Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 23 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 22 23
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by etonbears
The purpose of EA is largely for them to experiment to see what works and what doesn't in the context of the video game they are making. If you wan't to convince them to make changes, you'll have a better chance by showing how particular game experiences would be improved, rather than engaging in statistical analysis of a ruleset that doesn't actually cover all the elements of their game.


That's how this thread started out - by pointing out that Larian's "simple change" breaks a ton of features and spells in the game. When you break a ton of features and spells, that makes the game experience worse because there are fewer options which are effective for combat. Fewer options leads to repetitive, boring gameplay.

The same goes for many of their other changes: the changes to increase HP and lower AC have made Attack Rolls better, but things which require saving throws are relatively worse because enemy saving throws remain the same. Spells which target HP and AoE spells are also relatively worse, because they are less effective due to higher HP and unchanged enemy saving throws. That reduces the options effective for combat, which leads to repetitive, boring gameplay.

It's the same thing with many other changes they've made - they lead to more repetitive gameplay than there would be without the change.

Don't use the "you just want a totally RAW experience" strawman. You won't find many people who are demanding a 1:1 completely pure no rules tweaked at all in any way game mode. That's just false and shows you are not paying any attention to the actual arguments.

Larian might have changed things which in their opinion did not make for a good videogame. But a lot of their changes are objectively making for a worse videogame, because their changes have reduced the number of options which are effective, compared to the tabletop game. This is NOT a case of the rules being too difficult to translate to a videogame.

Last edited by Stabbey; 16/11/20 05:44 AM.
Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
The truth is somewhere between what Isaac and SacredWitness are trying to argue. Advantage does not always grant the same bonus, true. But it remains significant pretty much always because bounded accuracy ensures that the target roll on the d20 stays around the middle third or so of the bell curve in the vast majority of situations. This is especially true for the low level content that BG3 features so prominently.

Regardless, as pointed out in the OP, easily accessible advantage devalues too many class features. Larian can choose to change or replace them of course, but that's ultimately creating more work for themselves and also too many potential balance issues from further homebrew.

The solution, as has been pointed out multiple times on these boards, is pretty easy. Because 5e hasn't actually done away with all flat modifiers to rolls (see: cover system, which is currently missing from the game). All Larian has to do is replace the adv/disadv on height with flat modifiers akin to that subsystem.


+12

Joined: Oct 2020
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm not a D&D expert by any means, but I read the OP's first post and it does correspond with alot of what I'm seeing in the game. I've got about 200 hours logged in this game so far, and the high ground is the single most powerful strategy in the game.

And it's everywhere. From the moment you encounter the hill outside the Druid Grove and snipe the goblins relentlessly below, to the rooftops of the blighted village, the high ridge in the eastern part of the goblin camp, and the ramparts outside Dror Ragzlins throne room, there is no encounter I've yet found that doesn't yield this overwhelming advantage.

Fights that your party could never win in a straight up fight are made trivial by the high ground.
I have neither the experience or expertise in 5e D&D rules to speak on possible solutions to this issue in an educated manner, and I don't intend to try.

But I do recognize overwhelming strategic advantage when I see it, and in this game the high ground is it.

The OP is right.

Last edited by DarkRob316; 16/11/20 06:23 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
Excellent write up! Totally support the statement here!

Joined: Nov 2020
J
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
J
Joined: Nov 2020
Agree - the high ground and backstab mechanic as implemented is too powerful. Maybe a +1 or +2, but it shouldn't be full advantage.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
I will say that being able to jump over and behind the opponent to get what is essentially a free backstab bonus is a bit funny. lol. I would not complain if Larian tweaked/changed that

I personally don’t have an issue with height and backstab giving an advantage though. The game is still challenging enough imo.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
That being said, the high ground bonus is pretty powerful. The fight against the hob goblin guy in the temple of seluné is a good example. On the ground I barely came out of the fight alive. But When I climbed up to the ramparts above it became almost trivial, especially when I had both my ranger MC and Gale in the party. The worst that happened was one of my guys getting knocked off, but even then they survived well enough.

Now flip that with the Harpy encounter near the Grove. The harpies start out with the high ground bonus and all of your guys start on the low ground. The fight is by no means horribly difficult, but the combination of their high ground bonus, and my melee characters having to trek across the battlefield to reach the harpies, made it a challenging fight. The high ground can definitely be a deciding factor in a fight. I would not oppose Larian trying to tweak it a bit if they desired.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I would like to note that high ground by himself, without modifiers, pose an inherently advantage against melee fighters, whose turns must be spent not doing what they do best trying to reach elevated enemies, and in a less pronounced way against ranged fighters, whose attacks may be within Long Range (target is hittable but with disadvantage) or be completely out of range, forcing those characters to expose themselves.

As a side note, flanking mechaninc is already present in dos2 engine, albeit in a different manner

Joined: Dec 2020
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Dec 2020
I agree with OP about excessive advantage and implictaions. I redid one combat were I started with height advantage, and it was vastly easier. Also, the AI always scrambles to get all your opponents on to high ground, precisely because advantage is such a huge deal in 5E. I also think backstab/sneak attack should work as intended - they already have a threatened status so the data is all there. The term 'backstab' was dropped from D&D ages ago, because well, you didn't need to literally 'stab someone in the back' ;-) It really is a defining rogue feature and should be triggered more easily (as per 5e rules) - that was by design. I really hope Larian take this feedback on board - I am happy to see that cantrips no longer create elemental surfaces.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by booboo
I agree with OP about excessive advantage and implictaions. I redid one combat were I started with height advantage, and it was vastly easier. Also, the AI always scrambles to get all your opponents on to high ground, precisely because advantage is such a huge deal in 5E. I also think backstab/sneak attack should work as intended - they already have a threatened status so the data is all there. The term 'backstab' was dropped from D&D ages ago, because well, you didn't need to literally 'stab someone in the back' ;-) It really is a defining rogue feature and should be triggered more easily (as per 5e rules) - that was by design. I really hope Larian take this feedback on board - I am happy to see that cantrips no longer create elemental surfaces.



Now as for the Backstab ability I wouldn't want this to be taken from the rogue or the rogue/assassin due to the fact that one of their primary traits is stealth and so if you sneak behind someone with a dagger you should in fact get bonuses to hit and damage. After all, it's not every day that you expect someone to come up behind you and stab you in the back

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Now as for the Backstab ability I wouldn't want this to be taken from the rogue or the rogue/assassin due to the fact that one of their primary traits is stealth and so if you sneak behind someone with a dagger you should in fact get bonuses to hit and damage. After all, it's not every day that you expect someone to come up behind you and stab you in the back


That's not what's being referred to. You're describing Sneak Attack, which is in the game, and Rogues get it if they have advantage on the attack, or if there is a creature threatening the target.

What is being called "Backstab" is getting advantage by physically walking behind the target, who can't move or react to that because it is not their turn. Anyone can get it, without any ally assisting, even without being a Rogue. This is being complained about because it is an extremely low-effort way to get advantage and the enemy cannot react to it to prevent you getting the advantage if you do not leave its threatened area.

Joined: Dec 2020
E
stranger
Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Dec 2020
I've quite enjoyed reading this thread. I think this is the exact reason why they released the game early access.

I haven't logged a lot of hours yet, but I've logged enough to see the point of OP. Walking around an enemy who is completely aware of your presence, to hit them in the back, in a turn-based game where they can't do anything until your turn is over... just seems kinda janky and unfun. I always do it because because I like to win. I'd be completely onboard with removing it.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Now as for the Backstab ability I wouldn't want this to be taken from the rogue or the rogue/assassin due to the fact that one of their primary traits is stealth and so if you sneak behind someone with a dagger you should in fact get bonuses to hit and damage. After all, it's not every day that you expect someone to come up behind you and stab you in the back


That's not what's being referred to. You're describing Sneak Attack, which is in the game, and Rogues get it if they have advantage on the attack, or if there is a creature threatening the target.

What is being called "Backstab" is getting advantage by physically walking behind the target, who can't move or react to that because it is not their turn. Anyone can get it, without any ally assisting, even without being a Rogue. This is being complained about because it is an extremely low-effort way to get advantage and the enemy cannot react to it to prevent you getting the advantage if you do not leave its threatened area.


Ok Now that yo explained it that way I fully understand the only one who should get the backstab is the rogue and only while sneaking as it is in most games for which I've ever played like this.

Joined: Oct 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with OP wholeheartedly, but I think a straight +2 to hit for highground could be potentially too much when combined with advantage from another source.

Here's my slightly modified solution:
-You have high ground bonus(+2) and your target has been Faerie Fired, granting you advantage.
-You make your attack and roll your first d20 with a +2 for high ground
-You make a second roll, because you have advantage, but you don't gain the +2 for high ground
-You then take the highest roll

This is admittedly a pretty strange solution, but I think it would help with hit chance bonuses getting out of hand.
It allows you to gain benefits from both sources, without having them synergise into an auto hit.

Joined: Jun 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2017
Originally Posted by Evandir
I agree with OP wholeheartedly, but I think a straight +2 to hit for highground could be potentially too much when combined with advantage from another source.

Here's my slightly modified solution:
-You have high ground bonus(+2) and your target has been Faerie Fired, granting you advantage.
-You make your attack and roll your first d20 with a +2 for high ground
-You make a second roll, because you have advantage, but you don't gain the +2 for high ground
-You then take the highest roll

This is admittedly a pretty strange solution, but I think it would help with hit chance bonuses getting out of hand.
It allows you to gain benefits from both sources, without having them synergise into an auto hit.


I have also worried that a +2 and getting advantage from another source might get out of hand. While I would like your solution I think it probably be confusing to your average player. Maybe just +1? Still useful but not as obligatory.

Joined: Nov 2020
J
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
J
Joined: Nov 2020
Good point. Maybe +2 OR advantage; highest is applied, they don't stack.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey

What is being called "Backstab" is getting advantage by physically walking behind the target, who can't move or react to that because it is not their turn. Anyone can get it, without any ally assisting, even without being a Rogue. This is being complained about because it is an extremely low-effort way to get advantage and the enemy cannot react to it to prevent you getting the advantage if you do not leave its threatened area.

Don't you trigger a reaction hit when walking around an enemy?

Joined: Jun 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2017
Originally Posted by Choosen of KEK
Originally Posted by Stabbey

What is being called "Backstab" is getting advantage by physically walking behind the target, who can't move or react to that because it is not their turn. Anyone can get it, without any ally assisting, even without being a Rogue. This is being complained about because it is an extremely low-effort way to get advantage and the enemy cannot react to it to prevent you getting the advantage if you do not leave its threatened area.

Don't you trigger a reaction hit when walking around an enemy?


Nope. Only when you leave its threatened space (move away from it). You can move around it all day (that part is the same as table top).

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Nezix
Originally Posted by Choosen of KEK
Originally Posted by Stabbey

What is being called "Backstab" is getting advantage by physically walking behind the target, who can't move or react to that because it is not their turn. Anyone can get it, without any ally assisting, even without being a Rogue. This is being complained about because it is an extremely low-effort way to get advantage and the enemy cannot react to it to prevent you getting the advantage if you do not leave its threatened area.

Don't you trigger a reaction hit when walking around an enemy?


Nope. Only when you leave its threatened space (move away from it). You can move around it all day (that part is the same as table top).


You can also jump each turns to disengage as a bonus action... So you can very easily avoid reaction.

That said, an AOO is not enough to balance an easy advantage according to me.

Joined: Dec 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Dec 2020
Strongly agree w/ OP, +1

Please include game options for removing/altering bonuses/penalties for high/low ground.

Thank/you.

R/L

Page 8 of 23 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 22 23

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