Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
@Niara

So let me get this straight.

You are using my explanation of why enemies have more spell slots right now as a way to vent on your frustrations with Larian? What exactly is cheating about extra spell slots when you know enemies are CR and not level?

This is getting ridiculous.

Edit: Have you even considered level cap in EA? If its too hard leave it alone. That is data at worse.

Last edited by Aishaddai; 29/04/21 12:51 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
In 5e CR for monsters with casting ability isn't just determined by their caster level, but also by what spells they have at their disposal.

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]

Which is why a stock archmage is a CR 12, even though it's a caster level of 18.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I would say that larian has a much more difficult task to balance matches correctly.
The DM can adapt to the group on an ongoing basis by appropriately selecting the risk.
This cannot be done in the game. How to balance the game when you have no idea what the player will have in the team.
A player may as well have a team consisting of only combat classes that do not require much rest, or a team based entirely on classes that require more common rests.
Certain enemies will, of course, be a much greater threat to one type of team than to another.
Do you see where the problem is? Of course, the composition of the team itself is not the only thing that the creator has to take into account.
Larian brought this upon themselves. Introducing lop-sided mechanics. Some folks do misunderstand the CR system IRL, but it's not that difficult to understand. It's rather easy to balance as well (With the understanding that multi-attack / pack tactics can murder a low-level party).

Introducing lop-sided mechanics was always going to make balancing more challenging. Especially when depriving the player of reactions.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
@Niara

So let me get this straight.

You are using my explanation of why enemies have more spell slots right now as a way to vent on your frustrations with Larian? What exactly is cheating about extra spell slots when you know enemies are CR and not level?

This is getting ridiculous.

Edit: Have you even considered level cap in EA? If its too hard leave it alone. That is data at worse.

If counterspell is a thing, and they may be incapable of implementing reactions so it may not be, it will have a major practical effect.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by Ankou
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
@Niara

So let me get this straight.

You are using my explanation of why enemies have more spell slots right now as a way to vent on your frustrations with Larian? What exactly is cheating about extra spell slots when you know enemies are CR and not level?

This is getting ridiculous.

Edit: Have you even considered level cap in EA? If its too hard leave it alone. That is data at worse.

If counterspell is a thing, and they may be incapable of implementing reactions so it may not be, it will have a major practical effect.

Maybe someone will actually pick up the mage slayer feat. Lmao. Lore Bards might be Mvp too. I don't mind either of those.

Also might be why Gale is cannonically abjuration. The ultimate counter wizard.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Is Gale canonically an abjurer? It lets you pick his subclass for yourself.

Originally Posted by Ankou
If counterspell is a thing, and they may be incapable of implementing reactions so it may not be, it will have a major practical effect.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Could you imagine counter spell in the current system? You would just auto counter the first spell that goes off. If it's like hellish rebuke, you would even have to spend the spell slot BEFORE you cast it, which is gross.

Even worse is the divination wizard's portent ability. How would that work in the current system? What are they going to do, nerf divination wizards? I hate to say it, but it may be the case.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Gale party banter says he prefers abjuration over other methods of fighting.

Their is always a cannon, you just aren't bound to it as a player.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
What exactly is cheating about extra spell slots when you know enemies are CR and not level?

Within the context of the 5e rules for magic and magical availability which the player characters in this game abide by, and within the setting context of the Frogotten Realms, and the rules for magic and its availability as defined by current world lore, what CR of creature or caster has access to eight 1st level slots, six 2nd level slots and four 3rd level slots?

Name one.

That is the problem. It is a deliberate break in an established system which has impact upon the game and how it plays, and the challenge of an encounter, and the choice points which players and enemies alike may face. It is being done in ignorance and without any tact or understanding.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
What exactly is cheating about extra spell slots when you know enemies are CR and not level?

Within the context of the 5e rules for magic and magical availability which the player characters in this game abide by, and within the setting context of the Frogotten Realms, and the rules for magic and its availability as defined by current world lore, what CR of creature or caster has access to eight 1st level slots, six 2nd level slots and four 3rd level slots?

Name one.

That is the problem. It is a deliberate break in an established system which has impact upon the game and how it plays, and the challenge of an encounter, and the choice points which players and enemies alike may face. It is being done in ignorance and without any tact or understanding.

So "it's not lore friendly" is what's bothering you?

Have you met Larian? You are in for a rough time. Wotc are backing this so good luck with that. DM's choice is quite the mountain to climb. Dnd has lasted this long because DM's change things. Every table is different. Even Wotc change fundamental things like race stats, abilites, and core concept.

If you are adept as you claim then you should know lore is the least consistent aspect of Dnd as a franchise.

Make a topic and break down what bothers you if it means that much to you. Larian might see it and change things to your liking. You have done it before. What's one more.

Personally it has not bothered me so far so it's win/win for me.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
As far as I know, WotC rarely contradicts itself lorewise in an edition? Like things change in between editions, the lore is different between 4e and 5e for example (like 4e allows gnolls to be civilized while 5e basically made em always fiendish feral), but during an edition things don't contradict often (or atleast I can't think of any moments). Things can massively change, and sometimes new things are revealed, but WotC doesn't mess up their lore in a set.

Also people talking about how a level 18 mage is a CR12 enemy is why I said they don't follow player rules too closely. CR isn't completely tied to level and things can be a little loose. I will admit the MM is not the thing I am most knowledgeable about, I mostly pay attention to what I can summon. However, something I noticed is Cr doesn't match levels and often times Monsters have something that is different for them that makes them special in a fight against a player, sometimes it is innate spellcasting or recharged abilities or something strange, so to me a singular enemy having more spell slots than normal is ok if not every enemy has that. It becomes a problem when every enemy deviates from the base of players in the same way because it then becomes predictable and arguably unfair/unfun.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Out of curiosity, Aishaddai...

Hot did you manage to get: "it's not lore friendly" Out of: "It is a deliberate break in an established system which has impact upon the game and how it plays, and the challenge of an encounter, and the choice points which players and enemies alike may face. It is being done in ignorance and without any tact or understanding."

That's a fascinating achievement.


There's a big difference between Wizards backing something, and permitting something. We've seen them back something strongly - D&D Beyond, for example. That's an example of Wizards backing something that is not ultimately theirs, but which uses their license and has a direct impact on their game and publicity. They back that super hard. It's not actually Wizards who owns D&D Beyond - they just back it.

They are not putting the same amount of effort and support into backing this game, at least not any more. They're permitting it, with a tokenary appearance and occasional thumbs-up support, but little else.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
As far as I know, WotC rarely contradicts itself lorewise in an edition? Like things change in between editions, the lore is different between 4e and 5e for example (like 4e allows gnolls to be civilized while 5e basically made em always fiendish feral), but during an edition things don't contradict often (or atleast I can't think of any moments). Things can massively change, and sometimes new things are revealed, but WotC doesn't mess up their lore in a set.

Also people talking about how a level 18 mage is a CR12 enemy is why I said they don't follow player rules too closely. CR isn't completely tied to level and things can be a little loose. I will admit the MM is not the thing I am most knowledgeable about, I mostly pay attention to what I can summon. However, something I noticed is Cr doesn't match levels and often times Monsters have something that is different for them that makes them special in a fight against a player, sometimes it is innate spellcasting or recharged abilities or something strange, so to me a singular enemy having more spell slots than normal is ok if not every enemy has that. It becomes a problem when every enemy deviates from the base of players in the same way because it then becomes predictable and arguably unfair/unfun.

Yes lore from edition to edition is mostly what I mean. So far recently in 5e Wotc has taken interest in changing things in different way's. Like for example the new Dark Alliance is 5e technically but is nothing like table top or even previous Dark alliance games. It is it's own thing. An attempt to modernize to grab an a particular audience. Bg3 seems to be exactly the same concept. Modernize and capture the Larian audience. The difference is that the dnd crowd want in on this game but hate Larian designs lol.

Another example is tasha's custom rules. They are trying hard to turn dnd into a flexible franchise where much of the core right down to your very character can be customized. I'm not suprised that Larian's version of a campaign is experimental. The only thing that suprised me was how stubborn, rude, rigid, and arrogant the dnd online crowd is. You'd think after a table or two people would learn to be flexible.

To me EA is in flux. If enemies have more spell slots then mage slayer will be op, counter spell will be more op, jump/longstrider will be very useful, etc. Nothing is set in stone so complaining till you are blue in the face seems pointless. Larian's past EA's don't exactly spring confidence either.

I am only on my side. The side that simply looks at the game and won't make a concrete opinion till release. I'll make observations at most from time to time. If something bothers me I'll make a suggestion and move on. I won't waste time like this Niara person. Their are more exciting things to do with my time now. Have a nice day.

Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Blurg the level 5 Hobgoblin Wizard has way more spell slots than a level 5 Wizard would. 8 / 6 / 4.

And his attributes are 16 / 12 / 14 / 18 / 14 / 14.

I really don't like this kind of design. Hopefully he is supposed to be higher level or something and all the stats are just randomly thrown in for placeholder. It's super annoying your PC Wizard "hero" has to scrape by with a reasonable 27 point buy while a random hobgoblin NPC of the same level has much higher stats and extra spell slots.

Blurg also has an "extra action point" so he could probably cast two spells per turn in a fight. Now.. is there an even bigger homebrew bomb ticking somewhere? Is Larian going to give extra action points at higher levels and throw D&D even more out of whack than they already have?

Page 2 of 2 1 2

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