Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Limz

So yeah, you can get advantage pretty easily but so can your opponents, it still comes down to better positioning and when all things are even usage of resources.


Still you fail to see the impact of dishing advantage in the overall weight of some classes that are highly dependent of it as Barbarians with reckless attack. Advantage is gold in DnD5e. Advantage in BG3 is a must. See the difference?


The class feature, if implemented as is, would have relatively diminished returns just like rogues see diminishing returns on having bonus actions. You still have a net gain (but by how much) for having another source of advantage for when you can't flank for the free backstab or for when there's a height difference that cannot be overcome.

You're correct in the weight of classes being shifted, but that primarily depends on how the class is implemented and how much in the grand scheme of things. Having the weight shifted is meaningless without taking a look at the context as a whole. The 5e system is not that fragile.


The only case u cannot backstab is when there are already 3-4 characters stand behind the enemy, which is very rare. Als your argument of diminishing return is not very convincing. Additional bonus action is very powerful even in high level.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem
Originally Posted by Kendaric
Of course, I was assuming that as a given though as I want the game to be closer to 5e smile

Currently I use the D&D rebalance mod for my playthroughs and it makes a lot of difference. It feels a lot better than the default game and quite frankly, I couldn't imagine playing without it anymore. Now I just need a mod that gets monster HP and AC closer to the MM stats and I'd be happy.


Mods are wonderful but I don't want BG3 to become like a Bethesda game where they expect the modders to fix the game. I would rather have Larian follow the 5e ruleset and modders are add wacky / crazy house rules.


True, but if Larian doesn't bring the game closer to 5e rules then modders will. I'd rather avoid having to mod my game extensively, but if that is what it takes... so be it.

Joined: Sep 2017
B
Benny89 Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Ignatius
he worst offender is handing out advantage like candy, with no resource cost. A host of abilities and spells offer the player or their team-mates advantage at some resource cost. T


That is also a BIG NO NO. There is a reason why "flanking" mechanic is OPTIONAL rule in books and why it's considered absolutely broken by majority of 5e community and almost noone ever uses this rule at their table.

Not only it makes many of class features useless: like Help Action, Fearie Fire, Greater Invisibility, Fighting Spirit, Reckless Attacks, Vow of Enmity etc. that COST RESOURCES or have a downside attached to it FOR A REASON.

Because advantage is THE thing in 5th edition. It's super powerful and it requires resources (spell slot, concentration etc.) or class features (limited to 3/day for Samurai for example or 1/short rest per 1 enemy on Vengeance Paladin) or have severe punishment attached (enemies have advantage on you when you Reckless Attack).

Handing advantage to everyone for cheap is not only stupid and destroys balance in game, but complicates classes (you have to tweak them now because you made their book features useless) - which causes more balance issues but also advantage doesn't feel significant anymore.



Sometimes I get the feeling they just want new player to feel like god from level 1, getting advantage left and right and throwing AOE firebolts everywhere that ignore AC.

This is not DnD.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Benny89
Originally Posted by Ignatius
he worst offender is handing out advantage like candy, with no resource cost. A host of abilities and spells offer the player or their team-mates advantage at some resource cost. T


That is also a BIG NO NO. There is a reason why "flanking" mechanic is OPTIONAL rule in books and why it's considered absolutely broken by majority of 5e community and almost noone ever uses this rule at their table.

Not only it makes many of class features useless: like Help Action, Fearie Fire, Greater Invisibility, Fighting Spirit, Reckless Attacks, Vow of Enmity etc. that COST RESOURCES or have a downside attached to it FOR A REASON.

Because advantage is THE thing in 5th edition. It's super powerful and it requires resources (spell slot, concentration etc.) or class features (limited to 3/day for Samurai for example or 1/short rest per 1 enemy on Vengeance Paladin) or have severe punishment attached (enemies have advantage on you when you Reckless Attack).

Handing advantage to everyone for cheap is not only stupid and destroys balance in game, but complicates classes (you have to tweak them now because you made their book features useless) - which causes more balance issues but also advantage doesn't feel significant anymore.



Sometimes I get the feeling they just want new player to feel like god from level 1, getting advantage left and right and throwing AOE firebolts everywhere that ignore AC.

This is not DnD.


+1

As a tabletop DnD 5e player, I couldnt agree more. Giving advantage/disadvantage because of elevation is the worst offender, I feel like I am playing "who climbs the highest simulator" and not a real tatical game.

Last edited by Chacineiro; 23/10/20 08:23 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
Originally Posted by Benny89
Originally Posted by Ignatius
he worst offender is handing out advantage like candy, with no resource cost. A host of abilities and spells offer the player or their team-mates advantage at some resource cost. T


That is also a BIG NO NO. There is a reason why "flanking" mechanic is OPTIONAL rule in books and why it's considered absolutely broken by majority of 5e community and almost noone ever uses this rule at their table.

Not only it makes many of class features useless: like Help Action, Fearie Fire, Greater Invisibility, Fighting Spirit, Reckless Attacks, Vow of Enmity etc. that COST RESOURCES or have a downside attached to it FOR A REASON.

Because advantage is THE thing in 5th edition. It's super powerful and it requires resources (spell slot, concentration etc.) or class features (limited to 3/day for Samurai for example or 1/short rest per 1 enemy on Vengeance Paladin) or have severe punishment attached (enemies have advantage on you when you Reckless Attack).

Handing advantage to everyone for cheap is not only stupid and destroys balance in game, but complicates classes (you have to tweak them now because you made their book features useless) - which causes more balance issues but also advantage doesn't feel significant anymore.



Sometimes I get the feeling they just want new player to feel like god from level 1, getting advantage left and right and throwing AOE firebolts everywhere that ignore AC.

This is not DnD.


+1

As a tabletop DnD 5e player, I couldnt agree more. Giving advantage/disadvantage because of elevation is the worst offender, I feel like I am playing "who climbs the highest simulator" and not a real tatical game.


And if you can't go higher, that's the "miss-fest" because they changed creatures abilities^^

Please Larian go back a little bit and let us try a more accurate D&D experience. That's the only way for testers to give a good feedback about what can be improved and added.
Don't do things the wrong way or the entire EA is going to be about balance issues...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/10/20 08:29 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
+1. Agree with all points.

Joined: Oct 2020
J
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
J
Joined: Oct 2020
+1
Agree with what OP said

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Benny89

So:

1. Somewhat agree. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, scale environmental fx down/make it less prevalent.
2. Absolutely agree. Not only that, being so opposed to missing/high AC that you make decent non-magical armor more rare than powerful magic items is immersion breaking. Give us breastplates etc. before we get (potentially) +10 intelligence items!!!
3. Disagree. Arguably the rest of the game setting is anti-climactic as opposed to starting in hell, but I like the beginning. Combat is easy for the most part with potential to make it hard. Good balance.
4. WotC is a very "progressive company". I believe they have pushed for Larian to tone it down/remove it. Don't want to be non-inclusive to psychopaths now do we? wink
5. I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Many are fans of both franchises and I don't think Larian goes out specifically to cater to DOS fans, but they have enjoyed quite a bit of success with their creative gameplay. Larian's tactical approach to combat goes beyond environmental effects and creative tricks though...it is also about verticality, bottlenecks and mobility. This is something I believe the most ardent fans of each franchise will agree makes combat more interesting.


Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kendaric
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem
Originally Posted by Kendaric
Of course, I was assuming that as a given though as I want the game to be closer to 5e smile

Currently I use the D&D rebalance mod for my playthroughs and it makes a lot of difference. It feels a lot better than the default game and quite frankly, I couldn't imagine playing without it anymore. Now I just need a mod that gets monster HP and AC closer to the MM stats and I'd be happy.


Mods are wonderful but I don't want BG3 to become like a Bethesda game where they expect the modders to fix the game. I would rather have Larian follow the 5e ruleset and modders are add wacky / crazy house rules.


True, but if Larian doesn't bring the game closer to 5e rules then modders will. I'd rather avoid having to mod my game extensively, but if that is what it takes... so be it.


Should try actual new things instead of being just another "One Trick Pony" house.

Joined: Jan 2011
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
As a tabletop DnD 5e player, I couldnt agree more. Giving advantage/disadvantage because of elevation is the worst offender, I feel like I am playing "who climbs the highest simulator" and not a real tatical game.


Height is a tactic though, I like to see it stay perhaps tame the benefits/penalties.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
As a tabletop DnD 5e player, I couldnt agree more. Giving advantage/disadvantage because of elevation is the worst offender, I feel like I am playing "who climbs the highest simulator" and not a real tatical game.


Height is a tactic though, I like to see it stay perhaps tame the benefits/penalties.

cover rules from PHB,
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

And yet enemies can still have advantage shooting through a crack in the wall from on top of a building personally experienced this during the fight in the goblin village.
Personally in my games, my DM would rule something like that with disadvantage.

Last edited by VhexLambda; 23/10/20 11:47 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Creslin321
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
[quote=Gaidax]
...

Solasta started from base 5e and introduced new elements as needed. They made sure their 5e mechanics were solid first.

BG 3 started from DoS 2 and added 5e elements only where absolutely required to seem like a D&D game, but ended up with just a DoS reskin. You're purposely ignoring the points being made (not saying no surfaces, saying follow the rules for them and otherwise use sparingly).
...


I have seen this argument so many times, that BG3 is somehow DOS3 in disguise, and is far more like DOS than 5E. No offense, but this is just wrong. I honestly don't see how you can play BG3 and come away with the idea that it's a DoS reskin that only added 5E mechanics where "absolutely required."

The entire system of the game is 5E. The classes are 5E, the skills are 5E, the abilities are 5E, the combat system is 5E, the action economy is 5E, the races are 5E. Just to illustrate the differences between DoS and 5E further...

DoS uses an action point system in combat, BG3 and 5E use action/bonus action/move.
DoS has a classless skill based system for abilities, BG3 and 5E use classes and levels.
DoS has a stat system where you increase stats every time you level, BG3 and 5E have stats largely set at character creation, that increase only on levels which are mulitples of 4.
DoS used a percentile chance to hit system, BG3 and 5E use a D20 with attack bonus and AC, or saving throws.

All of these things are foundational system layer aspects of the game. Just because both DoS and BG3 have surface effects doesn't make BG3 not a D&D game...it's more like a D&D game with a few house rules. Also...D&D has surface effects anyway.


Except they've been modified and dumbed down to some homebrew system that you wouldn't play after session zero.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by simsurf
Originally Posted by Creslin321
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
[quote=Gaidax]
...

Solasta started from base 5e and introduced new elements as needed. They made sure their 5e mechanics were solid first.

BG 3 started from DoS 2 and added 5e elements only where absolutely required to seem like a D&D game, but ended up with just a DoS reskin. You're purposely ignoring the points being made (not saying no surfaces, saying follow the rules for them and otherwise use sparingly).
...


I have seen this argument so many times, that BG3 is somehow DOS3 in disguise, and is far more like DOS than 5E. No offense, but this is just wrong. I honestly don't see how you can play BG3 and come away with the idea that it's a DoS reskin that only added 5E mechanics where "absolutely required."

The entire system of the game is 5E. The classes are 5E, the skills are 5E, the abilities are 5E, the combat system is 5E, the action economy is 5E, the races are 5E. Just to illustrate the differences between DoS and 5E further...

DoS uses an action point system in combat, BG3 and 5E use action/bonus action/move.
DoS has a classless skill based system for abilities, BG3 and 5E use classes and levels.
DoS has a stat system where you increase stats every time you level, BG3 and 5E have stats largely set at character creation, that increase only on levels which are mulitples of 4.
DoS used a percentile chance to hit system, BG3 and 5E use a D20 with attack bonus and AC, or saving throws.

All of these things are foundational system layer aspects of the game. Just because both DoS and BG3 have surface effects doesn't make BG3 not a D&D game...it's more like a D&D game with a few house rules. Also...D&D has surface effects anyway.


Except they've been modified and dumbed down to some homebrew system that you wouldn't play after session zero.



Only their weird philosophy on modifying the affect of light on combat is really a problem. I agree, if they keep that homebrew rule, its going to destroy overall intrerest in the game because they effectively made lighting MORE impactful than this game makes elevation. Is it too much to ask for a game that feels like playing D&D with friends? I am thinking you just have to play D&D with friends if thats what you want, game designers always have a chip on their shoulder with their novel mechanics they want to push.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by Gaidax

Which is something that can be tuned, whether it's excessive Barrelmancy or Firebolt. And yes what one of the guys above said that if I already start a frikkin' fire, then it should have actual effect - that is fine. What needs to be tuned is the overall ease at which you can do it now, which I hope they will do. But all in all environment effects themselves are not the devil, they are fine and fun if you can set this up proper with some coordinated effort.

But the reality of the matter environmental impact as a whole is fine, heck Solasta 2nd tavern story/tutorial teaches you to make use of it and somehow the game does not explode there at all whether you can oneshot a wolf 6 levels above you by destroying a tile under it or drop a cage on goblins in first mission or a stone on soraks same mission.

People really need to stop being so much anti-fun tight-asses, not everything ever should be the holy immutable RAW 5e, even Solasta devs understand it.


Yeah, you're just trolling I have to imagine.

Solasta started from base 5e and introduced new elements as needed. They made sure their 5e mechanics were solid first.

BG 3 started from DoS 2 and added 5e elements only where absolutely required to seem like a D&D game, but ended up with just a DoS reskin. You're purposely ignoring the points being made (not saying no surfaces, saying follow the rules for them and otherwise use sparingly).

Seriously, how much of Solasta have you actually played? How many times did you have react to enemies throwing unavoidable damaging surfaces on you? How many times did enemies shove you off something to cause damage? And honestly, how many times did you kill an enemy via non-5e means (rock dropping on them) versus 5e means? Because right now, I know that amount is exceedingly minimal, especially since most environmental interactions aren't one-shots.


Nailed it. I have completed the Solasta EA and the only rock dropping i did was in the tutorial. I had enemies a few times try to knock me down, especially the big soraks and some random orcs, but it was pretty rare. The only lingering environmental effects were from standard 5e spells like darkness or stinking cloud, which is as it should be. The guy clearly hasn't played the game, probably made his arguments from a few youtube videos lmao.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Benny89

So:

1. Somewhat agree. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, scale environmental fx down/make it less prevalent.
2. Absolutely agree. Not only that, being so opposed to missing/high AC that you make decent non-magical armor more rare than powerful magic items is immersion breaking. Give us breastplates etc. before we get (potentially) +10 intelligence items!!!
3. Disagree. Arguably the rest of the game setting is anti-climactic as opposed to starting in hell, but I like the beginning. Combat is easy for the most part with potential to make it hard. Good balance.
4. WotC is a very "progressive company". I believe they have pushed for Larian to tone it down/remove it. Don't want to be non-inclusive to psychopaths now do we? wink
5. I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Many are fans of both franchises and I don't think Larian goes out specifically to cater to DOS fans, but they have enjoyed quite a bit of success with their creative gameplay. Larian's tactical approach to combat goes beyond environmental effects and creative tricks though...it is also about verticality, bottlenecks and mobility. This is something I believe the most ardent fans of each franchise will agree makes combat more interesting.


I dont agree. I tried so so much to like DOS, but the AOE surface spamming and whoever can get higher faster combat made me put the the game down. Thats literally the combat in a nutshell. Set everything on fire and climb. Boring. After finishing Solasta EA it has be demonstrated that a computer version of 5E can be implemeted, works and is super fun.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I've noticed that I'm currently having a hard time finishing the EA after being hyped about it for months. The reasons are all the broken balance issues in fights due to Larian's homebrewing. Last night I had the fight with the Kua Toa and watching another race to the top and those multi-attack archers (out of all freaking attacks - you give ranged weapons exploiting height to get advantage additional attacks??), overall it just reminded me I need to play more cheese - even though I had already placed 3 party memebers concealed behind enemies on high ground to even start the fight (by the way, why can they still move freely while others are stuck in combat 2 feet from them? go cheese-fest)...

I honestly hate the combat at this point. It got worse the longer I've played and I'm not sure I will do a second playthrough before it gets closer to 5e. I won't use mods during EA because that's not the point of EA. But if the final version of the game looks like this then I will only play it with a 5e mod or regret buying it (I would not have bought a full price DOS3 - I like Larian a lot, but not DOS2-combat). You can have your environmental effects and shoves, but the way they are implemented in 5e not by breaking the balance. Make them special and memorable in specific situation, not your standard go-tos. At least twice I've lost party members shoved into the abyss because its just your run-of-the-mill-go-to-move. I hated DOS2's combat system and now in BG3 its even worse because its all about surfaces and unbalanced bonus actions. The whole action economy is f*** up. Monsters are unbalanced (those minotaurs are just an unbalanced joke and yet cheesing the fight you don't even notice them).


So yeah, I agree with the OP except for the alignments (because to me those were ridicolous ever since).


I think BG3 has a the potential to be a truley great game - even among the best role playing games in history - but the combat needs to fall closer in line with 5e and not this unbalanced hybrid. You sold me a D&D 5e game, but you didn't deliver it. Coming from someone who isn't a die-hard 5e-fan.

Last edited by biomag; 24/10/20 09:35 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
B
Benny89 Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by simsurf
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Benny89

So:

1. Somewhat agree. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, scale environmental fx down/make it less prevalent.
2. Absolutely agree. Not only that, being so opposed to missing/high AC that you make decent non-magical armor more rare than powerful magic items is immersion breaking. Give us breastplates etc. before we get (potentially) +10 intelligence items!!!
3. Disagree. Arguably the rest of the game setting is anti-climactic as opposed to starting in hell, but I like the beginning. Combat is easy for the most part with potential to make it hard. Good balance.
4. WotC is a very "progressive company". I believe they have pushed for Larian to tone it down/remove it. Don't want to be non-inclusive to psychopaths now do we? wink
5. I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Many are fans of both franchises and I don't think Larian goes out specifically to cater to DOS fans, but they have enjoyed quite a bit of success with their creative gameplay. Larian's tactical approach to combat goes beyond environmental effects and creative tricks though...it is also about verticality, bottlenecks and mobility. This is something I believe the most ardent fans of each franchise will agree makes combat more interesting.


I dont agree. I tried so so much to like DOS, but the AOE surface spamming and whoever can get higher faster combat made me put the the game down. Thats literally the combat in a nutshell. Set everything on fire and climb. Boring. After finishing Solasta EA it has be demonstrated that a computer version of 5E can be implemeted, works and is super fun.



While I really liked the combat system in DOS, the truth is - it was much less tactical than some believe and less tactial than clear 5e is. This is because DOS was bascially either - earth to fire for magical burst damage, CC chain with melees combine with action points manipulation (Flesh Sacrefice, Adrenaline, Chameleon Skin etc.) to keep enemies perma CC on the ground (you could chain enemies in CC forver if you knew what you do) and high ground Ranger burst damage which could one-two shot everything in the middle of the game. And as in all simillar RPGs - stack crit chance to the roof.

Again - I AM NOT SAYING that it wasn't fun. It was. But this is not DND.

In 5e there absolutely no way (if we follow rules from books and monster stats from books) to make as OP things as in DOS2.

Full 5e would be more fun in the long run because it would provide way more challange and tactical approach.

Last edited by Benny89; 25/10/20 02:09 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
In 5e the best strat would be to bottle neck everything at a choke like a door with melee characters and keep ranged/caster behind. Mobility would be static because there wouldn't be a huge reason to flank depending on if you wanted to include the flanking rules or not as mentioned above, so it becomes a face to face slug fest.

Ground effects and positional advantages force mobility versus static formations. Typically it was too the defenders advantage to take the high ground and defend from a wall or a cliff, otherwise traveling through a mountain pass with threats of archers on the cliff ledges above you is not as dangerous or necessary beyond flare, but they could have easily just been on the ground standing behind 3 or 4 big bruisers.

We are in a three dimensional playing field, why not use more than two of those?

Is it too strong? Maybe? At early stages it is difficult to land attacks from the low ground. Advantage/disadvantage is rolling two dice and picking the best/worst of the two, correct? So really there is no modifier making you roll better or worse, you still have to roll the correct DC with your current stats. The closer to the DC you are with your hit modifiers, the easier it is to overcome disadvantage. My hunter/ranger with +2 in archery and +4 in dex now has a +6 in chance to hit. If the AC of the target is at 12? (I don't remember what the average AC you run into in the game is at the moment) I only need to roll a 6 to land a hit. Out of 2 dice rolls, a 6 or higher is quite doable and I find in game I land hits from low ground pretty consistently.

My other characters who don't have as many hit modifiers struggle to hit from the ground as they were meant for melee or spell casting. Str and Int/Wis/Cha characters don't seem to get better at elevation fights over time as str does not help at ranged attacks and Int/Wis/Cha only applies to saving roll modifiers for resistances on spells that use them. Otherwise they use ranged chance to hit rolls via Dex (need to confirm this as I am word vomiting based on my understanding of the combat mechanics).

So spells and abilities that use spell DC rolls would be more reliable ways to hit targets of elevation with a caster, as you can level/equip gear to increase the spell DC and increase your primary stat to add modifiers to it. Currently in bg3 there is only the ogre headband that increases int, and that is only to 18, so you can't get +1/+2 gear for casters to help eek it up higher.

The other suggestion I have seen is having elevation give adjustments into AC. That would work I guess, but theoretically it makes it harder to land a hit as the roll you need to land on the dice is now higher, versus you get 2 chances at the rolling the dice to hit a lower number. Both result in less chances to hit, but one could put a target completely out of your chance to hit range while the other makes you roll twice and take the lower/higher roll.

If the target AC is 20, and elevation gives them a +2 to AC, you now have to roll a 22 with modifiers. If your modifiers are only +2, the highest you could ever roll is without landing a critical hit is 19. Add modifier and you roll a 21. So now you have to crit regardless and you only have 1 of 20 chances to land. With advantage on elevation, you could succeed with 18, 19, and 20 providing 3 of 20 chances to land a hit, but then you have to roll 2 dice. The odds are the same both times, and subsequent rolls are left to rng. We can argue gamblers fallacy or probability over time, but that can get into a rabbit hole.

So I guess what I am getting at is, this combat is different, sure. Is it inherently worse? Subjective. I would say all my years playing "fight in the doorway" in older D&D games was tedious and a yawn fest, but one of the best ways to protect my squishy ranged characters. Is that immersion breaking? Yeah to me, every fight I run to a door or a choke and my characters just cower behind the big hulking warrior as they do almost nothing.

One system makes you hide behind a frontline and play very 18th century military tactics "hold the line! Stand in a square!". The other system makes you chase the high ground that way Anakin will never be able to beat you.


Joined: Sep 2017
B
Benny89 Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by CMF

One system makes you hide behind a frontline and play very 18th century military tactics "hold the line! Stand in a square!". The other system makes you chase the high ground that way Anakin will never be able to beat you.


And that is why if someone doesn't like 5e system - can go play DOS2 and not play BG3. If someone like 5e and not DOS2 - can play BG3. If someone like both- they can play both.

There is no reason to mix it. Back in the end they were people who loved BG2 and didn't like Morrowind. Doesn't mean that next DnD game should have blended Morrowind with DnD 3.5.

Every system has it's fans. There is no universal good system.

When your try to make a product that will appeal to everyone - you make product that won't be remembered by anyone.

Last edited by Benny89; 30/10/20 11:46 PM.
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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