Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2015
N
Nyanko Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
No one in the game, characters or npcs, should be able to disengage and attack in the same turn. It is too exploitable, especially by range classes, and makes combat looks like a bunch of monkeys or kangaroos jumping around fighting each other. The decision to disengage should matter much more than this. It would be more tactical than it is now.

Besides, the disengage mechanics make attacks of opportunity useless cause I am pretty sure in tactical mode, the AI will understand it's pointless to run and better to jump. And fighter feats allowing more than one attack of opportunity a turn or rogue advantage against them will be a no go to even consider taking.

Please Larian, make the combat more visceral and less jumpy. Melee should matter much more than it does now.

Last edited by Nyanko; 16/10/20 05:20 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with this 100%. My thought is make jump an action not a bonus action. There are a few ways to make it so people can't use bonus actions but that seems silly to have to pin people down in melee. ATM range and elevation the queen of battle and melee feels like the King (chess wise anyway)

You want the ai to disengage and jump away, that's fine. But THEY SHOULD NOT have the opportunity to pump an arrow in my face. This goes for my party as well.

Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
also remove backstab.
the game for melee characters boils down to walking/jumping in the back of the enemy and backstab them.
it feels pretty weird to me and i don't see the fun or tactical depth side of these mechanics...
flanking would be fine (i guess) but hopping behind the enemy and attacking? i feel like a frog...

Last edited by mahe4; 16/10/20 05:27 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2020
I agree. Although it’s been said a lot before. Jumping should trigger reactions, and disengaging shouldn’t be free. Maybe except for rouges?

I’m sure this will be changed though. If nothing else it will make many gameplay videos look silly, and that could hit the bottom line.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Offline
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
Absolutely.

What's the point in playing a tank if you can't control the battlefield at all?

And it feels really dumb and cheesy circling or jumping behind enemies to "backstab" the same opponent again and again.

Jumping needs to be a part of movement and trigger aoo's.

Disengage needs to be a full action. Let the classes that are about mobility shine and do it as a bonus action. Spellcasters also have ways to disengage (Shocking Grasp, Misty Step, Thunderwave...) they currently don't need because they can just jump away.

And it just looks dumb when everyone is constantly jumping around and shoving people.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I kinda agree with this in principle.

However, I have been trying to play as much as possible to not use the free disengage, and at the moment, practically speaking, it doesn't seem viable to play without it. There are too many enemies, ranged attacks have greatly reduced distance forcing you to attack from closer, combat arenas tend to be designed so you need to be close to even see enemies, and high ground advantage for attacks and defense is so strong that it further affects the balance of fights.

Joined: Sep 2015
N
Nyanko Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I kinda agree with this in principle.

However, I have been trying to play as much as possible to not use the free disengage, and at the moment, practically speaking, it doesn't seem viable to play without it. There are too many enemies, ranged attacks have greatly reduced distance forcing you to attack from closer, combat arenas tend to be designed so you need to be close to even see enemies, and high ground advantage for attacks and defense is so strong that it further affects the balance of fights.


If disengage is a full action, you still can drink a potion or do other things. But you shouldn't be able to attack. I don't find personally there are two many enemies. With 4 characters and this disengage mechanic, it's far too easy in most battles to the point it's boring. To even it out a little, I play with only two characters in my party at the moment.

Besides, in D&D 5e, disengage takes a full action. I think Larian went too far by making it a bonus action.

Last edited by Nyanko; 16/10/20 06:07 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
jumping + backstabbing takes so much away from the tactical combat, that is 5e.
Flanking is an optional rule in 5e, but it would be a lot better to use this rule, instead of this backstabbing homebrew.
maybe even make flanking optional in the settings.
but as it is, there is virtually no battlefield control.

i can understand, if they don't implement grappling mechanics, because it would be complicated.
but the way they changed the rules from 5e makes battlefield control basically non-existent.

Joined: Sep 2017
N
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
N
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I kinda agree with this in principle.

However, I have been trying to play as much as possible to not use the free disengage, and at the moment, practically speaking, it doesn't seem viable to play without it. There are too many enemies, ranged attacks have greatly reduced distance forcing you to attack from closer, combat arenas tend to be designed so you need to be close to even see enemies, and high ground advantage for attacks and defense is so strong that it further affects the balance of fights.

I'm okay with removing it, but only if a myriad of other things are changed as Stabbey mentioned.

Also, why do so many ranged abilities have ranges shorter than in 5e? Example, Eldritch Blast is only 60 ft., but should be 120?

Joined: Sep 2017
Z
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Z
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by NinthPlane
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I kinda agree with this in principle.

However, I have been trying to play as much as possible to not use the free disengage, and at the moment, practically speaking, it doesn't seem viable to play without it. There are too many enemies, ranged attacks have greatly reduced distance forcing you to attack from closer, combat arenas tend to be designed so you need to be close to even see enemies, and high ground advantage for attacks and defense is so strong that it further affects the balance of fights.

I'm okay with removing it, but only if a myriad of other things are changed as Stabbey mentioned.

Also, why do so many ranged abilities have ranges shorter than in 5e? Example, Eldritch Blast is only 60 ft., but should be 120?

Reasoning on shortened range is simple, they don't want players sniping enemies from across the map, for example the longbow has a max range of 500 ft. This is great in the pen in paper game as sniping enemies and performing other actions can be played out very well with the help of a willing DM, but in a PC game this is very hard to program and balance out. I doubt they will be allowing players to have excessive attack ranges.

Joined: Dec 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Dec 2020
Agree with OP.

The ability for (ranged) characters to enter and exit melee combat with few consequences not only breaks from core 5E rules, it devalues the classes (Rogues) that can earn this ability.

Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
+1. i understand why they tried this but i think jump as is just turns combat really repetitive on long term (also it feels like the party is full of superheroes which is kind of wierd) and as other said its almost impossible to balance some dnd class abilites and rules around this without major tweaking made to those (which would lead to more problems and arguments i guess). i dont want a change because its not dnd, i want a change because at the moment for me its not fun (and its a shame because the game is really shining at other areas). im okay if they want to keep current rules as they are now as a separate game mode (i know some people think these are cool as is, though we never tried any alternative yet), but personally im waiting for an alternative game mode at least which gives us altered combat rules where flanking, positioning matters and attack of opportunities exist and adds to tactical layer

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
+1 & a 100%.

Be it via jumping or an ability, to negate the auto-hit from a Melee enemy is a big deal.
That should not come as just a Bonus action.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Agree with OP... this drum needs to be continually beat until this fix is confirmed...

...and one above post rung especially true that this change to jump/disengage doesn't only need to be changed because its "not d&d"... it needs to be changed because it makes combat altogether unfun overall imho...

At 150+ hrs and more than a few runs through available content i feel ive given the game enough of a chance... there is a lot of good stuff here but for a multitude of replays, combat must be fun... it is not currently imho and this is the single biggest culprit...

Have kinda put this game down until i see some movement on this... and not because its "not d&d"...



Last edited by Llev; 13/12/20 03:16 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Disagree, but I think a reasonable compromise might be to make it dependent on difficulty.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
A "Core rules" difficulty would be nice.

Breaking it into separate difficulty options would be even nicer.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I missed this thread but I completely agree with Nyanko.

The actual disengage mixed with jump as a bonus action combined with easy highground/backstab advantages make combats """funny lolz""" but it drastically decrease their tactical value, their balance and their interrest.

Those mechanics completely determine what combats have to be. Not sure I'll be able to go to the end of the game because combats become boring and unsurprising before the end of act 1.

This game is strange... We have to take it seriously as a D&D game and the next second we can use the silliest combat strategy like in other Larian's game. I really hope BG3 is going to become more serious and less funny for the lolz (Solution : trust D&D)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 12/12/20 05:57 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by vometia
Disagree, but I think a reasonable compromise might be to make it dependent on difficulty.


With different difficulty levels you don't need to disengage at all. Story difficulty mode Gale could solo Minotaurs using staff only or just have a button to skip fights altogether.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Definitely agreed, Disengage needs to be made a full action as is intended in 5e. The way it currently is devalues the rogue and, once it gets addeded, the monk class.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Kendaric
Definitely agreed, Disengage needs to be made a full action as is intended in 5e. The way it currently is devalues the rogue and, once it gets addeded, the monk class.


Don't forget every other melee classes... Especially those that could be called "tank".

You nearly don't even have to hold ennemies for them not to reach your ranged unit because your allies can easily disengage and flee.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 12/12/20 10:39 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

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