Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Was mostly talking about the gobbo camp but enemies there have ober twice the hp they should have, some have class lvls etc etc.

AND ontop of that theres tons of them.

The fight with gut where everyone in the throne room partipated in particular was a nasty one

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I agree, the goblin camp is too much.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
IIRC hookhorrors actually had a little less hp but they got some insame abilities they shouldnt have. They should have 75hp. They do normally have multi attack to attack twice though

Spectator should have 39 hp, is medium not large and are generally friendly creatures.

Bullete should have 94hp. Dont recall what it actually has ingame. Its aoe jump is actually a feature of the bulette but not of other creatures. It also has a ranged attack it shouldnt have.

Minotaurs have multi attack, a jump aoe attack and a shockwave ability they shouldnt have. Hp should be 76. Minotaurs do have a special charge but they need to move a certain distance before they can use that ability.

And before people acuse me of beeing a dnd purist or something, an extra ability here or there is fine. But do it in moderation. Giving Minotaurs a melee cleave for example would make sense and doesent sound to broken.

Giving them multi attack and an aoe jump gives them 3 attacks. One which can also knock you down if you fail a str test. They are balanced around having 1 attack with the greataxe or a running gore attack. Using their reckless ability to gain advantage but also granting it to attacks against them.

They hit hard but you csn hit them easily as well. Currently they not only hit hard, their movement is somany times more then ut should be thst its basicly a joke...



Without these changes, fighting the minotaurs would be terribly easy, especially at 5lvl (Even now it's not difficult).
Some enemies need upgrades if they are to be challenging. Theoretically, you can give more difficult enemies, but this has limitations.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by denhonator
Now the enemy has more HP and you can't one shot it, and you need to find a way to survive its turn because you can't kill it before that.

It's an additional challenge that requires strategy to beat. Doesn't mean it can't also feel tedius. Maybe it's not the best way to add difficulty. Maybe we should discuss alternative methods of increasing difficulty if more HP is something people don't wanna see.


Except that on D&D there are a lot of strategies to avoid taking any damage. Mirror image for eg, is the most used illusion spell on BG1/2. On Legacy of Bhaal, a LOT of enemies can one shot you and has ridiculous hp bloat, so the game become more a tedium of attacking from long distance with summons, rest and save scumming and when you get Finger of Death or a vorpal weapon, praying to RNGoddess.

Here is my thread explaining the difficulty https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/hrxn15/my_experience_soloing_soa_lecagy_of_bhaal_as_a/

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
[
I have the feeling that people don't understand why this change exists.
Opponents must be able to withstand in the fight for some time.
You can achieve this by increasing their number or by giving them additional stats.


5e is ALREADY the edition with most HP bloat ever except 4e.

Sustaing some time and sustain DOZENS of arbalest shots are two different things.

The appeal of the combat on D&D is that an single critical can flip the table. With low ac/high hp rules this isn't truth.

Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Abits
Nice. It seems that even the word "unplayable" is a matter of opinion now.

I'm under the impression that enemies with more hp is in order to have less enemies on the battlefield. And I don't see why it's a problem


I have the feeling that people don't understand why this change exists.
Opponents must be able to withstand in the fight for some time.
You can achieve this by increasing their number or by giving them additional stats.




Yeah that's what I said. I don't know much about designing turn based combat, but intuitively I think it is better the have few strong enemies than many week ones. What I can say for sure is that I enjoyed the battles with the strong few monsters much more than when I had to fight hordes of weaker ones


We din't saw fireball, nor fighters with 2 attacks per round, on ToEE the best battles that I had was very long battles.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121


Without these changes, fighting the minotaurs would be terribly easy, especially at 5lvl (Even now it's not difficult).
Some enemies need upgrades if they are to be challenging. Theoretically, you can give more difficult enemies, but this has limitations.


Call it a high level minotaur and give cool abilities and powers, not just inflate his hp. That is boooring.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Not every fight needs to be amazing and challengine to the degree that you need to burn all your resources to win it.

The monsters as they are in the monster manual have the stats and abilities that they do for a reason. Deviating to much from them can drasticly change the DC rating that they should be.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Giving Larian until January...Otherwise going to Solasta. So much more enjoyable gameplay. It actually feels more like BG3.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 24/10/20 12:37 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Demoulius
IIRC hookhorrors actually had a little less hp but they got some insame abilities they shouldnt have. They should have 75hp. They do normally have multi attack to attack twice though

Spectator should have 39 hp, is medium not large and are generally friendly creatures.

Bullete should have 94hp. Dont recall what it actually has ingame. Its aoe jump is actually a feature of the bulette but not of other creatures. It also has a ranged attack it shouldnt have.

Minotaurs have multi attack, a jump aoe attack and a shockwave ability they shouldnt have. Hp should be 76. Minotaurs do have a special charge but they need to move a certain distance before they can use that ability.

And before people acuse me of beeing a dnd purist or something, an extra ability here or there is fine. But do it in moderation. Giving Minotaurs a melee cleave for example would make sense and doesent sound to broken.

Giving them multi attack and an aoe jump gives them 3 attacks. One which can also knock you down if you fail a str test. They are balanced around having 1 attack with the greataxe or a running gore attack. Using their reckless ability to gain advantage but also granting it to attacks against them.

They hit hard but you csn hit them easily as well. Currently they not only hit hard, their movement is somany times more then ut should be thst its basicly a joke...



Without these changes, fighting the minotaurs would be terribly easy, especially at 5lvl (Even now it's not difficult).
Some enemies need upgrades if they are to be challenging. Theoretically, you can give more difficult enemies, but this has limitations.


Then add one or two minotaurs or use a more powerfull creature... Minotaurs are FP3...

+ Every fight doesn't have to be that challenging. This is a BG/FR/D&D RP game... Combats are not supposed to be the main feature and focus, even if there are important.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/10/20 12:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor


Originally Posted by Rhobar121


Without these changes, fighting the minotaurs would be terribly easy, especially at 5lvl (Even now it's not difficult).
Some enemies need upgrades if they are to be challenging. Theoretically, you can give more difficult enemies, but this has limitations.


Call it a high level minotaur and give cool abilities and powers, not just inflate his hp. That is boooring.


They don't have more HP.



Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Giving Larian until January...Otherwise going to Solasta. So much more enjoyable gameplay. It actually feels more like BG3.


Already bought Solasta and BG3. Solasta is being much more fun and challenging. Sadly I can't play as a warlock there, but shock arcanist was a good homebrew subclass...

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Imo the hp bloat coupled with the gamey abilities make just about every fight in thr underdark play out as if you are fighting a bunch of superheroes.

For example: Hook horrors can do over 20meter jumps that do aoe damage, shockwaves, have multi attack. And you fight 4 of them. You can beat it. Thats not the point. The point is you arent fighting hook horrors.

I saw multi attacking minotaurs move 200 feet in 1 turn, a beholder fly an entire screen away and using rays he shouldnt have.

If you want to use the dnd license then use it, but dont dress monsters up as classic dnd monsters and give them all new abilities....


on top of all of this, Firebolt only has a 60ft distance, Eldritch blast only has a 60 feet distance. Every opponent in the game can close the gap on my Wizard within a single turn (and they tend to target him regardless of proximal enemies)

Joined: Oct 2020
W
stranger
Offline
stranger
W
Joined: Oct 2020
This reminds me of TTK (time to kill) arguments with first person shooters lol. Like your warzone vs apex legends debate, which boils down to some people just like to have to dump 180 rounds into every single enemy they come across just to break shields let alone kill where as others enjoy weapons working closer to reality in that 60 rounds can kill 3-4 guys as long as your accurate. This debate is no different in that its reached an impass of personal.preference. personally I would rather see difficult balanced through AC, accuracy, and damage than hitpoints exclusively.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I'm absolutely not a GM and I'm not a D&D tabletop player but I try to understand things.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

I'll consider a character level 3 with a basic 1D8 weapon (average damage 4), an attack roll modifier of +3, a proficiency bonus to weapon +2.

D&D Goblins : 15 AC with shield / 7 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 10 (50%)
Hit to kill : 2

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1


Larian's Goblin : 10 AC with shield / 12 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 5 (75%)
Hit to kill : 3

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1

It looks like actually it changes absolutely nothing about goblins.
So what's the point of changing these stats except you see "75%" instead of "50%" ?

Wouldn't it be easier to stick a little bit more to the rules, and just add an additionnal +1, +2 or even +3 bonus to the attack roll if you're higher instead of an advantage (+1 means +5% chance of hit, +2 means +10%, +3 means +15%).
Or maybe just decrease the AC but not changing the HP so combats are faster ?

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/10/20 01:36 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Demoulius
IIRC hookhorrors actually had a little less hp but they got some insame abilities they shouldnt have. They should have 75hp. They do normally have multi attack to attack twice though

Spectator should have 39 hp, is medium not large and are generally friendly creatures.

Bullete should have 94hp. Dont recall what it actually has ingame. Its aoe jump is actually a feature of the bulette but not of other creatures. It also has a ranged attack it shouldnt have.

Minotaurs have multi attack, a jump aoe attack and a shockwave ability they shouldnt have. Hp should be 76. Minotaurs do have a special charge but they need to move a certain distance before they can use that ability.

And before people acuse me of beeing a dnd purist or something, an extra ability here or there is fine. But do it in moderation. Giving Minotaurs a melee cleave for example would make sense and doesent sound to broken.

Giving them multi attack and an aoe jump gives them 3 attacks. One which can also knock you down if you fail a str test. They are balanced around having 1 attack with the greataxe or a running gore attack. Using their reckless ability to gain advantage but also granting it to attacks against them.

They hit hard but you csn hit them easily as well. Currently they not only hit hard, their movement is somany times more then ut should be thst its basicly a joke...



Without these changes, fighting the minotaurs would be terribly easy, especially at 5lvl (Even now it's not difficult).
Some enemies need upgrades if they are to be challenging. Theoretically, you can give more difficult enemies, but this has limitations.



Maybe if every character in the game didnt have bonus action disengage/hide.... they wouldnt be so easy that the devs need to buff the crap out of them with novel mechanics that they never had in 5e. This is the slippery slope that their action economy has created.

Last edited by pill0ws; 24/10/20 01:41 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm absolutely not a GM and I'm not a D&D tabletop player but I try to understand things.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

I'll consider a character level 3 with a basic 1D8 weapon (average damage 4), an attack roll modifier of +3, a proficiency bonus to weapon +2.

D&D Goblins : 15 AC with shield / 7 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 10 (50%)
Hit to kill : 2

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1


Larian's Goblin : 10 AC with shield / 12 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 5 (75%)
Hit to kill : 3

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1

It looks like actually it changes absolutely nothing about goblins.
So what's the point of changing these stats except you see "75%" instead of "50%" ?

Wouldn't it be easier to stick a little bit more to the rules, and just add an additionnal +1, +2 or even +3 bonus to the attack roll if you're higher instead of an advantage (+1 means +5% chance of hit, +2 means +10%, +3 means +15%).
Or maybe just decrease the AC but not changing the HP so combats are faster ?


What part of spells din't you got?

Spells doesn't target enemy AC, so a firebolt deals less damage than a heavy crossbow but will hit more often. With that nerf, the cantrip will ALWAYS be worse. Sleep? such life saving spell on BG1 is worthless on BG3.

You are assuming that everyone will be playing as a human fighter like in a JRPG when casters are very popular on D&D and always was. And even for fighters, that hit more often, deals less damage KILLS all combat tension.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm absolutely not a GM and I'm not a D&D tabletop player but I try to understand things.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

I'll consider a character level 3 with a basic 1D8 weapon (average damage 4), an attack roll modifier of +3, a proficiency bonus to weapon +2.

D&D Goblins : 15 AC with shield / 7 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 10 (50%)
Hit to kill : 2

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1


Larian's Goblin : 10 AC with shield / 12 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 5 (75%)
Hit to kill : 3

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1

It looks like actually it changes absolutely nothing about goblins.
So what's the point of changing these stats except you see "75%" instead of "50%" ?

Wouldn't it be easier to stick a little bit more to the rules, and just add an additionnal +1, +2 or even +3 bonus to the attack roll if you're higher instead of an advantage (+1 means +5% chance of hit, +2 means +10%, +3 means +15%).
Or maybe just decrease the AC but not changing the HP so combats are faster ?


What part of spells din't you got?

Spells doesn't target enemy AC, so a firebolt deals less damage than a heavy crossbow but will hit more often. With that nerf, the cantrip will ALWAYS be worse. Sleep? such life saving spell on BG1 is worthless on BG3.

You are assuming that everyone will be playing as a human fighter like in a JRPG when casters are very popular on D&D and always was. And even for fighters, that hit more often, deals less damage KILLS all combat tension.



Hes also taking the most modest example for hius math. Do this with the Goblins that have 20hp and up

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm absolutely not a GM and I'm not a D&D tabletop player but I try to understand things.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

I'll consider a character level 3 with a basic 1D8 weapon (average damage 4), an attack roll modifier of +3, a proficiency bonus to weapon +2.

D&D Goblins : 15 AC with shield / 7 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 10 (50%)
Hit to kill : 2

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1


Larian's Goblin : 10 AC with shield / 12 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 5 (75%)
Hit to kill : 3

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1

It looks like actually it changes absolutely nothing about goblins.
So what's the point of changing these stats except you see "75%" instead of "50%" ?

Wouldn't it be easier to stick a little bit more to the rules, and just add an additionnal +1, +2 or even +3 bonus to the attack roll if you're higher instead of an advantage (+1 means +5% chance of hit, +2 means +10%, +3 means +15%).
Or maybe just decrease the AC but not changing the HP so combats are faster ?


What part of spells din't you got?

Spells doesn't target enemy AC, so a firebolt deals less damage than a heavy crossbow but will hit more often. With that nerf, the cantrip will ALWAYS be worse. Sleep? such life saving spell on BG1 is worthless on BG3.

You are assuming that everyone will be playing as a human fighter like in a JRPG when casters are very popular on D&D and always was. And even for fighters, that hit more often, deals less damage KILLS all combat tension.


Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that these changes have more consequences, especially on spells like i.e sleep.
It was just an exemple for me to try to understand WHY they changed... And my conclusion is that it has USELESS consequences exept that we see "75%" instead of "50%". I never said it's good or the only things to care about.

+ tell me again if I'm wrong, but I think many spells also confronts the target's AC in 5e.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/10/20 01:54 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
W
stranger
Offline
stranger
W
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm absolutely not a GM and I'm not a D&D tabletop player but I try to understand things.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

I'll consider a character level 3 with a basic 1D8 weapon (average damage 4), an attack roll modifier of +3, a proficiency bonus to weapon +2.

D&D Goblins : 15 AC with shield / 7 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 10 (50%)
Hit to kill : 2

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1


Larian's Goblin : 10 AC with shield / 12 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 5 (75%)
Hit to kill : 3

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1

It looks like actually it changes absolutely nothing about goblins.
So what's the point of changing these stats except you see "75%" instead of "50%" ?

Wouldn't it be easier to stick a little bit more to the rules, and just add an additionnal +1, +2 or even +3 bonus to the attack roll if you're higher instead of an advantage (+1 means +5% chance of hit, +2 means +10%, +3 means +15%).
Or maybe just decrease the AC but not changing the HP so combats are faster ?


Except total HP makes a difference in the effectiveness of various spells like sleep. The bigger point being made by HP bloat isn't actually time to kill but all the ripple effects and subsequent changes to other systems that have to happen but upset the balance of how these mechanics should be translated to the game.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Same answer as the previous one, we probably wrote at the same time smile
I'm just trying to think with Larian's eyes with easy exemples.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that these changes have more consequences, especially on spells like i.e sleep.
It was just an exemple for me to try to understand WHY they changed... And my conclusion is that it has USELESS consequences exept that we see "75%" instead of "50%". I never said it's good or the only things to care about
+ tell me again if I'm wrong, but I think many spells also confronts the target's AC in 5e..


Originally Posted by pill0ws
Hes also taking the most modest example for hius math. Do this with the Goblins that have 20hp and up

Yes, it becomes worse and worse as soon as they have more HP, both to kill them and many spells efficiency.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/10/20 01:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WinterbornGuard

Except total HP makes a difference in the effectiveness of various spells like sleep. The bigger point being made by HP bloat isn't actually time to kill but all the ripple effects and subsequent changes to other systems that have to happen but upset the balance of how these mechanics should be translated to the game.



This is the slippery slope I am talking about. Every homebrew rule that Larian is running is going to have secondary and tertiary affects. A nerf to AC is a fat buff to Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master. Suddenly now you are going to need to ensure the HP is scaled up enough that it's not a trivial tradeoff because these are popular choices and a missed attack really is supposed to be the tradeoff for the fat damage they give you.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm absolutely not a GM and I'm not a D&D tabletop player but I try to understand things.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

I'll consider a character level 3 with a basic 1D8 weapon (average damage 4), an attack roll modifier of +3, a proficiency bonus to weapon +2.

D&D Goblins : 15 AC with shield / 7 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 10 (50%)
Hit to kill : 2

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1


Larian's Goblin : 10 AC with shield / 12 HP

Modifier + Proficiency = 5
Dice roll needed : 5 (75%)
Hit to kill : 3

Average attack to hit and kill : 4
Total turn to kill one goblin : 1

It looks like actually it changes absolutely nothing about goblins.
So what's the point of changing these stats except you see "75%" instead of "50%" ?

Wouldn't it be easier to stick a little bit more to the rules, and just add an additionnal +1, +2 or even +3 bonus to the attack roll if you're higher instead of an advantage (+1 means +5% chance of hit, +2 means +10%, +3 means +15%).
Or maybe just decrease the AC but not changing the HP so combats are faster ?

Your math is inaccurate. That warrior with that attack roll modifier would also get +3 to his damage rolls meaning his avatage damge wouldnt be 4 but 7. Not to mention that dnd is a game about dice. You will get high rolls, you will get low rolls. For a fighter for that weapon however (D8 damage die) 4 and up (so half of the possible die results) instantly kill that goblin. Also goblins have leather armor alongside their shields with a dex mod of 2 gives them that AC15. The ones with bows would be easier to hit because of the lack of a shield.

Now try to 1 hit the Larians Goblins with the same fighter. Even with a crit its almost impossible to 1 shot them. And the few times that it does happen mean that you cant rely on it beeing an effective tactic.

Also some other lvl 1 spells that easily CAN kill Goblins in 1 hit: magic missle, burning hands (3d6 in a cone, auto hits but dex save for half), Eldritch blast (with the bonus from your casting mod mind you. which ive seen most warlocks take), Chromatic orb are some easy examples that could do it no problem. But even CANTRIPS can 1 shot Goblins under normal circumstances in pnp dnd.

In bg3 atm though? Non of that applies. Goblins are a threat because of their numbers and because they may ambush unsuspecting targets. Here though theyre also a threat because you cant kill them fast enough and because they still have those numbers that they would normally have. The spellcasters added ontop of that throw even more mud in the water. They should be quite rare for goblins but most groups in the camp have at least 1 if not more spell casters amongst their numbers.

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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