Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 11 1 2 7 8 9 10 11
Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.

Just a couple of months ago, I was fully onboard with TEAM LARIAN, and habitually shot down guys like you as premature ejaculators lol. After experimenting a little with BG3 early access though I'm inclined to agree with most of your points. Clearly Swen Vincke succeeded in a Deception skill-check when he asserted they had ported D&D as faithfully as they could. The inverse seems almost more true. A number of homebrew will have the very foreseeable consequence of generating ever more homebrew to fix what their faithless porting unnecessarily broke to begin with. While also breaking balance in all kinds of ways (ie. the excessive use of advantage with higher ground/flanking which is bound to break the Barbarian class while at the same time being a relative nerf to spellcasters). I criticised DOS2 loot over-focus as detracting from that game, and for BG3 this is even more true.

However. Some of the criticisms is downright petty and immature, not made because you take issue with something objectively problematic - but just because you get triggered by the very thought of DOS2 having had a similar aspect. Like the whole of two minutes you spend on a beach in BG3. I also disagree with much of the SAVE SCUM criticisms as this is CLEARLY an artifact of D&D while Larian has just as clearly made a PRAISEWORTHY effort to offset the binary RNG-nature of D&D. That said, I too found myself save scumming more often than I was comfortable with, particularly to adjust for bad RNG in combat. Nobody likes to miss and this is the reason Larian has lowered AC and increased the HP of enemies in general. Clearly an unfair case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not that you bother yourself with pesky nuance though.

In the torrent of negativity I feel almost compelled BG3 shows many hints of GREATNESS too. Especially when it comes to roleplaying/story, writing, voice acting (apart from the mute protagonist who sticks out like a sore thumb).



Could you head down to the steam forums and let those guys know. Man its dark in that forum.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I havent played EA that much yet, but I am confused with arrows. No arrows in the game means that there is no arrow of bitting, +1, +2, detonation, ice/fire, etc...like in baldurs gate 2 ?


There are special magical arrows in the EA, they are not the same as what was at Baldur's Gate 2 (I'm not even sure if those are in 5e anyway).

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
On the arrows there are acid arrows and fire arrows but they make surfaces and don't just add damage like BG2. I don't actually have a problem with these items, they seem like legitimate homebrews items.

The issue is with the homebrew 'dip' rule. You drop a candle on the ground, dip your sword / arrow into it and you have a fire arrow. So something magical has become something mundane. Now, flaming arrows have been used in real medieval combat but they were just set up differently -- wrapped in cloth and the like.

Similarly with 'mundane' flaming swords. If you watch the 'making of' documentary you will find out that HBO's game of thrones went through multiple flaming swords in their filming because once you light a sword on fire with sterno or the like it ruins the sword. They eventually developed one that could remain lit for two minutes and could be reused.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
On the arrows there are acid arrows and fire arrows but they make surfaces and don't just add damage like BG2. I don't actually have a problem with these items, they seem like legitimate homebrews items.

The issue is with the homebrew 'dip' rule. You drop a candle on the ground, dip your sword / arrow into it and you have a fire arrow. So something magical has become something mundane. Now, flaming arrows have been used in real medieval combat but they were just set up differently -- wrapped in cloth and the like.

Similarly with 'mundane' flaming swords. If you watch the 'making of' documentary you will find out that HBO's game of thrones went through multiple flaming swords in their filming because once you light a sword on fire with sterno or the like it ruins the sword. They eventually developed one that could remain lit for two minutes and could be reused.


I wouldn't be opposed to "crafting" fire arrows with normal arrows, cloth and oil. And then you'd need to ignite them and they'd be on fire for some time and then burn up and be no more if unused. Also nerf them a bit. So they add a bit of fire damage and ignite things. FLAMMABLE things. Things that would normally catch fire. Not stone.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Nor would I smile But the resources would need to limited enough to avoid making the arcane archer class irrelevant. Or perhaps have arrow making as an optional feat?

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Just going to post the same thing I posted on that other thread which is about the same thing...


People are very confused about what things are actually rules changes, and which things are already optional rules in 5e, or standard DM prerogative as granted in the 5e books.

Changing Fire Bolt is a rules change. Changing Hide, Shove, and Disengage to bonus actions is a rules change. Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change. And there are several rules changes in the game, and I think it's valid for people to criticize those if they want the game to adhere more closely to RAW 5e.

But many of the complaints are NOT rules changes. They fall within the realm of normal, intended DM prerogative. Facing is already an optional rule in the DMG (pg. 252), and it awards advantage to attackers from behind. (And before you complain about an optional rule, stop and remember that FEATS are also an optional rule in 5e, and nobody is complaining about those.) Granting advantage and disadvantage for any circumstances that the DM thinks are appropriate is already a power given to DMs. "Characters often gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, spells, or other features of their classes or backgrounds. In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. Consider granting advantage when circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge, or some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success." (pg. 239 DMG) Higher ground advantage isn't a rules change. It's the DM doing exactly what the DMG says they should.

Changes to monster stats? Not a rules change. Stat blocks are not rules. Every experienced DM I know changes monster stats, makes up new monsters, adds NPC levels to monsters, or adds abilities to monsters, frequently. For at least the last three editions of D&D, including 5e, signficant space in the DMG has been devoted to just this topic. "Part of the D&D experience is the simple joy of creating new monsters and customizing existing ones, if for no other reason than to surprise and delight your players with something they've never faced before." "A stat block in the Monster Manual might make a good starting point for your monster." (pg. 273 DMG) Monster stat blocks are a quick, ready-to-play convenience feature for DMs. They're good for when you're short on time, or lazy, or uncreative, or as a starting point for creating your own unique content. Even in official published adventures, it is very common to see modified versions of creatures, especially changes to a monster's AC or HP.

Also, monsters have a RANGE of hit points. The exact number listed is just the numerical average, again to save time. Complaining about goblins with 13 HP instead of 7 is ridiculous, as even the standard goblin has 2d6 HP base, and full rules exist for making custom NPCs with the race "goblin" and for adding class levels to an existing goblin. As a DM of 30+ years, I virtually always modify creatures in my games from their stock Monster Manual "starting point" stat block. So does Chris Perkins, so does Jerry Holkins, so does Matt Mercer, and on and on. It's not a rules change, it's DM prerogative.

Numerous other things fall into this category, I don't feel like going through the full list of "this is not D&D!" complaints right now. But probably at least half of those issues are not actual rules changes, they're just DM prerogative. Which means that you could dislike how Larian is as a DM, but you have much less ground to stand on when it comes to claiming that the game is some wild divergence from 5e rules. Yes, there are clear rules changes, but honestly not very many of them.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Optional means just that - it means you don't normally use those rules unless you've got a certain kind of group. Not thousands upon thousands who are used to the vanilla system.

When you grant advantage all the time it makes a game of D&D5 worse to play. The "optional" rules in the DMG are dodgy homebrew at best and cause more problems than they solve. Some of them killed a few campaigns I was running because everyone was suddenly overpowered, whereas before it was an interesting challenge.

It's why most of the games I've played have stuck to the rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual. The DMG was carried by almost no one in all of the D&D groups I attended. It was considered a poor book.

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Just going to post the same thing I posted on that other thread which is about the same thing...


People are very confused about what things are actually rules changes, and which things are already optional rules in 5e, or standard DM prerogative as granted in the 5e books.

Changing Fire Bolt is a rules change. Changing Hide, Shove, and Disengage to bonus actions is a rules change. Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change. And there are several rules changes in the game, and I think it's valid for people to criticize those if they want the game to adhere more closely to RAW 5e.

But many of the complaints are NOT rules changes. They fall within the realm of normal, intended DM prerogative. Facing is already an optional rule in the DMG (pg. 252), and it awards advantage to attackers from behind. (And before you complain about an optional rule, stop and remember that FEATS are also an optional rule in 5e, and nobody is complaining about those.) Granting advantage and disadvantage for any circumstances that the DM thinks are appropriate is already a power given to DMs. "Characters often gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, spells, or other features of their classes or backgrounds. In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. Consider granting advantage when circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge, or some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success." (pg. 239 DMG) Higher ground advantage isn't a rules change. It's the DM doing exactly what the DMG says they should.

Changes to monster stats? Not a rules change. Stat blocks are not rules. Every experienced DM I know changes monster stats, makes up new monsters, adds NPC levels to monsters, or adds abilities to monsters, frequently. For at least the last three editions of D&D, including 5e, signficant space in the DMG has been devoted to just this topic. "Part of the D&D experience is the simple joy of creating new monsters and customizing existing ones, if for no other reason than to surprise and delight your players with something they've never faced before." "A stat block in the Monster Manual might make a good starting point for your monster." (pg. 273 DMG) Monster stat blocks are a quick, ready-to-play convenience feature for DMs. They're good for when you're short on time, or lazy, or uncreative, or as a starting point for creating your own unique content. Even in official published adventures, it is very common to see modified versions of creatures, especially changes to a monster's AC or HP.

Also, monsters have a RANGE of hit points. The exact number listed is just the numerical average, again to save time. Complaining about goblins with 13 HP instead of 7 is ridiculous, as even the standard goblin has 2d6 HP base, and full rules exist for making custom NPCs with the race "goblin" and for adding class levels to an existing goblin. As a DM of 30+ years, I virtually always modify creatures in my games from their stock Monster Manual "starting point" stat block. So does Chris Perkins, so does Jerry Holkins, so does Matt Mercer, and on and on. It's not a rules change, it's DM prerogative.

Numerous other things fall into this category, I don't feel like going through the full list of "this is not D&D!" complaints right now. But probably at least half of those issues are not actual rules changes, they're just DM prerogative. Which means that you could dislike how Larian is as a DM, but you have much less ground to stand on when it comes to claiming that the game is some wild divergence from 5e rules. Yes, there are clear rules changes, but honestly not very many of them.


The optional part seems to have become mandatory. The bottom line is the current iteration does not feel very good to play. Combat is tedious and boring. The dialogue is a chore to slog through. Too many things pull me away from the game and all the companions are a joke. They are all assholes. There is very little attachment to your character as you are just slung into a massive fight which makes no sense because you are not continuing a person you know about, this is a totally new PC. Meaning they should have done some time before being captured to give some attachment. Combat is more about all the junk added than the class skills. It all just feels bad.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mathalis

The optional part seems to have become mandatory. The bottom line is the current iteration does not feel very good to play. Combat is tedious and boring. The dialogue is a chore to slog through. Too many things pull me away from the game and all the companions are a joke. They are all assholes. There is very little attachment to your character as you are just slung into a massive fight which makes no sense because you are not continuing a person you know about, this is a totally new PC. Meaning they should have done some time before being captured to give some attachment. Combat is more about all the junk added than the class skills. It all just feels bad.



My experience with BG3 is the opposite of yours on every point. I think it feels great to play, I find the combat to be incredibly fun, I love the dialogue, I love the companions.

Joined: Nov 2020
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Nov 2020
if there is no height rules, there is no need to design a map that involved complex topography. Everything happens in a flat surface. And the high ground has nothing but block the camera.
although it does seems strange that gravity can influence magic. But i think arrow has no problem to benifit from high ground.
i am totally new to DND. And if fire bolt can't create a flammable surface, but merely deal with 1d6 damage, while ray of frost can deal with 1d8, which means fire bolt became a useless cantrip.

Also people complain about exchange stuff during combat. But in board game you only control 1 character, and in BG3 is 4, which means you need to think really carefully to distribution resource to each character and waste a lot of time to split and drag item. it sounds very painful.

Interaction with environment seems became a defect in BG3, where it supposed to add fun. Obviously you can't count every envirnmental factor in board game, nor a pc 20 years ago can. But now, i'm sure my i5 9400 can handle it. So if pc can count the different hitpoint on different body part as a vital factor in the future. I'sure it's a advance not regress. We can't say "oh it's wrong because we can't do that in 20 years ago". The environmental factor still needs to polisch but not just remove it.

And for backstab. Someones says it cause player just jump around to get a backstab, which makes game no strategy at all. But bg3 is pve game not pvp. The enemys are various. They have very different abilities. You can backstab a goblin but it's hard to backstab auntie ethel. Backstab do not make the combat dull but add more possibility. Enemys will not just jump around like player. For example sekiro is much fun with pve. But the pvp mod is a disaster. Everyone just do the same run attack makes it very boring. Board game is just not a video game. They can design phase spider become a unlimited backstab machine but you know that not gonna happen. Player can abuse game rule in EA, while AI can't.

And EA game certainly has issues with balance. You can't require too much. Even in DOS2DE some skills are way too powerful. Suggestions should make the game have a better balance, not just remove everything unbalanced

Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
On the arrows there are acid arrows and fire arrows but they make surfaces and don't just add damage like BG2. I don't actually have a problem with these items, they seem like legitimate homebrews items.

The issue is with the homebrew 'dip' rule. You drop a candle on the ground, dip your sword / arrow into it and you have a fire arrow. So something magical has become something mundane. Now, flaming arrows have been used in real medieval combat but they were just set up differently -- wrapped in cloth and the like.

Similarly with 'mundane' flaming swords. If you watch the 'making of' documentary you will find out that HBO's game of thrones went through multiple flaming swords in their filming because once you light a sword on fire with sterno or the like it ruins the sword. They eventually developed one that could remain lit for two minutes and could be reused.

Yeah, dipping a mundane sword into candle light to turn it into a flaming weapon is pretty silly. Especially so when you consider that the plot of the first game revolves around weapons breaking from being poorly made/poor materials.

If the sword is coated in oil, THEN lit on fire, that would work. But it should give the weapon afterward a permanent, cumulative -1 penalty each time it's done, and give the weapon a chance to break when it's used. That would feel very Baldur's Gate.

Last edited by Traycor; 07/11/20 06:12 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Mathalis
The optional part seems to have become mandatory. The bottom line is the current iteration does not feel very good to play. Combat is tedious and boring. The dialogue is a chore to slog through. Too many things pull me away from the game and all the companions are a joke. They are all assholes. There is very little attachment to your character as you are just slung into a massive fight which makes no sense because you are not continuing a person you know about, this is a totally new PC. Meaning they should have done some time before being captured to give some attachment. Combat is more about all the junk added than the class skills. It all just feels bad.

We do not have all the companions yet. There will most likely be some nicer ones but if you take the time to understand the ones we have, then you will know why they act as they do. I would say there is more attachment to your character this way, it allows you to create almost any backstory you want rather than being forced into one. There are too many ways to make environmental effects, hopefully this can be toned down a bit, like less barrels and more realistic movement of them (can only be carried in the arms not in the backpack, and npcs will not ignore the rearranging of their furniture.)

Originally Posted by bringemichum

i am totally new to DND. And if fire bolt can't create a flammable surface, but merely deal with 1d6 damage, while ray of frost can deal with 1d8, which means fire bolt became a useless cantrip.

There will be resistances and vulnerabilities to certain types of damage. Fire bolt will do more damage than ray of frost on enemies vulnerable to fire. My issues with the cantrips is that they should be able to target an enemy or an item (like a flammable object or a blood pool) that creates the ground effect, not both. Perhaps have a small chance at hitting the item if it misses the enemy only if they are standing close enough (like in a pool of blood.)


Originally Posted by Traycor

Yeah, dipping a mundane sword into candle light to turn it into a flaming weapon is pretty silly. Especially so when you consider that the plot of the first game revolves around weapons breaking from being poorly made/poor materials.

If the sword is coated in oil, THEN lit on fire, that would work. But it should give the weapon afterward a permanent, cumulative -1 penalty each time it's done, and give the weapon a chance to break when it's used. That would feel very Baldur's Gate.

I would like this idea but doubt most others would. The candle thing is stupid anyway. Having that light near you should at least give the enemy a bonus on their attacks. smile

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Plus 1 to my own post.

Why?The more I play the more I feel this way. I must not be alone look at the response?! Crazy...

In a year this game will either be a fun little rpg... or it will be game of the fucking decaded to rival even cyberpunk. That all hangs on how much they improve the Combat, Social, Exploration and 5e implementation. Also having even a basic implementation of what made BG1-2 great would be nice I mean why not lol?

Reading the counters has been insightful. The opposite point of view is from kneckbearded egochildren who enjoy the game exactly as is. Ignoring the obvious fact Larian want and need (begged) for help for this paytest. Just like they did for Dos 1 and 2 remember those guys? Oh wait a lot of you where not even here lol.

I have been here is DOS1 and I have never seen this much boot licking from this community. (Larian cannot stand that either.) Clearly a lot of you are new and from reddit. Larian will not put you in the credits no matter how much baby juice you lap up or how much poo you devour from the plate of escrement. Get over yourself... This is not half the game it could be without your lack of actual feedback.

The game needs work period.

FOR gods sakes the games it is based off of are still played 20 years later. DOS one was gutten in player base the moment DOS 2 came around. This is shaping up to be ruined by DOS only fans. Then to have them take quotes out of context and try to show us how this is dnd is the funniest shit I have ever seen.. Do you guys believe this? IS this why anytime their is any kind of voting system the current action economy is gutted by feedback?

These guys would have ruined the 5e playtest and the Pathfinder 2 playtest. You have to have an understanding of the mechanics to change them. This is on a mathematical level as well!

Giving an amount in years of your game master experience is shit if you do it wrong. Reading that monster stats can just be random instead of appropriate for a CR is the funniest shit I have read all week. I have posted these comments on Pathfinder 2e boards and the guys who helped me playtest that are having a fit. Thanks for the laugh amatures.HAHA

Basically claiming it is ok to do a 100 AC encounter cause some famous podcast will do it. Umm.... those guys didn't playtest the system. They are also constantly laughed at from a mechanical standpoint. To watch character death from their bad calls is the greatest joy I can recieve from these "Top Tier" game masters. Youtube is not DnD and should never be the base for playtesting. That is for action and views... this is why most of them cannot handle Pathfinder and had to convert to 5e even then they cannot follow simple mechanics of light and darkness. How many times have we heard Matt Mercer completely change the dynamic of the action economy. In like episode 3 he claims the axe gets stuck on a hit, and has to use a bonus action and or a move action to get it unstuck. The dude changes this 3 episodes laters. The action to make a check is completely "GAME MASTER May I?" In podcasts and the only reason it is let go is cause its all about character monologues and voice acting. THIS IS NOT DND THAT IS A FUCKING TEA PARTY FOR ADULTS.

The mechanics are pushed to the back for presentation and makeup. Lighting and scripted conversations. Please stop mentioning Matt Mercer when it comes to PLAYTESTING the dude is a voice actor trying to play a tea party with friends! The dude changes editions based on the money being given for sponsorship. He refused Pathfinder 2e when it came out... he said it was an amazing system but WOTC gave him more money. The dude could not tell you the major differenced between pathfinder and 5e and make a compelling argument. This is constantly talked about on any forums involving critical role. Especially when people mention them during playtesting. HOW MATT MERCER WOULD DO IT was a joke on the paizo forums and still is to this day! The dude is an actor who is paid to play that way... No dnd game looks anything like that.

This is a videogame that needs rules and mathematics. Programming with 1s and 0s will do that! So it needs playtesters who like to playtest systems and make sure the CR and DC are exact with the math based on expected output on character level. Especially within a spectrum of probobility. You can change and adjust yes um DUH... but you cannot add 200 to ac cause it is the game master LOL.

There is a world wide Playtest and Game in both 5e and Pathfinder 2e a world game that each of them plays. You can bring your characters to these conventions and use the. But they all have to follow basic concepts and expected ranges. LARIAN would not make the cut at these events... their calls are so outrageas to the point of being laughable. You would think you where being Punked by the game master if he told you I push as a bonus action and sneak away from AC killing acid puddles left by a cantrip HAHA.

WHO GIVES a fuck what a tea party game master thinks in regards to a $60 playtest based on hardcoded mechanics. Leveling creatures makes sense however :The lowered ac and the higher HP is comically dreadful and mentioned so much that is needs no further explanation. To claim that it is anything other than bad game mastering by a game master completely unfamiliar with the rules as a whole is laughable.

To imagine wizards of the coast releasing an extra book entitiled Larian and you. Involving area of effect and push and jump mechanics like mario bros is a joke. The game was not only playtested a year and a half but has errata to this day. Push/Shove as a bonus action, Puddles of acid reducing AC (LOL) hide as a bonus action (why not at this point right?) dipping swords in fire, Throwing magical flasks that make the ground change like divinity and giving the enemies infinite supply, The masterwork AI attacking low AC at the cost of anything else including going into 3 seperate rooms to find the Mage that didnt even start the fight, Items that litterally break the entire game from the start by allowing low damage spells do incredible top tier damage. Conversations that completely make you feel like you are a single player. The player 3 and 4 get accused of whatever you did and are assumed to have said exactly what you said at the exact same time. The entire game rewarding you for genocide but not givng you xp when you prevent it.

The game needs so much work it is clear they needed the help they requested. The problem is not us that are the minority. The problem is those of you who have joined within the month with 400 posts on your account claiming you are the majority. Why invest so much in an argument you dont even have the basics to understand. I mean just look at this page... these game masters with 30 plus years experience with a system that has only released 5 years ago lol. They always come in here kneckbeard and all name dropping and claiming divine insight without ever going into detail of said mechanics. They cannot even fathom why pushing not being an action is a problem and this is why THEY WILL NEVER BE KNOWN in the tabletop world. They will never ever be given the credit they feel entitled to. Why? Cause they boot lick and beg and plead and brag and brown nose till they are dead and gone. The real guys behind the games are the ones who are never satisfied cracking the numbers and checking the math and making sure IRON HAS SHARPENED IRON.

I am a playtester I playtest and this shit needs work. Just like it did when it had group initiative and these dudes said that made sense ?!! Just like when they said (past tense diologue is great guys haha) these clowns get burried when the books arrive and the devs's are smart enough to listen to the legitaminte playtesters.

I appreciate the fact some of you have game mastered 200 years and what not. But I never seen any of you on the last two tabtletop Playtests... I honestly think you just copy and paste your arguments from your books and hope the game will stay as it is exactly. IT WILL NOT there is a lof of us who are going to change it. I am glad you like it as is... but you are wrong objectively and we are going to push you aside like we do every playtest and get the game back on track.

Keep brown nosing and keep boot licking and NOTHING will happen with your future... you are not getting a job at larian for being a twat. INSTEAD try to actually playtest the game and compare that to what was advertised and meet us in the middle so we can have the best God Damn game that has ever been released.

You are nothing special. WE as a collective determine the outcome of this game. So get over yourself as an individual and lets playtest this thing and help larian in their comically bad shortcomings.... FOR GOD SAKES TEAM BASED INITATIVE ANYONE?!

(Being drunk after election week is not the most productive way to respond to your own post but damnit here it is)

Last edited by IAmPageicus; 08/11/20 09:10 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
The combat is among the worst I've played, same issues as DOS2 making it utterly boring. With shoving, disengage being bonus actions and surfaces effects doing too much damage, barrel&hordmancy those become the most important parts of combat. I spend more time planning my bonus actions than actions since those give more bang for bucks then the main actions.


It's been said several times not advantage should be given for height just bonus modifiers. You can do the same for flanking or backstabing. Advantage is just too powerful.


Overall all changes except for the Ranger made by Larian have been disruptive for the balance and not just a litte. I was looking forward to play EA, but because of the combat I barely managed to finish one playthrough being completely annoyed and bored. If they don't roll back to D&D 5e I most likey won't play the full game until there is a mod fixing all these broken and badly implemented changes.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Plus 1 to my own post.

*INSERT RANDOM WALL OF NONSENSE*



Sir, this is an Arby's.


No but seriously, this is the most appropriate response:




No, but seriously seriously now. If you stoop to using personal insults against anyone who disagrees with you, people will stop listening to what you have to say. It's possible to disagree with people without insulting them. You should cultivate this skill.

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change.


This one is a bug, really. Scrolls currently are unrestricted in both scribing and use, it will be changed.

I think it's important to recognize that quite a lot of what we have now is an unfinished, bugged or placeholder.


I think many of the changes Larian did are good, they clearly want players to have more action paths when their turn finally comes and I'm behind it. I think they should reconsider things like "Hide" maybe there, because that one is super abusive now.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Ah, if it's a bug, then that's good. I wasn't sure if it was by design or not.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Online Content
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by biomag
The combat is among the worst I've played, same issues as DOS2 making it utterly boring. With shoving, disengage being bonus actions and surfaces effects doing too much damage, barrel&hordmancy those become the most important parts of combat. I spend more time planning my bonus actions than actions since those give more bang for bucks then the main actions.


It's been said several times not advantage should be given for height just bonus modifiers. You can do the same for flanking or backstabing. Advantage is just too powerful.


Overall all changes except for the Ranger made by Larian have been disruptive for the balance and not just a litte. I was looking forward to play EA, but because of the combat I barely managed to finish one playthrough being completely annoyed and bored. If they don't roll back to D&D 5e I most likey won't play the full game until there is a mod fixing all these broken and badly implemented changes.


Did you know that using barrels is completely optional? Fighting in no way requires you to use a single one throughout the EA.
If someone can't resist using mechanics he doesn't like, he breaks the game himself, it's only his fault.

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Ah, if it's a bug, then that's good. I wasn't sure if it was by design or not.


I don't know if using scrolls is a bug, but being able to learn any spell is an obvious bug.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 08/11/20 02:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
[quote=biomag]

Did you know that using barrels is completely optional? Fighting in no way requires you to use a single one throughout the EA.
If someone can't resist using mechanics he doesn't like, he breaks the game himself, it's only his fault.



Thanks for your comment. By the way I have not used them.

Its obviously something you thought through as well before posting, since players not using those it also prevents the AI from using it. I've yet to see AI constantly rushing to shove you into the abyss... never happens because I never would use it against the AI. It also shows that the development team is spending exectly no thoughts how to implement these things into combat and balance accordingly.


So thanks again for your opionion. It taught me something that some might say it was slightly obvious to everyone.

Last edited by biomag; 08/11/20 02:13 PM.
Page 9 of 11 1 2 7 8 9 10 11

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