Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by fallenj
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.


Brilliant analysis, delete the thread I guess, no way to argue against that.


Guys, I was caught. I’m sorry for manipulating the math to make you have a worst game. I couldn’t imagine that Russel Crowe (beautiful mind) was playing the game and was participating in this very forum. Sorry to disappoint you all. Bye


Get out of here you bum


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
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I have no idea how you create your encounters, or how you play, etc. I know that 90% of the time I build everything custom for my players. I have 3x5 cards for each encounter if there are 5 creatures it has 5 sets of ac/hp/weapons and saves. I do this for several encounters for each session (most do not get used) and if they did not level up I use the rest next time. I have boss monsters detailed out more, etc. Everything is tweaked live as things happen, so say they meet a group of 5 goblins with 2 archers, 2 fighter types and a caster (3x5 card has all that and a rough treasure list). The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders.

If they are too much for some reason, I may have a couple run away to get help, allowing the group to kill the couple left and choose to follow or flee, Or I may drop the hp of a couple of them, etc. There are times when a player rolls well for damage or to hit (say the party is hurting badly and the fighter finally rolls a nat 20. The monster has 5-10 hp more hp than the final damage count ends up, i may still say it died, giving the fighter that awesome moment). But that is all live. It is not hard to have custom encounters, in a live game everything changes on the fly as players move through the world anyway. It just seems highly lazy to say "ALL goblins have 7 hp".

That said, I have zero problem with the HP I have seen so far in this game.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have no idea how you create your encounters, or how you play, etc. I know that 90% of the time I build everything custom for my players. I have 3x5 cards for each encounter if there are 5 creatures it has 5 sets of ac/hp/weapons and saves. I do this for several encounters for each session (most do not get used) and if they did not level up I use the rest next time. I have boss monsters detailed out more, etc. Everything is tweaked live as things happen, so say they meet a group of 5 goblins with 2 archers, 2 fighter types and a caster (3x5 card has all that and a rough treasure list). The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders.

If they are too much for some reason, I may have a couple run away to get help, allowing the group to kill the couple left and choose to follow or flee, Or I may drop the hp of a couple of them, etc. There are times when a player rolls well for damage or to hit (say the party is hurting badly and the fighter finally rolls a nat 20. The monster has 5-10 hp more hp than the final damage count ends up, i may still say it died, giving the fighter that awesome moment). But that is all live. It is not hard to have custom encounters, in a live game everything changes on the fly as players move through the world anyway. It just seems highly lazy to say "ALL goblins have 7 hp".

That said, I have zero problem with the HP I have seen so far in this game.


Hakka. Now we know how you build your encounters. Now tell me: you actually read my thread? If yes, why you keep talking about hp?

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.

It’s easy to talk about HP and forgetting to talk about the AC 10 instead of 15 and how that damage the spell efficiency balance. Again, this is not about a problem generated by a single homebrew. It’s the problem generated by a combination of them. Elite goblins should have even higher AC by your terms (16 would do just fine)

Oh I totally agree with you here. The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I actually think a similar argument holds true for your suggested addition to these "elite goblins": An AC and HP buff preserves the strength of saving-throw spells but now to-hit spells are doubly nerfed (harder to hit and do less proportional damage). To be truly "balanced," enemy saving throws should also be increased. (AC 15->16, HP 7->10, All STs+1)

I think the best combination of simple and balance-preserving is to only adjust either HP or AC. However, the simple requirement is only relevant for PnP. A video game should use the slightly more complex solution of increasing all 3 enemy parameters.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.

It’s easy to talk about HP and forgetting to talk about the AC 10 instead of 15 and how that damage the spell efficiency balance. Again, this is not about a problem generated by a single homebrew. It’s the problem generated by a combination of them. Elite goblins should have even higher AC by your terms (16 would do just fine)

Oh I totally agree with you here. The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I actually think a similar argument holds true for your suggested addition to these "elite goblins": An AC and HP buff preserves the strength of saving-throw spells but now to-hit spells are doubly nerfed (harder to hit and do less proportional damage). To be truly "balanced," enemy saving throws should also be increased. (AC 15->16, HP 7->10, All STs+1)

I think the best combination of simple and balance-preserving is to only adjust either HP or AC. However, the simple requirement is only relevant for PnP. A video game should use the slightly more complex solution of increasing all 3 enemy parameters.


We’re not that far from a consensus mate! And I’m happy that you could capture that the point of a this thread is not an empty speech about ac and hp. We’re here talking about balance of the spells in the game. Add that seasoning of advantage system added by Larian and the surfaces and the casters from BG 3 will simply vanish in the meta (compared to dnd5e of course)

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have no idea how you create your encounters, or how you play, etc. I know that 90% of the time I build everything custom for my players. I have 3x5 cards for each encounter if there are 5 creatures it has 5 sets of ac/hp/weapons and saves. I do this for several encounters for each session (most do not get used) and if they did not level up I use the rest next time. I have boss monsters detailed out more, etc. Everything is tweaked live as things happen, so say they meet a group of 5 goblins with 2 archers, 2 fighter types and a caster (3x5 card has all that and a rough treasure list). The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders.

If they are too much for some reason, I may have a couple run away to get help, allowing the group to kill the couple left and choose to follow or flee, Or I may drop the hp of a couple of them, etc. There are times when a player rolls well for damage or to hit (say the party is hurting badly and the fighter finally rolls a nat 20. The monster has 5-10 hp more hp than the final damage count ends up, i may still say it died, giving the fighter that awesome moment). But that is all live. It is not hard to have custom encounters, in a live game everything changes on the fly as players move through the world anyway. It just seems highly lazy to say "ALL goblins have 7 hp".

That said, I have zero problem with the HP I have seen so far in this game.


I think the difference is that it sounds like you alter encounters during the encounter to make adjust the difficulty- "The party kills half right away, IF I wanted a better encounter, I will pull another card and add a few from it saying they were holding back on orders."

Here is an encounter I have for avernus in one of my online games. This is a total bait because the little things explode and do acid damage when you hit them and they are rolling around in a mad max infernal war machine and would obviously lol and go for the run-over. Otherwise, this is realistically a fight against the Goristro and the
Chasme. Whatever this turns out to be, is what its going to be. They have the option to just bail if they want too. I set these up as "whatever happens, happens. Pretty sure they can do it". I have their character sheets and I can do all the DPR calculations in my head for what they'll do, take, and how many spells theyd need to heal worst and best case scenarios. I remove bodies when that extra 5 little shits might mean an extra 40 damage and drop 3 more spell slots because I have other things I want them to accomplish as well. Now, players exist, so they drive off (which they did) or they come up with something clever and steamroll or anything in between. For this meaningless fight, I have no interest in changing this stuff. The math is there, the fight will roughly accomplish what I need as far as an encounter and if they hadnt been pussies, theyd have gotten some rad shit.

[Linked Image]


Now, this is a boss fight. They walk in, there are 2 Erinyes that have been unchanged other than boths having whips that also act as ropes of entanglement. They get in a fight, one turns into a spider, webs someone up and is a pain in the ass while the other shoots poison arrows 40 feet in the air. Then they swap places when the other one gets hit back into form. If its going too easy, then 2 phase spiders burst out of the chest. Theyre not super strong but they will help diffuse the focus by the PCs. Depending on how it goes down, that lever near the coffin doesnt open the coffin. It open a rift into the underdark and a fomorian comes out. I have levers to pull now. But making the gals have 300hp so they get a chance to do more damage or making it up on the fly so an arachnomancer was hiding in the coffin and to just start introducing elements I havent done the math for...I like standing by my encounters and after a thousand + you can dial it in pretty well and not worry about it. I just have never been thinking "man, I wish I was managing individual health pools for all of these". Having a standard makes it so you can dial it in. Those weird swings in HP means a DM can't - as reliably - determine the math on the DPR.

[Linked Image]



In a game - you have to standy by whatever the hell you just put on the field. So the "computers can rando generate" thats saving about 5 minutes of rolling for a number of predetermined creatures that if you playtest youll just add more if it was too easy. And that is the point where, if you are doing that, why not just put standardized creatures in and swap a weakling for a tougher individual because now you are bloating initiative to make up for a line of glass cannons and you and looking for a certain difficulty. That is where I am, in the context of a game, not understanding that if they had a blank map why theyd make these particular decisions when they don't have the chance to course correct mid fight. Why not make it standard, repeatable, predictable - maybe not to the players, but to them at least. The original post was about how these changes may make the fight more dynamic or whatever they're trying to do, but what it does is, with the combination of the other elements of the combat system that have been introduced, to reduce efficacy of the PC abilities in sacrifice to this particular mindset they have displayed. As a DM, I would feel bad about it as it reduces the cool factor of their abilities and I want people to enjoy using those as opposed to dreading the fact it just isn't going to do quite enough (always a risk as a caster, but this is pushing it down more). That is why I don't see a justification for running it that way when they do not have a DM adjusting. It seems whimsical and I can't imagine what would be needed to be in my head for me to make that decision as opposed to just sticking with it. I just don't see the logic on starting from nothing and choosing that path. From what I can tell, the OP is correct in the ultimate impact of the decision and the questions have to be is that what you wanted to do, is worth it, and is that the best way to do so? Im having a hard time sitting back in my chair slow clapping and saying "You did it again you beautiful bastards, masters of your D&D craft".


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


Hakka. Now we know how you build your encounters. Now tell me: you actually read my thread? If yes, why you keep talking about hp?




I was responding to the first post on page 4 by Orbax stating that a picture he posted was in regards to hitpoints for creatures by Jeremy Crawford. It was not. It was about changing damage to max damage. He stated that doing that was punishing for players, etc.

Orbax then stated "Those are not the words of someone saying 7, 10, 12, its all the same /shrug. Hes saying if getting your ass beat is fun, go for it." which again, is NOT what that post said. In the actual Dragon Talks episode JC stated that they gave the HP Range for a reason, to play with as you wanted in the game. AND That he does so on the fly depending on how he wants the encounter to go. He had zero issues with hp, it was in regards to max damage output by monsters that he said it was punishing. (BUT again, go for it if you are DM).

For your first post laying out your position, your first item was increased HP and Lowered AC. IMO Increased HP is not an issue here as it is a range not a set number in the rules on purpose (there sometimes does seem to be several bosses, but on the whole it was reasonable to me). Decreased AC does not impact me as I just hit more often.

I can not find a rule stating advantage is given for elevational purposes. THE rules are purposely vague on when to give Advantage or disadvantage. So, while I think it sucks 90% of the time, It is in their right to do so as DM. I will learn to work within that ruling. Now the way advantage/disadvantage works in BG3 is kind of wonkey to me, but I can live with it.

Surfaces are over powered. I hope they get toned down, I do like to exploit them at times to set traps, etc. but they are way to common. I would gladly loose that exploit for removal all together. Again, it is their game, and they can do it if they want, it just irritates me a lot. I would prefer the cantrips, etc. work like the rules, but it is their world and the way they are currently working does not break anything horribly for me yet. Acid pools should go away at the very least after a round or so. Yes I know water will wash them away, but they should go away anyways. Every freaking goblin has acid arrows. There is some guy in this area who made mad bank selling all the acid arrows. Barrelmancy should not be a thing.

Again, I do not rest all the time, I do not cast spells and then just rest and recharge, I conserve, use terrain, etc. as best I can and adapt to the rules I am given.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Well, the sentence after that quote by me was me saying "Yes, I know hes referencing damage in that line but his point was that "range" is a slider and the end is considered lethal. Its not a small tweak."


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
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Hakka. Now we know how you build your encounters. Now tell me: you actually read my thread? If yes, why you keep talking about hp?




I was responding to the first post on page 4 by Orbax stating that a picture he posted was in regards to hitpoints for creatures by Jeremy Crawford. It was not. It was about changing damage to max damage. He stated that doing that was punishing for players, etc.

Orbax then stated "Those are not the words of someone saying 7, 10, 12, its all the same /shrug. Hes saying if getting your ass beat is fun, go for it." which again, is NOT what that post said. In the actual Dragon Talks episode JC stated that they gave the HP Range for a reason, to play with as you wanted in the game. AND That he does so on the fly depending on how he wants the encounter to go. He had zero issues with hp, it was in regards to max damage output by monsters that he said it was punishing. (BUT again, go for it if you are DM).

For your first post laying out your position, your first item was increased HP and Lowered AC. IMO Increased HP is not an issue here as it is a range not a set number in the rules on purpose (there sometimes does seem to be several bosses, but on the whole it was reasonable to me). Decreased AC does not impact me as I just hit more often.

I can not find a rule stating advantage is given for elevational purposes. THE rules are purposely vague on when to give Advantage or disadvantage. So, while I think it sucks 90% of the time, It is in their right to do so as DM. I will learn to work within that ruling. Now the way advantage/disadvantage works in BG3 is kind of wonkey to me, but I can live with it.

Surfaces are over powered. I hope they get toned down, I do like to exploit them at times to set traps, etc. but they are way to common. I would gladly loose that exploit for removal all together. Again, it is their game, and they can do it if they want, it just irritates me a lot. I would prefer the cantrips, etc. work like the rules, but it is their world and the way they are currently working does not break anything horribly for me yet. Acid pools should go away at the very least after a round or so. Yes I know water will wash them away, but they should go away anyways. Every freaking goblin has acid arrows. There is some guy in this area who made mad bank selling all the acid arrows. Barrelmancy should not be a thing.

Again, I do not rest all the time, I do not cast spells and then just rest and recharge, I conserve, use terrain, etc. as best I can and adapt to the rules I am given.


Well, the only part we disagree is that we were given a chance to test the game and contribute to its development. You say you don’t cast too much because it feels natural not to cast and just cast cantrips. I used the very same strategy and I couldn’t notice why. Until I’ve done some theory crafting regarding the hit chances and I found the flaw. That’s why this post was created.

Also, I don’t have that vision of “Larian is making a favor to develop this game”. That’s capitalism baby. Profit is the target. That’s not how things work in RL. It don’t have to be like this in gaming industry.

If the players behave as customers as they should we would have better games in the world.

Nevertheless I really appreciate that even disagreeing with me you at least capture the essence of the post.


Last edited by Sludge Khalid; 02/11/20 12:26 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
Very good in-depth explanation why Larian messing with the rules this much won't make it fun for most players with 5E background.

Though honestly I wish they'd give a statement already, even if they just said "we won't make it our priority to follow 5E rules".
Because then we could stop arguing here and instead focus on preparing a 5E community mod that fixes all rules issues (and maybe also renders all barrels and surface effects that don't come from the PHB inert while we're at it).

Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
+1 to OP

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by endolex
Very good in-depth explanation why Larian messing with the rules this much won't make it fun for most players with 5E background.

Though honestly I wish they'd give a statement already, even if they just said "we won't make it our priority to follow 5E rules".
Because then we could stop arguing here and instead focus on preparing a 5E community mod that fixes all rules issues (and maybe also renders all barrels and surface effects that don't come from the PHB inert while we're at it).



Yeah. The waiting is killing me. I don’t wanna rely on modding for a DnD game to actually feel DnD frown

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by endolex

Though honestly I wish they'd give a statement already, even if they just said "we won't make it our priority to follow 5E rules".
Because then we could stop arguing here and instead focus on preparing a 5E community mod that fixes all rules issues (and maybe also renders all barrels and surface effects that don't come from the PHB inert while we're at it).


They won't. When you know that an answer would be disliked by a lot of customers its better to say nothing and leaving them in the dark so they still buy it.

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

Hustle, I’m not fan of surfaces as is. We can definitely work them out in favor of the DnD rules. There’s the raw that says that you’ll only take damage if you end your turn over it. That would work. The other one is to add an extremely easy saving throw DC. But most importantly, If you miss the spell the surface won’t be created by it. So you guarantee that it’ll only be applied if you fail your attack save. The only thing that cannot pass is to have them in it’s current state. It’s just silly


Yes, I'd agree with surfaces shouldn't be created on a miss. Don't agree with the raw rule. Running across 15 feet of fire or ice without any risk would be silly. There's room for tweaking, but I wouldn't make the saving throws too easy because then what's even the purpose of them being there? Most of the surfaces in the game do you use a saving throw, but you usually fail it and sometimes the success dice doesn't play above your head after you ran across something. Fire doesn't seem to have a saving throw(oversight/bug?), walking across water doesn't apply wet, and acid only affects you while you're in it. That's what I've noticed from testing.


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.


I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Oct 2020
HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a constant value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible throw (which will be a huge buff)

Please note that the current level is not the normal difficulty level. At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.


HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a fixed value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible cast (which will be a huge buff)

From what I can remember, Larian mentioned that the current difficulty level is closer to hard than normal.
At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Rhobar, that’s what I call a pertinent argumentation for this post.
I simply have no clue of that you are talking about and again you show that you didn’t read the post and is completely unaware of dnd5e rules to comprehend it nevertheless.

Regarding the double trouble of martial vs casters, mrfuji explained perfectly:

Hp is NOT the problem in the comparison:

Low AC values are +1 to martial attacks
Advantage are + 1 to martial classes

That’s a raw +2 for martialists compared to the balance of traditional dnd5e

Again, you have also to add that considering that currently we can rest spam.
Even under that circumstances, martialists are better due to the advantage spree.

Last edited by Sludge Khalid; 02/11/20 05:21 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
@Sludge Khalid
I appreciate the defense, but to be fair I did bring up HP spells in a (small) part of my post:
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a fixed value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible cast (which will be a huge buff)

From what I can remember, Larian mentioned that the current difficulty level is closer to hard than normal.
At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.

This is true, HP spells (different than Saving Throw Spells) now do have a fixed value. And I believe that the value chosen for Sleep (28HP) is actually above it's expected value when rolling (5d8=22.5)? But it is still a nerf.
Advantage basically increases your chances to hit by ~50(?)% (chances of rolling a 10 or higher go from 55% to 80%). Thus, an equivalent increase in sleep would be 22.5HP->33.75HP, more than what is given.
Also, goblin HPs are generally increased by ~50% or more. (7 HP goblins to 12HP is a 70% increase). Again, this overwhelms the slight increase in Sleep's HP

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
@Sludge Khalid
I appreciate the defense, but to be fair I did bring up HP spells in a (small) part of my post:
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
HP based spells have been indirectly boosted, now they have a fixed value, you can easily increase this value to the maximum possible cast (which will be a huge buff)

From what I can remember, Larian mentioned that the current difficulty level is closer to hard than normal.
At higher difficulty levels, mobs will likely have more HP.

This is true, HP spells (different than Saving Throw Spells) now do have a fixed value. And I believe that the value chosen for Sleep (28HP) is actually above it's expected value when rolling (5d8=22.5)? But it is still a nerf.
Advantage basically increases your chances to hit by ~50(?)% (chances of rolling a 10 or higher go from 55% to 80%). Thus, an equivalent increase in sleep would be 22.5HP->33.75HP, more than what is given.
Also, goblin HPs are generally increased by ~50% or more. (7 HP goblins to 12HP is a 70% increase). Again, this overwhelms the slight increase in Sleep's HP


I would use different argument to the hp matter
Weapon damage & spell damage are not rescaled. Therefore the damage output scaling is DnD raw
Caster gains spells upcast and martialists gains extra attacks. So far so good

In an environment where the dm increase hp, caster gets a minor debuff because the spell slots are limited (unreliable).

Again, I know that’s a debuff but it’s minor compared to the AC problem.
Sacred flame is a perfect example of how this homebrew damage them (even though it’s a cantrip). Under normal DnD5e the standard attack & sacred flame will have a minor difference in the hit rate. Now it’s abissal.

I can survive with hp slightly boosted. I’ll manage to survive. On the other hand that 3 rules combines works like an atomic bomb in the game.

I simply love bards (college of lore) - that’s an S tier class because of the versatility. Now:

Save scum makes the social interaction of the bard (which is the greatest strength) less effective.
Bards debuffs & buffs are less effective (fairie Fire, hypnotic pattern etc)
Inspiration dices are bad as well due to the advantage spree


So this S tier class is under the d-c tier

Sad but true

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
@Sludge Khalid
It's all linked, right? That's the problem. At the highest level, we are talking about dpr (damage-per-round) which is affected by HP, AC, to-hit, weapon/spell damage, etc. Thus, an enemy AC reduction is basically the same thing as a PC martial/spell attack damage increase. Larian could have easily chosen to do the latter instead of the former for roughly the same effect.
The goal should be to affect the dpr of all classes/attack types equally. Which, for HP-affecting spells that don't allow saving throws, means buffing them to correspond to the to-hit bonus of martial attacks.

I think we're pretty much in full agreement. All the changes combine to make something exponentially worse.

Bards: yeahhhh they'll suffer a decent amount. The only redeeming factor is that, last I checked, advantage/disadvantage in BG3 partially stack. Like, if you get 2 sources of advantage and 1 source of disadvantage, you'll end up with a net "1 level of advantage." (This only allows a net 1 level of adv/disadv; 2 advantages are still only 1 level of advantage). I like this decision. I like this decision a lot.

This will allow for a bit more use of bard buffs/debuffs, e.g., high ground (adv) + enemy in darkness (disadv) + faerie fire (adv) will net give advantage.

Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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