Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Hexblade
Advantage & Disadvantage
Tell me when these apply by rolling two dice on skill checks and highlighting the one used! It would also be nice to see the modifiers to the target number in the final result.

Animal Companions & Familiars for Pact of the Chain
I’m assuming that this one is still under development.
• There are still issues with animal companions and familiars being summoned that the party is hostile towards and forces you into combat with. Also, it is annoying to position my imp only to have it immediately fly back to me when combat starts!
• The way it works now is cool and easy, but I suggest you make the player bind with one particular animal. This companion gains levels when the player does, but if killed can only be revived during a rest (short or long) with a ritual (possibly costing gold).
• Animal companions also are in desperate need of balancing!
• I don’t think the familiar should be able to gain levels (unlike an animal companion) unless the warlock permanently bonds to one in a manner similar to the one described above. Find familiar RAW is pretty much a random member of its kind.
• Casting find familiar costs gold and I think you should enforce this (it is not supposed to be a regenerating hp fountain, and definitely not a leveling regenerating hp fountain)!

Climbing
Climbing counts as difficult terrain. If caught halfway while climbing, an easy fix is to give disadvantage to attacks and advantage on incoming attacks. Creatures or characters with climbing speeds or special abilities can climb at full speed.

Initiative
When I end my turn for a character and multiple characters are going on the same initiative, the game sometimes skips the second character’s turn. Have also seen problems with joining a melee already in progress, such as restarting from the first creature’s initiative when a new combatant joins in.

Lighting

Lots of confusion on this. I have stood next to a goblin by a fire with a light spell on my weapon and had disadvantage because my target is in shadows. Darkvision seems to work sporadically, and Devil’s Sight seems to have problems as well.

Pathing Through Hazardous Terrain Out of Combat
While the character I am controlling usually does pretty well, the other PCs following the character often blunder through vines with thorns, fire that burns, pools of acid and poison, and webs/ice. I know it’s a difficult problem, but with how you do your party chaining/un-chaining, it is imperative you get this right.

Pathing Through Hazardous Terrain In Combat
Require a double-click to complete a path that runs through hazardous terrain or by opponents threatened squares, as well as highlighting the potential problems. It is easy to be threatened and yet not be in range for an opportunity attack, and I can’t tell when this is the case. Would also solve the jump problem (I occasionally aim a jump landing a little bit outside the circle – my character moves, provokes an OA, and then jumps).

Reactions
Reactions are a big part of 5E. Counterspell, parry, shield, etc. are all needed. I hope you are putting them in, and in some way that they can be turned off and on (much like the Great Weapon Fighting feat) and then bringing up a query pop-up on whether or not to use them. I know they are a pain, but it’s part of the game!
Note that with some characters, this could get complex, especially if you allow multi-classing. I say fine. Give the player a warning and then let them have 3 questions about abilities they might like to use each time an opponent targets them.

Targeting
While its cool that goblins act intelligent and target the weakest looking character, not all monsters should do this. Ogres and giants would challenge the toughest looking-warrior, undead and fiends target clerics and paladins, beasts tend to look for whoever is tastiest, and fey the most charismatic. I suggest you institute this and not make combat a mere chess game between the player and computer.




Good suggestions, Hexblade! I appreciate you adding your thoughts.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Wow, that's impressive.

+1, mostly.


Agreed with all but 38 -- you are right that sacred flame needs love but I don't want to just bolster it and leave the rest of the overpowered cantrips in place. Put them all at the PHB descriptions.

nicely done



Yeah, putting all the cantrips at PHB description would be fine, too. Although it still favors attack roll cantrips over save cantrips due to the ease of getting advantage now.



It does. Which is the problem with homebrew rules -- they have unintended consequences.

Like you I really like shove and hide because that replicates what you can do with a real life DM -- if you are creative enough the DM should just fudge the dice roll and declare your I push the boulder onto the ogre maneuver successful.

I'm hoping we get a "Solasta" mode or even a "choose your own homebrew" set of options. Keep shove, remove surface effects on cantrips . . .



I agree. In a tabletop session, you can do any crazy thing you can think of, and the DM will generally let you at least TRY to pull it off. But that's impossible in a video game, as it can only ever offer you a defined set of pre-programmed options. So I think by implementing some of these house rules that let people do more on their turns, and take some actions that they might not ordinarily be able to take, it's kind of trying to make up for the fact that you don't have that ultimate freedom of the tabletop and live DM.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

It does. Which is the problem with homebrew rules -- they have unintended consequences.

Just wait until Larian actually opens up the Player's Handbook and discovers they have not only kicked class balance in the groin, they have broken the Barbarian class (Reckless Attack) by their radical homebrew. Hoping Larian sees the error of their ways instead of doubling down triggering an avalanche of homebrew to fix their tampering.



Making a single class feature something that you might not want to use as often does not break the class. There will still be times that Reckless Attack makes sense to use, and if Barbarians can get Advantage without using it, that's actually to their benefit, as then they're not giving their enemies Advantage against them.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies



I agree. In a tabletop session, you can do any crazy thing you can think of, and the DM will generally let you at least TRY to pull it off. But that's impossible in a video game, as it can only ever offer you a defined set of pre-programmed options. So I think by implementing some of these house rules that let people do more on their turns, and take some actions that they might not ordinarily be able to take, it's kind of trying to make up for the fact that you don't have that ultimate freedom of the tabletop and live DM.



Agreed. A choose your own would be best.

Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

It does. Which is the problem with homebrew rules -- they have unintended consequences.

Just wait until Larian actually opens up the Player's Handbook and discovers they have not only kicked class balance in the groin, they have broken the Barbarian class (Reckless Attack) by their radical homebrew. Hoping Larian sees the error of their ways instead of doubling down triggering an avalanche of homebrew to fix their tampering.



Making a single class feature something that you might not want to use as often does not break the class. There will still be times that Reckless Attack makes sense to use, and if Barbarians can get Advantage without using it, that's actually to their benefit, as then they're not giving their enemies Advantage against them.


This is horrible arguement, any class can get that advantage, not only barb, so barb loses their uniqueness.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by dunehunter
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

It does. Which is the problem with homebrew rules -- they have unintended consequences.

Just wait until Larian actually opens up the Player's Handbook and discovers they have not only kicked class balance in the groin, they have broken the Barbarian class (Reckless Attack) by their radical homebrew. Hoping Larian sees the error of their ways instead of doubling down triggering an avalanche of homebrew to fix their tampering.



Making a single class feature something that you might not want to use as often does not break the class. There will still be times that Reckless Attack makes sense to use, and if Barbarians can get Advantage without using it, that's actually to their benefit, as then they're not giving their enemies Advantage against them.


This is horrible arguement, any class can get that advantage, not only barb, so barb loses their uniqueness.



I don't think the Barbarian's uniqueness is entirely tied up in the Reckless Attack feature. And as I said, there will still be times when it makes sense to use it. Such as when you want to encourage the AI to attack the Barbarian, or when you can't or don't want to get behind the creature for whatever reason.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
If every major feedback writer and tester could fill out a detail list like this it would give a lot of very useful data points for Larian, presuming they're taking these up for assessment. I want to add my agreement to most of these, with a couple of side comments where I differ.


42.1) Party control is pretty terrible right now. Agreed, and it needs fixed, badly.

42.2) Agreed

42.3) I'd favour 2 Short rests per Long rest, but agreed that more than one would be better. Long rests should also be limited somewhat – I'd recommend doing it by way of controlling where you can long rest, coupled with controlling where you can access swift travel. It's not ideal, but, if you need to get out of the long dungeon crawl you're in to rest, and you can't swift travel out and back again, then while you can still hike out, rest and hike back limitlessly, players will be discouraged from doing so, and encouraged to think more about their resource usage.

42.4) 100% agreed! Spending ten minutes searching 99% empty containers for every ten minutes of playing the game is the furthest thing from fun. The mass of empty containers existed for a legitimate reason in DOS2 – It was fuel for the lucky find ability – that isn't in this game, and the extreme mass of empty containers is just annoying.

42.5) Agreed

42.6) Agreed, though I'm hoping that's already on the to-do list. I'd also argue strongly for the removal of trap disarm kits; traps are the domain to thieves tools. One kit is all we need, and our proficiency with that kit is what matters.

42.7) Absolutely agreed. Right now, not only can you not get your sneak attack with anything but the independent skill, but formally speaking, you can actually sneak attack twice a round, if you have two actions (such as from a speed potion); stabbing sneak attack, then back off for shooting sneak attack. It's ridiculous.

42.8) Agreed on limiting off-hand attacks to once per turn, on your turn, only. However, I'm not in favour of giving thief rogues a second bonus action straight up: I think it actually creates more background code weight that it serves, since so many things need to then be given an independent once-per-turn lock, that they wouldn't otherwise need. Giving more things we can do as a bonus action to fast hands would be ideal, but we should still have to juggle the choice between them.

42.9) Agreed. On more than just dash, as well. It's a left-over form DOS2, that so many things need a second activation click, and the more of them go away, the better, in my opinion.

42.10) A thousand times agreed! Disengage is disengage – jumping is a thing that takes movement and takes no part of your action economy. This is important for certain balance factors. Jumping out of the middle of a bunch of hostiles should certainly provoke opportunity attacks from them, unless you disengaged first. Right now, you can't even disengage properly, because you can only jump once – you can't, as a rogue, dash nimbly through a room of foes focusing on avoiding their attacks, because after the first 'jump' you're then vulnerable to opportunity from everyone else you have to pass by again. They've even shown us that they HAVE a proper disengage in game, since the goblins have it. That's Disengage. That's the thing that is a standard action for everyone who isn't a goblin... why have they deliberately told us we can't do it?

42.11) Agreed! I prefer a compact vancian pop out, like NW2 used, but even something as short-hack as the way we choose our option for Hex in game now would be sufficient and acceptable. The issue comes when you add a sorcerer to the mix, since you need to be able top nominate spell, spell level, and what metamagic you're using, if any.

42.12) It seems like this is partially in, but not currently working fully properly. Sometimes we can slide through our allies spaces. Sometimes we can run through our enemies spaces, and there's not a lot of rhyme or reason for when when and why of it. Passing through an ally's space should cost extra movement, but you should absolutely be able to do it. When it does allow you to pass through another creature's space, you can see the line for pathing, and if it's the limit of your movement then you'll see the error – it won't let you stop in their space. But, it's really hit and miss right now whether it shows it, and it works for allies and enemies alike. IT also has the additional bug/break/cheat that occurs in conjunction with the way targets interrupt their own movement when you highlight a creature with your mouse. It's silly that they do that, but it also means that you can just highlight the creature you're intending to attack when your character is halfway through the creature's space, and they'll stop right there anyway.

42.13) Very much agreed! Tooltips in general, in fact. Information, in general, in fact. Currently this game teaches you very little about itself. Often we have tooltips which are taken directly from the PHB, despite the fact that the way the item or skill or spell works in game doesn't actually reflect that at ALL, and is completely inaccurate. We have tooltips that don't explain anything at all, and just restate the effect name in so many words, without giving actual information. The have mountains of things completely lacking a tooltip, or giving a nice fluffy, and exceptionally unhelpful description. The game has no lore book or information source, either – we need a way to check the rulings on things. A glossary of status effects and what they do, as just one example. Sometimes an attack is listed as “has advantage on attack” or “Has disadvantage on attack” and someone who isn't a player of D&D isn't going to have any idea at all WHY... because the game doesn't tell you. This game needs to be accessible to everyone, not just D&D players; even if a large percentage of folks came here on the promise of a D&D game, a large percentage come from other sources too. The game NEEDS to explain itself, and properly.

42.14) Agreed. The game needs a more robust event log in general. The current one is so lacklustre that it's actively inhibiting some elements of play testing. We need to be able to chance what we're rolling, every time, for everything, in the log. We need to know both die rolls on advantage and disadvantage. When my halfling 'critical misses' on an advantaged attack, I want the event log to show me that, yes, Indeed, you rolled four natural ones in a row... because if I didn't, then that's wrong anyway... but right now I can't confirm that lucky isn't actually working properly and everywhere it should (it's not), because it doesn't show us.

42.15) Agreed, as above; all of these things, including non-combat rolls, should be traced by the event log.

42.16) I'm on the fence about vision cones. They're a nice mechanic, but at the same time, they're a symptom of the abusable problems with stealth right now. They should be clearer, though, if they're sticking around, and their clipping with objects needs to be improved as well.

42.17) Agreed.

42.18) Sometimes the creatures are stump-dumb, and stand around getting shot. Sometimes, despite never seeing you at all, and not even being the one who got shot at, they will, despite you being hidden, know exactly where you are, run around and up to you, then look directly at you once or twice, to see if they can break your stealth. This needs to be fixed, and needs to be consistent.

42.19) Agreed! If you're out of opportunity attack range, the you are no longer threatened, by definition. Fix This, Larian.

42.20) Agreed; status effects need to be tracked to their PHB descriptions more accurately, all over, but incapacitated creatures can't threaten, and that's a pretty big one.

42.21) Agreed! Initiative should remain while there is danger, and a downed person is in danger, if they're making death saves.

42.22) Agreed most strongly! I've had SO many perception checks that have left me scanning the screen going “What? What did you see? Why is it relevant?”

42.23) Agreed, yes... though with a side note that I wasn't aware that this was an issue, because, despite having Astarion as my only darkvision character in my main party... I've never used a torch... and I don't usually control Astarion either.

42.24) Agreed. Camp storage needs vast improvement.

42.25) Agreed that mage hand should be able to do all of the things that mage hand is really designed for doing. I also hate that it has a psychical attack, and can usually do more damage by shoving and surface exploiting than an actual attack action or spell.

42.26) Agreed, but I'll add that the buying and selling merchant system is very bad at the moment in general, and needs to be made clearer. Another one for the theoretical reference lorebook for people to check what buttons actually do and how it's working everything out. Right now, seeing the listed cost of certain things triple when you move them from the shelf to the counter is just stupid to look at. I don't really Like having our global shop prices being affected by charisma anyway. I wouldn't mind if a character could attempt a price haggle with a merchant before entering the vendor window, which would be a charisma based check.. and then have the prices display exactly as they actually will be afterwards... but having everything modified by charisma all the time is just... I dunno... bad business? I wouldn't want to deal with a merchant that charged my friend three times as much as he charged me, just because he liked my smile more...

42.27) I cannot agree with this one, sorry. Action economy and balance for bonus actions comes into play, and there are legitimate balance reasons why downgrading a bonus action task to an action is not allowed. Sure, Larian might be throwing a lot of that balance out the window already, but that's no reason to hack it apart even further. In particular, the distinction exists as a deliberate mechanical separation – BAs are not just 'lesser' actions; they're doing things that are formally distinct from your main action. Allowing downgrades breaks the game in a few specific ways, but most notably by allowing you to double up on things that you oughtn't be able to on your turn. Worth noting that drinking a potion for yourself is a downgrade of action to bonus action that is very common and one exception that I do support.

42.28) Agreed.

42.29) Agreed, and I hope this is already on the fix list.

42.30) Agreed, and again, I hope this is on the fix list already.

42.31) I don't agree with this one, but only because I'm not fond of the dipping mechanic in general. I dislike how little sense it makes, and I dislike how it devalues existing alternate and elemental damage sources that require resource expense. If dipping were to stay, then lighting your metal dagger with your own torch, or an ally's torch, and not requiring a messy ground surface would absolutely be a thing that should be a part of it, though, so I suppose partial conditional agree?

42.32) Agreed, hoping this is a bug.

42.33) Agreed, again, hoping this is already on the fix list.

42.34) Agreed – this falls into the requirement for a more robust event log. Currently it looks like a lot of the math that the game uses is oddly wonky... like, it gives you a negative equal to your bonus and then adds back the bonus in each part, to arrive at your total, according to the event log, with no explanation why.

42.35) Agreed. Strength to increase your baseline for a jump, and then stretch distance defined by your passive athletics check would be a good way to handle that in game, and it would be more or less rules-respecting.

42.36) Agreed, but with caveat that I've not used silence yet. I have heard my partner complain that many things that should be blocked by silence aren't, however.

42.37) Agreed! I hate having to steal books stealthily just to read them.

42.38) Sacred Flame has a riding effect normally, in that it gets to ignore all but total cover – unfortunately, Larian haven't given us cover rules. I'm holding off on asking for a different buff, because I'd like cover rules. I'm also holding off on agreeing with this one because I'm strongly against the automatic height advantage, and against cantrips creating surfaces that usually do more damage, hit or miss, than the cantrip itself, or achieve the same effects, hit or miss, as a 1st level spell.

42.39) Can't comment here, as I've not fought that particular fight yet (I got side-tracked into the underdark before blighted village, and have spent the past few days clearing it out instead...), however, if the pay up is as poor as you say, for what many report as a difficult encounter, then it should certainly get looked at.

42.40) I mostly agree here. Put him in noble's clothes, that are just clothes. He's a city fop, and he's previously been more about looking good than being effective. That soon changes when he's exposed to a real situation, and leather armour is plentiful in the game.

42.41) Agreed. A trickery cleric should definitely be favouring Dexterity more than Strength, and Shadow in particular should be deception proficient.

42.42) I have to strongly disagree here. Everyone with hide and shove as bonus actions is far too broken and abusable right now, and it very clearly neuters large swathes of several classes because it nullifies the value of what they can do by superseding it with the value of shoving and hiding all the time. I want disengage to actually be disengage, and not tied to jumping... and it needs to be an action for all but rogues and monks. This has come up in our back and forth already, elsewhere, and I understand that we just feel differently about this particular.


23.1) Absolutely agreed. This is basic pc rpg stuff.

23.2) Agreed, we need Ready to be put in in an acceptable fashion ,even if it can only account for a simple attack action or cantrip spell, that's still better than nothing.

23.3) I'm on the fence about this one. There are good reasons why you can't do this normally in 5e... The biggest one is allowing you to artificially extend the duration of spell effects and class abilities, and force targets to take more damage or make more saves against them than the ability or spell level intends. Some are benign, some are very breakable. Here's a consolation I'd make: One your FIRST turn in combat only, you can choose to “Delay”. Delay must be taken Before you take any other action, bonus action or movement, on that turn. It then ends your current turn immediately and moves you down the initiative order to a point of your choice, beginning from the second round onward. Yes, that means you functionally skip your turn for the first round as you focus on slipping yourself into the timing and rhythm you want.

23.4) Agreed. Dodge is essential.

23.5) Agreed: I'd like a more robust dialogue system in general that lets different characters cut in when they have something to say more often than currently happens. Being able to nominate a character to take over, however, would be a good thing as well.

23.6) More freedom to shortcut and keybind is never a bad thing.

23.7) Agreed. I'm hoping this one is 'coming soon' already.

23.8) Can't agree here, sorry. Different roguish archetypes get different extension to their cunning action. Rather than granting new ones to everyone or taking ones from some subclasses and giving them to everyone, I'm just very strongly in favour of returning the ones that got passed out to everyone in the game, back to rogue. We've spoken about this elsewhere, and I know we just have different opinions on this one.

23.9) I'd favour proper cover rules instead – remember that cover rules also account for line of sight, and enable better hiding by default, if they're properly implemented.

23.10) Wait... you can smash potions on your allies at range to heal them? What ridiculousness is that.... Hehe... Oh well. Yes, I agree, we need to be able to use our action to administer a potion to an ally.

23.11) I'll hold off on this one: the UI in general is garbage and needs a lot of work, so I think I'd rather save my comments for that if I do a full UI break down at some point. I've not done it yet, so I don't know what I'd favour overall.

23.12) Agreed absolutely.

23.13) Agreed. I believe this is confirmed as on its way.

23.14) Agreed as a QoL thing. Not high priority, I don't think, but difficulty settings on a variety of aspects of the game, independent of each other, would be very nice.

23.15) Agreed very strongly. Currently the game has the 'finite xp and resources' problem. Random events help alleviate that.

23.16) Agreed strongly, however that comes with the caveat that I want to see ALL of the Phb races, and have them followed with all of the subsequent official book races for the realms (maybe the other realms after that).

23.17) Agreed! More uses for useful inventory items would be good. Also better markings for their usefulness.

23.18) Agreed. We're supposed to be making acrobatics checks to avoid falling prone when we jump or fall further than our jumping distances... right now we just splat, universally, and it's very bad.

23.19) Agreed; we should have the full phb spread of weapons available eventually, which includes slings.

23.20) Agreed: Searching is one of the things that I'm in favour of the safe-space take-20 option. Sure, it's not 5e, but this is one of those video game pace over hard rules points, to me. If you're not in immediate danger, you should be able to nominate to search an area, and take 20 on the check. It should take a moderate induction time, but not long enough to feel tedious.

23.21) Agreed, though I'm filing this one under UI complaints for now.

23.22) What... you don't like my little halfling lighting up literally every clickable object between here and Baldur's gate and making the game an incandescent eyesore? Awwww... But yes, we should be able to cancel our light spells if we want to.

23.23) You know, I found it distantly amusing that one of Ethel's potions was considered an esoteric witch brew, when every midwife and wise woman in every tiny farming village on the sword coast knows the tinctures to safely and discretely deal with certain female-oriented issues. That said, I found the potions interesting and fun, and being able to do more with them would be neat. Learning their recipes, for one thing.

No comment on the bug reports, since they're bug reports, except to say that more documentation is always good to see.

Feedback_wizards's comment on the parasite question: I agree, the quest title should be “Deal with the Parasite” that way, our player's intentions are left sufficiently vague.

Regarding the magic items, however... would you be surprised to know that the twisted circlet if intellect is actually weaker than the DMG circlet of intellect, an official item of the same rarity? The normal one sets your score to 19... not a big difference for most things, but one potentially relevant detail is that 19 Int is immune to the intellect devourer's intelligence attack, while 18 Int is not. It's certainly not the most overpowered or broken magic item in the EA so far. The ring that adds a damage die to every dart of magic missile is supremely overpowered, since it turns a 1st level spell into a 3rd level equivalent spell, and a 2nd level spell into an 5th level equivalent.

Most magic items that allow a casting of a spell tend to define their own save DCs and attack modifiers, OR they tell you you can use your own, if it requires attunement to a caster. The circlet of blasting should have a fixed attack bonus, since anyone can wear it, and not use anyone's casting stat.

Last edited by Niara; 17/11/20 03:05 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Z
stranger
Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Don't worry I am sure Larian will make priority for the romance bugs nobody cared about otherwise expect tumbleweeds.



I . . . don't know what this means.



I think this poster was being sarcastic. They were saying instead of Larian worrying about anything on your well thought out written list they will concentrate on the romance bugs they no one really cares about and ignore you list. That is what I took from it and I am not that bright.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
stranger
Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Okay I'll cut you some slack and explain it more clearly - the "undisarmable undestroyable trap" concept is not something that first appeared in bg3. It was in dos2 as well. So I don't think it's a bug, but an intentional design choice, a very poor one.


I have to agree I wonder how many developers cracked open the PHB or the DMG because some of the game seems to be D:OS holdovers. In my 30 years of playing every D&D edition I have never had a DM have ground effect for no reason in the middle of nowhere protecting nothing jus there to TPW.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZafferinVallis
Originally Posted by Abits
Okay I'll cut you some slack and explain it more clearly - the "undisarmable undestroyable trap" concept is not something that first appeared in bg3. It was in dos2 as well. So I don't think it's a bug, but an intentional design choice, a very poor one.


I have to agree I wonder how many developers cracked open the PHB or the DMG because some of the game seems to be D:OS holdovers. In my 30 years of playing every D&D edition I have never had a DM have ground effect for no reason in the middle of nowhere protecting nothing jus there to TPW.


So that means Larian can't decide it is an improvement in a tabletop to computer to add it with WotC approval?

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
If every major feedback writer and tester could fill out a detail list like this it would give a lot of very useful data points for Larian, presuming they're taking these up for assessment. I want to add my agreement to most of these, with a couple of side comments where I differ.
. . .

Most magic items that allow a casting of a spell tend to define their own save DCs and attack modifiers, OR they tell you you can use your own, if it requires attunement to a caster. The circlet of blasting should have a fixed attack bonus, since anyone can wear it, and not use anyone's casting stat.



Thanks for the very detailed feedback on my feedback! Feedbackception? (No.)

I agree with you about the attack bonuses for magic item spells, fixed would be better than using a particular stat.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Great suggestions. I agree to every one except the last one.

I don't like Disengage, Shove and Jump as bonus actions. They're cheesy and OP as it is and really spammable on top of that as bonus actions. 5th+ level Fighters should be able to both Shove prone and Attack and it's a good move against a high AC target getting that advantage and giving it to your team. Keep that a Fighter perk, they don't have that many.

I especially don't like the ability to both attack and disengage on the same turn. That gives too much free mobility to everyone and makes positioning in combat utterly meaningless. Tanks NEED to be able to punish enemies who run and control their movement. The combat is already a silly DPS king of the hill race as we have no Dodge, no Cover, defensive concentration effects won't last because the floor is lava everywhere, and high ground is completely OP. Choosing to engage an enemy needs to have consequences, on both sides.

About dice rolling. I want to see all the actual dice rolling on the lower left side of the screen where the attack breakdown is. It needlessly shows the percentage there for a second time as we can already see it on mouseover on the target. It would be especially important seeing Advantage / Disadvantage rolls there. I want to see the proof I failed a 94% shot. =)



Wait your attack break down is on the lower left side? How did you move it there? For me, the window is on the bottom right. And botteom left is where my party portraits are.

Also something that should be added is combat-text window should automatically scroll to the bottom and keep scrolling if you have it open. Every time I want to check dice rolls in combat, I open the text window and then I have to scrol allllll the way to the bottom. Thats very annoying.


Not the full log but the little window on the left that shows modifiers like Advantage / Disadvantage, High Ground, Dim Light, Outside normal range etc. There's a circular graph with a repeat of the attack percentage. Use that little window for showing the dice rolls rather than showing the same percentage in two places. Put the circle graph that highlights advantage and disadvantage next to the target instead.



That would be a perfect place to show the rolls. And the Advantage/Disadvantage notifications could still be over there, too.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits

15: I was actually quite vocal in my hatred for random encounters. However, your idea here is quite brilliant. you kill two birds with one stone - add random encounter and prevent players from abusing camp rest.



Yeah, random encounters at camp is a tricky one. It could be good, or it could be bad, depending on exactly how they implement it. It would need to be designed carefully, I think, to not make the game worse.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Balls
This is an excellent, thoughtful list of improvements, and many of them are super solid suggestions. Most lists are whining and poorly thought out complaints that help no one- this one ought to be considered carefully by Larian as it's quite on point.

I would add that it would be great to see the addition of camping inside dungeons "for the night", with an addition of a chance for an encounter. Combine this with the option of setting a guard who does not rest, to avoid surprise, and this would do away with a lot of the unrealistic feel of "jumping to camp". Make Base camp available only when it's reasonable close by.

Requiring food when you rest would also be very nice. Make it an option for a "hardcore" game mode, maybe, with arrows that one needs to buy and carry.

I love the whole idea of the "Base Camp" and the way one gets to know one's companions, can improve the camp's stuff, store things and in the future, no doubt, will be able to craft and cook there. I love the way new hangers-on show up! The way night comes when you decide to end the day is genius...it solves a complex problem most elegantly and easily. It's brilliant game design.

The game is the most RP fun I've had in a long while.



Thanks, I appreciate your vote of confidence. Camping inside dungeons does also sound like a cool idea, with a random encounter chance.

Requiring food for rest would be great, because there's such a massive overabundance of food items in the game already. It would probably be a trivial cost in actuality, but just putting even a small cost on camping might make people take pause before always hitting the camp button after every fight. I hate the idea of having to carry arrows around though, that adds absolutely zero enjoyment to the game, to me, and it's just more stuff to clutter up the inventory.

I agree about the camp, it's cool.

Most fun I've had in an RPG for a good while, myself.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Great list. Agree with almost every single point.

BTW I think that stuff highlighted from perception checks need a sparkly purple outline. It has to be sparkly. Sparkles it needs to be. Sparkly is the main theme here. IMO of course.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

It does. Which is the problem with homebrew rules -- they have unintended consequences.

Just wait until Larian actually opens up the Player's Handbook and discovers they have not only kicked class balance in the groin, they have broken the Barbarian class (Reckless Attack) by their radical homebrew. Hoping Larian sees the error of their ways instead of doubling down triggering an avalanche of homebrew to fix their tampering.



Making a single class feature something that you might not want to use as often does not break the class. There will still be times that Reckless Attack makes sense to use, and if Barbarians can get Advantage without using it, that's actually to their benefit, as then they're not giving their enemies Advantage against them.


Downplaying the issue a bit here. Someone in another thread compiled all the class features and spells that are rendered redundant because of Larian's homebrewing. Their number is substantial, as are the balancing implications.

For this specific example, however, it should be pointed out that backstab is apparently only intended for light weapons. It only works with heavier options because the system is not currently fully implemented in EA. The system is still bad, however, and this difference in effect on weapon types only adds further balance issues.

Last edited by Leuenherz; 19/11/20 10:58 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Skarpharald
Great list. Agree with almost every single point.

BTW I think that stuff highlighted from perception checks need a sparkly purple outline. It has to be sparkly. Sparkles it needs to be. Sparkly is the main theme here. IMO of course.




I have no problem with sparkles. Anything to make the thing more visible. Bring on the sparkles!

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
I agree with all you said but also the spells need to be done better as a lot of times when I try to cast a spell I get "Invalid target" It doesn't matter who is casting the spell. For example Gale the MU died and so I did his so-called ritual thing to get the scroll of "True Resurrection" and no matter who in the party tried using it on him I got the same "Invalid Target". this has happened with other spells for which I have tried to use whether it be on enemies Or what have you. Even tried the scroll we get when we start the game which worked before on others but it wouldn't even work on him

As to the OP #4 in regards to many lootable chests<containers>, I'll have to disagree with her/him. There should at least be more gold because the stuff you try to buy off a vender cost you a small fortune even for 1 potion of healing that your like to be able to afford 1 or two of them. we need more and better-enchanted items as well.

Last edited by DragonMaster69; 21/11/20 12:40 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Leuenherz


For this specific example, however, it should be pointed out that backstab is apparently only intended for light weapons. It only works with heavier options because the system is not currently fully implemented in EA. The system is still bad, however, and this difference in effect on weapon types only adds further balance issues.



Do you mean Sneak Attack, the Rogue ability? Because yeah, that is supposed to be used only with a finesse or ranged weapon. But what Larian calls "backstab" is just a rear attack with advantage, which is allowed under the optional Facing rule in the DMG, and that has no weapon restrictions.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
I agree with all you said but also the spells need to be done better as a lot of times when I try to cast a spell I get "Invalid target" It doesn't matter who is casting the spell. For example Gale the MU died and so I did his so-called ritual thing to get the scroll of "True Resurrection" and no matter who in the party tried using it on him I got the same "Invalid Target". this has happened with other spells for which I have tried to use whether it be on enemies Or what have you. Even tried the scroll we get when we start the game which worked before on others but it wouldn't even work on him

As to the OP #4 in regards to many lootable chests<containers>, I'll have to disagree with her/him. There should at least be more gold because the stuff you try to buy off a vender cost you a small fortune even for 1 potion of healing that your like to be able to afford 1 or two of them. we need more and better-enchanted items as well.



Yeah, that Invalid Target thing sucks. I get that sometimes too.

As for your issue with needing more gold, or not being able to afford to buy stuff, or needing more enchanted items...

I think you might not be looking hard enough: THE HAUL

Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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