Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
gotcha, it isn't all of them though, dash is specifically an action. The others should be made into actions too, agreed. Jump shouldn't be part of disengage either, jumping actually SHOULD be a free action that just uses movement (it is in pnp).

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by blindhamster
gotcha, it isn't all of them though, dash is specifically an action. The others should be made into actions too, agreed. Jump shouldn't be part of disengage either, jumping actually SHOULD be a free action that just uses movement (it is in pnp).



That I concur, jump should be a movement option based on an hidden Athletics check, thus making a warriors jump likely far more impressive than a wizards jump.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
per the rules, there no check unless you jump further than your regular baselines (based on PC height and strength), so jump *in theory* should give you a circle with no check, and if you try to jump further, it rolls the die to see if you pull it off.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I agree with points one and two, but I think the "Resurrection" scrolls are a necessary weasel to prevent player frustration.

I definitely agree that it's too easy to disengage and that takes away the value of positioning and class identity. Jump distance IS based on your STR though - higher STR characters can jump farther.

I'm not entirely sure about the special abilities. The fact that they're limited to one use per short rest seems to be a reasonable tradeoff between giving the player more options to make them not so bored, and not giving them too much power.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Speaking of class specific toolset, what happened to the sorcerer? and why does the wizard behave like the sorcerer?


What do you mean? That Wizards prepare a spell once, and cast it as many time as they have slots, instead of preparing the spell for as many times as they want to cast it? That's how they work in 5e. Sorcerers get new mechanics to work differently.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem

Hopefully that is going to change. Not sure why Wizards get "attacks of opportunity" as a reaction rather than reaction spells, which fit a lot better. They streamlined classes way too much.


Spells as an AoO is from the Warcaster feat in 5e. I think the Reaction system is still a work in progress, and defensive spells as a reaction is likely a work in progress.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by blindhamster
per the rules, there no check unless you jump further than your regular baselines (based on PC height and strength), so jump *in theory* should give you a circle with no check, and if you try to jump further, it rolls the die to see if you pull it off.


That would be it indeed. What matters is that I, as a player, can have a different feeling when I'm switching from my 8 STR mage to my 18 STR warrior. I want to be able to feel and see this in a videogame. Right now, all the classes feel kind of the same to me, mostly because of all the points listed.


Originally Posted by Stabbey
I think the Reaction system is still a work in progress, and defensive spells as a reaction is likely a work in progress.


Can't wait to get my hansd on the reaction system then because for some classes it really is at the core of their strengh. Plus, with everyone having disengage as a bonus action right now, it's not like you can actually get AoO anyway... for now...



Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Quote
but the only way they'll work will be for more intrusive behaviours to be added where events pause the game to allow you to use a reaction. Or you need to have something similar to attack of opportunity on the side and maybe you can reorder them, like if shield is placed higher than attack of opportunity, it'll use shield the first time you're attacked etc.



Pause the game. Just do it, Larian. Until Larian stops beating around the bush in trying to take away the dice rolling and pen and paper feeling of tabletop they will continue to run into issues of "this doesn't feel like DnD 5e". Just embrace the fact a large portion of your playerbase wants a tabletop video game experience.

I want that type of "WAIT I WILL USE MY REACTION TO CAST THIS AND ROLL FOR THIS AND....OH IT WORKED!"

and not

*goes into game settings to click a checkmark for reaction*

Class identity could be further helped by having the skill/ability checks become more engaging and player initiated. We don't want just an automated little dongle to appear to tell us if we passed or failed a check we have no idea we're even making for every single ability/skill check outside of dialogue. An option to roll for perception, investigation, intellect, etc. on environment and setting would be much more engaging. Instead of just having everyone walk to an area to see if anyone gets a "successful" roll icon to appear, you could have the appropraite character with the right stats walk into a room and initiate a roll on perception, and then have the narrator tell us either a generic "you don't notice anything in particular" or something like "you see something curious in the corner here".

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Autismonaut


Pause the game. Just do it, Larian. Until Larian stops beating around the bush in trying to take away the dice rolling and pen and paper feeling of tabletop they will continue to run into issues of "this doesn't feel like DnD 5e". Just embrace the fact a large portion of your playerbase wants a tabletop video game experience.

I want that type of "WAIT I WILL USE MY REACTION TO CAST THIS AND ROLL FOR THIS AND....OH IT WORKED!"




That's exactly it. Right there. Most of us don't care abou it being turn based combat or not, we don't care that it's not related gameplay wise to Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 or whatever.

What we care about is that it's called Baldurs Gate 3 and thus it should have the closest feeling possible to the tabletop experience. It should be epic from start to finish and each character should feel like he's bringing is own toolset to the table.

In my experience, nothing has ever been more rewarding in a tabletop campaign than when players all come together because of the uniqueness of their class and it all just starts clicking.
Give us more class flavor, more player agency between our actions / bonus actions / reactions and don't be shy of making each and every class unique in terms of feel and abilities. I want to be able to say "oh awesome, my warrior's got action surge now and she just wiped everyone by jumping in and throwing 4 attacks in a row", not "I can't really tell the difference between my rogue and ranger, they both used their bow and did the same damage this round, and they ended up jumping away".

Last edited by Temperance; 07/10/20 02:19 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Here to say I pretty much agree with everything, except maybe the death thing. I feel like this is one of those scenarios in which it may hurt the video game experience a bit too much.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Temperance
Originally Posted by blindhamster
so... in pnp, all classes can dodge, dash, disengage, it isn't a rogue thing, rogues just do it as a bonus action from level 2. This is exactly as it's implemented in the game, so not sure where the issue is there.

everyone can make attacks of opportunity in pnp too, so it's not incorrect ot have it the way it is either.



That's the point : the issue is those actions are implemented as bonus actions regardless of your class in BG3 instead of actions in the tabletop D&D.

Most of the time in the tabletop version, you have to either choose between moving and disengaging to protect yourself (which costs you your action) or attack/cast a spell instead. Which creates tension because of how the action economy works. If you make those things available on a bonus action, it trivializes the whole combat and make rogues fall behind pretty hard (as they're being very squishy overall and they need mobility and such to survive through tough encounters, plus it's part of the class flavor to be able to move quickly from one side of the battlefield to the other to harrass enemies).

There are quite a lot of reports of players complaining that you end up disengaging/jumping (bonus action in BG3, not in D&D) all the time to get in and out of combat, reports of players having found broken ways to exploit this (look at the familiar exploit post where it's perfectly explained how broken making disengage a bonus action for everyone can snowball hard). And as far as I remember, having just played D&D last week end, combats didn't look or feel this way, with all my players jumping around like this.

I wish the devs would just remember that they're not building this whole thing from scratch. D&D5 has been playtested for years before release and there is a reason why bonus actions are limited depending on your class. Just as there is a reason the number of spells you can use on your turn is limited to one spell + one cantrip. Toying with those very basic rules can end up producing huge imbalance issues.



Dash was an action every time I tried it on the EA so far on none-rogue.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
yeah it isn't dash thats an issue, its disengage/jump (which really need to be split into two different things) As well as some of the other incorrect bonus actions. Dash however, is correctly an action

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by someoneinatree
Yeah not so fussed about some free resurrection scrolls at the start of a CRPG. Particularly for players new to a game system.

Otherwise, agree with the other points - all three decisions dilute the class distinctions dramatically.


Agreed!

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I would disagree. The player should be able to stabilize a fallen person, feed a healing potion. Easily bringing back just cheapens the game. There needs to be consequences during battles.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I agree with points one and two, but I think the "Resurrection" scrolls are a necessary weasel to prevent player frustration.

I definitely agree that it's too easy to disengage and that takes away the value of positioning and class identity. Jump distance IS based on your STR though - higher STR characters can jump farther.

I'm not entirely sure about the special abilities. The fact that they're limited to one use per short rest seems to be a reasonable tradeoff between giving the player more options to make them not so bored, and not giving them too much power.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Speaking of class specific toolset, what happened to the sorcerer? and why does the wizard behave like the sorcerer?


What do you mean? That Wizards prepare a spell once, and cast it as many time as they have slots, instead of preparing the spell for as many times as they want to cast it? That's how they work in 5e. Sorcerers get new mechanics to work differently.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem

Hopefully that is going to change. Not sure why Wizards get "attacks of opportunity" as a reaction rather than reaction spells, which fit a lot better. They streamlined classes way too much.


Spells as an AoO is from the Warcaster feat in 5e. I think the Reaction system is still a work in progress, and defensive spells as a reaction is likely a work in progress.



Attack of opportunity spells are not in-game however

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Temperance
- Giving all the classes the option to use spell scrolls. You end up with your warrior casting the same spells as your mage. And I'm betting this problem will only get bigger and bigger once you hit level 3 spells mark with the ability to use real powerful spells instead of cantrips out of spell scrolls (Warrior with full plate and AC 18+ using fireball scroll / action surge / using another fireball scroll / disengage as a bonus action while jumping away or jumping in to close range). Now if merchants are anything close to DOS:2, you'll end up with tons of money to buy spell scrolls from them as much as you want, and get your frontline warriors with 18+ AC to blast spells as much as your weak mage with 14 AC who will be using only darts when his spell list is depleted.
About spell scrolls, be careful about what you're giving players access to. Healing Word (lvl1 spell - bonus action - healing for 1d4+WIS HP any creature in sight) for example should not become accessible easily for all classes, as it would totally take the tension away of inconcious players having to make their death checks.


Strongly agree with this and certainly hope Larian changes it; having a warrior cast a fireball doesn't make sense and will lead to classes feeling the same.



Joined: Sep 2017
G
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Sep 2017
I was surprised to see that everyone could use every scroll initially, then I felt that it made sense given how DOS2 worked, and that this is a mainstream AAA title. The example of the fighter having access to gold and being able to out-wizard a wizard gives me pause.

Scrolls for classes that don't include your class (or subclass in the case of EK and AT) should not be useable as a core rule. I would not be opposed to this being optional in easy mode games, but this unbalances the game tremendously to favor fighters specifically, and probably rogues a bit too, with their two bonus actions a turn.

I would encourage Larian not to be afraid of forcing players to make thoughtful decisions about their party, but I don't have any hopes that they will. It's normal for every game developer, both pen and paper and video game, to remove all consequence from player decisions and allow them to do anything. I would be happy to see a player punished for failing to have a healer among his party, or enough gold to pay an NPC for an expensive raise dead spell.

Either way though. A Core rules mode shouldn't feature universal magic item usage.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with this. The game would come closer to the tactical feel of 5e if these options were removed. Classes would also retain their unique personality. Wizards bring options to change the tide of battle with arcane spells. Fighters are dependable front liners who can take a hit and wield martial weapons with perfection. Clerics are devoted to their gods and have unique divine abilities. Etc. Etc.

Also take into account what it does to the identity of the player character. Are you playing the class you chose, or are you playing a mix of all classes.


Joined: Jun 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2020
I concur. Also, can you check your skills in the character sheet? I haven't found that info. And in character creation, descriptions and lore about skills and features is lacking. Another thing I think should be implemented is feats. Even if they up the difficulty, because most people that play PnP use them, I think, which proves they make the game more interesting. DnD have always been about building your own character, so very different than the one others would build them.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by golw
I was surprised to see that everyone could use every scroll initially, then I felt that it made sense given how DOS2 worked, and that this is a mainstream AAA title. The example of the fighter having access to gold and being able to out-wizard a wizard gives me pause.

Scrolls for classes that don't include your class (or subclass in the case of EK and AT) should not be useable as a core rule. I would not be opposed to this being optional in easy mode games, but this unbalances the game tremendously to favor fighters specifically, and probably rogues a bit too, with their two bonus actions a turn.

I would encourage Larian not to be afraid of forcing players to make thoughtful decisions about their party, but I don't have any hopes that they will. It's normal for every game developer, both pen and paper and video game, to remove all consequence from player decisions and allow them to do anything. I would be happy to see a player punished for failing to have a healer among his party, or enough gold to pay an NPC for an expensive raise dead spell.

Either way though. A Core rules mode shouldn't feature universal magic item usage.


Another issue with scrolls for everyone and in such an enormous amount (since I've played more of the game and found litteraly dozens and dozens of scrolls everywhere)...

As it is designed right now, you get absolutely NO benefits from learning a spell from a scroll with your mage / cleric. Here's why :
- You loose the ability to use that scroll with anyone else on the party, making it much more powerful and flexible,
- More importantly, given how D&D works, your wizard or cleric comes with a limited amount of spells of each level they can use before a long rest. Now, if you learn a spell from a scroll, it will eventually make your spell list grow larger and you'll end up with more spells competing with each other for those precious slots. Meanwhile, if it stays as a parchment, you can always use this spell whenever you want, and it does not use one of your slots. Meaning, more choices available to you, and more importantly more spells you can use of the same level.
So basically, you can for example slot 4 fireballs on your level 3 spell list and that's all you'll ever need : for other spells, you'd rather use scroll versions. This way, you'll be able to throw 4 fireballs a day + a huge number of 3rd level spells through scrolls.

It definitely doesn't feel like the tabletop version AT ALL. It does feel like DOS though, but a cheap version of DOS where the rules get limited by D&D own ruleset.

Larian should make a choice : this game is either a DOS based game, or a D&D based one. But those two worlds can't merge that well.

Last edited by Temperance; 08/10/20 05:27 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Temperance


It definitely doesn't feel like the tabletop version AT ALL. It does feel like DOS though, but a cheap version of DOS where the rules get limited by D&D own ruleset.

Larian should make a choice : this game is either a DOS based game, or a D&D based one. But those two worlds can't merge that well.

I would suggest not derailing your own thread by going in this direction. You made a number of good points in your original post, but comments like this aren’t constructive and can easily become inflammatory.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Temperance
Originally Posted by golw
I was surprised to see that everyone could use every scroll initially, then I felt that it made sense given how DOS2 worked, and that this is a mainstream AAA title. The example of the fighter having access to gold and being able to out-wizard a wizard gives me pause.

Scrolls for classes that don't include your class (or subclass in the case of EK and AT) should not be useable as a core rule. I would not be opposed to this being optional in easy mode games, but this unbalances the game tremendously to favor fighters specifically, and probably rogues a bit too, with their two bonus actions a turn.

I would encourage Larian not to be afraid of forcing players to make thoughtful decisions about their party, but I don't have any hopes that they will. It's normal for every game developer, both pen and paper and video game, to remove all consequence from player decisions and allow them to do anything. I would be happy to see a player punished for failing to have a healer among his party, or enough gold to pay an NPC for an expensive raise dead spell.

Either way though. A Core rules mode shouldn't feature universal magic item usage.


Another issue with scrolls for everyone and in such an enormous amount (since I've played more of the game and found litteraly dozens and dozens of scrolls everywhere)...

As it is designed right now, you get absolutely NO benefits from learning a spell from a scroll with your mage / cleric. Here's why :
- You loose the ability to use that scroll with anyone else on the party, making it much more powerful and flexible,
- More importantly, given how D&D works, your wizard or cleric comes with a limited amount of spells of each level they can use before a long rest. Now, if you learn a spell from a scroll, it will eventually make your spell list grow larger and you'll end up with more spells competing with each other for those precious slots. Meanwhile, if it stays as a parchment, you can always use this spell whenever you want, and it does not use one of your slots. Meaning, more choices available to you, and more importantly more spells you can use of the same level.
So basically, you can for example slot 4 fireballs on your level 3 spell list and that's all you'll ever need : for other spells, you'd rather use scroll versions. This way, you'll be able to throw 4 fireballs a day + a huge number of 3rd level spells through scrolls.

It definitely doesn't feel like the tabletop version AT ALL. It does feel like DOS though, but a cheap version of DOS where the rules get limited by D&D own ruleset.

Larian should make a choice : this game is either a DOS based game, or a D&D based one. But those two worlds can't merge that well.


Tbh the scroll issue is fixed easily - prevent non magical classes from using them by restoring use magic device rule.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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