Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
The difference between throwing a pot of Oil on to the ground and lightning it on fire in 5e...

and the current game of BG 3...

Is the sheer *amount* of fire on the ground. Yes, you absolutely can encounter burning ground in 5e. The difference is that it doesn't happen *ever*, *SINGLE* fight. Surfaces don't rule combat in 5e, they absolutely rule combat in BG 3. That and Bonus Action Shove. Literally nothing else is even remotely as powerful. That is the problem.

Surfaces occasionally? That's fine, there are spells that specifically create them and they are a highly unique and costly resource.

Surfaces like they are in BG 3? No, that makes it DoS 3. Stop.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Yes, but especially at low levels, those effects are not long lasting and easily overcome, they usually have only minor impact on battles.


This. And you wouldn't expect every goblin you encounter to be carrying around a grenade, or special arrow, and/or be a caster. Especially with the sheer numbers in encounters. There's a few changes that up the importance of surfaces in the system, for example the changes to firebolt, but it's not just system but encounter design that emphasises surfaces much more where they already exist in the system.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
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.

You can also throw the oil at a target, covering them instead of the ground. You just have to hit them with a range attack w/an improvised weapon.
Originally Posted by CMF
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?

If you throw oil at a target and then set it on fire (firebolt=1d10 damage), that is 2 actions for 15.5 damage (5 "on fire" damage for 2 turns, 5.5 for firebolt)
If you throw oil at the ground and then set it on fire, that is 2 actions for 5 damage (assuming the enemy stays in the pool of oil), but you get a bit of battlefield control.

In BG3, you can cast firebolt at a target which sets them *and* the ground on fire. They are set on fire for 2(?) turns. That is 1d6+1d4+1d4=8.5 damage for the cost of 1 action, which is comparable to 5e oil+firebolt's 15.5 damage for 2 actions. Seems fine...

But! BG3's firebolt also sets the ground on fire, and you can do this every turn. (I believe that alchemist's fire in BG3 also sets the ground on fire, whereas in 5e it only sets a single enemy on fire).
In addition, in BG3 if you miss with firebolt, you still set the ground on fire. In 5e, if you miss either the oil flask throw OR the firebolt, the enemy does not get set on fire. BG3 allows you to, in effect, cover a person *and* the ground in oil/fire at the same time for a similar action cost.

Conclusion: In BG3 it is easier to deal direct fire damage to enemies and much easier to cover the ground in fire surfaces.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Do you think that fire surfaces will be depreciated as the game advances and levels/spells overcome it? Take for example the changes to firebolt being weaker in Larian's version at max level possibly doing 4d6 with fire effect 1d4 x2 (initial application and next turn dmg) vs 5e doing flat 4d10.

6-32 dmg with 2 turns of fire surface (I think thats about 19.32 avg?)
1-40 dmg with 1 application of direct dmg (20.5 avg?)

In scenarios where the ground can't be lit on fire due to blood/water/liquids/mist/wet conditions firebolt is even more depreciated in Larian's version.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
LOL, how they can allow this low quality bait threads to even exist. Shame on you Larian.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CMF
Do you think that fire surfaces will be depreciated as the game advances and levels/spells overcome it? Take for example the changes to firebolt being weaker in Larian's version at max level possibly doing 4d6 with fire effect 1d4 x2 (initial application and next turn dmg) vs 5e doing flat 4d10.

6-32 dmg with 2 turns of fire surface (I think thats about 19.32 avg?)
1-40 dmg with 1 application of direct dmg (20.5 avg?)

In scenarios where the ground can't be lit on fire due to blood/water/liquids/mist/wet conditions firebolt is even more depreciated in Larian's version.


So, why do it all then? Fire Bolt is supposed to be a caster single target damage standard ranged attack... it is balanced to go up in damage as casters advance in levels, to keep them competitive with other classe's (ranged) capabilities outside of their limited spell casting resource. Almost every other cantrip has some form of side effect (usually debuffs) that allow saves. There are also multiple other cantrips that deal with generation/spread of fire, specifically not rolled into Firebolt, to keep the balance.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
That didn't really address the question I posed though. In Larian's version firebolt gets weaker as you level. In 5e edition it grows with you as you level.

I am actually for firebolt only doing first dmg to the target and not causing ground effect unless specifically cast on the ground. Honestly I am fine with it being raw 5e version too. I am not against surfaces, as people act like it is unheard of, yet we just stated it can be done in 5e with multiple DM determined actions and choices to pick a damage roll type.

I do agree that Larian's version has a lot of utility packed into it for such a low cost spell/cantrip. I am fine with either application, but Larian's is stronger to start with, yet I wanted to point out it gets weaker as the game progresses.

As for the food meme above, you can only eat one food per a bonus action and its equivalent of a potion of healing doing somewhere between 1 to as high as 10 hp from what I have seen, as well as not scaling as you level, so its good now but almost worthless later (much like a majority of these changes it seems). Being flagrantly exaggerated makes you sound petty.

The availability of food diminishes the requisite of resting or having a healer in the party to keep going, so that is a different argument that can be held. Some have pointed out that by moving cleric/healer away from heal bot and party maintenance they can now do more damage and debuffs in combat instead of banking spells for post combat heals.

In the end I am actually FOR more 5e adherence, but the arguments against Larian's application are mostly just complaints that it isn't how people like because it's not how they D&D or it isn't like BG1&2. If there is a counter argument to be held it needs to be rooted in tangible facts and objectivity, not just feelings.

I am content with the current mechanics of BG3, but there are for sure bugs that need to be fleshed out like offhand weapons all applying bonuses regardless of traits or not, or warlock devil's sight not working at all apparently.

Last edited by CMF; 23/10/20 06:25 AM.
Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by CMF
*snip*

...the arguments against Larian's application are mostly just complaints that it isn't how people like because it's not how they D&D or it isn't like BG1&2. If there is a counter argument to be held it needs to be rooted in tangible facts and objectivity, not just feelings.



Two things:

1. There are lots of counter-argumetns rooted in tangible facts and objectivity. Just because you didn't read the full thread or other similar ones on this forum, doesn't mean they don't exist.

2. The game has been both marketed as a D&D 5e game *and* a successor to the Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 series. They choose to use the name. If they wanted to make DoS 3, they should have made that. Larian choose to tap into the easy built in community and marketing by making a game based on the most popular table top ruleset *ever*, and one of the most highly acclaimed and longest sustained cRPGs of all time. It is 100% okay to critique the game for not feeling like a D&D game nor a BG game, and for absolutely feeling like a DoS sequel instead.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
I read all the arguments and I continue to read them. The unfathomable pushback for any deviations seems overly dramatic to me and excessive on part of the players. I understand the want to keep things as "true" as possible, but I am open to interpretation and adjustments (as should any DM adjust according to the group and setting?).

Some rules should be hard rules, some rules are baseline and can be adjusted. I guess you could say I'm more chaotic good while a lot of you are lawful good?

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CMF
I read all the arguments and I continue to read them. The unfathomable pushback for any deviations seems overly dramatic to me and excessive on part of the players. I understand the want to keep things as "true" as possible, but I am open to interpretation and adjustments (as should any DM adjust according to the group and setting?).

Some rules should be hard rules, some rules are baseline and can be adjusted. I guess you could say I'm more chaotic good while a lot of you are lawful good?


Nope, since the game has no alignment system to begin with... wink

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Except these changes aren't good. They aren't even well intentioned in the less direct meaning of 'good'. They are made to make the game play and feel more like DoS, and see my previous point #2 why that is bad for BG 3.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by CMF
I read all the arguments and I continue to read them. The unfathomable pushback for any deviations seems overly dramatic to me and excessive on part of the players. I understand the want to keep things as "true" as possible, but I am open to interpretation and adjustments (as should any DM adjust according to the group and setting?).

Some rules should be hard rules, some rules are baseline and can be adjusted. I guess you could say I'm more chaotic good while a lot of you are lawful good?


Nope, since the game has no alignment system to begin with... wink



wink

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Except these changes aren't good. They aren't even well intentioned in the less direct meaning of 'good'. They are made to make the game play and feel more like DoS, and see my previous point #2 why that is bad for BG 3.



That's where the subjectivity comes in. BG 1&2 were of an older edition of D&D rulesets and even then there were adaptations made in that game that differed from the ruleset.

Through the success of DoS 1 & 2 they Larian was recognized as bringing back that "old school" RPG combat back into the mainstream, so much so they were compared to BG 1 & 2 and were encouraged to keep going and have now taken over for a BG3. If the gameplay was good enough for people to recognize them then, and then when they do what got them here again, why is there a sudden rejection from the community?

A lot of adaptations of their DoS engine have been adjusted to be closer to 5e rules, but there are changes they made to keep their own flavor as well.

Subjectivity is on if it is good or bad.

Broken mechanics on the other hand very well should be addressed or things that are overpowered to the point it is game breaking.

The emotions on many make them feel betrayed by not a perfect rendition of 5e rules by a bible. Adjustments are made to match 5e without having to completely rewrite their engine from scratch, and I am sure there is some amount of shoehorning going on for some mechanics.

Firebolt on the other hand I can go either way on. Surfaces as a whole do not bother me. Shove being a bonus action may be too powerful with the high inclusion of elevation in the game and the dramatic distance shove moves a target. Throwing enemies is fun and strength based but again is abusable, and probably should be adjusted more for a roll for success or by adding grapple prior to a throw maybe? Dipping weapons I think is probably bad as a design as a whole.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CMF
Through the success of DoS 1 & 2 they Larian was recognized as bringing back that "old school" RPG combat back into the mainstream, so much so they were compared to BG 1 & 2 and were encouraged to keep going and have now taken over for a BG3. If the gameplay was good enough for people to recognize them then, and then when they do what got them here again, why is there a sudden rejection from the community?


Because, while what they did with the DOS series (well, DOS2 really) might have gotten them this gig from WotC, it didn't get them the media attention and the 1 million EA sales, that was the Baldur's Gate and D&D names...

Last edited by WarBaby2; 23/10/20 08:03 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
The surface effects are fine except fire. Removing them will only make the game worse.
Sticking to the basic rules too closely will not be good for the game in the long run.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 23/10/20 08:09 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The surface effects are fine except fire. Removing them will only make the game worse.
Sticking to the basic rules too closely will not be good for the game in the long run.


People keep saying that, but how would you even know? We have no faithful 5e adaption - besides Solasta - which seams to work quite well with a more purist rules adaption...

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Surface effects could be easily balanced by just having any fire surface have 1 turn duration and do less dmg. Same with reducing explosion dmg by a lot so it doesn't outright kill anything and divinity kids cry. Now for stuff like grease it should be permanent unless the player or enemy decides to ignite it for some quick area damage and could also serve as some way to clear it fast if the surface is too big. Just program the A.I. to shoot it with fire spells, alchemist fire or fire arrows if a player decides to block a door/pathway with grease unless it's some other kind of monster with no way to produce fire. None of the damage surfaces should have more than 1 turn duration and dmg should be a lot lower because of how many enemies you can ignite at the same time. That way you can go back to increase firebolt dmg as it should be.

Last edited by JDCrenton; 23/10/20 08:24 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Surface effects could be easily balanced by just having any fire surface have 1 turn duration and do less dmg. Same with reducing explosion dmg so it doesn't outright kill anything. Now for stuff like grease it should be permanent unless the player or enemy decides to ignite it for some quick area damage and could also serve as some way to clear it fast if the surface is too big. Just program the A.I. to shoot it with fire spells, alchemist fire or fire arrows if a player decides to block a door/pathway with grease unless it's some other kind of monster with no way to produce fire.


I think 1 turn is too short, it should be 2-3, but not more.
Enemies should try to avoid fire

Last edited by Rhobar121; 23/10/20 08:27 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Surface effects could be easily balanced by just having any fire surface have 1 turn duration and do less dmg. Same with reducing explosion dmg so it doesn't outright kill anything. Now for stuff like grease it should be permanent unless the player or enemy decides to ignite it for some quick area damage and could also serve as some way to clear it fast if the surface is too big. Just program the A.I. to shoot it with fire spells, alchemist fire or fire arrows if a player decides to block a door/pathway with grease unless it's some other kind of monster with no way to produce fire.


I think 1 turn is too short, it should be 2-3, but not more.


It's still too much because of how big the area can potentially be. Just make the dmg completely unavoidable so it always ignites anyone standing on it.

Last edited by JDCrenton; 23/10/20 08:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Surface effects could be easily balanced by just having any fire surface have 1 turn duration and do less dmg. Same with reducing explosion dmg so it doesn't outright kill anything. Now for stuff like grease it should be permanent unless the player or enemy decides to ignite it for some quick area damage and could also serve as some way to clear it fast if the surface is too big. Just program the A.I. to shoot it with fire spells, alchemist fire or fire arrows if a player decides to block a door/pathway with grease unless it's some other kind of monster with no way to produce fire.


I think 1 turn is too short, it should be 2-3, but not more.


It's still too much because of how big the area can potentially be. Just make the dmg completely unavoidable so it always ignites anyone standing on it.


If they fix the AI, it shouldn't be a problem, but we need wait to next patch frown

Page 4 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