Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
The less true the game ends up being to the actual ruleset the better.

DnD is absolute trash for combat. Its poorly balanced, it has no interesting mechanics, it does absolutely nothing thats worth playing. Everything that is interesting about it comes from unique actions of the player which are not part of the core rules.

Combat is a sidenote in any decent campaign. There are several modules and games(tabletop) that do core combat rules way better.

FFS dont listen to people asking for "1 to 1 implementation". Its awful.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game.
I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).

I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.


Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019
I don't mind some changes, but Larian themselves have said something along the lines of "this is the most faithful 5e computer game" which considering all the changes to.. well basically everything. It is not.

I would like most if not all the spells to be changed back to 5e personally. We don't need a simplified system considering all the math and leg work is done by the computer. I don't mind changes, or additions if its better then what it is replacing, eg bonus action potions and flanking (not backstab as it is now). However it feels as if each change forces them to make another change, then another to balance that change, then another. Until it will resembles little of the source material. This can already be seen in the bonus action spam, the HP bloat, etc.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I get horrible flashbacks to people who are "creative" like "I use minor illusion for something scary and the BBEG gets a heart attack, I win, hahaha".

I get that each table makes their own thing and that is fine, but I ask myself why those rule disregarding tables just dont skip a ruleset alltogether and just do collaborative story writing.


Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game.
I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).

I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.

Surfaces are a great example of an interesting mechanic added to the dull DnD System. And i agree - Advantage and Light are 2 good mechanics that actually come from the core rules.
But just to show the point im trying to make a bit more...

Core DnD does not consider positioning. No flanking, no "backstabs" in the literal sense. Thats horrible for tactical combat. The only thing core rules DnD cares about is adjacent allies - and for pen and paper that is totally fine because it simplifies combat and in pen and paper not everyone runs maps and figures. But here the game is literally you being a "figure on a map"


Last edited by NoLoGo; 21/10/20 07:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game.
I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).

I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.

Surfaces are a great example of an interesting mechanic added to the dull DnD System. And i agree - Advantage and Light are 2 good mechanics that actually come from the core rules.
But just to show the point im trying to make a bit more...

Core DnD does not consider positioning. No flanking, no "backstabs" in the literal sense. Thats horrible for tactical combat. The only thing core rules DnD cares about is adjacent allies - and for pen and paper that is totally fine because it simplifies combat and in pen and paper not everyone runs maps and figures. But here the game is literally you being a "figure on a map"



In that case I kinda agree with you. I don't mind surfaces, but when an oil barrel and firebolt = Fireball at lvl 2, then it's an issue of balance too. But I think it comes down to how it all interacts and the numbers.

Heck there are rules for surfaces etc too in DnD, I think people just don't play enough with it.

----

I do think though the rules for movement, disengagement etc from DnD makes things MORE tactical, not less.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Well that is an opinion. And I can't agree with it. For me combat by the rules is interesting.
1 for 1 adaptation neither possible nor it is needed. Larian just went too far.

Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game.
I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).

I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.

Surfaces are a great example of an interesting mechanic added to the dull DnD System. And i agree - Advantage and Light are 2 good mechanics that actually come from the core rules.
But just to show the point im trying to make a bit more...

Core DnD does not consider positioning. No flanking, no "backstabs" in the literal sense. Thats horrible for tactical combat. The only thing core rules DnD cares about is adjacent allies - and for pen and paper that is totally fine because it simplifies combat and in pen and paper not everyone runs maps and figures. But here the game is literally you being a "figure on a map"



In that case I kinda agree with you. I don't mind surfaces, but when an oil barrel and firebolt = Fireball at lvl 2, then it's an issue of balance too. But I think it comes down to how it all interacts and the numbers.

Heck there are rules for surfaces etc too in DnD, I think people just don't play enough with it.


There technically are rules for surfaces but all the things that make surfaces interesting here - like "dipping" and "surface combos" are not. Like i said the Core DnD is just super basic. Stand next to your buddy climb on the hill - gg - every time same thing for optimal play. All that is interesting is comes from player initiative (not the roll).

And @Fireballs being op - as mentioned in my opening post. DnD is poorly balanced (i had specifically fireball in mind for this as it is THE main offender and the most known). Fireball has been op as long as the system exists. Its what every mage does every combat every time if it doesnt melt their own face off as well (and sometimes even then). Its just an op spell. There are others that are effectively like this but i think fireball is the one absolutely everyone knows.

Last edited by NoLoGo; 21/10/20 07:49 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo

There technically are rules for surfaces but all the things that make surfaces interesting here - like "dipping" and "surface combos" are not.


1. surface combos are super gamey and immersion breaking at times. "Oh no there is electrified blood on the floor" -> "great" stuff
2. You already have an alternative to dipping in the core rules. Elemental Weapon. But yeah, dropping a candle on the floor and lightning my sword on fire for a few rounds seems legit.

Quote
Its what every mage does every combat every time


Its more of a meme. Fireball is great in a certain niche. Any wizard pumping fireballs into a single strong baddie is just wasting spell slots and not doing anything op. Fireball is great against hordes of little stuff. Seems to me, that the rules are not garbage, but you don't understand what you can do with them. Like I already said: smells like improv table to me, which are more often miss than hit.


Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
The solution to Fireball being OP isn't to make firebolt even more OP than Fireball though.

Dippable surfaces is cool, but I haven't seen many complain about that. My issue is mostly the size of surfaces, and how easy they are to come by. Every goblin and their bother throwing huge surfaces from bottles.

Imo. A way to work around this is: Either you make a surface, or you hit the enemy, not both. Firebolt going: direct damage, sets the opponent on fire AND makes a fire surface. That's too much imo. Make it Direct damge and set on fire, or make a surface maybe?

Most tables seems to play with house rules to up the strategy of the game, but I think Larian currently swung a little too hard.


BUUUUT, I don't mind these sides. To me it's the movement mechancis being bonus actions which is the biggest issue in a departure from 5e. The rest is mostly about the numers.


PS: Fireball is a "staple" style spell. It's designed to be powerful and even OP. I don't think that's a "balance" issue in DnD. There are lots of times where a fireball isn't OP. But in Larians Edition DnD I can see it being way too good, huge area, then set everything and the town on fire, exploding all the barrels... wow that's a scene stopper.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game.
I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).

I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.

Surfaces are a great example of an interesting mechanic added to the dull DnD System. And i agree - Advantage and Light are 2 good mechanics that actually come from the core rules.
But just to show the point im trying to make a bit more...

Core DnD does not consider positioning. No flanking, no "backstabs" in the literal sense. Thats horrible for tactical combat. The only thing core rules DnD cares about is adjacent allies - and for pen and paper that is totally fine because it simplifies combat and in pen and paper not everyone runs maps and figures. But here the game is literally you being a "figure on a map"


Here's the problem. You aren't actually thinking.

At all. About anything you've said. None of it in practice.

At current, everyone in melee has advantage unless your back is to a wall, at all times. Why? The backstabbing and disengage systems are so utterly, hilariously broken that there is no reason not to get behind an enemy and backstab them. Literally no reason not to.

At current, the only reason to every take AOO is because the game either glitched, or the pathfinding is broken. Bonus action disengage/jump sees to that.

At current, the only reason to use weapons is nostalgia. Firebolt-even on characters with no skill in using magic-is a better damage dealer because of how completely broken fire surfaces are. Misses do more damage than hits with other abilities. Concentration is a joke because of it.

At current, whomever starts highest wins due to advantage spam, which means that you can trivialize encounters by approaching them from the highest elevation possible. Those that force you into set positions are simply unfair.

At current, enemies have far too much HP and far too little AC, meaning you hit constantly but it takes multiple hits to kill even level 1 foes, even from spells specialized in that task.

Is this fixable? Sure. Make disengaging (and if jump needs to be the source of disengage, jumping) an action instead of a bonus action. Remove advantage from backstabbing unless you also actually flank (creatures at opposite locations), or just remove it altogether, or ideally model dynamic facing as characters move relative to each other. Make it so surfaces deal less damage by more than half, make it so that cantrips either make surfaces or do damage and never both, and make it so that fire surfaces either set you on fire (to deal damage) or straight deal damage, not both. Also fix that ice surfaces eat turns-they should remove actions, not turns. Make enemy HP and AC reflect 5e rules unless there is a good reason not to. Remove advantage from elevation-keep disadvantage due to elevation to simulate cover, but not advantage.

I have no problem with surfaces as a theoretical. I have no problem with backstabbing as a theoretical, if it actually requires thought to use. I am fine with changes, but at current these things are simply "how to win". Not "how to use tactics". If there is a right decision in all circumstances, it's not tactics. You simply understand how they broke the system and can exploit it, or you don't and struggle against enemies that do.

Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
The solution to Fireball being OP isn't to make firebolt even more OP than Fireball though.

That is completely off topic - please dont do that. Balance for BG3 specifically will obviously be adjusted during EA and making any kind of comment on the current state of any specific spell is pointless - we were talking about the Core DnD rules being uninteresting and certain spells in Core DnD being op.

Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
To me it's the movement mechancis being bonus actions which is the biggest issue in a departure from 5e.

I agree with this but i actually think its an EA issue as well - to make a wild guess: Id assume they havent finished making conditions for it.

Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
PS: Fireball is a "staple" style spell. It's designed to be powerful and even OP. I don't think that's a "balance" issue in DnD. There are lots of times where a fireball isn't OP. But in Larians Edition DnD I can see it being way too good, huge area, then set everything and the town on fire, exploding all the barrels... wow that's a scene stopper.

I mean half the problem is its size honestly as you pointed out. Its freaking 6 meters in diameter in core rules. Thats absolutely insane. You can toast a lot of orcs and gobbos running at you like that. Nevermind using it to bomb rooms from outside.
And yes its iconic and a staple. But that doesnt mean its not super easy to exploit - like the barrels arent the problem here. Its a massive aoe bomb - of course its going to be the dominant strategy as soon as it is available.

Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
I really think the only way of resolving this difference in expectations in the playerbase is for Larian to make it an option in game difficulty / setting:
- a strict "5E by the rules" mode
- a "let's go wild" mode, with higher HP count, attacks that almost always hit, surface shenanigans, countless explosive barrels and a more "we take 5E as an inspiration for our design, but that's it"

This will of course double the workload, but I think if even Pillars of Eternity II managed to introduce a turn-based mode long after release, then Larian with the resources available can afford to implement and maintain this kind of separation. Especially since "wild mode" would not need to be balanced much, because players in this mode are expected to exploit and cheese encounters every step of the way, anyway.

Last edited by endolex; 21/10/20 08:17 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo


DnD is absolute trash for combat.



Baldur's Gate is owned by the guys who made DnD, I think you're playing the wrong game then OP :X.

Last edited by FatePeddler; 21/10/20 08:15 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Well people are entitled to have their opinions, you seems to be playing the wrong IP though. Cause this is a DnD game, a poor adaption but still.

Last edited by CrestOfArtorias; 21/10/20 08:20 AM.
Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

At current, whomever starts highest wins due to advantage spam, which means that you can trivialize encounters by approaching them from the highest elevation possible. Those that force you into set positions are simply unfair.

^So this is core rules btw. So you complain about core rules DnD being dumb and agree with me - perfect - i agree. Core rules are dumb. Get on the hill win game.

Originally Posted by SilverSaint

At current, enemies have far too much HP and far too little AC, meaning you hit constantly but it takes multiple hits to kill even level 1 foes, even from spells specialized in that task.

You cant make consistent difficulty in high RNG evnvironments. Increasing AC is a terrible solution.
While higher health "technically" is a nerf to spells - "in practice" (as you so wonderfully put it) the best things in the game right now (that is not obviously a bug) are spells and by a huge margin. Magic Missile with amulet, Hex with Scorching ray and so on. Magic right now is the dominant strategy already. So "in practice" youre not thinking at all.

Last edited by NoLoGo; 21/10/20 08:28 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

At current, whomever starts highest wins due to advantage spam, which means that you can trivialize encounters by approaching them from the highest elevation possible. Those that force you into set positions are simply unfair.

^So this is core rules btw. So you complain about core rules DnD being dumb and agree with me - perfect - i agree. Core rules are dumb. Get on the hill win game.


Height advantage is not a core rule. This just shows that you probably have no real clue about the core 5e rules tbh. Yes a DM *could* give advantage for height, but a DM can do that for anything at any time. You are very hostile in your tone, but fail to back that up with facts. Very unpleasant behavior.

Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
Everyone gets the response he deserves - read his post.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by NoLoGo
Everyone gets the response he deserves - read his post.


I have and he delivers arguments. You on the other side behave very hostile and are spewing falsehoods like I pointed out above. Which makes it impossible to have a discussion in good faith. So either step it up or consider other platforms for your "feedback".

Joined: Sep 2018
N
NoLoGo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2018
Originally Posted by KingTiki


I have and he delivers arguments. You on the other side behave very hostile and are spewing falsehoods like I pointed out above. Which makes it impossible to have a discussion in good faith. So either step it up or consider other platforms for your "feedback".

So he starts his "valuable contribution" with a huge ad hom and you actually defend it. Brilliant. Cant beat those mental gymnasics bro 10/10. Incest DnD community.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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