Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Some subclass are based on the idea of mixing classes together. Eldritch knight is a fighter with wizard spells. Hexblade is a warlock with more of brawler focus like a fighter. Paladin oath of the ancients is a Paladin mixed with druid. Every class has a sort of hybrid option. Hence hybrid class is how I see them. Some are very strong, others not so much. I can list the phb ones if you want.

And the fact that there are class archetypes that have limited casting abilities, has what to do with the fact that Larian has deviated from the rules and allows non-caster classes to use spells scrolls as if they were casters, and casters to use spell scrolls for spells that aren't in their spell list?

Last edited by Grudgebearer; 19/03/21 01:36 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
The bottom line is that Larian's usual way of doing things, like giving a massive high ground boost, basically nullifies a lot of class skills, spells, and other things that have meaning in D&D and part of the strategy and feeling of accomplishment in the game that are now totally pointless. Like I've been complaining about druid a lot lately, because bear form is kind of bad and moon druid is therefore pointless. The issue is that the bear doesn't take advantage of the Larian cheese, so just don't use it. The OP posited a great way to use the spider form in another topic (which land gets right away) based entirely on out of control environmental effects of basically lighting the entire battlefield on fire with web. So again, you're being actively incentivized to avoid huge swaths of the game, and that's the problem. Nobody wants to feel like they inhibiting themselves. And when people complaint it's not like D&D I don't think it's random fanboying, it's really saying, "There's all these things that have a purpose because it's tradeoff or because you should use it and there's value in it, and now there isn't value in it." It simplifies it a lot but you sacrifice a lot of what makes each class special or meaningful. This also impacts replay value because you're not going to really change it up as between a Rogue and a fighter at this moment.

What's disheartening is that it's not clear Larian is engaging with the "why" behind people's complaints. When they nerfed firebolt, it wasn't just because it was firebolt right? The idea was the cantrip with so powerful that it was reducing the importance of other cantrips and other spells. So now you had fewer meaningful choices because firebolt was such an optimal choice. As far as I can tell, Larian hasn't acknowledged that design philosophy and that's what worries me. It's not just about responding to specific things the players are identifying, because we can nitpick a million things but that gets lost in the shuffle. The real bottom line is designing the game in a way that everything has a purpose.

Last edited by Ankou; 19/03/21 01:47 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Some subclass are based on the idea of mixing classes together. Eldritch knight is a fighter with wizard spells. Hexblade is a warlock with more of brawler focus like a fighter. Paladin oath of the ancients is a Paladin mixed with druid. Every class has a sort of hybrid option. Hence hybrid class is how I see them. Some are very strong, others not so much. I can list the phb ones if you want.

And the fact that there are class archetypes that have limited casting abilities, has what to do with the fact that Larian has deviated from the rules and allows non-caster classes to use spells scrolls as if they were casters, and casters to use spell scrolls for spells that aren't in their spell list?

You literally inquired about hybrid. I answered. You don't like homebrew? No use complaining to me. Most expansions in 5e are just official homebrew so I'd suggest a different tactic in trying to get your ideas across. From what I've seen so far you will just be hand waved away. In my opinion martial classes using scrolls does not seem like a big deal. So you do you.

Last edited by Aishaddai; 19/03/21 02:18 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
F
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
F
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Scrolls should be the last thing on an Ek's mind.

Why would a battle master not be using the superior die? You think a single scroll would ever be better than supper die? Read that list. No reason to use scrolls.
This statement doesn't check out at all when you consider we are going to be playing above level 4. Yes, there are many spells that are better than an attack action, especially when you consider that spellcasters often use spells for benefits beyond pure damage. If a fighter can cast any spell via spell scroll when the situation calls for it, and get 3 attack actions + action surge + battle master maneuvers, then there isn't a reason to play a spell caster.

Not to mention, this defeats the entire purpose of having more than one spell casting class. If every class can cast every spell via a scroll, then classes don't mean anything, this isn't even an RPG game, let alone D&D. And this includes wizards, they should NOT be able to learn every spell in the game from scrolls, only the spells available to wizards on their spell list can be learned.

For all the talk about Larian cheese, I have always considered it a given that spell scrolls would eventually become properly restricted to class before release, it really would be the most damaging of all changes that could be made to D&D in this game, to give away the most special aspect of the class system to every other class. Talk about changes to action economy and combat mechanics all you want, but if everyone gets access to each other's class abilities, then there really is no D&D here, by any stretch of the imagination.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
One of the benefits of going EK is to be able to use spells, you don't get many spell slots as a Knight, scrolls are very useful for going past spellslot limit for utility if your dm lets you find them. Sometimes being able to just fling a fireball via scroll or use an invisibility scroll is better than doing so with one's own spellslots or even the multiattack.

Joined: Jan 2021
F
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
F
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Some subclass are based on the idea of mixing classes together. Eldritch knight is a fighter with wizard spells. Hexblade is a warlock with more of brawler focus like a fighter. Paladin oath of the ancients is a Paladin mixed with druid. Every class has a sort of hybrid option. Hence hybrid class is how I see them. Some are very strong, others not so much. I can list the phb ones if you want.

And the fact that there are class archetypes that have limited casting abilities, has what to do with the fact that Larian has deviated from the rules and allows non-caster classes to use spells scrolls as if they were casters, and casters to use spell scrolls for spells that aren't in their spell list?

You literally inquired about hybrid. I answered. You don't like homebrew? No use complaining to me. Most expansions in 5e are just official homebrew so I'd suggest a different tactic in trying to get your ideas across. From what I've seen so far you will just be hand waved away. In my opinion martial classes using scrolls does not seem like a big deal. So you do you.
Except all the "hybrid classes" you mentioned have spell list limitations. Eldritch knights sacrifice extra martial abilities to have light spell casting abilities, but can't ever cast above 4th level spells, and have a very narrow spell list. Hexblade and oath of ancients paladins also have a limits on spells available to them. So this does not come anywhere close to providing an argument for why all classes should be able to cast all spells. There really isn't an argument that could justify that. There is no equivalence between creating a new class with unique features/limitations, and saying you made a "new" class by giving it every ability.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Ferros
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Some subclass are based on the idea of mixing classes together. Eldritch knight is a fighter with wizard spells. Hexblade is a warlock with more of brawler focus like a fighter. Paladin oath of the ancients is a Paladin mixed with druid. Every class has a sort of hybrid option. Hence hybrid class is how I see them. Some are very strong, others not so much. I can list the phb ones if you want.

And the fact that there are class archetypes that have limited casting abilities, has what to do with the fact that Larian has deviated from the rules and allows non-caster classes to use spells scrolls as if they were casters, and casters to use spell scrolls for spells that aren't in their spell list?

You literally inquired about hybrid. I answered. You don't like homebrew? No use complaining to me. Most expansions in 5e are just official homebrew so I'd suggest a different tactic in trying to get your ideas across. From what I've seen so far you will just be hand waved away. In my opinion martial classes using scrolls does not seem like a big deal. So you do you.
Except all the "hybrid classes" you mentioned have spell list limitations. Eldritch knights sacrifice extra martial abilities to have light spell casting abilities, but can't ever cast above 4th level spells, and have a very narrow spell list. Hexblade and oath of ancients paladins also have a limits on spells available to them. So this does not come anywhere close to providing an argument for why all classes should be able to cast all spells. There really isn't an argument that could justify that. There is no equivalence between creating a new class with unique features/limitations, and saying you made a "new" class by giving it every ability.

Couldn't have said it better. Those "hybrid" classes as you are trying to call them, are archetypes of their root class, Eldritch Knight is still a fighter, that gets limited casting abilities. It still can't use a scroll with a spell that isn't on its class list.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
High ground advantage/low ground disadvantage isn't what I'd consider cheese, it's just a highly questionable design decision. Taking advantage of it by itself isn't cheese. But what pushes it into cheese range is the existence of bonus action shove, which further emphasizes control of the high ground by rewarding players with an opportunity for bonus damage via yeeting things that try to pursue your party. Not to mention that the existence of an ability that anyone can use which can outright result in instant kills when used at certain angles really shouldn't be a bonus action to begin with. There's a very good reason why the high ground/low ground advantage/disadvantage system as well as bonus action shoves don't exist in tabletop DnD, and BG3 is basically proof of why.
Agree with everything you said.

I would argue Shove is fundamentally unbalanced and cheesy as it is a normal action that somehow is unique for the player and that disregards physical realities. A halfling can bully an ogre freely with it, the kinetic energy is more akin to a cannonball than something realistic. But Larian's cheesy homebrew has unwittingly opened a can of worm that WILL require evermore homebrew or selective implementations. Feats like Sentinel+Polearm Mastery in conjunction with Shove will be able to damage and in effect stun-lock enemies.

Incentivizing high ground/flanking tactical movement is originally smart design. It devolves into Larian cheesy dumbfuckery by a complete disregard for balance. It is so over-incentivized it makes combat revolve around exploiting overpowered homebrew advantage - that furthermore makes a host of spells/class abilities (ie. Barbarian's Reckless Attack) redundant. Which again will require more homebrew or screw these over. ​

Flanking is piling on the cheese in further two ways. How the enemy AI consistently fails to abuse it (while they exploit height advantage so much, they almost break immersion by abandoning near melee encounters to scramble to faraway vantage points), so again it's mostly a natural movement that is "player only". Secondly, the flanking mechanic is virtually guaranteed for no/little effort (unlike height advantage). The way you move to the back of an enemy without them reacting is so extremely unrealistic it again hurts immersion. It simply strips the turn-based system naked as a bad approximation of real combat. Larian could easily have restricted this by ie. having everyone pivot towards one threatening enemy within range. Realism and balance restored. Cheese gone. But actual tactics and smart plays is an impediment to Larian's silly fun cheese.

D&D is a fragile eco-system, and Larian cheese is an invasive species.

Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
How does high ground work with area spells such as Stinking Cloud or Cloudkill? Can you cast those spells to locations over your head, so that your own party on the ground stays safe?

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Damage dealt and magic item effects can break the argument of multi attack vs single scroll. It really depends on the situation including what you are fighting. Action surge is a moot point since it is limited. Yes partial classes have limited spells. It makes scrolls more valuable to them. So?

I never said anything about learning spells from scrolls either. Just using them. Like I said before, how frequent you get scrolls is more the issue. So if thats all then that as they say is that. Half decent wizards dominate games so don't expect me to have sympathy for the class. Especially when this is a buff to a team encounter and a indirect massive buff to spell caster spell slots and upcast.

All I can tell you is agree to disagree.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Flanking is piling on the cheese in further two ways. How the enemy AI consistently fails to abuse it (while they exploit height advantage so much, they almost break immersion by abandoning near melee encounters to scramble to faraway vantage points), so again it's mostly a natural movement that is "player only". Secondly, the flanking mechanic is virtually guaranteed for no/little effort (unlike height advantage). The way you move to the back of an enemy without them reacting is so extremely unrealistic it again hurts immersion. It simply strips the turn-based system naked as a bad approximation of real combat. Larian could easily have restricted this by ie. having everyone pivot towards one threatening enemy within range. Realism and balance restored. Cheese gone. But actual tactics and smart plays is an impediment to Larian's silly fun cheese.

D&D is a fragile eco-system, and Larian cheese is an invasive species.
Remember, Flanking isn't actually in BG3. Flanking would be more sensible, at it requires allies to be on either side of an enemy, and it's reasonable that a surrounded enemy couldn't properly defend themselves against both attackers. It has some limitations and risk involved.

BG3 has Backstab, which yes has all the problems that you mention.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
On the topic of spellcaster cheese: the flaming sphere. Enemies seem to view it as a melee combatant, even though the sphere is indestructible. On its own, it doesn't do much damage, so the spell can run out when facing enemies that can heal or have lots of hit points. However, if you have two spellcaster capable of summonign one each, you can just keep sending in new spheres, and if you hide the party, enemies won't have other targets, so they will try to attack the spheres instead and perish in the aura...

Late EA battle behind spoiler.



[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]


Last edited by ash elemental; 21/03/21 10:35 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Starlights
If there is a consensus on the above definition, then;
We can stop using that word, for the context of an early access game. The goal of an EA is to provide a taste & feel about a foundational framework that will get better define as the development progress.

Am I on the right track here ?
Sure, and the trouble with unfinished games is that it is easy to discuss balance, while a balance pass might not even be done. Still, I am worried that what we call "cheese" might be intentional design by Larian. We say jump, hight advantage and backstab are too OP and Larian says:

Joined: Jan 2021
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by ash elemental
On the topic of spellcaster cheese: the flaming sphere. Enemies seem to view it as a melee combatant, even though the sphere is indestructible. On its own, it doesn't do much damage, so the spell can run out when facing enemies that can heal or have lots of hit points. However, if you have two spellcaster capable of summonign one each, you can just keep sending in new spheres, and if you hide the party, enemies won't have other targets, so they will try to attack the spheres instead and perish in the aura...

Late EA battle behind spoiler.



[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]


Hi @ash elemental,

Flaming sphere is quite an "overpower" spell indeed - but again, allowed by the engine. But to make it more "cheese" or "cheese^2" (if there is such definition), here some ideas on how to use it.

keep your party at distance, or hidden, as you said, then cast the flaming sphere and start attacking vilains with the sphere and then:
1- vilains will take damage just for standing in the flaming sphere aura at every turn;
2- Vilains will group to attack the flaming sphere, as you are pointing out;
3- "After" the 2nd round though, have your party to start attacking the vilains from range - the vilains will still be focused on the sphere & you keep your party outside the sphere aura.

Optionals, if you have a Druid in the party - then things will get more ugly - try that: have the druid to change into spider and start throwing web on your flaming sphere smile
This is where, I believe you can use the quote "I'm going to burn this place down".

Basically, flaming sphere can distract from the group and attract all vilains to one place (you're in control) - you just need to wait a little that they are fully attracted to it - like a honeypot for mosquitos. And then the player/party comes to play.

That trick works everywhere, even on bullate (or the gith patrol). You just need to corner Bullate where you can get the drow armor as she doesn't run away.

From my view, this process fits in the definition of "cheese" as it's quite easy to repeat the process everywhere in the game. It's just boring to only do that everywhere in the game.

Last edited by Starlights; 21/03/21 04:46 PM.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a bit, you realize the pig enjoys it.
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Starlights
Hi @ash elemental,

Flaming sphere is quite an "overpower" spell indeed - but again, allowed by the engine. But to make it more "cheese" or "cheese^2" (if there is such definition), here some ideas on how to use it.

keep your party at distance, or hidden, as you said, then cast the flaming sphere and start attacking vilains with the sphere and then:
That is actually what my screenshot is showing (party is hidden). I think it's cheese not due to the spell itself, but due to how the enemies for some reason consider the sphere an opponent they can melee. Enemies should recognize it as a spell effect and, failing to damage it, they should move away instead. I suspect the sphere is coded as a summon/npc of sorts and hence the weird enemy behaviour.

Joined: Jan 2021
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Starlights
If there is a consensus on the above definition, then;
We can stop using that word, for the context of an early access game. The goal of an EA is to provide a taste & feel about a foundational framework that will get better define as the development progress.

Am I on the right track here ?
Sure, and the trouble with unfinished games is that it is easy to discuss balance, while a balance pass might not even be done. Still, I am worried that what we call "cheese" might be intentional design by Larian. We say jump, hight advantage and backstab are too OP and Larian says:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=766194#Post766194

Hi @Wormerine, (to save real estate in the post, I copied your post link in your quote instead, so it stays link with your youtube),

I am glad that you double click on the original post - that's exactly my point (well it's actually my point smile ), using "cheese" and "hack" in an early access game doesn't have its place. These days, when doing a run through, I am focus in finding those "hacks" or "cheese" or ways to abuse the engine as much as I can, and then find ways to post them here with in mind Larian can pick them up and adapt for final game release.

"Let the cheese come !!"

I'm glad to see we're on the same page.


Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a bit, you realize the pig enjoys it.
Joined: Oct 2020
Z
member
Offline
member
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't know how anyone can justify individual surprise attacks granting you virtually 8 free actions across your team at the beginning of the first turn.

Joined: Nov 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Nov 2020
There where cheese tactics in bg1 + 2 also (for example trap stacking). However the massiv difference was that it never intended to be used this way and people just came up with weird ideas on use of spells and ability’s that devs didn’t see when they made the game.

In bg3 larians devs are fully aware of the cheese and put it into the game intentionally because they think it’s fun. And since they’re history lies in divinity games and not DnD games it’s not much of a surprise. And because they are not DnD gamers no one will ever be able to convince them that they are wrong in this case.

This is why so many people say the license should have gone to an other company for the sake of DnD.

Joined: Jul 2009
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Jul 2009
Larian DS1:
Action Points are very strong

Larian official talk DS2:
Action Points a very strong so you have only 4 to 6 maximum per Round.

Laian: "pse come here"
Player: "What is it"?
Larian: " When you combine Invisibility (enemys make nothing) with this Starter Rogue talent you can have play like having 2 times 6 Acion Points and exploit the fuck out of it"

Joined: Dec 2020
X
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
X
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Starlights
Hi @Wormerine, (to save real estate in the post, I copied your post link in your quote instead, so it stays link with your youtube),

I am glad that you double click on the original post - that's exactly my point (well it's actually my point smile ), using "cheese" and "hack" in an early access game doesn't have its place. These days, when doing a run through, I am focus in finding those "hacks" or "cheese" or ways to abuse the engine as much as I can, and then find ways to post them here with in mind Larian can pick them up and adapt for final game release.

"Let the cheese come !!"

I'm glad to see we're on the same page.

Haha, me too. Though I can't tell if this is a brick of stinky cheese or just pure rotten filth.


Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

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