Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
A
Banned
Offline
Banned
A
Joined: Oct 2020
It sounds like the OP has either...
  • A. Never played DnD as intended. or/and
  • B. Has or is a DM who doesn't enforce/understand the rules. or/and
  • C. Doesn't understand item balance. And probable every player in the session has a dragon mask meant only for NPCs. And other fully decked out chars at level 1. (Scratch that. They probable never played a level 1 character, and always started at level 20. And probable also use weighted dice.)


Look the ground effects everything in this game. Is not a fun way to play. Not for me anyways. And DnD has plenty of area of effect stuff in the game. Such as:
  • Difficult terrain. And ways to make difficult terrain threw spells and items. Like Ball barring.
  • Has many utility AOE spells. Like darkness.
  • Or terrain altering/Obstacle spells like wall of force.
  • etc...


I have never finished either of the divinity games. Why? As I grew very tired of all the aoe ground effects every battle. Some here and there is ok. But every battle? I get it if you like that crap than fine. It isn't expected in D&D. It wasn't expect in baldurs gate 1 or 2. I am sad to see it be pretty much the only way to do combat in baldurs gate 3. And the characters/companions choices didn't seem that great either. I mean personalities wise. And I loved Minsc BG 1 & 2. Grabed that guy every play threw. Hell the only char I remember not liking was Imoen. In BG 3 I don't like any of the characters so far. BG 3 has fewer characters too?

Sorry got side tracked. Back to combat.
While elevation bonuses are okish. They are a bit over powered in this game. And I would rather see cover from D&D work instead. My guy shot a railing he was leaning against for example... Like really? I guess it is better to stand on it instead of beside it.

I was looking forward to a D&D game. What we got is a mix of divinity and D&D. And divinity rules win/won in most things. At least from what I experienced from early access. I would not call this game the closest thing to D&D. Not even the dialog or narrative options seem that close to D&D to me. Like characters get mad at you for your dialog option choice to a completely different character. Despite not being anywhere where near the conversation. This is a far cray from D&D. And is much more like Divinity 3 than Baldurs Gate 3.

Hey look at this spell... Oh wait you can't cast it in combat... And can change prepared spells on the fly. Why ever have it prepared? I can still cast it outside combat regardless!?!?!? Yah Divinity version of D&D rules aren't that great in my opinion. And it has taken away more from the game then it adds.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

At current, whomever starts highest wins due to advantage spam, which means that you can trivialize encounters by approaching them from the highest elevation possible. Those that force you into set positions are simply unfair.

^So this is core rules btw. So you complain about core rules DnD being dumb and agree with me - perfect - i agree. Core rules are dumb. Get on the hill win game.

Originally Posted by SilverSaint

At current, enemies have far too much HP and far too little AC, meaning you hit constantly but it takes multiple hits to kill even level 1 foes, even from spells specialized in that task.

You cant make consistent difficulty in high RNG evnvironments. Increasing AC is a terrible solution.
While higher health "technically" is a nerf to spells - "in practice" (as you so wonderfully put it) the best things in the game right now (that is not obviously a bug) are spells and by a huge margin. Magic Missile with amulet, Hex with Scorching ray and so on. Magic right now is the dominant strategy already. So "in practice" youre not thinking at all.

It's not a core rule.

I'd be fine with nerfing spells as a real decision, but increasing HP also increases combat duration. Goblins should die quicker to keep combat fast at low levels. One solid greatsword attack should consistently kill them-coming from other games or the tabletop, it's impossible to go back.

The current rest system rewards spells because it's also broken. If spell slots mattered, then this would be different.

And I do apologize for being a bit insulting originally, by the by.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game.
I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).

I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.

Surfaces are a great example of an interesting mechanic added to the dull DnD System. And i agree - Advantage and Light are 2 good mechanics that actually come from the core rules.
But just to show the point im trying to make a bit more...

Core DnD does not consider positioning. No flanking, no "backstabs" in the literal sense. Thats horrible for tactical combat. The only thing core rules DnD cares about is adjacent allies - and for pen and paper that is totally fine because it simplifies combat and in pen and paper not everyone runs maps and figures. But here the game is literally you being a "figure on a map"


Here's the problem. You aren't actually thinking.

At all. About anything you've said. None of it in practice.

At current, everyone in melee has advantage unless your back is to a wall, at all times. Why? The backstabbing and disengage systems are so utterly, hilariously broken that there is no reason not to get behind an enemy and backstab them. Literally no reason not to.

At current, the only reason to every take AOO is because the game either glitched, or the pathfinding is broken. Bonus action disengage/jump sees to that.

At current, the only reason to use weapons is nostalgia. Firebolt-even on characters with no skill in using magic-is a better damage dealer because of how completely broken fire surfaces are. Misses do more damage than hits with other abilities. Concentration is a joke because of it.

At current, whomever starts highest wins due to advantage spam, which means that you can trivialize encounters by approaching them from the highest elevation possible. Those that force you into set positions are simply unfair.

At current, enemies have far too much HP and far too little AC, meaning you hit constantly but it takes multiple hits to kill even level 1 foes, even from spells specialized in that task.

Is this fixable? Sure. Make disengaging (and if jump needs to be the source of disengage, jumping) an action instead of a bonus action. Remove advantage from backstabbing unless you also actually flank (creatures at opposite locations), or just remove it altogether, or ideally model dynamic facing as characters move relative to each other. Make it so surfaces deal less damage by more than half, make it so that cantrips either make surfaces or do damage and never both, and make it so that fire surfaces either set you on fire (to deal damage) or straight deal damage, not both. Also fix that ice surfaces eat turns-they should remove actions, not turns. Make enemy HP and AC reflect 5e rules unless there is a good reason not to. Remove advantage from elevation-keep disadvantage due to elevation to simulate cover, but not advantage.

I have no problem with surfaces as a theoretical. I have no problem with backstabbing as a theoretical, if it actually requires thought to use. I am fine with changes, but at current these things are simply "how to win". Not "how to use tactics". If there is a right decision in all circumstances, it's not tactics. You simply understand how they broke the system and can exploit it, or you don't and struggle against enemies that do.


All of this gets a +1 from me.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Personally, I hope the game sticks to DnD rules as much possible, for several reasons:
1. There is no other game that does that. There are plenty of games that try to do original things. I like the diversity.
2. BG3 does not seem to focus mainly on combat. The story is interesting, the characters are well written and voiced, and the environment is beautiful. I enjoy the immersion and don't want it to fall into a hack&slash game where all effort is in combat.
3. I have an emotional connection to DnD which definitely adds to the experience. I didn't finish DoS even though I thought it was a great game because I was not connected to the world and system.
4. If Larian do too many changes they will change the game closer and closer to DoS - it would be natural for them (the game already have strong DoS vibes). This directly hurts the nostalgic feeling I want from a BG game.
5. I really want to be able to plan a character using the DnD resources and being it to life in the game.

Last edited by Alon Binyamin; 22/10/20 02:15 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Has no one ever in the history of pen and paper d&d ever said "I throw a jar of oil on the ground and light it on fire" and the DM had to figure out what the damage per turn fire does? LIke ever?
It is not in the rule book on having a skill that makes fire by default, but with table top you can describe your actions and state your intent.

The DM then can determine based off ruleset the success and damage those actions may do (or could just overrule it with DM actions and say it did or did not work without a dice roll).

So in this scenario, Larian is the DM and they are determining the application of the 5e rules and adapting them to match the environment they created.

Just because you never thought to throw fire on the ground doesn't mean it can't be done in 5e.

I looked it up and apparently the 5e rule state on page 249 that falling in a fire might do 1d10 - 24d10 depending on the severity of the improvised damage from hot coals and a pit of fire to elemental plane fire dmg, so imagine that type of fire dmg, this is tame in comparison.

Now useful feedback is:
- Surface effects stay TOO long.
- Saving Throw per turn in surface effects (like oil/fire/poison) to see if you don't take damage or slip or fall (this already exists, but fire seems the easiest to get use out of)
- Maybe make Firebolt and such fire effect apply on the target but not on the ground, unless specifically ground targeted (then the target only takes dmg from spell application and not both spell and ground).
- Elevation advantage/disadvantage vs Cover fire system (I'm fine with elevation, but no strong decision one way or the other)
- Always strafing around to get behind to gain advantage (maybe make any flanking movement in melee range cause a roll for dex so that not everyone is spinning around or jumping around in combat?)


Overall I actually like what is done in the game, but in order to listen and compromise instead of 2 sides just shouting at each other, I feel evaluating these topics like this would help both types of players.

Last edited by CMF; 22/10/20 02:33 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
The less true the game ends up being to the actual ruleset the better.

DnD is absolute trash for combat. Its poorly balanced, it has no interesting mechanics, it does absolutely nothing thats worth playing. Everything that is interesting about it comes from unique actions of the player which are not part of the core rules.

Combat is a sidenote in any decent campaign. There are several modules and games(tabletop) that do core combat rules way better.

FFS dont listen to people asking for "1 to 1 implementation". Its awful.


>Actively and knowingly purchases and plays a D&D game
>Doesn't like how it's supposed to represent tabletop D&D
>Mad when people say it should be more like tabletop D&D and stay true to its vision
>Complains about D&D combat being limited while playing a D&D game that's even more limited in its mechanics than tabletop is

lol what
And here I thought there wouldn't be trolls in the Early Access version.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Noraver
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
The less true the game ends up being to the actual ruleset the better.

DnD is absolute trash for combat. Its poorly balanced, it has no interesting mechanics, it does absolutely nothing thats worth playing. Everything that is interesting about it comes from unique actions of the player which are not part of the core rules.

Combat is a sidenote in any decent campaign. There are several modules and games(tabletop) that do core combat rules way better.

FFS dont listen to people asking for "1 to 1 implementation". Its awful.


>Actively and knowingly purchases and plays a D&D game
>Doesn't like how it's supposed to represent tabletop D&D
>Mad when people say it should be more like tabletop D&D and stay true to its vision
>Complains about D&D combat being limited while playing a D&D game that's even more limited in its mechanics than tabletop is

lol what
And here I thought there wouldn't be trolls in the Early Access version.


+1

I’ll say it again, there are CORE classes that rely and advantage system as Barbarians. Dishing that every single turn shows Larian didn’t think straight when altering the battle system in the long run OR Larian don’t care about balance at all.
In the end we’ll see barbarian reckless attack granting +15 damage instead an advantage and that’ll snowball through the entire class. Is this videogame adaptation because the rules are way too complex? I guess not.

Joined: Sep 2017
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
The less true the game ends up being to the actual ruleset the better.

DnD is absolute trash for combat. Its poorly balanced, it has no interesting mechanics, it does absolutely nothing thats worth playing. Everything that is interesting about it comes from unique actions of the player which are not part of the core rules.

Combat is a sidenote in any decent campaign. There are several modules and games(tabletop) that do core combat rules way better.

FFS dont listen to people asking for "1 to 1 implementation". Its awful.


I can already tell this comes from person who never really played or learnt DnD rules in combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Product has been marketed as a WOTC D&D product, OP I respectfully disagree with your statement. You might ask for a story mode difficulty where is completely disregard the 5E rules. I bought this game for 5E and Larian as the "Dungeon Master"

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I completely disagree with you on the core mechanics of D&D. It isn't my favorite TTRPG (though it is my favorite version of D&D) but it's pretty good on combat for the most part. That said, I am also thoroughly enjoying the combat of BG3.

There is some polishing here and there, but nothing too big.

The only issue I'm having right now is with how they implement skills in some of the dialogue trees. Everything else is lovely and I'm hoping to see subclasses and races from the supplements further down the way.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CMF
Has no one ever in the history of pen and paper d&d ever said "I throw a jar of oil on the ground and light it on fire" and the DM had to figure out what the damage per turn fire does? LIke ever?
It is not in the rule book on having a skill that makes fire by default, but with table top you can describe your actions and state your intent.

The DM then can determine based off ruleset the success and damage those actions may do (or could just overrule it with DM actions and say it did or did not work without a dice roll).

So in this scenario, Larian is the DM and they are determining the application of the 5e rules and adapting them to match the environment they created.

Just because you never thought to throw fire on the ground doesn't mean it can't be done in 5e.

I looked it up and apparently the 5e rule state on page 249 that falling in a fire might do 1d10 - 24d10 depending on the severity of the improvised damage from hot coals and a pit of fire to elemental plane fire dmg, so imagine that type of fire dmg, this is tame in comparison.

Now useful feedback is:
- Surface effects stay TOO long.
- Saving Throw per turn in surface effects (like oil/fire/poison) to see if you don't take damage or slip or fall (this already exists, but fire seems the easiest to get use out of)
- Maybe make Firebolt and such fire effect apply on the target but not on the ground, unless specifically ground targeted (then the target only takes dmg from spell application and not both spell and ground).
- Elevation advantage/disadvantage vs Cover fire system (I'm fine with elevation, but no strong decision one way or the other)
- Always strafing around to get behind to gain advantage (maybe make any flanking movement in melee range cause a roll for dex so that not everyone is spinning around or jumping around in combat?)


Overall I actually like what is done in the game, but in order to listen and compromise instead of 2 sides just shouting at each other, I feel evaluating these topics like this would help both types of players.

There actually are specific rules for throwing oil on the ground and setting it on fire. It deals a straight 5 fire damage to a creature that enters or ends its turn in the fire, and burns for 2 turns. It doesen't set you on fire or anything.

This is worded such so that if you set it on fire at a creature feet it can move out of it, because the correct way to do that is to hit the creature in which case they take 5 more fire damage from the next fire attack. It's an area denial tool, not a "I win" tool. Fire surfaces right now are "I win".

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah DnD has only been developed over thirty years of testing. Completely unbalanced.

Last edited by simsurf; 23/10/20 03:15 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by simsurf
Yeah DnD has only been developed over thirty of testing. Completely unbalanced.


50*


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
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
This is worded such so that if you set it on fire at a creature feet it can move out of it, because the correct way to do that is to hit the creature in which case they take 5 more fire damage from the next fire attack. It's an area denial tool, not a "I win" tool. Fire surfaces right now are "I win".


Funniest thing is, that, of all the systems, it's 5e they try to make those surface shenanigans work with, where lingering effects have ben severely toned down from previous versions... if they added stuff like that to, say, 3.5, it wouldn't have been nearly as big of a problem.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
This is worded such so that if you set it on fire at a creature feet it can move out of it, because the correct way to do that is to hit the creature in which case they take 5 more fire damage from the next fire attack. It's an area denial tool, not a "I win" tool. Fire surfaces right now are "I win".


Funniest thing is, that, of all the systems, it's 5e they try to make those surface shenanigans work with, where lingering effects have ben severely toned down from previous versions... if they added stuff like that to, say, 3.5, it wouldn't have been nearly as big of a problem.


There are a lot of lingering locational effects in D&D 5e. And it's fairly easy to work in alchemical versions. Alchemist's fire is already in. The differences between grenades and spells are usually DC and radius. And around about 6th level, spells start seriously outpacing alchemical grenades.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Thrythlind
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
This is worded such so that if you set it on fire at a creature feet it can move out of it, because the correct way to do that is to hit the creature in which case they take 5 more fire damage from the next fire attack. It's an area denial tool, not a "I win" tool. Fire surfaces right now are "I win".


Funniest thing is, that, of all the systems, it's 5e they try to make those surface shenanigans work with, where lingering effects have ben severely toned down from previous versions... if they added stuff like that to, say, 3.5, it wouldn't have been nearly as big of a problem.


There are a lot of lingering locational effects in D&D 5e. And it's fairly easy to work in alchemical versions. Alchemist's fire is already in. The differences between grenades and spells are usually DC and radius. And around about 6th level, spells start seriously outpacing alchemical grenades.


Yes, but especially at low levels, those effects are not long lasting and easily overcome, they usually have only minor impact on battles.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by Thrythlind
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
This is worded such so that if you set it on fire at a creature feet it can move out of it, because the correct way to do that is to hit the creature in which case they take 5 more fire damage from the next fire attack. It's an area denial tool, not a "I win" tool. Fire surfaces right now are "I win".


Funniest thing is, that, of all the systems, it's 5e they try to make those surface shenanigans work with, where lingering effects have ben severely toned down from previous versions... if they added stuff like that to, say, 3.5, it wouldn't have been nearly as big of a problem.


There are a lot of lingering locational effects in D&D 5e. And it's fairly easy to work in alchemical versions. Alchemist's fire is already in. The differences between grenades and spells are usually DC and radius. And around about 6th level, spells start seriously outpacing alchemical grenades.


Yes, but especially at low levels, those effects are not long lasting and easily overcome, they usually have only minor impact on battles.


I haven't seen any of the surface effects in this game last longer than one round....maybe 2. That's on par with the grenades in tabletop. It may just seem longer in battles with more participants, because a round with a lot of participants takes longer than one with fewer.

Last edited by Thrythlind; 23/10/20 12:52 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Oct 2020
Wow a man, You understands that the system is flawed, i'm pretty sure the Larian spice is what DnD really needs. So if people will keep their fingers out of the pie, The game will turn out fine. Report bugs and only suggest things that really need fixed, or improved features. Not whats is not 100% DnD.

Last edited by kazzfire; 23/10/20 04:18 AM. Reason: typo and was un clear
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kazzfire
wow a man you understands that a system is flawed, i'm pretty sure the larian spice is what DnD really needs so if people will keep their fingers out of the pie the game will turn out fine report bugs and only suggest things that really need fixed not whats not like DnD.


Yes sir! ...wait, who are you again? wink

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
So per the case of fire dmg in game (1-4 dmg per turn) and fire dmg on tabletop (5 dmg static? per turn) it is consistent?

The big suggestion I think would make everyone happy is to not let firebolt create a surface AND do direct damage at the same time. At that point it is double dipping direct damage and surface damage (1d6 + 1d4 = approx 2-10 dmg). BUT isn't 5e firebolt 1d10 dmg? so does that not equal out? The biggest case against it doing surface is it can turn firebolt into an AE spell if targets are in a flammable surface.

If anything, Larian's current design for firebolt may make it less useful at higher levels. I looked it up and 5e has firebolt doing 2d10 at 5th lvl, 3d10 at 11th lvl, and 4d10 at 17th lvl.

Right now if Larian were to increase the dmg die by 2/3/4 it would only be 2d6/3d6/4d6 while fire dmg would conceivably keep doing 1d4.

So at 17th level Larian's firebolt would do about 5-28 max dmg (4d6 + 1d4) and 5e firebolt would do 4-40 dmg (4d10).

Last edited by CMF; 23/10/20 02:20 AM.
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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