Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jul 2014
M
mahe4 Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.

2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.

3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I haven't seen anyone present any real arguments in favor of Larian's design, other than one.

"I like it."

That's about it.
"I like the floor effects because it adds more depth to combat.", when in reality, it strains combat and makes it increasingly more difficult artificially. Not through good AI, or interesting combat mechanics, or varied places where combat takes place.
It's more difficult purely because you need to get your party out of the fire, or grease, or ice ASAP because it provides a massive advantage for such little effort put into it.

"But you can do it too, so why do you dislike it?"
Because then it makes the game too easy, while at the same time actually limiting my gameplay because every fight needs to start with "Ignite/freeze/soak/acidify as much of the floor as possible to make it difficult for the AI.".
This prevents me from making meaningful decisions or taking specific risks in combat like you would on tabletop, because there's essentially only one way to win a fight, and that's by making a disgusting mess of the floor.

As for the action/bonus action economy, it's broken, plain and simple.

And last but not least, Advantage for backstabbing is a terrible idea. It does get annoying always running circles around each other for it, and it's not how tabletop is played at all (nor should it be).
Advantage should only come from Advantage rules, and nothing else.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
The most obvious thing I can say is that tabletop design is a different entity from video game design. People who adapt books to screenplays don't use the exact same conventions and rules because you literally cannot get everything in there. That's not to say some of the rules mentioned here are good just for breaking out of the 5e design mold, but to say "things have to be this way because they are in 5e" isn't going to solve the issue. A 5e inspired video game is not going to take all the Rules As Written (tm) and turn combat into a slog to please some tabletop elitists. The problems as stated are problems for other reasons.

Cantrips creating surfaces are annoying because cantrips should not be strictly better to use than leveled spells, and yet oftentimes the fact that I can knock someone prone (and also spawn ice to potentially make them go prone again) with a cantrip is kind of annoying. I want to feel incentivized to use spells, not to not use them. And firebolt, lmao, I'm sure everyone's seen the threads on fire in this game. The terrain has always been annoying to me, and Larian loves their terrain, but even though they've toned it down a lot from Divinity 2 to BG3 I still think they need to reconsider what can create those surfaces.

But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by xxAres
The most obvious thing I can say is that tabletop design is a different entity from video game design. People who adapt books to screenplays don't use the exact same conventions and rules because you literally cannot get everything in there. That's not to say some of the rules mentioned here are good just for breaking out of the 5e design mold, but to say "things have to be this way because they are in 5e" isn't going to solve the issue. A 5e inspired video game is not going to take all the Rules As Written (tm) and turn combat into a slog to please some tabletop elitists. The problems as stated are problems for other reasons.

Cantrips creating surfaces are annoying because cantrips should not be strictly better to use than leveled spells, and yet oftentimes the fact that I can knock someone prone (and also spawn ice to potentially make them go prone again) with a cantrip is kind of annoying. I want to feel incentivized to use spells, not to not use them. And firebolt, lmao, I'm sure everyone's seen the threads on fire in this game. The terrain has always been annoying to me, and Larian loves their terrain, but even though they've toned it down a lot from Divinity 2 to BG3 I still think they need to reconsider what can create those surfaces.

But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.

The problem with that is that Larian can easily keep the good parts of that while removing the godawful idiocy of breaking the action economy and letting everything jump through melee without penalty.

Put simply, nothing should have jump disengage that has it right now, except goblins and phase spiders. Everything else should have to worry about attacks of opportunity. Shoving should be an action. Surfaces should be nerfed into oblivion, and removed from cantrips (missing should not be doing more damage than a hit). These are simple, obvious fixes.

But in general, the game has implemented some very good points, including ranger tweaks (because PHB ranger is awful, and also unimplementable in a video game) Rogue thief tweaks (similar reasons-it's hard to keep track of what a thief can use fast hands with in a video game and they made most item interactions bonus actions anyway, although the current implementation should disallow two stabs), and other tweaks. But in general, the good tweaks are there to patch over implementation into a video game-not Larian's game engine. Larian's game engine is not perfect for this game, and Larian has not yet managed to work around that-and this is the main problem. There are many, many poor tweaks centered around this fact, and it's painful.

Joined: Jun 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2019
Bg3 iS tUrN bAsEd BeCaUsE dNd Is TuRn BaSeD bUt We OnLy StAy TrUe To DnD wHeNeVeR ...

ok sorry i will stop now thinking of it its probably better i stay away from this forum so cya

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I will first say, that the main draw for DnD is hanging out with friends and roleplaying, not so much the combat system. Now with a video game, that can be played single player and has very limited means for roleplay, it makes sense to want to dress up the combat portion of DnD to make it more exciting for a wider audience.

1. I agree with. I think it can be adjusted though. Like have backstab require stealth or flanking. Height giving advantage is simple and works with the current UI where you see your sum of advantages and disadvantages. Isn't good for balance though and I rather see height work like cover. Have it scale +1 to +5 AC and DEX saving throws depending on the height difference and add some range extension in as well.

2. I think you've misworded things? I'll assume you're talking about everyone having rogue's cunning action essentially. In which case, I do agree that should back. Shove, hide, disengage should be regular actions for non-rogues.

3. This is the big one. Now I like surfaces as they add more complexity to the game. It's really easy, in fact too easy to rest and regain your spell slots so you don't have to be conservative with spells versus cantrips. Now if they fix issue #1 and make spells that require a saving throw easier to hit, that will bring things back into balance. For context, enemies have a lowered AC that makes physical attacks and some spells easier to hit with. Larian went with lower AC and higher HP so people would miss less and be less frustrated, which I understand. They just need to tweak things and I think they can get there. I'd be one the people happy with that as it would make the gameplay more about strategy and less about luck by a degree.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mahe4
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.


Oddly enough, I played a lot of DDO, and I do mean a lot. One of my favorite classes was Assassin. I'm going to toot my own horn here, I was pretty good at it. But my question is, why would I want to gimp my damage because you think it's "not fun"?

Quote
2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.


3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.

Nope, I don't find playing a thief as a thief annoying. I am confused as to why every class in the game gets my thief's abilities, but I'm hoping that will be fixed by release.

Joined: Jul 2014
M
mahe4 Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by robertthebard

Oddly enough, I played a lot of DDO, and I do mean a lot. One of my favorite classes was Assassin. I'm going to toot my own horn here, I was pretty good at it. But my question is, why would I want to gimp my damage because you think it's "not fun"?

walking around enemies is fun for you?
it would be nice if it happens because you hide or get a special ability to get advantage, but just walking around enemies? how is that fun? in 90% of all cases, that is exactly what you do, to get your advantage. you could just give perma advantage and be less annoying. or if you like the special thief aspect of it, then give thief/assassin a special ability, to teleport in the back of an enemie and give them this kind of advantage.
but now, every melee character is just dancing and hopping around.
Originally Posted by robertthebard

Nope, I don't find playing a thief as a thief annoying. I am confused as to why every class in the game gets my thief's abilities, but I'm hoping that will be fixed by release.

i hope so too, that only rogue gets these abilities. what do you mean with "playing thief as thief"?

Last edited by mahe4; 02/11/20 10:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Because DnD 5e is not a perfect game system. It can actually be really boring and repetitive at lower levels, especially if you're running a martial class, and it has some obvious imbalances inherent in the design that have never really been fixed like DEX just being an all around superior attribute than STR or just.. The entire ranger class.

That isn't to say I want BG3 to radically be different from 5e of course, because it does have its merits and I think it is a fundamentally strong baseline to start from.

But it also doesn't mean I want to religiously adhere to the 5e rules perfectly with no deviation.

And that also isn't to say I agree with all of Larian's changes. I don't think cantrips should be able to cause surfaces as a by-product of attacking and I definitely don't think you should be able to just jump out of someone's attack of opportunity range freely like you do currently. I'd also like them to tone down the number of bombs and acid vials enemies have. Not remove, just tone down to make them more rare.

So I am firmly in the camp of "It is okay to deviate from 5e as written. We just need to work with Larian to find that sweet comfort zone".

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Noraver

Advantage should only come from Advantage rules, and nothing else.



Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Offline
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
It's ok that Larian TRY new things.

But in this case I really want them to revert almost all of their changes back or at least closer to 5e.

I would keep toned down versions of surfaces where they would be far less abundant and mostly reserved for higher level spells. I would keep dipping but make it require oils and other consumables that make sense in lighting up a sword. I would send all the barrels right back to Divinity but maybe add some gunpowder kegs that would be very rare and have appropriate weight. I would remove the healing properties from food entirely. I would tone down Shove, Jump and Disengage to how they are in 5e because that's simply much more balanced. I would nerf high ground from "I win" to something more reasonable. I would keep the class restrictions on spell casting and scroll use. I would make equipping items a part of the action economy so you can't always end your turn with a shield.

What sucks is that they're not communicating. Even just hearing "we are trying something new but are fully aware it might not work" would be great. "Don't worry, we just haven't had time to put that in yet" would be even better. Because otherwise I'm assuming "this is how Divinity plays and now it will be how D&D plays".

Last edited by 1varangian; 02/11/20 10:39 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Answering your questions objectively? I’ve no clue but I have assumptions

They are afraid to hurt Larian feelings
They think that Larian is being benevolent to offer such distinguished service to the humanity
They think that the community is not good enough , after all they aren’t working in gaming industry
They are to lazy to read an argument
They do not know enough of 5e to understand the argument
They’ve heard somewhere that DnD5e is not balanced and they echo chamber it
They think that a game is not under the laws of free market and capitalism
They suck at math?
They loved dos and want the game to be like it?
They are afraid of drastic changes

Well, the list goes on. That’s an objective answer
Hope you like it OP

Bye

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mahe4
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.

2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.

3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.



YES!!!! I would *LOVE* for them to go far more true to DND core rules!!!!!!! <3

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.


Swen Vincke, is that you? Oh wait, you're just some random poster without the position to say Larian has decided.

They have not decided. I say that because that's the reason why Larian put the game out into Early Access. If they have firmly decided and have no interest or intention of changing anything, then there's little point in the hassle having to support and update Early Access. They could just have easily kept the entire game under wraps until the full release and said "this is the game, we're not interested in what you think, deal with it".

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
1: I assume you mean high ground and the 'standing behind someone gives you advantage' backstab thats in the game. High ground shouldnt give advantage imo but either nothing (you are already negating most types of cover almost completly) or just a flat to hit buff. Granting both advantage and the enemy disadvantageg is way to overboard. Now, the backstab I dont have that many problems with tbh. In dnd enemies that you cant see that attack you gain advantage. Its only an issue when you use facings though because everyone in combat that isent blind is assumed to know where you are but facings have a more nuances approach. That said if they include the facings system, include all of it. If you cant alter your facing with a reaction its more of a downside then an upside. Most of the times (most likely anyway) we will also be outnumbered as a group of adventurers. It would effect the players more. But overall I agree thats its way to easy to get advantage at the moment.

2: You mean that all classes get cunning actions for free? Yea, hate that. Agree.

3: Agree.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.


Swen Vincke, is that you? Oh wait, you're just some random poster without the position to say Larian has decided.

They have not decided. I say that because that's the reason why Larian put the game out into Early Access. If they have firmly decided and have no interest or intention of changing anything, then there's little point in the hassle having to support and update Early Access. They could just have easily kept the entire game under wraps until the full release and said "this is the game, we're not interested in what you think, deal with it".



I have evidence that a decision was made. It's been programmed into the game. It didn't happen by accident. Someone didn't trip and their face hit a keyboard and tons of code went into the game. First a person had to decide to do a thing, then that thing was done. That's typically the order of operations for human endeavour.

Now, your argument is that they might change their mind. Of course they might! But at the moment, they have made a certain decision, and put it into the game. They could make another decision later, and then change the game. But the current "ruling on the table", in D&D terms, is that high ground and backstab give advantage. Until the DM changes their mind, that's the governing rule.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't really care about accuracy in this regard, but I think that things like highground are a bit silly and also I wish that Cantrips didn't leave puddles but instead just dealt a bit more damage.
I wouldn't say that highground is too easy to accomplish just that I don't think that it should work sorta like Anakin vs Obi.

Just give ranged a range increase and leave it at that.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
You seem to be mixing up "a decision" and "a FINAL decision".

A decision to go with team initiative was made months ago for the first gameplay demo. People were lukewarm on it, and Larian made another decision to go for individual initiative, with party members adjacent to each other acting simultaneously. Clearly, their first decision on initiative was not final. Again, this is why Larian says they do Early Access to get feedback from people other than themselves.

Additionally, Larian is composed of many many different people and they aren't a hive mind - not everyone agrees with all the changes, even those whose job it is to implement them.


This post below seems to suggest your position is "if you disagree with how Larian is doing advantage, you should shut up because they decided, and that's the end of the discussion."

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.


Swen Vincke, is that you? Oh wait, you're just some random poster without the position to say Larian has decided.

They have not decided. I say that because that's the reason why Larian put the game out into Early Access. If they have firmly decided and have no interest or intention of changing anything, then there's little point in the hassle having to support and update Early Access. They could just have easily kept the entire game under wraps until the full release and said "this is the game, we're not interested in what you think, deal with it".



I have evidence that a decision was made. It's been programmed into the game. It didn't happen by accident. Someone didn't trip and their face hit a keyboard and tons of code went into the game. First a person had to decide to do a thing, then that thing was done. That's typically the order of operations for human endeavour.

Now, your argument is that they might change their mind. Of course they might! But at the moment, they have made a certain decision, and put it into the game. They could make another decision later, and then change the game. But the current "ruling on the table", in D&D terms, is that high ground and backstab give advantage. Until the DM changes their mind, that's the governing rule.


Oh my. Larian, you’re wasting your time! Hire this guy for marketing and programming now! Clairvoyance spell upcasted using 9th spell slot

Joined: Oct 2020
G
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by xxAres
The most obvious thing I can say is that tabletop design is a different entity from video game design. People who adapt books to screenplays don't use the exact same conventions and rules because you literally cannot get everything in there. That's not to say some of the rules mentioned here are good just for breaking out of the 5e design mold, but to say "things have to be this way because they are in 5e" isn't going to solve the issue. A 5e inspired video game is not going to take all the Rules As Written (tm) and turn combat into a slog to please some tabletop elitists. The problems as stated are problems for other reasons.

Cantrips creating surfaces are annoying because cantrips should not be strictly better to use than leveled spells, and yet oftentimes the fact that I can knock someone prone (and also spawn ice to potentially make them go prone again) with a cantrip is kind of annoying. I want to feel incentivized to use spells, not to not use them. And firebolt, lmao, I'm sure everyone's seen the threads on fire in this game. The terrain has always been annoying to me, and Larian loves their terrain, but even though they've toned it down a lot from Divinity 2 to BG3 I still think they need to reconsider what can create those surfaces.

But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.

The problem with that is that Larian can easily keep the good parts of that while removing the godawful idiocy of breaking the action economy and letting everything jump through melee without penalty.

Put simply, nothing should have jump disengage that has it right now, except goblins and phase spiders. Everything else should have to worry about attacks of opportunity. Shoving should be an action. Surfaces should be nerfed into oblivion, and removed from cantrips (missing should not be doing more damage than a hit). These are simple, obvious fixes.

But in general, the game has implemented some very good points, including ranger tweaks (because PHB ranger is awful, and also unimplementable in a video game) Rogue thief tweaks (similar reasons-it's hard to keep track of what a thief can use fast hands with in a video game and they made most item interactions bonus actions anyway, although the current implementation should disallow two stabs), and other tweaks. But in general, the good tweaks are there to patch over implementation into a video game-not Larian's game engine. Larian's game engine is not perfect for this game, and Larian has not yet managed to work around that-and this is the main problem. There are many, many poor tweaks centered around this fact, and it's painful.



I want disengage on jump gone myself, but only characters with tadpoles can disengage with the jump, as for other enemies they cannot disengage as a bonus action (except for goblins, who are supposed to be able to do it)

Getting out of attack of opportunity is only easy for the players and the absolutes chosen disciples.

And when it comes to cantrips leaving surfaces, I personally think that they should leave surfaces on the floor ONLY if they are targeted on the floor specifically, and of course I want surfaces balanced better than they are now.

Last edited by Gathord; 02/11/20 11:51 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

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