Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And I realize Saito already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

One can't really say we're piling on anyone if we're pretty much in agreement with the overall message, albeit for different reasons. :P

I just don't want Pandemonica to feel mobbed is all.

Joined: Feb 2021
P
addict
Offline
addict
P
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.

Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.

Menacing attack is another broken mechanic. The frightened creature should not run away provoking an opportunity attack and should be fighting back, albeit with disadvantage. Running away from fear is the result of a more powerful action, like the Fear Spell (level 3 spell not available to us). Frightened creatures would have disadvantage to attack but that's it. Also, are you running behind monsters and attacking? That will create advantage (another broken mechanic). Try just attacking head on without going behind them. You should still win but I think you will notice a stark difference on how many times you hit.

Give your wizard a decent DEX and a crossbow full of fire arrows. Put the wizard at height advantage and watch monsters die. It's not just wizards. Any class can do this.

Jump/Disengage is also broken. It's supposed to be a full action but Larian in their great wisdom allows you do jump and attack. It used to be, you had to make a choice. Move long distances and forgo an attack or just attack. Now you can do both.

Just to give you an idea how broken this game is, I built a custom all ranger party. No wizards or clerics. I hardly had any magic healing (I think I had one ranger with cure wounds). I used Larian tactics to the fullest except for barrelmancy. Nothing could stop me. I was rarely in any danger. I entered every battle at full health due to healing food. I backstabbed, jumped and used height. I used special arrows and explosives. It was boring. The funny thing was, I could have done the same with any mix of the current classes. I'm not bragging. Anyone can do this. And that's why I am siding with those who are asking for some balance.

I think balance will come, it is early alpha after all. I mean it was only October the game came out. Never would I use a dex, crossbow build on a wizard, that sounds more like a temporary exploit that will be fixed. Wizards really shouldn't even be able to equip a crossbow, just like they cannot use heavy armor. I generally don't bother to attack from the back on my warriors except for maybe the first attack I generally just keep my rogues on the back. I agree with the frightened being totally broken and needs to be fine tuned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they say recently they are going to make jump an action? I also agree about the healing food, I mean that is a touch much. Give a buff for food, or heal out of battle with it, but a pork shoulder shouldn't basically heal you for full health in a battle.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
As for melee, I am not sure why you think it's better. Can you explain with an example? Because melee seems to be more exposed to attacks than ranged. You can shoot them and swing a sword at them. Maybe it's because your melee characters tend to have more armor?

Of course, melee has its own problems currently because all you have to do is run behind someone and again receive that +4 to hit bonus with almost no cost.

And I realize Saiko already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.
I agree with you here Pandemonica.

Part of it is also that backstab is a few pixels away from what fighter would naturally do. Whereas, Higher Ground and Threatened put Wizard, Warlock, and Cleric in awkward positions. The fighter would attack them from the front anyways, but in Baldur's Gate 3 now they're jumping to the back. The Wizard, Warlock, and Cleric have to go through the chore of avoiding threatened.

Joined: Feb 2021
P
addict
Offline
addict
P
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And I realize Saito already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.

One can't really say we're piling on anyone if we're pretty much in agreement with the overall message, albeit for different reasons. :P

I just don't want Pandemonica to feel mobbed is all.

I don't feel mobbed, but could do without the snark comment about being mobbed on. I was asked why I felt melee was OP and I answered it. Generally, I will answer any question as long as it isn't some slightly veiled snark (if that was your intention, if it wasn't I will mark it up to just misunderstanding intention due to it being so late).

Last edited by Pandemonica; 21/02/21 07:01 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I don't feel mobbed, but could do without the snark comment about being mobbed on. I was asked why I felt melee was OP and I answered it. Generally, I will answer any question as long as it isn't some slightly veiled snark (if that was your intention, if it wasn't I will mark it up to just misunderstanding intention due to it being so late).

It wasn’t a snarky comment. When multiple people respond to one person with an opposing view, it can seem like that person is being ganged up on. I just wanted to let you know I probably wouldn’t have responded had I known Saito had already done so.

Just clearing up my position.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.

With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.

Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.

So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.

Menacing attack is another broken mechanic. The frightened creature should not run away provoking an opportunity attack and should be fighting back, albeit with disadvantage. Running away from fear is the result of a more powerful action, like the Fear Spell (level 3 spell not available to us). Frightened creatures would have disadvantage to attack but that's it. Also, are you running behind monsters and attacking? That will create advantage (another broken mechanic). Try just attacking head on without going behind them. You should still win but I think you will notice a stark difference on how many times you hit.

Give your wizard a decent DEX and a crossbow full of fire arrows. Put the wizard at height advantage and watch monsters die. It's not just wizards. Any class can do this.

Jump/Disengage is also broken. It's supposed to be a full action but Larian in their great wisdom allows you do jump and attack. It used to be, you had to make a choice. Move long distances and forgo an attack or just attack. Now you can do both.

Just to give you an idea how broken this game is, I built a custom all ranger party. No wizards or clerics. I hardly had any magic healing (I think I had one ranger with cure wounds). I used Larian tactics to the fullest except for barrelmancy. Nothing could stop me. I was rarely in any danger. I entered every battle at full health due to healing food. I backstabbed, jumped and used height. I used special arrows and explosives. It was boring. The funny thing was, I could have done the same with any mix of the current classes. I'm not bragging. Anyone can do this. And that's why I am siding with those who are asking for some balance.

I think balance will come, it is early alpha after all. I mean it was only October the game came out. Never would I use a dex, crossbow build on a wizard, that sounds more like a temporary exploit that will be fixed. Wizards really shouldn't even be able to equip a crossbow, just like they cannot use heavy armor. I generally don't bother to attack from the back on my warriors except for maybe the first attack I generally just keep my rogues on the back. I agree with the frightened being totally broken and needs to be fine tuned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they say recently they are going to make jump an action? I also agree about the healing food, I mean that is a touch much. Give a buff for food, or heal out of battle with it, but a pork shoulder shouldn't basically heal you for full health in a battle.

If it is still in early alpha it's pretty concering how few significant changes there has been to the gameplay. Most likely Larian is content with how things are and it's roughly how it will stay until release.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
Originally Posted by Tequilaman
Height giving advantage is an optional rule, I believe in one of the core books? Like flanking?

Thus, I don't mind it at all, I prefer that they focus on stuff that is not in the rules and breaks balance, like mages learning cleric spells or everyone having bonus action disengages.

I checked but could not find it in the PHB, DMG, XGtE, or TCoE.

Maybe you have seen it in some Unearthed Arcana?

Joined: Jan 2021
D
Darun Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Dexai
That link you posted is making my browser give me warnings by the way.

Also a 3.5 averages to 4.

Weird, Wolfram Alpha has never given me any warnings, be it from private or company network; you can google it, it is safe.

And no, 3.5 does not average 4, I cannot even follow what idea you had here.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

Wrong. If you don't have a clue about a subject matter, don't try to lecture people who do. I admit I did not account for criticals, but that effect would be negligible, especially considering criticals will often deal overkill damage (Goblins).

Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

In my gaming experience, the base chances to hit were generally way above 50% (at this moment I can't pinpoint a number, though). It is very well possible that Larian adopts a "missing is boring" stance, so we get something like a 80% base hit chance on average. In that case, advantage would only translate to +-3. I think assuming an even distribution is as accurate as we can get until the numbers are tweaked.

Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.

Some are offering a compromise because the current state is just too advantageous. Height gives roughly +4 to hit and +4 AC vs those who are below you. I don't know if you are familiar with 5e but one of the main design aspects of 5e is bounded accuracy. The goal was to reduce bonuses so it would be manageable all the way to level 20 and bridge the wide gap that often appeared between high and low levels. So at level 20, characters get +6 to hit vs +2 to hit at level 1. It's not a big gap, certainly not as big as previous editions.

From my understanding, BG3 will cap roughly around level 10. That would mean +4 bonus along with your bonuses for ability scores and magic items. As you can see giving +4 bonuses so easily can disrupt combat balance (you are doubling proficiency bonus at level 10). Other tactics are tossed to the side. It just becomes a mad rush to be on top of the hill. It' doesn't make for more tactics. It reduces them.

So some are asking for +2/-2 or even just -2 for height disadvantage. I don't even like that but either compromise seems better than what we have now.

Height advantage adds a tactical layer (terrain) to the game, which similar games like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder Kingmaker simply do not have at all, which is a good thing in my book. This, of course, has to be impactful, or most people will just ignore it. Seriously, would you bother with high ground if the only effect were +2 AC?

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Why would anyone bother with equipping a shield if it only gives +2 AC?

+2 is not an insignificant bonus.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jan 2021
D
Darun Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Dexai
Why would anyone bother with equipping a shield if it only gives +2 AC?

+2 is not an insignificant bonus.

Because equipping a shield is like ... A LOT easier and less of a hassle than seeking high ground?

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by Dexai
That link you posted is making my browser give me warnings by the way.

Also a 3.5 averages to 4.

Weird, Wolfram Alpha has never given me any warnings, be it from private or company network; you can google it, it is safe.

And no, 3.5 does not average 4, I cannot even follow what idea you had here.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

Wrong. If you don't have a clue about a subject matter, don't try to lecture people who do. I admit I did not account for criticals, but that effect would be negligible, especially considering criticals will often deal overkill damage (Goblins).

Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

In my gaming experience, the base chances to hit were generally way above 50% (at this moment I can't pinpoint a number, though). It is very well possible that Larian adopts a "missing is boring" stance, so we get something like a 80% base hit chance on average. In that case, advantage would only translate to +-3. I think assuming an even distribution is as accurate as we can get until the numbers are tweaked.

Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I would have to disagree, I think height advantage should work with ranged and spells. It is taking advantage of 3D space, rather than 2D tabletop. But, I don't think say you on a small ledge just behind someone, and it gives you a melee advantage. That just doesn't sound right. There should be a slight benefit for ranged classes considering how OP melee classes seem to be. I have played a warrior, rogue, hunter and now playing a warlock, and melee definately have an easier life and do more damage it seems.

Some are offering a compromise because the current state is just too advantageous. Height gives roughly +4 to hit and +4 AC vs those who are below you. I don't know if you are familiar with 5e but one of the main design aspects of 5e is bounded accuracy. The goal was to reduce bonuses so it would be manageable all the way to level 20 and bridge the wide gap that often appeared between high and low levels. So at level 20, characters get +6 to hit vs +2 to hit at level 1. It's not a big gap, certainly not as big as previous editions.

From my understanding, BG3 will cap roughly around level 10. That would mean +4 bonus along with your bonuses for ability scores and magic items. As you can see giving +4 bonuses so easily can disrupt combat balance (you are doubling proficiency bonus at level 10). Other tactics are tossed to the side. It just becomes a mad rush to be on top of the hill. It' doesn't make for more tactics. It reduces them.

So some are asking for +2/-2 or even just -2 for height disadvantage. I don't even like that but either compromise seems better than what we have now.

Height advantage adds a tactical layer (terrain) to the game, which similar games like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder Kingmaker simply do not have at all, which is a good thing in my book. This, of course, has to be impactful, or most people will just ignore it. Seriously, would you bother with high ground if the only effect were +2 AC?

Of course you would bother if it was ANOTHER +2 bonus.

But obviously you won't care about any other method to get an advantage if you can have it through an easier mechanic....

Last edited by Maximuuus; 21/02/21 12:50 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I'm not even particularly invested in "advantage" battle, but still I'm not really sure how anyone could argue with a straight face that "only 3.5" is a minor bonus on a scale from 1 to 20.

Last edited by Tuco; 21/02/21 01:55 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
I get a cross-scripting attack warning on that site. Is the difference a +3.5 to hit every attack that you have height advantage? Could someone copy the article to text here please?

Joined: Jan 2021
D
Darun Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Jan 2021

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Sigil
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Sigil
Problem with the advantage is not the avarage plus it gives to you mathematically but instead gives u a chance to roll 2x dice where as u should roll only 1,
and on top of that you are allowed to pick the highest roll so its pretty broken. It really gives a big advantage as the name suggests,
but also makes spells more exploitable.

On the sneak attack perspective ppl usually agree it makes a rogue OP but theres also that:
[Linked Image from linkpicture.com]
BG 3 already nerfed sneak attack by requiring 2 adjent characters to gain that opportunity. Normally you only need one,
and considering the fact that you will always have a warrior kind in your party, you should be landing them in every turn as long as you aim for it.

On the advantage/disadvantage what PHB says:
[Linked Image from linkpicture.com]

Highground can fit in the aspect of the enviroment somehow.
Standing on a table shouldnt give it to u for a melee hit, but it certainly does if you are actually in higher ground, afterall..
[Linked Image from linkpicture.com]

But things get broken when it comes to a range attack..u can gain half cover bonus (+2) but pure advantage is a bit too much.
However the game is still EA and what I think is maybe codingwise it might be hard for engine to separate that yet..It just might be
the right approach to tweak those after eveything is done so the every situation that game will cover will be on the table.

Last edited by TripleKill; 21/02/21 02:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

In my gaming experience, the base chances to hit were generally way above 50% (at this moment I can't pinpoint a number, though). It is very well possible that Larian adopts a "missing is boring" stance, so we get something like a 80% base hit chance on average. In that case, advantage would only translate to +-3. I think assuming an even distribution is as accurate as we can get until the numbers are tweaked.

As I said in my earlier post, +5 is an exaggeration of the benefit of advantage. I still do not agree with you that a flat distribution is the best estimate, since you are allowing the extreme cases to drive the average too low in this case. If you truncate the distribution to eliminate very low (only 19 and 20 hit) and very high (anything 3 and above hits) you already get to a +4.067 (calculated via your Wolfram link).

I also think that you are underestimating the importance of small boni in 5E. This edition of D&D operates under a scheme called "bounded accuracy" which makes bonuses to hit very hard to come by. Stat bonus will max out at +5 (unless you are a level 20 barbarian, which is very much an edge case) and proficiency will max out at +6. If Larian follows the treasures in the DMG then the maximum magic item bonus will be +3...

Under this regime ANY bonus is impactful, even a lowly +1. This is not pathfinder where you can stack bucketfulls of feats, items, and stats to achieve a +75 to hit if you min/max up the wazoo.

Last edited by dwig; 21/02/21 02:42 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I'm not even particularly invested in "advantage" battle, but still I'm not really sure how anyone could argue with a straight face that "only 3.5" is a minor bonus on a scale from 1 to 20.
Especially when it's in addition to a -3.5 penalty for the enemy.

Last edited by Labayu; 21/02/21 03:34 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Darun
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls, Natural 1's always missing and Natural 20's always hitting bring the value to +5.

Wrong. If you don't have a clue about a subject matter, don't try to lecture people who do. I admit I did not account for criticals, but that effect would be negligible, especially considering criticals will often deal overkill damage (Goblins).

Lol dude who's trying to lecture who? There's nothing wrong about the statement "it's 3.5 if you don't account for critical rolls", you don't even need Wolfram Alpha to see rolling two lone D20's approaches a value of 3.5. You can do it with two dice and scratch paper. I did that when I first go on the forum here, but instead of telling people, "You're wrong" I went to Google:
A Source
Other Sources

There's no reason to be crass because you used Wolfram Alpha. Some of us studied probability and statistics over a decade ago, but we don't flex on a forum community about it. (Because who cares, it's a forum). There already are more in-depth analysis on advantage online. Internet forums are full of anecdotes and often there was prior discussion before the anecdote became popular. Some even remember the story behind the anecdote better than I do. (Forums are great that way).

Originally Posted by dwig
The +5 comes from assuming a 50% chance to hit. That means that you miss on 0.5*0.5=0.25 (or 25% of the time) and you therefor hit 75% of the time. This is equivalent to +5.

Now, you would be correct in pointing out that this is the maximum benefit possible from advantage. It declines as you both raise and lower your chance to hit. It does overestimate the value of advantage a bit.

However, it is almost certainly a better estimate than assuming an even distribution of hit chances. In a well balanced game you will not see very many situations where you hit on a 2, or very many situations where you only hit on a 19 or 20. Given the actual to-hit chances that you will encounter in BG3 the value is probably between +4 and +5.

Sorry for not being perfect wink

Advantage being valued at +5 is an anecdote that has been used in good faith because a natural 20 can double the damage, always hit, etc. I'm glad that you're willing to admit that you did not account for critical rolls, but you can't consider double damage and a guaranteed hit negligible. During an entire campaign you will be fighting more than goblins. There are also other external factors to consider in Baldur's Gate 3 with mechanics such a shove, disadvantage on incoming attacks, enemies with lowered AC, etc. adding even more value to high ground. So is it just +3.5? It's a magnitude greater than 3.5.
Statisticians have to account for external factors, you cannot call it 3.5 and walk away.

I'd rather say it's about +5 than calculate values for each of those, I do have a day job and I've been playing Baldur's Gate 3 in my free time.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
I'm fairly uncomfortable with the Original Post.

It seems to aim at correcting the technical analysis sometimes/often done about High-Ground advantage (with lower case a). It also suggests that some people intentionally spread misinformation. But the post itself is fairly criticisable. Two points :

a) The post only discusses the Advantage gained from High-Ground (with upper case A, i.e. the mechanism).

But High-Ground also means that enemies have Low-Ground and attack with Disadvantage. This far from negligible.

So the conclusion about "height advantage" being not as bad as many people claim is really just about Advantage not being as powerful as a sometimes claimed. Maybe Darun only meant to talk about Advantage, but then it would have been better to not involve height/High-Ground in the discussion and avoid the advantage/Advantage ambiguity.

b) The assumption of uniformity of hit chances along the whole spectrum is very criticisable. You don't encounter enemies that you have a 10% chance of hitting that often, I would think (depends on GM of course).
If you go for uniform hit chance between 30% and 90%, say, you find an average equivalent bonus of +4.1.

I'm not saying the Original Post is itself a clear vector of the disinformation (intentional or not), incorrectness and misconceptions it purports to rectify, but I find it uncomfortably close to that.


Having said that, the really interesting topic (to me at least) is Advantage. Which I'll make another topic for.


Hoping we'll be able to create great assumptions-free Custom Characters and be given great roleplay options.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
It's also important to consider that the first post is about two d20's rolling in a vacuum. Not necessarily in DnD or Baldur's Gate 3.

Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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