Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2020
E
Evandir Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
It can be pretty difficult to maintain concentration in BG3, even as a character with a good AC and CON modifier. I know this from experience, as I've played a light cleric gold dwarf with 19 AC, +2 CON, and Warding Flare. This can be contributed to the sheer amount of unavoidable chip damage you face, that the original concentration save wasn't balanced around. For those unaware, the 5e concentration CON save is a saving throw that a caster must make to maintain concentration on a spell, whenever they take damage while concentrating on a spell. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
This means that whether you take 1 damage or 20 damage, you still have to roll at least a 10 after modifiers and maybe proficiency to be able to keep your spell up. This is a much bigger deal in BG3 than it is in 5e, because you have many more chances to be hit by 3 damage in BG3 than in 5e. It feels bad to lose your concentration to chip damage. It shouldn't be impossible, but it should be harder than it is.

My suggestion is that if Larian wishes to keep the multitude of unavoidable damage sources coming in, the minimum DC for the saving throw could be reduced to help casters feel better about using their concentration. For instance, if the DC equaled 8 or half the damage you take, it would help casters deal with the greater sources of chip damage, while also keeping the DC the same once you reach more than 20 damage in a hit.(I just threw 8 out there as an example. I have no idea if that's mathematically balanced.)

TLDR: Make concentration saves easier to pass against smaller damage sources. This may help balance out the increased amount of concentration saves that are made.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I can understand your frustration but in all honesty spellcasters are notorious strong in D&D and the mechanic is working faithfully to pen and paper. You can take just as much chip damage in pen and paper. I wouldn't be adverse to change or including an item/feat that aided in this but I don't think eliminating chip damage is the way forward.

Last edited by Argonaut; 19/10/20 12:51 AM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
That's what happens when you try fusing 2 systems that are incompatible with each other wink

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
That's what happens when you try fusing 2 systems that are incompatible with each other wink


Rofl, have you said anything good about this game?


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
O
stranger
Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with argonaut. Chip damage is pretty much constant in any format. We cop it all the time in our tabletop games. This is at least ONE of the few things that Larian has actually stayed true to.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
That's what happens when you try fusing 2 systems that are incompatible with each other wink


Rofl, have you said anything good about this game?


Obviously, you just mistakingly take it as negatives for some reason. Everyone loves having barrels weird

Joined: Oct 2020
O
stranger
Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
That's what happens when you try fusing 2 systems that are incompatible with each other wink

I dont really seem them as incompatible, the only issue is actual roleplaying. Mechanically this is easily adaptable.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
That's what happens when you try fusing 2 systems that are incompatible with each other wink

Dangerously Based.


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Argonaut
I can understand your frustration but in all honesty spellcasters are notorious strong in D&D and the mechanic is working faithfully to pen and paper. You can take just as much chip damage in pen and paper.


So your DM plays with the "Fire bolt creates a fire surface on hit or miss, take an unavoidable 1d4 burning damage now and at the start of your next turn" rule? I assume he also gives all the goblins acid arrows, fire arrows, and Alchemists's fire as well, and fill the encounters full of explosive barrels (no save to avoid damage)? That's fascinating, tell us more.



Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Argonaut
I can understand your frustration but in all honesty spellcasters are notorious strong in D&D and the mechanic is working faithfully to pen and paper. You can take just as much chip damage in pen and paper.


So your DM plays with the "Fire bolt creates a fire surface on hit or miss, take an unavoidable 1d4 burning damage now and at the start of your next turn" rule? I assume he also gives all the goblins acid arrows, fire arrows, and Alchemists's fire as well, and fill the encounters full of explosive barrels (no save to avoid damage)? That's fascinating, tell us more.



You are conflating one problem with another. Chip damage and concentration checks are still working as intended and it is the changes Larian has included and made to the system that are giving you grief. Rather than change the system further why not look to remove these alterations as they are the source of the problem?


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Argonaut
I can understand your frustration but in all honesty spellcasters are notorious strong in D&D and the mechanic is working faithfully to pen and paper. You can take just as much chip damage in pen and paper.


So your DM plays with the "Fire bolt creates a fire surface on hit or miss, take an unavoidable 1d4 burning damage now and at the start of your next turn" rule? I assume he also gives all the goblins acid arrows, fire arrows, and Alchemists's fire as well, and fill the encounters full of explosive barrels (no save to avoid damage)? That's fascinating, tell us more.




But what if the DM is Swen Vincke?

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Argonaut
You are conflating one problem with another. Chip damage and concentration checks are still working as intended and it is the changes Larian has included and made to the system that are giving you grief. Rather than change the system further why not look to remove these alterations as they are the source of the problem?


Yes, needing to make CON checks for taking chip damage is normal. I was pointing out that because there are many additional sources of chip damage in BG 3 compared to pan and paper, that increases the number of CON checks you need to make. The more checks you make, the greater the chance you fail them.

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

Yes, needing to make CON checks for taking chip damage is normal. I was pointing out that because there are many additional sources of chip damage in BG 3 compared to pan and paper, that increases the number of CON checks you need to make. The more checks you make, the greater the chance you fail them.

I am aware, but the OP is asking to change how concentration works as a mechanic which is a counterintuitive suggestion for the reasons I outlined.


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Argonaut
I am aware, but the OP is asking to change how concentration works as a mechanic which is a counterintuitive suggestion for the reasons I outlined.


I'll agree with that. The OP correctly identified a problem, but there's probably a better solution.

Joined: Oct 2020
E
Evandir Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't disagree that their might be a better solution, but i think its an issue that should be brainstormed on.

Joined: Oct 2020
E
Evandir Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Stabbey

Yes, needing to make CON checks for taking chip damage is normal. I was pointing out that because there are many additional sources of chip damage in BG 3 compared to pan and paper, that increases the number of CON checks you need to make. The more checks you make, the greater the chance you fail them.

I am aware, but the OP is asking to change how concentration works as a mechanic which is a counterintuitive suggestion for the reasons I outlined.


I never suggested to change how it works as a mechanic. I suggested to tweak the numbers of the mechanic to adjust to the increase of chip damage. I've played 5e as well. Every table is different and that's good, but the amount of chip damage in this game is greatly skewed to the extreme side with the way surfaces work. Now you could just say,"fix surfaces," but Larian clearly has a direction they'd prefer to go with them. If things continue to head in that direction, relating systems will take a hit. I'd prefer that there were measures put in place to balance the increased chance of losing concentration.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
War Caster feat is only thing any caster need, to be able easily maintain concentration.

Joined: Oct 2020
E
Evandir Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
War Caster feat is only thing any caster need, to be able easily maintain concentration.


I agree that War Caster and Resilient: CON are great feats to help maintain concentration. However, I don't think it will feel good to be punished harder in BG3 than in 5e, because you haven't picked up a feat yet.
Also keep in mind that depending on where the level cutoff is, most spellcasters only get 2-3 ASI's, and still need to improve their spellcasting modifier.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Evandir
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
War Caster feat is only thing any caster need, to be able easily maintain concentration.


I agree that War Caster and Resilient: CON are great feats to help maintain concentration. However, I don't think it will feel good to be punished harder in BG3 than in 5e, because you haven't picked up a feat yet.
Also keep in mind that depending on where the level cutoff is, most spellcasters only get 2-3 ASI's, and still need to improve their spellcasting modifier.

That's how RPGs are made. You want something - you invest in it. Not all spellcasters desperately needs to maintain concentration on spells.

If they would put bladesingers - they can maintain concentration even easier. And finally there is Tenser Transformation spell, that shortly allow spells caster easily make any constitution rolls.

On practice i know that Bladesinger + War Caster + TT = nearly impossible to fail concentration (you would sooner will be downed to 0hp).

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Let's do our best to keep suggestion conversations on point!

A thought for adjusting the constant concentration checks for incoming damage -- the DC adjustment for direct damage from an enemy attack should remain the same; perhaps lower the DC for damage over time environmental effects, though?

Page 1 of 2 1 2

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