Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 18 of 26 1 2 16 17 18 19 20 25 26
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
But since the Pathfinder system averages out the typical skill DCs between characters of all skills, Pathfinder characters that put a lot of ranks into a skill are much better than their D&D counterparts.

In Pathfinder, a level 1 "moderately challenging" DC is 15. A player with ranks in a class skill can have a +6 (60% chance) while a player with no ranks in it has a +1 (35% chance).
But at level 18, a "moderately challenging" DC is 30. A player with points in the skill can easily have a ~27+ (including magical items, feats, etc: >90% chance) while the player with no ranks has a +6 (0% chance). Even players with a few ranks will have maybe a +12, which is still only a 15% chance.

Whereas in 5e, normal level 1 characters (ignoring rogues/expertise) will have a +5 bonus to certain skills and +1 to some others (55% and 35% chance again to hit DC 15).
At level 18, these same skills will have bonuses of +12 and +2. Let's say the DC for a similarly difficult check goes up to DC 18. This is a 75% chance for the skilled player and a 25% chance for the unskilled.

In sum, higher level 5e characters have a lower chance of success for skilled checks than their Pathfinder counterparts, and the difference between unskilled and skilled 5e characters is less than Pathfinder characters. Thus, rng matters more in 5e.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Right. That is exactly what I'm referring to about the old systems. There is no way a level 1 person could even remotely come close to rolling a DC 30. DC 15 being a moderate difficulty means that if I don't have any skill proficiency that is an extremely difficult roll.

What I like about 5e is that it is more balanced. A person who is level one can still make roles that are 15 or higher which is a challenging difficulty. They can even make a roll of 20 or higher which is supposed to be extremely difficult.

Meanwhile, if you are proficient in a particular skill you might have a +5. That means that a 15 or higher, which is a challenging difficulty, is still a 50/50 chance for someone who has some skill in it even at level 1. Same character at level 10 could have a +7. So now a 60% chance of success. A person with expertise would have a much better chance at say + 9 or + 10. Thus giving value to someone with expertise.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I also ,want to include the fact that in 5e, Advantage/Disadvantage plays a major role. If a character with +5 also has Advantage, that is a HUGE boost to chance of success. The Adv/Dis system is supposed to play a major role.

For example, my Gith Ranger only has +2 Arcana because he's not proficient. However, he's on a Ghaik ship. I, the DM, might give him Advantage on any Arcana rolls because his race is more familiar with mind flayers than Joe Half Drow. Even though the Half Drow has +5 Arcana, he doesn't gain Advantage.

So, a roll of 10 or higher is a 5 or higher for the half Drow but 8 or higher for the Gith. BUT, the Gith gets to roll 2 20-siders.

Flip the script. The Gith is proficient but the half Drow isn't. 5 or higher AND Advantage means the Gith has a super high probability of success versus the uneducated half Drow who has no familiarity with mind flayers at all.

Now imagine proficiency bonuses were higher WITH Advantage. It would be ridiculously hard to fail. They'd have to increase DCs and thus make the whole system more volatile. Low level characters would never have a chance ever against higher level ones... Not even a small chance.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Online Content
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Right. That is exactly what I'm referring to about the old systems. There is no way a level 1 person could even remotely come close to rolling a DC 30. DC 15 being a moderate difficulty means that if I don't have any skill proficiency that is an extremely difficult roll.

What I like about 5e is that it is more balanced. A person who is level one can still make roles that are 15 or higher which is a challenging difficulty. They can even make a roll of 20 or higher which is supposed to be extremely difficult.

Meanwhile, if you are proficient in a particular skill you might have a +5. That means that a 15 or higher, which is a challenging difficulty, is still a 50/50 chance for someone who has some skill in it even at level 1. Same character at level 10 could have a +7. So now a 60% chance of success. A person with expertise would have a much better chance at say + 9 or + 10. Thus giving value to someone with expertise.

You have to admit that class progression in 5e is terribly poor compared to others. While it works on the table, it does not work very well in games.
This is bad because it practically nullifies the character's build.
Why a warrior who has never had a book in his hand has a minimally less chance of success than a wizard who has devoted his entire life to studying magic.
Such a person should not have a chance (or minimal) to pass a check that requires magical knowledge, in practice the difference is 20-30% which is a ridiculous amount.
What's even funnier is that this difference can be compensated for with a spell. I would understand if this was some spell that actually costs something but it's just a cantrip.
Just a simple cantrip that can be cast by any cleric for the fighter to catch up with the wizard's skills?
Of course, I do not take into account the bonuses from the statistics because they do not matter in this discussion.
The point is that because of the pathetic bonuses, every character of a given class is practically identical.
You cannot make a fighter that specializes in diplomacy or one that will prefer a direct approach.
Of course you can mutilate your character by choosing certain feats, but in most cases you will usually choose additional stats or one of the more op feats.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Low level characters would never have a chance ever against higher level ones... Not even a small chance.
Yes. This is what I want and is actually how combat progression works in 5e. Skills in 5e are (very slowly) linear, whereas combat is exponential.

Combat and magical-ability wise, level 1 D&D 5e characters are novices. Better than the average commoner, sure, but not overwhelmingly better. Easily defeatable by a goblin.
Level 20 characters, however, are practically gods. Due to bounded accuracy, a goblin could still possibly hit their AC. But due to ~unbounded abilities and HP, low-level characters&monsters don't stand a chance.

However, when you look at skills (and STs), the differences are comparatively miniscule. A level 20 adventurer is only ~35% more likely to succeed on the same check than a level 1 adventurer with the same skill proficiency. Which is about the same difference between a level 1 adventurer and a (unskilled) commoner.

There are loads of good things about bounded accuracy. It vastly simplifies the game which has certainly helped with 5e's popularity. But personally, I'd rather a bit more complexity and level 1 adventurers being unable to succeed on certain things (e.g., DC 30 lockpicking/acrobatics/perception) that higher-level characters can do with ease. To bring it back to the thread's topic, I'd be fine if Larian took some liberties with this.

p.s. Regarding Advantage: with my system of skill advancement DCs would be increased, so Advantage should have a similar effect as currently, though it would obviously help less if you're completely unskilled. But theoretically you could still Help an ally, giving them Advantage!

Last edited by mrfuji3; 11/12/21 07:26 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Let me say, I'm not saying I don't get where you're coming from. I'm just obviously quite happy with 5e because I think it's easier and once you really delve into it... I just think many people don't fully understand and appreciate how it works.

Level 1 Mage, Arcana +5 because proficient and +3 Int
Level 1 Fighter, Arcana +0 because not proficient and 0 Int
DC 10 = Moderate. Mage needs a 5. Fighter needs 10. Considerable difference.

Same scenario. Level 10.
Mage = +7. Needs 3 or higher
Fighter = +0. Needs 10 or higher.

Similar scenario.
Level 1 Rogue, Stealth + 7 with expertise and Dex +3
Level 1 Mage, Stealth +4 with proficiency and Dex +2
Level 1 Fighter, Stealth +1 no proof and Dex +1 and Disadvantage because of armor
DC 13 Passive Perception for enemy

Rogue needs 6 or higher, Mage 9, Fighter 12 with Dis.

Considerable difference.

Same scenario. Level 10
Rogue = +11, needs a 2
Mage = +6, needs a 7
Fighter= +1, needs a 12 with Dis

Considerable difference.

It's all in the way you build your character. Yes, proficiency alone might not be a huge deal, but couple it with Ability score differences and increases and it makes a bigger impact. Add Expertise and it's an even bigger impact.

Last edited by GM4Him; 11/12/21 10:18 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Another example: Arabella is bitten by Teela, the snake. Give the player the option to make a Medicine check. If Failure, you watch, like current, as Arabella dies. If Success, you recognize the type of snake she is and immediately devise a remedy to save Arabella's life.
Yeah, I would love more of that kind of stuff - but I do have some issues with the system. And I think it is less BG3 and more DnD 5e.

I find bonuses from characters builds to be underwhelming. Maybe it will get better as I level up, but in EA, bonuses I get from attributes/skills feel minor compared to buffs. As such few things feel like a reward for picking certain build. I do favour Obsidian's flat skill checks, but Disco did dice rolls recently and did them better - with both less RNG through use of two dices, and bigger impact of our build on the result.

The issue I have, is that I feel that check like that still wouldn't properly recognise our investment in medicine. Those who invested in medicine would have advantage, but still best bet would be to buff and force our way through RNG. I don't get the feeling from BG3 of "I build my character that way, and therefore I can do this". I am not sure where the fault lies exactly.
That whole situation with Arabella.. the girl bitten by a snake is literally surrounded by spellcasters who can heal and cure poison, including an "archdruid". Or does poison work so fundamentally differently in 5e that it somehow makes sense no one heals her before she dies?

Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Jumping into this thread quite late and admittedly haven't read all 18 pages. Overall I agree with the spirit of it and that more RAW elements of 5E needs to be brought into BG3.

I agree with #2 and #5 (stricter 5e rules, day & night cycle). Ritual Casting, cover system, reactions, proper short-rests (hit dice) and item attunement. A lot of these little things add tactical elements to gameplay which will ultimately make for a better experience. Night Cycle wouldn't only improve immersion - it'll also completely open a new avenue of gameplay for more stealth based characters. I.e. maybe instead of fighting or lying your way into the Goblin Camp, you can now sneak through. Homebrewing isn't necessarily a bad thing - but only when it enriches the tactical choices, as opposed to simplifying it. I.e. I'm quite happy with the weapon-based special attacks, just because it does help address one of the biggest issues Martials have in 5E.

I support #3 and #4 (larger parties and random encounters), but I don't think they're critical. 5E table top is "balanced" around 4 players, so I'm not strictly against that, but I do like offering player choice. Other than nostalgia for IE games, not sure why "6 max" is the chosen holy number. Honestly if they are opening the party size, I would not mind if they allowed parties of 7-8 if wanted (as long as it's properly balanced - i.e. level slower, encounter adjustments, etc). Let me get the entire fellowship of the ring together please. In terms of random encounters, they can add to immersion but also can become a slog if not well implemented. I think taking inspiration from the Fallout games would be best - i.e. there's a large list of hand-crafted, story-driven "random" encounters, but also some generic ones. So it's almost a treat each time you run into one.

I don't agree with #1 - the requirement for having "proper" stats for 5E monsters. Now, that doesn't mean Larian should change everything and lose the core mechanics behind iconic monsters. I.e. a Red Dragon should still breath fire, etc. However, I think strict adherence is detrimental. 5E monster stats/CR are already not very well balanced for table top (usually on the "too weak" side), over-simplified to make them easy for a DM to use on table-top, and that's before we factor in effects of the videogame conversion (just some high level thoughts):
- The Monster Manual is balanced against 4 characters (unoptimized, no magical gear, and 6-8 encounters a day) - which is quite different from what you'd expect from a video game party
- Mobility and extreme range (i.e. 100 ft+) isn't translated well to video games, but can be a huge part of monster tactics and defense in table top
- Per above, resting limits is hard to enforce without making the game too linear (like Solasta), which means you should always expect more player resources
- A single person managing a party is simply going to be far more coordinated and tactical than a group of 4 people (especially the very casual, role-playing focused D&D core of today)
- Combat loops in games are much faster than table top. 1 fight can last an entire session, whereas in 1 gaming session you might do 5-6 times that. This to accelerated player knowledge and loot. The latter especially makes a huge difference
- People in videogames (especially single player) are far likely going to be power-gaming/optimizing. Characters can vary dramatically in power-level depending on optimization
- The reload button changes everything

As someone who has DM'ed and built encounters, I've found stat adjustments to toughen encounter design is usually more precise than adding numbers of enemy, because action economy snowballs quickly and is much tougher to gauge. I.e. if you increase enemy hp by 20%, you can expect a slightly tougher encounter, whereas adding a fifth body to an enemy party of 4 can much more easily snowball an encounter - because there's so many more layers of RNG (initiative, attack rolls, etc).

My overall stance is, change is okay, as long as it's actually thought out and not something dismissed due to laziness. And realistically a lot of the current missing systems (reactions, attunement, etc) does feel like that a bit, as opposed to being well thought-out, deliberate system change.

Joined: Nov 2021
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Nov 2021
The way I understood that scene was that all the other druids were afraid of Kagha; for one reason or another. She was the leader in that moment so defying her would be against the rules. Some might have been genuinely afraid of her or maybe she was threatening for some reason hidden in another plot line.

The player character is an outsider, though. If Kagha was curious to see what you could do and lets the situation play out then all others would too.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by 1varangian
That whole situation with Arabella.. the girl bitten by a snake is literally surrounded by spellcasters who can heal and cure poison, including an "archdruid". Or does poison work so fundamentally differently in 5e that it somehow makes sense no one heals her before she dies?
Im complaining about this for whole last year. :-/


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Pros of 5e skill system
Easy to remember skill bonuses. If 1 skill is +4 for Dex, all skills for Dex are likely +4 if proficient. I don't have +8 Stealth and +4 Sleight of hand, etc.
Simple level ups. I don't have to spend skill points. Thus, it doesn't take a 30 minutes to level up 1 character.
It gets the job done. If done right, there is still a considerable enough difference to make a distinction between proficient and not proficient.
Stabilizes difficulty levels so you keep the same basic difficulties even as you gain higher levels. With previous systems, of you were unskilled, a moderate difficulty was brutal. You get like +1 or +2 against a DC 15 while a skilled person might have +8. Try being a mage with +2 for Athletics who needs to make a moderate jump versus a fighter with +8 or +10. Mage would fail like so many times. When it should be 50/50 for unskilled, it was 50/50 for skilled.

Cons of 5e
Not as diverse with skills. You don't have someone with really high Arcana because they focused more in that, excelling in one skill far above the others. They might have +8 in Arcana, +5 in History, +3 in Religion, +9 in Persuade. Other systems vary the skills more.

I'm out of time, but I'm sure you'll all give more cons. 😁

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
But since the Pathfinder system averages out the typical skill DCs between characters of all skills, Pathfinder characters that put a lot of ranks into a skill are much better than their D&D counterparts.

In Pathfinder, a level 1 "moderately challenging" DC is 15. A player with ranks in a class skill can have a +6 (60% chance) while a player with no ranks in it has a +1 (35% chance).
But at level 18, a "moderately challenging" DC is 30. A player with points in the skill can easily have a ~27+ (including magical items, feats, etc: >90% chance) while the player with no ranks has a +6 (0% chance). Even players with a few ranks will have maybe a +12, which is still only a 15% chance.

Whereas in 5e, normal level 1 characters (ignoring rogues/expertise) will have a +5 bonus to certain skills and +1 to some others (55% and 35% chance again to hit DC 15).
At level 18, these same skills will have bonuses of +12 and +2. Let's say the DC for a similarly difficult check goes up to DC 18. This is a 75% chance for the skilled player and a 25% chance for the unskilled.

In sum, higher level 5e characters have a lower chance of success for skilled checks than their Pathfinder counterparts, and the difference between unskilled and skilled 5e characters is less than Pathfinder characters. Thus, rng matters more in 5e.

You're missing a detail here;

In Pf, the DC of checks moves relative to the party - as you said yourself, a moderate challenge is represented by a 15 at low levels, and by a 30 at high levels in Pf. This is NOT the case in 5e.

This means that your comparison is not balanced.

In Pf, a level 1 moderate challenge is 15. And players might be expected to have a 60% chance to succeed if trained towards it, and a ~35% chance if not.
In 5e at level 1, a moderate challenge is 15. Players might be expected to have a +5 if trained (55%) and +1/+2 if not (~35%).

At level 18 in pf a moderate challenge is a 30 DC, and a +90% chance if we include feats magic items and features (trusting your numbers), while an untrained character won't be able to succeed at all, at this 'moderate challenge'

At level 18, in 5e, a moderate challenge is still a DC 15. That's the marker for a moderate challenge and it doesn't change. A character with proficiency, and let's say one core stat exceed and one magic item that adds +1 to the skill in question, nothing else - they'd probably have more than that, but I'm keeping it slim - will have a +13 - so a +90% chance to succeed. An untrained character will still be at that roughly 35% chance to pass a moderate challenge that they were originally.

In sum, higher level 5e characters have a equal or better chances of success for skilled checks than their Pathfinder counterparts, and generally have to sacrifice less to get there, and the difference between unskilled and skilled 5e characters is less than Pathfinder characters.

If you present ME those two systems and ask me which one feels like better character skill progression and growth, I'm absolutely going to tell you it's the second one, hands down.

In one game, my level 1 ranger has a +9 to hit with her bow - on the trip through to level 4 she never missed once.
In another game my rogue has +11 to stealth at level 5 (and +10 to initiative).
In another game, my bard has a +12 to performance and persuasion, still at low levels as well.

The bonuses are plenty potent enough in 5e's system, and they absolutely do NOT need to be any higher. You can definitely build your characters to be effective and skilled at certain things, already. The skill progression in 5e is good. It's Meaningful. I far, Far prefer it to other previous systems.

Like Pathfinder... where you will frequently have characters who will drown on still calm lakes because they didn't have the spare points to put ranks into their specific "swimming" skill, because they needed those skill ranks for other things that actually made them effective in their role, like stealth, sleight of hand, disable device, perception, bluff - you know, the ones that matter... but since they didn't 'waste' ranks on 'swimming', they now will drown on calm placid lakes on sunny still days, if they try to take 10 on the swim across it. Such a great system I don't think, thanks...

Last edited by Niara; 12/12/21 12:17 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
You're missing a detail here;

In Pf, the DC of checks moves relative to the party - as you said yourself, a moderate challenge is represented by a 15 at low levels, and by a 30 at high levels in Pf. This is NOT the case in 5e.

This means that your comparison is not balanced.
Somewhat. While technically, yes the definition of "moderate difficulty" checks in 5e doesn't increase, in practice it would. Higher level 5e characters face higher level monsters, who will have higher stats and PBs. E.g., a 5e goblin's passive stealth is 16 while a Vampire's (CR 13) passive stealth is 19. This is why I slightly increased my high-level typical/moderate DCs even for 5e. Though I admit this only necessarily holds true for contested checks and remains a much small difference than in PF.

Phrased differently, high-level 5e characters should typically be dealing with "hard" or "very hard" checks, while PF's system scales so that the term "moderate" is ~equally applicable to all levels of play.

Originally Posted by Niara
The bonuses are plenty potent enough in 5e's system, and they absolutely do NOT need to be any higher. You can definitely build your characters to be effective and skilled at certain things, already. The skill progression in 5e is good. It's Meaningful. I far, Far prefer it to other previous systems.

Like Pathfinder... where you will frequently have characters who will drown on still calm lakes because they didn't have the spare points to put ranks into their specific "swimming" skill, because they needed those skill ranks for other things that actually made them effective in their role, like stealth, sleight of hand, disable device, perception, bluff - you know, the ones that matter... but since they didn't 'waste' ranks on 'swimming', they now will drown on calm placid lakes on sunny still days, if they try to take 10 on the swim across it. Such a great system I don't think, thanks...
To be clear, I'm not arguing for a Pathfinder system of craziness. I would like some compromise between the two systems, weighted more towards 5e. Where 5e players can both manually allocate points to improve skills (this part especially), and doing so can result in a slightly bigger (~+15 at level 20 instead of +11) bonuses. Or you can spread out your points to be more of a jack-of-all-trades. But I also understand why people wouldn't want this, and I totally agree that the pathfinder system can be messy/frustrating/dumb.

p.s. I'll again link this to ST progression in 5e, which I think has the same problems but even worse. Enemy DCs go up and failing to save against a spell is typically much worse than failing a skill check.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I'm working this out.

Stealth. Rogue builds. Dex 16

Level 1 no prof = +2
Level 1 prof = +4
Level 1 expertise = +6

Easy Dif = 5 which is a 75% chance of success if no skill Bonus at all
Mod = 10, or 50% chance unskilled
Challenging = 15, or 25% chance unskilled
Grueling = 20, or 5% chance unskilled

DCs are based on unskilled characters.

So, Rogue unskilled at stealth would have to roll an 8 or higher for moderate stealth, which is 60% chance of success. Skilled would need 6, or 70%, and expert a 4 or 80% chance. With Advantage, say because of darkness, chance increases exponentially.

Level 10 no prof = +2
Level 10 prof = +6
Level 10 expertise = +10

Moderate difficulty. Unskilled Rogue still needs 8, 60% chance, skilled needs 4, 80% chance and expert needs 0, 100% chance.

So, unskilled remained at 60%. Skilled increased by 10% and expert by 20%.

Take past D&D. Max skill rank was 4. Add +2 for Dex. So +6 for max Skilled at Level 1. Unskilled might be +2. Difficulty 15 is moderate.

13 or higher unskilled, 9 for Skilled. Unskilled = 35% chance, Skilled = 55%. That's pretty sucky for a Skilled character. Moderate means 50% chance for Skilled characters, not unskilled. So the entire system works fine as long as you're Skilled. Unskilled means it is brutal. Again, if you're an unskilled mage at athletics and you really need to make a jump... sorry. You're Doomed.

5e, the unskilled mage has at least a better chance. Certainly better than 35%.

That's what I like. Simple and better in terms of chance. Yes, Skilled people have a better chance, but it's not so big a gap that the unskilled is screwed.

In previous versions, a DC of 25 was impossible for unskilled, but many Skilled could do it well enough. It was too extreme and very frustrating. Skilled would be bored because they could ace it, and unskilled would just be poopmout of luck.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Going back to party size of 6, I remembered another main reason I want proper 5e rules and stats. Current game nerfed stats and rules would be way too easy for a party of 6. My reasons for wanting party of 6 are all in that megathread, but the point is that the game would be well balanced for a party of 6 if they used proper stats and abilities and rules.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
is there a help action yet in bg3? i read the rules it seems there's an help action where you can grant advantage to your ally in the next attack roll. i recall in first EA i never see any help action. correct me if i'm wrong.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Online Content OP
veteran
OP Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I think the Help button is mostly for reviving fallen allies to stabilize them and give them 1 HP so they can rejoin the fight.

I haven't tried it recently, but I know the last time I tried it, it did not do the Help function of giving advantage to an ally.

Can anyone else confirm?

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I think the Help button is mostly for reviving fallen allies to stabilize them and give them 1 HP so they can rejoin the fight.

I haven't tried it recently, but I know the last time I tried it, it did not do the Help function of giving advantage to an ally.

Can anyone else confirm?


The last time I played, when I used the Help button, I believe the character was only downed and not dead yet. Not sure if it gave it advantage but only 1 HP.

Last edited by Lady Avyna; 15/12/21 07:33 PM.
Joined: Nov 2021
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Nov 2021
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp. The game refused to do anything else but to attack that 1 hp character and I didn't have any other options except to die or reload the game. Shouldn't there be a limit to how many times you can help a character back up?

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by heuron
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp. The game refused to do anything else but to attack that 1 hp character and I didn't have any other options except to die or reload the game. Shouldn't there be a limit to how many times you can help a character back up?
While the whac-a-mole emergent gameplay is a valid criticism of the Help action in BG3 (and to a lesser extent, the death ST mechanic/healing word in 5e), I'm not sure how such a Help limit would give you more options in this case?

I'm assuming you always Helped your ally instead of simply attacking the enemy because you didn't want that ally to die (or you'd need both characters alive & in the fight to have a chance of winning)..? But if there was a Help limit, then your ally would just die once you reached that limit and you'd be in the same situation of dying and reloading.

To be clear, I agree that there should be a Help limit (of zero); I'm just a bit confused what your reasons are. Is it just that you find this aspect of gameplay un-immersive/dumb/gimmicky?

Edit: And yes, in BG3 the Help Action can revive downed characters with 1 HP, and also remove limited conditions like Prone, Sleep, Webbed. It cannot be used for giving Advantage as in PnP 5e.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 15/12/21 07:55 PM.
Page 18 of 26 1 2 16 17 18 19 20 25 26

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