Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.


Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

Again, you have also to add that considering that currently we can rest spam.
Even under that circumstances, martialists are better due to the advantage spree.


Oh I don't know about that. In my playthroughs, my casters were definitely outperforming my martials. Much stronger aoes, sleep, and magic missile spam was more than enough to deal with encounters. Now a solo rogue can cheese things because the AI won't search your last hiding spot(glowing dot) if it's too far away. So they can just shoot and hide forever. That's a different subject though

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem in BG3 is the double-whammy: Decreasing AC indirectly nerfs saving-throw spells by making attack-roll spells better, and increasing HP directly nerfs all spells. So saving-throw spells are nerfed twice.

I think saving throw spells are only nerfed the one time. Martial actions and attack-roll spells would be affected the same by the new hp/ac values yes? If Larian made saving throw spells more likely to hit, would that bring everything back into balance? You'd still have the same amount length in fights, you'd be hitting more to counter the increased hp, therefore concentration spells would be maintained for about the same amount of time. With this more modified system there's more appeal to casual gamers that don't like to miss and it puts more weight on strategy rather than luck. Core rules can be brutal when the dice just decide you should die and your entire party does nothing for 4 rounds in a row. Doesn't happen often, but ooph not fun.

Not exactly. Martial atctions are easier to hit due to lowered AC (buff) but do less proportional damage from increased HP (nerf). BUT, the mechanics of height/backstabbing allow for easy increases to your to-hit chances, another (buff). Net=1 buff
Same for to-hit spells: easier to hit from lowered AC (buff), less proportional damage (nerf), and are benefitted by height/backtabbing (buff) = 1 buff
Saving Throw Spells/ HP spells: less proportional damage (nerf) and no effect from height/lowered AC= 1 net nerf.

The difference between 1 net nerf and 1 net buff is 2 levels of power.
In order to fix things, as you say, Larian needs to make saving throw spells more likely to hit. This would lead to them being still underpowered, but less so.

This would also immediately fix encounters where monsters are unchanged from 5e DMG. It is still easier to hit them using height/backstab, thus ST spells should be buffed.


Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

Again, you have also to add that considering that currently we can rest spam.
Even under that circumstances, martialists are better due to the advantage spree.


Oh I don't know about that. In my playthroughs, my casters were definitely outperforming my martials. Much stronger aoes, sleep, and magic missile spam was more than enough to deal with encounters. Now a solo rogue can cheese things because the AI won't search your last hiding spot(glowing dot) if it's too far away. So they can just shoot and hide forever. That's a different subject though


Hustle, when I say better read: better than DnD5e. My post was all about the comparison between those two systems. Analyzing it inside BG3 only is a mistake but I could comprehend your positioning.

Spells are supposed to outdamage martial fighters in DPR because they have spells slots to retain that power. Under no resting circumstances their damage tends to fall and the martialists to maintain. Think in action economy as a thing to analyze the situation: imagine that you have 5 battles before the long rest - the DPR of casters at 5th battle will be lower compared to the first battle. That’s what action economy is. If you spam all your spells slots in your first battle you won’t have enough damage in the following battles.

Martial fighters brings consistency through the time. They are the reliable part of the battle.
Casters are the disruptive part of the battle as they add utility & damage spells from a limited source

The post was all about saying: casters tends to lose their value compared to dnd5e standards. The only question mark that it’s so far unknown is to know if Larian will review their resting system in the final release. If they do it, I’m already foreseeing many complaints ahead due to how much the casters will be undermined. That’s a technical conclusion smile

If they decide to maintain AS IS, I’d like to be able to rest after every single battle because the damage will be HUGE in the balance

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

I would be so happy with a scaling +1 to +5 height bonus to AC & Dex Saves. That would solve so many problems. I'd prefer the maximum bonus be +2 or +3, but that's nitpicking details instead of structural.

backstabbing: Flanking is better than requiring stealth imo. Running behind someone, entering stealth, then hitting them is silly.

In conclusion: At Least either/or. Either take away the extra advantage sources or increase hit chances on saving throw spells would greatly help. This would also still allow people to hit more, which is "fun"

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Right, that makes sense when you put the new advantage sources into context. Which I agree with. I think the only argument for height advantage would be simplicity. It fits into the current UI with advantages going against disadvantages. In a future update with a new UI, it'd be nice to see height go from advantage to behaving like cover. You could even scale it from +1 AC and DEX saves to +5 based on the level of height difference between targets. Could possibly throw range extension in the formula as well. Picture attacking someone on the top of the steps versus attacking someone on top of a wall. Then backstabbing should at least require stealth or flanking. Definitely not the current sidestep or Anakin Skywalker hop we have.

In conclusion, taking away the extra advantage sources and increasing hit chance on saving throw spells would balance it right?

I would be so happy with a scaling +1 to +5 height bonus to AC & Dex Saves. That would solve so many problems. I'd prefer the maximum bonus be +2 or +3, but that's nitpicking details instead of structural.

backstabbing: Flanking is better than requiring stealth imo. Running behind someone, entering stealth, then hitting them is silly.

In conclusion: At Least either/or. Either take away the extra advantage sources or increase hit chances on saving throw spells would greatly help. This would also still allow people to hit more, which is "fun"


Boosted ranged distance attacks would be enough. Maybe a +2 in raw damage? There was so many good ways of adjusting it, they’ve gone for the worst

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
One thing to note is that we don't have many of the powerhouse spells yet-I suspect the game would be exponentially easier for a blaster wizard with a good fireball, simply because you could slam one into some of these high enemy encounters and start really knocking enemies down. Some other key spells are 3rd level as well-hypnotic pattern, for instance. Yes, they are save based, and Larian very favorably interprets advantage from height and backstab, but I'm kinduve okay with that? It's okay that attack rolls are better than normal, casters would otherwise completely dominate the game.

That said...

The HP bloat slows down combat more than anything. Combat as it makes hitting easy, but enemies require multiple hits to kill. If a goblin requires two hits to kill at 90% odds, then that's 2 turns regardless. If a goblin requires 1 hit to kill but there is a 60% chance to hit, then that's, on average, less than one turn to kill. And advantage actually matters more when the hit chances are closer to 50-50 to start-meaning that this easy advantage with planned positioning and bloating HP favors enemies more than the players objectively.

(in addition to the uncommon dirth of actually worthwhile studded leather and chainmail, stupid half-plate favortism...)

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
@Sludge Khalid
Then perhaps I misunderstood the post I quoted you from. It seemed you were suggesting that even with with rest spam, martial classes were still doing better than casters. That's what I was disagreeing with. Ideally, yes there should be an economy where you have to decide do I use my spell slot now or save it for the next battle. Now if you're making the argument that if Larian did change the resting to be closer to 5e standards, that martials would maintain their "buff" from lower AC while casters would eventually lose it, resulting in maritals being more valued in the long run. There would be a case for debate there and it would depend on how often we would get to rest and the difficulty of encounters in that version of the game.

@mrfuji3
Yeah I went with +5 because that's what three-quarters cover uses and I'd imagined pretty rare. Like attacking from the beams in the goblin castle or from bridge over the gith patrol. I'm not hard set on it.

Yeah I had already figured hide and other actions would go back to being actions and hide would just be a bonus action for rogues. I think it would suit them and tie in well with sneak attack. The target wouldn't be aware of you, so they wouldn't be able to guard against it just like they wouldn't be able to guard against attacks from two directions like with flanking

Wait why it would be either/or now? Shouldn't we want both? Taking away the advantage sources brings the martial buff from 1 to net 0 and increasing the saving throw spells hit chance brings their nerf from -1 to net 0

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Currently, casters do not have any serious problems due to the lack of any rest limits.
The system must be relatively simple so that it is understandable to players. Balancing a long rest will be the most difficult thing.
The problem is that the current system is not very flexible. Most interactions with companions (and some important story events) are based on rests.
Even if we remove this problem somehow, the question remains how to limit it.
Time limits will not pass in such a game (Unless you want to upset a lot of players).
Limited places where you can rest also don't matter as long as fast travel exists.
Items that restrict rest? If they are unlimited with sellers they are also pointless by the fast travel. However, if they are limited, it can lead to the player jamming without the possibility of further progress (which they will not do at 99%). If the price of these items is small, they are pointless. When it is large, it can again block the player.
Food? Only in EA I found so much food that it should be enough for half the game. It is the same with gold.
Maybe a cooldown? There is no daily system in the game (and it will not be).
The cooldown itself encourages the player to minimize the game, especially if it is short. A long cooldown can make the player wait due to lack of any resources.
This is probably why the system now works as it does.


Fixing a backstab is fairly easy.
The main culprit here is the jump, without being able to easily get behind the enemy the system would be much fairer.
If disengage were reintroduced (even as a bonus action) and it would be much more balanced.
In addition, the advantage should apply only when one of the allies is next to the target.
Combining both of these changes would make gaining an advantage much more difficult and would require efficient positioning.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 02/11/20 09:37 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
If we're throwing out ideas for rests, I'd vote for there to be an exhaustion meter that goes up a little with a short rest and a lot with long rest. Suffer conditions the more the meter is filled up. 25% filled, ability check penalty, 50% speed penalty, 75% attack and save rolls penalty, 100% hp penalty, and I'm basing this off of 5e exhaustion rules. Consume food or drink to bring the meter back down. Not too complex of a system and prevents blocking players out. You can even have harvestable cooking ingredients that respawn. Ultimately, it's costing the player personal time for gathering supplies to rest often. Some, maybe even a lot would be against this, but I'd even support a rest limit for quest events. Like, okay, you've long rested an entire week, the druids have completed the ritual and there are only a few Tiefling survivors after they've been attacked on the road.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HustleCat
If we're throwing out ideas for rests, I'd vote for there to be an exhaustion meter that goes up a little with a short rest and a lot with long rest. Suffer conditions the more the meter is filled up. 25% filled, ability check penalty, 50% speed penalty, 75% attack and save rolls penalty, 100% hp penalty, and I'm basing this off of 5e exhaustion rules. Consume food or drink to bring the meter back down. Not too complex of a system and prevents blocking players out. You can even have harvestable cooking ingredients that respawn. Ultimately, it's costing the player personal time for gathering supplies to rest often. Some, maybe even a lot would be against this, but I'd even support a rest limit for quest events. Like, okay, you've long rested an entire week, the druids have completed the ritual and there are only a few Tiefling survivors after they've been attacked on the road.


PoE have interesting rules for resting system with the introduction of the affordable tents. You’ll have to use your money and weight if you gonna invest in expensive tents to rest or gear up. That’s clever and brings back economy of resources long lost in the current game.
I know that those tents are a JRPG thing but seems to work very well as we can see it even in the nowadays games. Currently BG3 is not a game about hard decisions where you can chose a path that you might regret in the future and face the consequences.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by HustleCat
If we're throwing out ideas for rests, I'd vote for there to be an exhaustion meter that goes up a little with a short rest and a lot with long rest. Suffer conditions the more the meter is filled up. 25% filled, ability check penalty, 50% speed penalty, 75% attack and save rolls penalty, 100% hp penalty, and I'm basing this off of 5e exhaustion rules. Consume food or drink to bring the meter back down. Not too complex of a system and prevents blocking players out. You can even have harvestable cooking ingredients that respawn. Ultimately, it's costing the player personal time for gathering supplies to rest often. Some, maybe even a lot would be against this, but I'd even support a rest limit for quest events. Like, okay, you've long rested an entire week, the druids have completed the ritual and there are only a few Tiefling survivors after they've been attacked on the road.


PoE have interesting rules for resting system with the introduction of the affordable tents. You’ll have to use your money and weight if you gonna invest in expensive tents to rest or gear up. That’s clever and brings back economy of resources long lost in the current game.
I know that those tents are a JRPG thing but seems to work very well as we can see it even in the nowadays games. Currently BG3 is not a game about hard decisions where you can chose a path that you might regret in the future and face the consequences.


The PoE system did not work well. In fact, it did not limit anything but what it did was forcing players to return for supplies (which was pointless anyway because you could come back at any time without any penalties). The system was not very liked by the players. There is a reason the system has been completely reworked into PoE2.
The PoE2 system required only one unit of any food to heal the wounds (so food healed somehow magically).
Most of the resource management was very limited anyway, most of the skills were per combat (instead of per rest).
Trying to implement a system that has already failed in PoE is not a good idea, especially since the game is intended for a much larger audience than just fans of old RPGs.

The moral of this is that people do not like too much management.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 07/11/20 04:07 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Accepting Orbax advice, I’d like to state that I’m not native so go easy on me. That said, here are the arguments:

As everybody could see, Larian implemented a large number of homebrew rules in the Early Access of the game. Out of those new rules, only three of them have the greatest potential to render some classes useless and completely break the overall balance of the game.

My intention through this post is: Not to repeat what is being repeated over and over in this echo chamber of “this game feels like DOS3”. Instead, I’ll get the scenario “AS IS” of the game and explain what are the impacts of that changes in the current scenario & final release.

After reading this extensive text, is up to you to decide if you like it or not. I’m not here to convince you. Yet, if you think that this thing must be changed I’d like to ask for your help to pump the reach of this thread to reach as many comrades as possible and let them to decide whether it’s good or not.

I’ll throw those homebrews over the table:

Increased HP / Decreased AC
Advantage being given by high ground & backstab
Surfaces Effect

(just for this time being I'm leaving out of the debate dumb rules related to Actions to bonus actions for some features like shove and disengage)

I’m handling those 3 at the same time because the way they intertwine jeopardize the whole DnD5e mechanics.


Now, how Increased HP/Decreased AC harms the gaming experience? In the end you are hitting more so there’s a counterbalance to your foe HP to maintain the same number of turns needed to finish them. Well, that could be true IF the spell casters were out of the game.

I’ll start with spell values and action economy:

Even for the those who don’t have a deep understanding of DnD5e have already noticed that the number of spells you can cast is limited by the number of spells slots available to you (which are recovered every long rest). That means that spells are UNRELIABLE source of damage/utility. Once you spend all your spell slots, you’re done for and you can then only use Cantrips (which are a RELIABLE source of damage yet with the trade off of dishing smaller outputs of damage per round).

That said, those spells grows in value given the fact that they can definitely changes the odds of a battle. And why the hell am I using this spell slots as an argument for HP/AC?

Larian changed many things during the course of the Early Access. One thing they didn’t is the damage output of the weapon/cantrips attacks, spells damage & monsters attributes. Also, the number of spell slots remained the same.

It’s important to say that 99% of the spells forces your enemies to roll a saving throw based in a specific attribute (which was not altered). Which means: Spells in DnD5e & BG3 have THE SAME CHANCE TO HIT. Spell attacks like cantrips still targets foes AC but their scaling in damage output is very small compared to other classes like fighters (who get bonus attacks).


Case scenario:

Given an enemy with 7 HP 15AC (DnD5e) and the other with 13 HP 9AC (one of Larian’s goblins),

You cast Shatter(2nd level): Evocation 3d8 (BARD, SORC, LOCK, WIZ) – Dex saves for half – means that: even under a failure your UNRELIABLE spell slot would deal an average of 12 damage therefore killing the 7HP foe and not killing the 13 HP foe. Not to mention its value increase if multiple targets are within 10 foot radius.

First conclusion: Blasting Spells worth LESS in BG3 compared to DnD5e.

On the other hand, weapon attacks receive a boosted chance to hit due to the low AC & were given a new rule of getting advantage in high ground & backstab, boosting the chance to hit even further.

Second conclusion: Blasting Spells lost its value even more. (2x Nerf)


What about utility spells? Now let’s get deeper into the Advantage system in DnD5e and I’ll mention spells that can benefit out of some of them

There’s a list of situations where you’ll get advantage and I’ve added the spells that causes it.

Attack rolls made by a blinded creature have disadvantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against a blinded target have advantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against an invisible target have disadvantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls made by an invisible creature have advantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls against a paralyzed target have advantage. (Hold Person)
Attack rolls against a petrified target have advantage. (Flesh to Stone)
Attack rolls and ability checks made by a poisoned creature have disadvantage. (ray of sickness)
Attack rolls against a prone target have advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet, or disadvantage otherwise. (Tashas hideous laughter, Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls made by a prone creature have disadvantage.(Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls against a restrained target have advantage.(Poor Grapple :()
Attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws made by a restrained creature have disadvantage.(Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Mental Prison, Telekinesis, Web, Whirlwind, Transmute Rock, Snare, and many more)
Attack rolls against a stunned target have advantage. (Stunning strike – Monk, Contagion, Divine Word, Psychic Scream, Symbol)
Attack rolls against an unconscious target have advantage. (Catnap, Eyebite, Sleep, Symbol)
A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight. (Fear, Eyebite, Hallow, Illusionary Dragon, Phantasmal Killer, Symbol, Wrathful smite)

It gets better:
Fairie Fire: advantage 60ft against enemies who fail a dex saving throw

Stealth Attacks : advantage for any attacks against an enemy that cannot see you

& Increased/decreased accuracy spells: True Strike (Yeah this cantrip sucks), Bless & Bane (when you have advantage those spells adds so little to your chance to hit compared to when you have them under normal circumstances)

Barb Reckless Attack (CORE MECHANIC): You receive advantage to your melee attacks while getting disadvantage against you. & Barb path of the totem warrior (wolf) which make closer targets to get disavantage

Cleric Guiding Bolt, shadow blade, Ottos irresistible dance, shocking grasp, and some more

Phew, that was a large list of things that got their outputs diminished by that simple homebrew smile


Why is it bless (or any spell that boots your accuracy) less effective in BG3:

Let’s do some math with actual numbers:

Goblin 15 AC : Standard hero with +2 prof +3 Attribute modifier = +5 attack rolls

Chance to hit: 55%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 65%

65/55=+18% variation

Now take the hero with advantage:

Chance to hit:75%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 85%

85/75=+13% variation to your accuracy


If Advantage is dished every single turn your spells will worth less frown


Isn't it silly to have bless output diminished? now let's do the very same exercise of Bless in BG3



Goblin 9 AC : Standard hero with +2 prof +3 Attribute modifier = +5 attack rolls

Chance to hit: 85%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 95%

95/85=+11% variation

Now take the hero with advantage:

Chance to hit:99%

Now Bless it (average of +2)

Chance to hit: 99%

99/99=+0% variation to your accuracy

Yes, your valuable bless spell lost 100% of its value!



Dear tactical adventurer that loves the flavor that Larian added with advange homebrew, do you still thinks it’s a good idea to lower the outputs of that spells granting advantage in abundance?

I’m not done yet

Now, lets add surfaces into play.

Now, your utility spell that rely on concentration (the great majority of them by the way) can be easily broken with a goblin trowing a bomb smile

That UNRELIABLE spell that you’ve saved for that magical situation were broken by a bomb. Oh, not to mention that you’ve succeed the Save but you took that surface damage that is RELIABLE because it do not miss.

Also, more HP means that against that paralyzed foe will takes more times to be defeated because of the HP bloat, meaning that you’ll need more turns to keep concentrating on and higher are the chances to have your concentration broken until your enemy is dealt with…

Conclusion:

Spell value DnD5e >>>>>>>>>>>>Spell value of BG3

Who cares? Spells don’t even exist in RL.

You know why people who knows DnD5e don’t complain about weapon skills homebrew? Guess what? Because they simply don’t break the game.

Larian’s reasons are: Players do not like to miss.

WotC agree with this, that’s why they’ve added TONS of spells to give you that desirable accuracy.

Want to balance the game
Easy – Reduce the values of attributes & Attributes Evenly and/or double damage value outputs.
Hard - Reduce the values of attributes & Attributes Evenly and/or cuts in half damage value outputs.


Want to feel that you’re the king of the hill with homebew– Adds a RAW +2 damage
Or implement cover system from DnD5e. All of that works. Advantage don’t.

There’s no need for breaking the value outputs of the spells to in order to see that hp value popping out of your foes heads every single turn.








Good stuff!!!!

Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Rain gives Electricity weakness to enemies in a big area for a few rounds, party of four storm wizard/sorcerer!!!

Dunno why I mention this here, but it feels like their homebrew just making things worse.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Backstabbing is really a variation of optional flanking rule, however I do agree that ditching out the flanking requirement (which basically is ganging up on a single enemy) makes advantage a bit too easy to come by.
On the other hand it's weird that I've never seen anyone complaining about threatened rule, it should only be applied to ranged attack when you are in melee range. Meanwhile in BG3 it seems to be a small aura.

About the Armor&HP changes, really ? Sure shatter no longer instantly kills a bunch of goblins, but what you are seeing is actually a modest nerf to the monster. Goblins stayed at CR 1/8 bracket HP wise (7-35), while their armorclass crashed pretty hard (nerf by just 2 AC is lowering them by bracket, their CR armor wise dropped to 0) (DMG p274), but in the end we take the average which puts them at CR 1/8, instead of 1/4 as in MM. As far as homebrewing goes it's pretty much sticking to the D&D rulebooks. And even if we ignore the DMG, majority of your offensive casts will be (or at least should be) cantrips, majority of which are attack rolls which are benefiting from the change.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bearhugger
Backstabbing is really a variation of optional flanking rule, however I do agree that ditching out the flanking requirement (which basically is ganging up on a single enemy) makes advantage a bit too easy to come by.
On the other hand it's weird that I've never seen anyone complaining about threatened rule, it should only be applied to ranged attack when you are in melee range. Meanwhile in BG3 it seems to be a small aura.

About the Armor&HP changes, really ? Sure shatter no longer instantly kills a bunch of goblins, but what you are seeing is actually a modest nerf to the monster. Goblins stayed at CR 1/8 bracket HP wise (7-35), while their armorclass crashed pretty hard (nerf by just 2 AC is lowering them by bracket, their CR armor wise dropped to 0) (DMG p274), but in the end we take the average which puts them at CR 1/8, instead of 1/4 as in MM. As far as homebrewing goes it's pretty much sticking to the D&D rulebooks. And even if we ignore the DMG, majority of your offensive casts will be (or at least should be) cantrips, majority of which are attack rolls which are benefiting from the change.



Haven’t you read the whole post? My main complaint is how this lower ac undermine the later spells efficiency. I think the armor class is more of a threat than the hp issue.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Bearhugger
Backstabbing is really a variation of optional flanking rule, however I do agree that ditching out the flanking requirement (which basically is ganging up on a single enemy) makes advantage a bit too easy to come by.
On the other hand it's weird that I've never seen anyone complaining about threatened rule, it should only be applied to ranged attack when you are in melee range. Meanwhile in BG3 it seems to be a small aura.

About the Armor&HP changes, really ? Sure shatter no longer instantly kills a bunch of goblins, but what you are seeing is actually a modest nerf to the monster. Goblins stayed at CR 1/8 bracket HP wise (7-35), while their armorclass crashed pretty hard (nerf by just 2 AC is lowering them by bracket, their CR armor wise dropped to 0) (DMG p274), but in the end we take the average which puts them at CR 1/8, instead of 1/4 as in MM. As far as homebrewing goes it's pretty much sticking to the D&D rulebooks. And even if we ignore the DMG, majority of your offensive casts will be (or at least should be) cantrips, majority of which are attack rolls which are benefiting from the change.



Haven’t you read the whole post? My main complaint is how this lower ac undermine the later spells efficiency. I think the armor class is more of a threat than the hp issue.


Undermine the efficiency ? Only of the spells, and abilities that force a saving throw. Spells that require an attack roll are buffed by this change, which are the majority of your casts anyway. But even then it hardly matters, because Shatter dropping a bunch of goblins to two HP means they will be very likely moped down in the same turn. 8 AC is pretty much 90% to hit chance, as opposed to 50% chance at AC 15, and it's very likely that the party damage output at very least stays the same (because the fighter or rogue who were going to miss their attacks will finish off the goblins), meaning you've still spent your premium spellslot pretty well. And that's assuming you want to commit to casting Shatter, instead of throwing down cantrips at chaff.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
So the solution for this is relying on attack spells level 0 (cantrips) to recover the spell efficiency? Lol
This post was all about spell slots. Cantrips do not use it.

Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.

Please bring spells slots to the discussion which is clearly the main point of this post. Saying that cantrips help casters to feel less nerfed won’t help you.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't want any house rules. Can I please have a version of 5E that simply implements 5E: house rules are always a bad idea in a game as playtested as this.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.




I love when someone says something super smug and sassy like "just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don't know" . . . and then follows it with something completely incorrect.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
I don't want any house rules. Can I please have a version of 5E that simply implements 5E: house rules are always a bad idea in a game as playtested as this.


I want house rules. I don't want to have to find diamonds to raise the dead. Heck, I don't want any spell components. I don't want to spend hours scribing new spells or to made to chase down the ink and paper to scribe them.

What I don't want is the presumption that the rules don't port well to video games and need to be improved. And I certainly don't want the devs to think they have advice on how to improve D&D. The house rules should be in line with the sort of house rules that other D&D games have implemented.

Last edited by KillerRabbit; 09/11/20 06:25 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don’t know. 99% of the spells forces a saving throw.




I love when someone says something super smug and sassy like "just to explain some of DnD5e in case you don't know" . . . and then follows it with something completely incorrect.


I love when someone says that something is completely incorrect but don’t bring the arguments over the table. Please, share with the community the spells that have an spell attack property and target the target AC instead of forcing a saving throw.

See you later

Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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