Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Vynticator
5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


Quoted for being delightfully blunt without being profane.

I think that in a way this compares to a particular DM's "house rules" which sometimes can certainly cross games/genres (or at least mine certainly do).

Originally Posted by 1varangian
I don't really care what rules the game follows as long as it's good.

<snippage>

I like the idea of disengaging being harder, too. I would suggest ladders be very risky to climb if there's a foe at the top. Holding ground/ defending a narrow area should be more doable than currently.


I agree. At one point 3 of our 4 member party were at the top of a ladder and an enemy climbed up and I think we all ought to have gotten free attacks or advantage or something.

Last edited by Newtinmpls; 19/10/20 02:15 AM.
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by Stabbey


I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



What he said, so to answer your thread title. No.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Oct 2020
The thing is the sentiment here is a generalisation, where as in most cases when people point out a difference it's because it works better in 5e, or the core mechanics of D&D are being reduced in importance for a more DoS style of combat. Complaining about people expressing those opinions seems much more "frothy" and isn't really feedback.

Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



Nice summary! And also constant advantage from backstab.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by dunehunter


Nice summary! And also constant advantage from backstab.


Engaged ? Just jump behind your opponent, now its a backstab !

Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."


Fair. However, they are based on the 5e rules. They may not be a 1:1 implementation of them, but you can very clearly see the rules have been implemented, even if they have taken some liberties with them. It doesn't matter which rules they changed in a video game adaptation, there was always going to be someone who complained about that specific rule.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.


The question then arises, are you required to rest after every fight in the EA? The answer to this btw, is very clearly no. In my current solo play through with a Warlock, the first time I rested was after clearing out the temple to Jergal+ all of the bandits in there. This is in a 1 player play through, where I have much fewer resources available to me. In the very first play through I did, when I was effectively going in blind, I only rested 3 times during the entire EA. There is nothing in the current EA that forces you to rest and putting elemental surfaces into the game does not magically change this.

Often reading the complaints leveled by 5e purists here I get the feeling that they are just not very good at playing video games and they want a game that reflects that, which, if you implemented the rules 1:1, is a situation you would have. There is nothing wrong with this and no shame in this situation, but it ignores the fact that there are other people, who want challenging gameplay. I personally am all for a game mode with perma death, enemies with both high ac and high hp, preferably with very good AI that heavily take advantage of surfaces. Oh, I would also put a time limit on the main quest with a hard coded failure state, to force players to be resource efficient so they cannot just spam rests.

Obviously this is not acceptable for most people who are playing the game, but having optional difficulty settings for this doesn't impact their gameplay, considering that you are then only opting into it if its what you want. Btw, challenge modes do not need to be "balanced" either, so long as the player's implicit understanding is that the challenge mode is going to be unfair to begin with. The Ultimate Challenge in Deadfire for example is in no way, shape or form balanced, but those of us who do try to beat it, enjoy doing so even though we know the game is very clearly stacked against us. Kingmaker's Unfair difficulty even has the name "unfair" in the title, that hasn't stopped me or others from enjoying playing the game on it.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.


Yeah, D&D's HP values are not balanced around the idea of surfaces, which means that if you want to include surfaces in the game, you also need to increase the values of monster hitpoints. This would ofc penalize non caster classes, which would also result in you likely having to reduce monster AC values, in order to act as a correcting factor. This seems to more or less match up with the system we have now. Other correcting factors can and should probably be implemented, like the saves which you have pointed out.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.


As for concentration spells, from my perspective the current situation is fine. If they break because you are standing in a surface, the chances are, its as a result of poor play on your part, because it is mostly avoidable. When I did the goblin camp in my current playthrough for example, I did not have concentration break once on hex during the entire fight. By breaking line of sight and taking proper advantage of terrain, maintaining concentration is not a problem. Basically, concentration in the current status quo rewards good gameplay. It adds an extra element of risk/reward to using concentration spells and forces a player to make more careful decisions than they would otherwise, which is imo a good thing.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.

When it comes to spell balance, everyone who is upset about the changes to monster HP seems to forget one thing - You can very easily adjust the HP thresholds of those spells. Double the monster HP? You can double the threshold for sleep as well. Similarly, you can make adjustments to sacred flame.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.


I agree advantage/disadvantage should not be provided for terrain differences, purely because it makes them too easy to acquire. There should either be a much smaller bonus for high ground (+1 or +2) to reward good positioning, or no bonus at all, because there is a more subtle advantage in terms of being able to position better against enemies from above.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.


No complaints here, these should be adjusted.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.


The rules of 5e are intended for a different design space, they are intended to make a game which is played on a tabletop. This has some constraints, for example, you cannot run 1000's of calculations for lots of small details, but it also does allow for spells like wish to exist, because you can come up with inventive and new results for the spell on the fly. If you are adapting the rules for a different design space, in this case, a computer game, it makes sense to take some liberties with the rules to better take advantage of the tools the new medium has available to it.

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.

Last edited by Sharp; 19/10/20 05:27 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



See, now that's the Stabbey I know and love. Totally needless hostile tone in the intro, then some really well argued points in the main body of the post.

I argued against 'frothy' objections to variations from 5e. Arguments like "Fun is relative term. People are here for the DnD 5e rules not some bastardisation of it." which I see all over the place here. Objecting to the smallest variation from 5e. Many people seem to be coming it feedback from that odd angle, as if Larian can't read the ruleset. That's what I'm arguing against, and you yourself have 'strawmanned' my argument.

What you're doing in your main body is exactly what I suggested people focus on (far from 'telling others to shut up') which is focus on what works in *this game* and critique it in game terms. That's what you go on to do, and you do so admirably. I always find your arguments interesting and often well evidenced from lots of thoughtful play time. I agree especially with the HP/AC balance, the rest/battle cycle being off. And I think almost everyone would conceded that shoves are too strong and disengagement is too simple. Those truths flow from gameplay, they need tweaking to be closer to the 5e source.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Vynticator
... if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. ...

It doesn't work in the game hence why we criticise it.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharp

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.


Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

In BG3 there is no such thing. Using my action for the strongest AoE I can throw is not a tactic really, there is nothing to think about. Barrelmancy goes bzzz.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Sharp

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.


Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

In BG3 there is no such thing. Using my action for the strongest AoE I can throw is not a tactic really, there is nothing to think about. Barrelmancy goes bzzz.


You're dead right about barrelmancy. Carrying barrels in inventory has to go, really. It's crazy, even if I did enjoy it on a test playthrough. It's clearly abusive. It detracts from all the core skills of every character, which should be the focus of the game, surely. The best attacks for the wizard shouldn't be stealth/barrel/ignite/shove.



Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Originally Posted by Vynticator
... if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. ...

It doesn't work in the game hence why we criticise it.


Those (gameplay-based) criticisms are not the criticisms on which I was focusing in this post. Many people in the forums are in the habit of criticising change from 5e rules as if that was a problem in an of itself ("Fun is relative term. People are here for the DnD 5e rules not some bastardisation of it." - quite a few posts like this (real) quote around the forums.)

Last edited by Vynticator; 19/10/20 07:41 AM. Reason: closed the brackets
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Vynticator

You're dead right about barrelmancy. Carrying barrels in inventory has to go, really. It's crazy, even if I did enjoy it on a test playthrough. It's clearly abusive. It detracts from all the core skills of every character, which should be the focus of the game, surely. The best attacks for the wizard shouldn't be stealth/barrel/ignite/shove.


100% agree, and it highlights one of the biggest problems with surfaces in BG3: they dominate almost every fight.

Chess is a game with beautifully balanced rules tested over thousands of years. Variations on the standard rules have been tried over the years, but ultimately they all suffer the same problem, which is that the new or modified rules become the focus of the game. It's inescapable, really, given that the standard rules are so intricately tied to each other.

I wouldn't dare suggest that the 5E rules are as balanced as chess, but the same issue applies. Surfaces can be a thing in tabletop D&D, but not in the excessive and overabundant way that Larian has implemented them, to the extent that most battles become an exercise in surface management.

It's not a problem unique to games, either. Imagine if Galadriel's gift to the Fellowship had been a set of assault rifles and a tonne of ammunition - the story would suddenly revolve around that. Introducing a new and substantial presence to something established and tightly constructed will inevitably change the focus to the new thing. These things are pathogens.

Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

Stabbey makes many assumptions, for example, the assumption that adding surfaces does not work in a game where you are expected to go many encounters without resting. As nice as this assumption is, its demonstrably false. Just like any other resource drain, it depends on how they are used. You could have a fight with no surfaces at all which would drain all of your resources to beat it. You can also have a fight which is a single caster and a lot of surfaces and simply dispelling the surfaces or avoiding them, almost automatically wins you the fight.

I also pointed out why, if you want to have surfaces in the game, it makes sense to increase enemy HP values (and possibly decrease AC, although I am fine with high AC as well).

Originally Posted by KingTiki


But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

Surfaces, in a proper implementation of them, have many tactical elements to them. Even in their current implementation, there are the following considerations.
• Do I want to avoid the surface, thus constraining my movement, or do I want to go through them, taking incidental damage.
• If there is not currently a surface on the ground, but I suspect an enemy is capable of applying one, how do I position my characters to minimize the threat from surfaces

And with adjustments (proper tools to deal with surfaces and ideally also a trade off for using them), they would also add.
• Do I want to remove the surface, or perform some other action (A trade off between making the arena less constraining and another action).
• Do I want to apply a surface, or perform some other action.

These are all considerations added by surfaces. I would argue that surfaces in DOS:2 were actually flawed in that you never wanted to remove them, because in terms of action economy, it always took far too much effort to remove them relative to an enemy like an ooze just moving around and spreading them everywhere. Furthermore, because of the armor type, there wasn't really any real threat from the surfaces themselves and you could just ignore them almost all of the time.


Last edited by Sharp; 19/10/20 08:09 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
P
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
P
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Wrathbone
Originally Posted by Vynticator

You're dead right about barrelmancy. Carrying barrels in inventory has to go, really. It's crazy, even if I did enjoy it on a test playthrough. It's clearly abusive. It detracts from all the core skills of every character, which should be the focus of the game, surely. The best attacks for the wizard shouldn't be stealth/barrel/ignite/shove.


100% agree, and it highlights one of the biggest problems with surfaces in BG3: they dominate almost every fight.

Chess is a game with beautifully balanced rules tested over thousands of years. Variations on the standard rules have been tried over the years, but ultimately they all suffer the same problem, which is that the new or modified rules become the focus of the game. It's inescapable, really, given that the standard rules are so intricately tied to each other.

I wouldn't dare suggest that the 5E rules are as balanced as chess, but the same issue applies. Surfaces can be a thing in tabletop D&D, but not in the excessive and overabundant way that Larian has implemented them, to the extent that most battles become an exercise in surface management.

It's not a problem unique to games, either. Imagine if Galadriel's gift to the Fellowship had been a set of assault rifles and a tonne of ammunition - the story would suddenly revolve around that. Introducing a new and substantial presence to something established and tightly constructed will inevitably change the focus to the new thing. These things are pathogens.


Now I really wanna see a LOTR where Frodo and the Fellowship just go marching straight into Mordor with a bunch of M4's and frag grenades

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


I guess the main problem is that everyone is trying not to hurt Larians feelings while losing the capacity to think rationally.



I will not say for everyone, but for me the main thing will be to see the first corrections based on the received feedback in EA, if they ignore it, then for me interest in this game will disappear.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharp

As nice as this assumption is, its demonstrably false.


Just presenting edge cases is not a great argument for a game, where you should be able to play with any given party and the balancing is worked out for that. You already see how they had to come up with new ways to circumvent the rebalancing issues they created, namely the abundance of healing potions and food that heals you. Which in is just another factor, that invalidates balance between the classes, as martial classes get another edge over spellcasters. Martials are restrained by their HP normally. But with healing this abundant you dont really need to rest, so they can go all day long with just basic attacks, while spellcasters would be severely hindered in doing anything meaningful.

Quote

Surfaces, in a proper implementation of them, have many tactical elements to them. Even in their current implementation, there are the following considerations.
• Do I want to avoid the surface, thus constraining my movement, or do I want to go through them, taking incidental damage.
• If there is not currently a surface on the ground, but I suspect an enemy is capable of applying one, how do I position my characters to minimize the threat from surfaces

And with adjustments (proper tools to deal with surfaces and ideally also a trade off for using them), they would also add.
• Do I want to remove the surface, or perform some other action (A trade off between making the arena less constraining and another action).
• Do I want to apply a surface, or perform some other action.


The first two are really shallow and not really a tactical play. Because as long as the surface is not killing you outright, there is no downside. Healing is abundant and just a BA, so what gives? No trade-off really. Even if 1-2 of your PCs die, just rezz them.

The latter two are just a cascade that becomes necessary because of the implementation of surfaces in the first place. And if they get implemented there will be other stuff to rebalance again.

They make it harder with every step to deliver a balanced experience, as they stumble from one "Fix" to another, all the while a mostly balanced option is ignored. As I said, I love DOS. More fun than I had in a long time. But Larian should not be afraid to (mostly) trust the 5e rules as they are. The people at WOTC had some great ideas there, and they paid off immensely. Make the systems work on PC and in the engine and trust the success that is 5e.

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

Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

Stabbey makes many assumptions, for example, the assumption that adding surfaces does not work in a game where you are expected to go many encounters without resting. As nice as this assumption is, its demonstrably false. Just like any other resource drain, it depends on how they are used. You could have a fight with no surfaces at all which would drain all of your resources to beat it. You can also have a fight which is a single caster and a lot of surfaces and simply dispelling the surfaces or avoiding them, almost automatically wins you the fight.

I also pointed out why, if you want to have surfaces in the game, it makes sense to increase enemy HP values (and possibly decrease AC, although I am fine with high AC as well).

Originally Posted by KingTiki


But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

Surfaces, in a proper implementation of them, have many tactical elements to them. Even in their current implementation, there are the following considerations.
• Do I want to avoid the surface, thus constraining my movement, or do I want to go through them, taking incidental damage.
• If there is not currently a surface on the ground, but I suspect an enemy is capable of applying one, how do I position my characters to minimize the threat from surfaces

And with adjustments (proper tools to deal with surfaces and ideally also a trade off for using them), they would also add.
• Do I want to remove the surface, or perform some other action (A trade off between making the arena less constraining and another action).
• Do I want to apply a surface, or perform some other action.

These are all considerations added by surfaces. I would argue that surfaces in DOS:2 were actually flawed in that you never wanted to remove them, because in terms of action economy, it always took far too much effort to remove them relative to an enemy like an ooze just moving around and spreading them everywhere. Furthermore, because of the armor type, there wasn't really any real threat from the surfaces themselves and you could just ignore them almost all of the time.


See the thing that you don't get is this: 5e does not revolve around the management of surfaces and items that create surfaces. It is based around the action economy. While 5e does have some items that would create "surfaces" you will be hard pressed to find them the core of the combat or being widely used because in 5e they are simply less efficient and the system does not emphasise their effects. A good example is the spell "Grease", that spell is a CC spell, its not a "primer" to set it on fire.

That is the issue. BG3 is centered around surface interaction, its not an optional part, it is the very core of the combat system and thats just not what 5e is about.

The moment I found "grenades" in the intro scene I knew where this was going, I played DOS2.

Last edited by CrestOfArtorias; 19/10/20 08:27 AM.
Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Just presenting edge cases is not a great argument for a game, where you should be able to play with any given party and the balancing is worked out for that. You already see how they had to come up with new ways to circumvent the rebalancing issues they created, namely the abundance of healing potions and food that heals you. Which in is just another factor, that invalidates balance between the classes, as martial classes get another edge over spellcasters. Martials are restrained by their HP normally. But with healing this abundant you dont really need to rest, so they can go all day long with just basic attacks, while spellcasters would be severely hindered in doing anything meaningful.


Except its not an edge case. I have finished the entire EA with a single character, not taking advantage of surfaces at all. I have also finished it with a party and the party only had to rest 3 times throughout the entire playthrough. And no, it wasn't because I ate stuff after every fight, its because for most fights you can either alpha strike enemies during a surprise round, giving them no chance at all to respond, or because there are plenty of environmental obstacles you can take advantage of to constrain enemies. The game does not force you to use surfaces at all, you can use them if you wish to. You are also not forced to rest after every encounter. If you can finish the EA with a single character, pretty much any party of 4 will also manage.

Originally Posted by KingTiki


The first two are really shallow and not really a tactical play. Because as long as the surface is not killing you outright, there is no downside. Healing is abundant and just a BA, so what gives? No trade-off really. Even if 1-2 of your PCs die, just rezz them.

The latter two are just a cascade that becomes necessary because of the implementation of surfaces in the first place. And if they get implemented there will be other stuff to rebalance again.

They make it harder with every step to deliver a balanced experience, as they stumble from one "Fix" to another, all the while a mostly balanced option is ignored. As I said, I love DOS. More fun than I had in a long time. But Larian should not be afraid to (mostly) trust the 5e rules as they are. The people at WOTC had some great ideas there, and they paid off immensely. Make the systems work on PC and in the engine and trust the success that is 5e.


Healing costs you a bonus action, which is very definitely not "just a bonus action." If you are a warlock or a ranger, consuming a heal is costing you 1d6 damage from reapplying hex or reapplying hunter's mark. If you are dual wielding, its costing you an additional hit. The overabundance of healing items does not negate the fact that there is a meaningful consideration to make. The correct solution there is very clearly to reduce the number of healing items, so there is a genuine risk of running out of them.

Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias

See the thing that you don't get is this: 5e does not revolve around the management of surfaces and items that create surfaces. It is based around the action economy. While 5e does have some items that would create "surfaces" you will be hard pressed to find them the core of the combat or being widely used because in 5e they are simply less efficient and the system does not emphasise their effects. A good example is the spell "Grease", that spell is a CC spell, its not a "primer" to set it on fire.

That is the issue. BG3 is centered around surface interaction, its not an optional part, it is the very core of the combat system and thats just not what 5e is about.

The moment I found "grenades" in the intro scene I knew where this was going, I played DOS2.

The thing you don't get is, my care for what system of rules they use is absolutely 0. I am mostly interested in playing a game with tactical combat. If a change to the ruleset adds some tactical considerations and makes the combat more interesting from my PoV, I am all for it. I care very little about the story, because if I judge RPGs on their story, I then compare them to books and the writing in games is nowhere near comparable to something like Dostoevsky. The early access is about us as players giving our feedback on what we like/dislike about the game. Obviously, that means that there will be a lot of disagreement, because there will be both players like me, who don't care 1 whit about "the ruleset" as well as players like you, who do.

Last edited by Sharp; 19/10/20 08:54 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharp

Except its not an edge case. I have finished the entire EA with a single character, not taking advantage of surfaces at all. I have also finished it with a party and the party only had to rest 3 times throughout the entire playthrough. And no, it wasn't because I ate stuff after every fight, its because for most fights you can either alpha strike enemies during a surprise round, giving them no chance at all to respond, or because there are plenty of environmental obstacles you can take advantage of to constrain enemies. The game does not force you to use surfaces at all, you can use them if you wish to. You are also not forced to rest after every encounter. If you can finish the EA with a single character, pretty much any party of 4 will also manage.


Powergaming is an edgecase. You have not beaten the game solo on either your first run, no savescumming or doing everything. This kind of meta stuff IS fun, yes. But it is not something you should take as an argument for balance. There are too many encounters that you cannot "see coming" or scout out to just do them solo without reloading a few times to make a strategy.


Quote
Healing costs you a bonus action, which is very definitely not "just a bonus action." If you are a warlock or a ranger, consuming a heal is costing you 1d6 damage from reapplying hex or reapplying hunter's mark. If you are dual wielding, its costing you an additional hit. The overabundance of healing items does not negate the fact that there is a meaningful consideration to make. The correct solution there is very clearly to reduce the number of healing items, so there is a genuine risk of running out of them.


Hex and HM are not a thing you MUST do every round. You are always presenting specific situations, not things that are general. But balance has to work in general.

Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Powergaming is an edgecase. You have not beaten the game solo on either your first run, no savescumming or doing everything. This kind of meta stuff IS fun, yes. But it is not something you should take as an argument for balance. There are too many encounters that you cannot "see coming" or scout out to just do them solo without reloading a few times to make a strategy.
.

You completely missed the point of this paragraph. Which was, you know, that if "that specific absurd case" is possible, than a party of 4, which is far less extreme than the absurd case, is not only possible, but not even difficult. There is nothing in the game forcing you to use surfaces. There is also nothing in the game that forces you to rest after every encounter. Those were the claims that were made. The assumption was, "surfaces don't work in a system where you are expected to go through multiple fights without resting." The funny thing is, to disprove an absolute like that, I only have to present a single counter example (which I did). But even if you look at the game itself and not the hypothetical I presented, its just not the case. You aren't forced to rest after every fight. You can play through multiple fights without resting, yes, even without meta knowledge.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

Hex and HM are not a thing you MUST do every round. You are always presenting specific situations, not things that are general. But balance has to work in general.

The *point* was, that there are many useful bonus actions you could potentially use. There is an opportunity cost to using a heal and on MOST turns, your bonus action would be better used doing something else. I could give other examples if you want them, but since it seems you don't like specific examples, think of it in terms of, "out of the list of all the things you could possibly do with a bonus action, healing yourself does the least to either mitigate damage or deal damage to the enemy." In combat, you want to spend the amount minimum of time possible healing yourself, since its only extending the fight and leading you to take more damage over all.

Last edited by Sharp; 19/10/20 09:20 AM.
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Nicou 

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