|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Players who are hit by these abilities play less of the game. Sure, I guess you can have a personal taste that "playing less of the game is fun", but at that point I would question why you're playing the game at all? 1rst, I think you're exaggerating how much less of the game they're playing, and 2nd, the answer to your question about why I'm playing the game is: A) for the challenge, which includes the possibility of being hit with negative effects or (gasp) even being knocked out or killed, and B) for the escape into the story. Basically, we have very different philosophies on roleplaying games. I accept that you have your own version of fun, but to me, the idea of putting restrictions on the DM to make sure I'm always awake and participating every turn isn't a good time. Sometimes my character gets burned and I have to sit one out, or even make a new character. It happens, and I don't begrudge the system. In fact, it's part of the enjoyment, the challenge, the repercussions. Let the dice fall where they may.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
1rst, I think you're exaggerating how much less of the game they're playing, and
2nd, the answer to your question about why I'm playing the game is:
A) for the challenge, which includes the possibility of being hit with negative effects or (gasp) even being knocked out or killed, and
B) for the escape into the story.
Basically, we have very different philosophies on roleplaying games. I accept that you have your own version of fun, but to me, the idea of putting restrictions on the DM to make sure I'm always awake and participating every turn isn't a good time. Sometimes my character gets burned and I have to sit one out, or even make a new character. It happens, and I don't begrudge the system. In fact, it's part of the enjoyment, the challenge, the repercussions. Let the dice fall where they may. I've been blending BG3 with tabletop in this discussion. In my experience, a full round in tabletop takes ~10-20 min (a couple/few minutes per player + DM), so losing a single turn means doing nothing for 15-30 minutes depending on exactly when you're stunned. Losing multiple turns can easily lead to doing nothing for an hour, maybe more for longer combats. Combat obviously happens faster in BG3, which makes losing your turn less punishing; I'll concede that point. But "less bad" != good. And I suppose we do. I agree that player death can be tense and exciting. And a player getting knocked out does immediately make the situation so much more dangerous. But death happens infrequently in D&D, certainly not every combat, and getting knocked out (usually) takes multiple turns to reach that point and thus could be prevented by disengaging/etc. Whereas causing players to suddenly lose a turn via a single enemy action (or some ice on the ground), while it does increase tension and encounter difficulty for the remaining players, is not worth the removal of agency from the target player. Especially if this happens often, without much significance given to the occasion/enemy. Edit: Would it be fair to say that: you think the loss of a turn, while not fun for the player, makes the game overall more fun? Due to increased tension/danger to the party? Or do you actively find being stunned and relegated to watching (and possibly providing comments/advice to other players) fun?
Last edited by mrfuji3; 19/10/21 07:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
...a good DM should be very wary about using these types of spells against players. Oh my goodness, I don't think I could disagree more. This is an issue of personal taste. It's basically a player saying, "I prefer a DM who does it this way." That's certainly fine, but it doesn't speak for all players, and it doesn't define whether a DM is good or bad in a universal sense. From my perspective, these things exist in the game, and I accept that they will be used, both to the players' benefit and detriment, depending. Players who are hit by these abilities play less of the game. Sure, I guess you can have a personal taste that "playing less of the game is fun", but at that point I would question why you're playing the game at all? I'm not arguing that there should never be turn-losing abilities used on the players. But these should not happen frequently - slipping on ice shouldn't cause you to lose your turn and low-level enemies (goblins) shouldn't have weapon abilities/maneuvers that make you lose your turn. Especially slipping on ice. At least for many of the other options (sleep, hold person, frightened), your allies can help end the effect on you by breaking the casters' concentration/waking you up/removing your fear. Prone = unconscious = losing the rest of your turn is just purely a 'fuck you.' Fun part can be that you actively try to avoid those effects as well, not just deal with them when they happen. And that just one extra layer of tactics...
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Thiis is a general problem with how Larian is approacing things (dont get me wrong i love larian) but from my point of view they think bigger is better in every regard, its been like this from the start up until now its inflicting everything aout the game from the new dirt visuals to exploding barrels , shove mechanics , pet handliing , inviromental hazards, magical items. just please Larian its a CLASSIC example of a Monthy Hall GM where everythiing becomes boriing because its over the top. sometime less is more.
Its ok to introduce homebrew rules iin the game most GM's does this, bubt it has to be alanced out compared to the base rules otherwise whyy use D&D5e at all?
Last edited by Ormgaard; 20/10/21 10:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Thiis is a general problem with how Larian is approacing things (dont get me wrong i love larian) but from my point of view they think bigger is better in every regard, its been like this from the start up until now its inflicting everything aout the game from the new dirt visuals to exploding barrels , shove mechanics , pet handliing , inviromental hazards, magical items. just please Larian its a CLASSIC example of a Monthy Hall GM where everythiing becomes boriing because its over the top. sometime less is more. Completly agree. This is Larian's style. I don't think that exploding barrels and the fact that your complete party burns in each fight (by barrels, aoe damage arrows etc.) make the fights better. They should reduce such things a little bit. With higher levels (even in D&D 5e) your fighter gets more possibilties in fighting foes. So they should increase the level cap instead introduce homebrew feats for weapons. I do not understand why they refuse so stubbornly increasing the level cap. There are enough XP for level 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
OP
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2020
|
The issue here is that those spells are clearly defined what they do and enemies will be limited in how many times they can use them. Also spellcasters are usually an archetype that is understood to have such powers and are targeted first in most tactical combat games, including DnD. As it stands now, any enemy no matter how mundane looking could whip out some obscure ability or bomb that the player had no way of knowing about and now they get their turn taken away.
There is also an argument of expectations. It is really frustrating for an experienced DnD player to play a DnD video game and have it not work anything close to the tabletop. People in the DnD community have been starved for a proper CRPG based on the DnD ruleset for a long time. Larian has promised this game would be that and so far it is failing to live up to that promise. My comment was in reply to someone who said "it wasn't fun" to have effects that caused a character to miss a turn. Which, to me, seemed like an odd thing to say considering the type of stuff that has existed since conception in this game we're talking about. Your comment gets closer at articulating the concern, in my opinion. Just to see if I understood you, what you're saying is: 1. The effects in question should be limited, and 2. They should come from obvious sources, like spellcasters. It makes me wonder. How limited do you think it should be? Obviously, you don't have an exact number of times it should show up in a game, but you seem to have a gut sense of how often you think it should happen. Have you noticed your own game play being ruined by dozens of instances of your characters not having turns? Are you getting a lot of TPKs? In other words, is there any way to quantify your sense that it's happening too much? And why should it just come from spellcasters? Is your argument that it lacks verisimilitude otherwise? I could get behind that if the effects didn't make any sense. But if the effect makes reasonable sense, and it makes the weapons more interesting and diverse for a lot of players... then it seems like a good thing. Unless it's making the spellcasters useless? Is it making the spellcasters useless? You don't need new conditions at all to achieve this.
- An attack to charge
- An attack that makes AOE damages
- An attack that inflict the prone condition
- An attack that inflict the blind condition
- An attack that inflict the stunned condition
- An attack that reduce the ennemy speed by 2
- An attack that gives advantage to an ally engaged with the same ennemy during 1 turn
- And so on.... A rose by any other name.... I agree with Rhobar121's comment about how none of this is complicated. ...a good DM should be very wary about using these types of spells against players. Oh my goodness, I don't think I could disagree more. This is an issue of personal taste. It's basically a player saying, "I prefer a DM who does it this way." That's certainly fine, but it doesn't speak for all players, and it doesn't define whether a DM is good or bad in a universal sense. From my perspective, these things exist in the game, and I accept that they will be used, both to the players' benefit and detriment, depending. These things are not easily quantifiable while playing. What I can tell you is that I have experienced losing a characters turn to homebrewed effects in BG3 much more often than I have ever experienced it playing DND or inflicting it upon my players in the many years I have DM'd. The thing that you don't seem to be understanding from us is that we are trying to tell you that if everything takes away your turn, than there is no significance to that event when it does occur. All it does to a player is make them think "oh great, this again".
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
OP
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2020
|
...a good DM should be very wary about using these types of spells against players. Oh my goodness, I don't think I could disagree more. This is an issue of personal taste. It's basically a player saying, "I prefer a DM who does it this way." That's certainly fine, but it doesn't speak for all players, and it doesn't define whether a DM is good or bad in a universal sense. From my perspective, these things exist in the game, and I accept that they will be used, both to the players' benefit and detriment, depending. Players who are hit by these abilities play less of the game. Sure, I guess you can have a personal taste that "playing less of the game is fun", but at that point I would question why you're playing the game at all? I'm not arguing that there should never be turn-losing abilities used on the players. But these should not happen frequently - slipping on ice shouldn't cause you to lose your turn and low-level enemies (goblins) shouldn't have weapon abilities/maneuvers that make you lose your turn. Especially slipping on ice. At least for many of the other options (sleep, hold person, frightened), your allies can help end the effect on you by breaking the casters' concentration/waking you up/removing your fear. Prone = unconscious = losing the rest of your turn is just purely a 'fuck you.' Fun part can be that you actively try to avoid those effects as well, not just deal with them when they happen. And that just one extra layer of tactics... What tactics, hope your character rolls well on a save to not lose their turn that comes up far too often?
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
OP
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2020
|
It might be broken if it weren't for the fact that you can use it once for a short rest, after which it requires both hitting the enemy and the fact that the enemy will fail the condition check with which most of the stronger enemies will have no problems.
How is this different from the need to remember what color spray or maybe entangle does? It's not different, it's one more thing to learn and remember. This is a mechanic that fixes what 5e broke, which means that the weapons are really different from each other and not just have different damage. You don't need new conditions at all to achieve this. - An attack to charge - An attack that makes AOE damages - An attack that inflict the prone condition - An attack that inflict the blind condition - An attack that inflict the stunned condition - An attack that reduce the ennemy speed by 2 - An attack that gives advantage to an ally engaged with the same ennemy during 1 turn - And so on.... As for the fact that it isnt needed, I agree, however, I dont buy the argument that greater complexity is a problem. Greater complexity is a problem when it is unnecessary. That is just bloat. I think you vastly overestimate how much an average person playing this game can keep in their head at once. I have watched people play let's plays of this game and noticed that they miss a lot of things due to them being poorly conveyed by the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Tbh I don't get the complexity argument from either side. Its not really complex or hard to understand (just sometimes poorly conveyed, yes). Its just bringing imbalance to the action economy of encounters. Which is.. not a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Sep 2021
|
I think the thread drifted off topic a bit. As I see it, the main issue here is the reduction of variety and interest. In BG3 currently, Frightened is almost tactically equivalent to hold person or sleep. In 5e, Frightened imposes disadvantage on the target when the caster is in line of sight and prevents them from moving toward the caster. The 5e version gets the player to think more creatively about adjusting their tactics, while the BG3 version is bland and not really different from some other status effects.
|
|
|
|
|
