing as how I am failing that, well I'll continue to tell you to fuck off until we both lose interest in this thread. That's how it goes.

I have to admit I am dying to know why you, along with a few others, are clinging onto a purist interpretation of 5E.

Joined: May 2013
Location: Scotland
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: May 2013
Location: Scotland
Doesn't moving, including jumping, get you out of the small areas generated by cantrips anyway? Cantrips are incredibly weak at-will spells as it is.



Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
I'll continue to tell you to fuck off until we both lose interest in this thread
[...]
I have to admit I am dying to know why you are clinging onto a purist interpretation of 5E.
xD

Originally Posted by hairyscotsman
Doesn't moving, including jumping, get you out of the small areas generated by cantrips anyway? Cantrips are incredibly weak at-will spells as it is.
Incredibly weak as opposed to what exactly?

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by hairyscotsman
Doesn't moving, including jumping, get you out of the small areas generated by cantrips anyway? Cantrips are incredibly weak at-will spells as it is.




When you lab it out cantrips can be pretty powerful especially in the context of EA due to the ground effects it creates; some people dislike that they scale too well and don't mirror 5e graphs.

Also by saying that jumping gets you out of the area gives a bit more weight to the argument that cantrips are too powerful as it forces you to use a bonus action. Though, I guess the same could be said about booming blade which admittedly is in a splat book(which I wish was in the game to flesh out the Eldritch Knight a bit more).

So, I wouldn't say they're weak because one can at least fish for knocking a creature prone while the other does good damage over time and has good efficiency till around level 4. The acid one is a bit more dangerous since it is -2 AC but in practicality it's going to be used on BBEG who tend to move around and out of it and without delay action it's also far harder to capitalize on.

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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