Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 28 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 27 28
Joined: Sep 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Originally Posted by Zarna
I think it is more like a lot of people want things to be always easy mode and don't want to have to do any tactical thinking in games nowadays. These are the people who would happily buy the game if food heals but would hate it if they had to actually think when to use healing spells or potions since these are more limited.


I fully agree with you. There is one post on here that thinks we should start at Level 7 or 10 I think it was and I'm like why? True some fights take a little bit of thinking and planning out but they are not completely overpowered. Except for the Matriarch spiders that are around level 10 or 12 that continues to kick my ass' Or them Mephits in the swamp that keep multiplying like rabbits

My opinion only:

This flies in the face of how the game is actually balanced. Sure, you can exploit the deficient AI and non-D&D elements to beat some of the worst offenders, but the fights are way over-tuned to the character levels. 5e uses a challenge rating system, that is enemies are assigned a challenge rating which reflects the level of a group of 4 it would take to make it a balanced fight. An ogre has a challenge rating (cr) of 2, so 1 ogre makes a balanced fight (some risk but character death isn't more likely than not) for 4 2nd level characters. 2 ogres is a cr 4 encounter and the 3 ogre encounter that you can hit at level 2 (I did) is a CR 6 or better because the 3rd ogre is more powerful than a standard ogre. That is worse than deadly, it simply will end in a total party kill without DM exploits. With ~60 hps, a +6 to hit and 2d8+4 damage per attack (ave 13) they will one hit kill a lot of players at 2nd level. Goblins are 1/4 cr, so at 2nd level 4-5 goblins are a medium(balanced fight), 6 are a hard fight, and anything 7 or over is a deadly fight for 2nd level characters. That isn't including goblin bosses or the like which makes things even more difficult. And yeah, sure you can use the broken AI and broken action economy to cheese the fights, but that isn't strategy and it really doesn't qualify as good tactics either because again it is relying on broken implementations (like shooting from a high spot then hiding and watching the AI stand around and yell at you while doing absolutely nothing). This isn't about easy mode, it's about facing a surmountable challenge. CR isn't the be all, end all of encounter dynamics, but it gives a good idea of how lethal the encounter can be particularly at lower levels. I've had a CR 2 encounter almost kill off an entire party of 4th level characters because of dice rolls; I'm pretty sure the module designer expected that fight to be a throw away encounter to introduce one of the minor villains but it nearly ended the campaign.

The minotaurs are another example of this, 2 cr 3 monsters is a deadly encounter to a party of 4 4th level characters. Now if the DM is handing out magic items like candy then it becomes a different story, but generally speaking a common character of 4th level with a +2 con bonus is going to have about 31 hps (I'm basing this off d8 hit dice because I think it is the most common) and likely 15-17 AC give or take. A minotaur has a +6 to hit so about a 50% chance of hitting AC 16. Using the great axe they deal an average of 17 damage per hit. They can also use reckless attack which gives them advantage and that is absolutely huge, at 50% probability to hit it gives a 25% increase or essentially a flat +5 and it drops off at the edges to an overall +3 on the dice roll. Well now that minotaur has a 75% chance to hit anyone with a 16 AC when it does reckless attack, and 70% for 17 AC, so it will hit most characters on its turn. With an average of 76 hit points they can afford to take a few hits in return because 2 hits will likely put the average character into death saves (34 damage, but 39 if it successfully charges as its first action). Can the characters reasonably expect to deal 158 damage before the minotaurs deal 124?

Readied actions would help a lot in burning down one of the minotaurs quickly if they characters can choose which minotaur they focus on. Dodge won't help because dodge is an action, so you give up most of your ability to do damage except through bonus actions (barring monks which can do it as a bonus action for 1 ki) and if the minotaur is recklessly attacking it simply negates the advantage (still huge, but for someone with an AC lower than 16 you're still more likely than not to get hit). Now when the level caps are lifted some of these fights will become easier if you encounter them at a higher level, but right now with level caps in play they are not even remotely fair to the player that doesn't abuse verticality and line of sight mechanics against the broken AI.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah, this is why I am hoping for a more faithful interpretation of the core ruleset, among other things. I am just hoping that happens smirk

Joined: Dec 2020
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Dec 2020
The minotaurs are actually worse than regular minotaurs because they have this new leaping ability which knocks characters prone where they land (so they are in effect higher than normal CR). Not sure if leaping in would invalidate the ready action, with melee at least - they are not simply charging but almost 'flying' in (!) I suspect implementing ready would have all sorts of edge cases (which may be harder to program?), but it only gets worse the further you stray from the actual rules. Just implementing RAW (as far as possible - which is much further than now) would make the things easier to balance - I really hope this all changes.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Romania
Z
stranger
Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Romania
Originally Posted by Khultak
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Originally Posted by Zarna
I think it is more like a lot of people want things to be always easy mode and don't want to have to do any tactical thinking in games nowadays. These are the people who would happily buy the game if food heals but would hate it if they had to actually think when to use healing spells or potions since these are more limited.


I fully agree with you. There is one post on here that thinks we should start at Level 7 or 10 I think it was and I'm like why? True some fights take a little bit of thinking and planning out but they are not completely overpowered. Except for the Matriarch spiders that are around level 10 or 12 that continues to kick my ass' Or them Mephits in the swamp that keep multiplying like rabbits

My opinion only:

This flies in the face of how the game is actually balanced. Sure, you can exploit the deficient AI and non-D&D elements to beat some of the worst offenders, but the fights are way over-tuned to the character levels. 5e uses a challenge rating system, that is enemies are assigned a challenge rating which reflects the level of a group of 4 it would take to make it a balanced fight. An ogre has a challenge rating (cr) of 2, so 1 ogre makes a balanced fight (some risk but character death isn't more likely than not) for 4 2nd level characters. 2 ogres is a cr 4 encounter and the 3 ogre encounter that you can hit at level 2 (I did) is a CR 6 or better because the 3rd ogre is more powerful than a standard ogre. That is worse than deadly, it simply will end in a total party kill without DM exploits. With ~60 hps, a +6 to hit and 2d8+4 damage per attack (ave 13) they will one hit kill a lot of players at 2nd level. Goblins are 1/4 cr, so at 2nd level 4-5 goblins are a medium(balanced fight), 6 are a hard fight, and anything 7 or over is a deadly fight for 2nd level characters. That isn't including goblin bosses or the like which makes things even more difficult. And yeah, sure you can use the broken AI and broken action economy to cheese the fights, but that isn't strategy and it really doesn't qualify as good tactics either because again it is relying on broken implementations (like shooting from a high spot then hiding and watching the AI stand around and yell at you while doing absolutely nothing). This isn't about easy mode, it's about facing a surmountable challenge. CR isn't the be all, end all of encounter dynamics, but it gives a good idea of how lethal the encounter can be particularly at lower levels. I've had a CR 2 encounter almost kill off an entire party of 4th level characters because of dice rolls; I'm pretty sure the module designer expected that fight to be a throw away encounter to introduce one of the minor villains but it nearly ended the campaign.

The minotaurs are another example of this, 2 cr 3 monsters is a deadly encounter to a party of 4 4th level characters. Now if the DM is handing out magic items like candy then it becomes a different story, but generally speaking a common character of 4th level with a +2 con bonus is going to have about 31 hps (I'm basing this off d8 hit dice because I think it is the most common) and likely 15-17 AC give or take. A minotaur has a +6 to hit so about a 50% chance of hitting AC 16. Using the great axe they deal an average of 17 damage per hit. They can also use reckless attack which gives them advantage and that is absolutely huge, at 50% probability to hit it gives a 25% increase or essentially a flat +5 and it drops off at the edges to an overall +3 on the dice roll. Well now that minotaur has a 75% chance to hit anyone with a 16 AC when it does reckless attack, and 70% for 17 AC, so it will hit most characters on its turn. With an average of 76 hit points they can afford to take a few hits in return because 2 hits will likely put the average character into death saves (34 damage, but 39 if it successfully charges as its first action). Can the characters reasonably expect to deal 158 damage before the minotaurs deal 124?

Readied actions would help a lot in burning down one of the minotaurs quickly if they characters can choose which minotaur they focus on. Dodge won't help because dodge is an action, so you give up most of your ability to do damage except through bonus actions (barring monks which can do it as a bonus action for 1 ki) and if the minotaur is recklessly attacking it simply negates the advantage (still huge, but for someone with an AC lower than 16 you're still more likely than not to get hit). Now when the level caps are lifted some of these fights will become easier if you encounter them at a higher level, but right now with level caps in play they are not even remotely fair to the player that doesn't abuse verticality and line of sight mechanics against the broken AI.


Yup. Very well put together argument. Couldn't agree more.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Honestly, deviating from D&D's static slugfests is a GOOD thing. The surfaces, added mobility and increased bonus action options work well.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Surfaces just screw everything up and make every combat a predictable mess of everything burning, everyone slipping on ice and barrels exploding.
Mobility that's added? Well, it doesn't really matter since every battle is pretty much centered around who can reach the high ground, so you can have all the mobiity in the world, but if you're playing a melee-centered character and you have to run up fifty stairs or huge hills every time goblin archers get advantage on you with the Larian ruleset, mobility wont cut it.
As for the bonus actions, they take away from classes that would otherwise be uniquely equipped with those abilities, like rogues.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Yeah, and mobility is one of the things that makes the 5th ed rogue stand apart from other classes. Rogues can run into battle, sneak attack use a cunning action to retreat to safety. Or they can dash across the battlefield twice while everyone else stays in place.

And if 5th ed feels like a slugfest you need to use casters more often. 5th ed has lots of fascinating spells.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I think 5th edition is insanely good, which is why I am perplexed one would muck around too much with it. smirk

Joined: Sep 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Honestly, deviating from D&D's static slugfests is a GOOD thing. The surfaces, added mobility and increased bonus action options work well.

Based on this statement alone I really doubt you play 5e, or if you do it's an issue with your table.

Joined: Nov 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
5e isn't exactly a slugfest, but some of what was added I appreciate. I do think surfaces mattering can be good and adds something to combat similar to a player asking "Can I target the ground below the orc with my ice spell so he slips?". But the bonus action options feel... off to me, especially shove. That should be an action if anything. And jump and disengage being bonus gimps some things future things right now, so while some extra options to bonus actions is cool I think that needs to be scaled back. Overall I think BG3 needs to get closer to a middle ground between adapting for a videogame and translating 5e.

Also they 100% need to get more to core on summons cause I don't want to lose my cute imp whenever I throw down a summoning power.

Last edited by CJMPinger; 07/01/21 02:02 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Khultak
My opinion only:

This flies in the face of how the game is actually balanced. Sure, you can exploit the deficient AI and non-D&D elements to beat some of the worst offenders, but the fights are way over-tuned to the character levels. 5e uses a challenge rating system, that is enemies are assigned a challenge rating which reflects the level of a group of 4 it would take to make it a balanced fight. An ogre has a challenge rating (cr) of 2, so 1 ogre makes a balanced fight (some risk but character death isn't more likely than not) for 4 2nd level characters. 2 ogres is a cr 4 encounter and the 3 ogre encounter that you can hit at level 2 (I did) is a CR 6 or better because the 3rd ogre is more powerful than a standard ogre. That is worse than deadly, it simply will end in a total party kill without DM exploits. With ~60 hps, a +6 to hit and 2d8+4 damage per attack (ave 13) they will one hit kill a lot of players at 2nd level. Goblins are 1/4 cr, so at 2nd level 4-5 goblins are a medium(balanced fight), 6 are a hard fight, and anything 7 or over is a deadly fight for 2nd level characters. That isn't including goblin bosses or the like which makes things even more difficult. And yeah, sure you can use the broken AI and broken action economy to cheese the fights, but that isn't strategy and it really doesn't qualify as good tactics either because again it is relying on broken implementations (like shooting from a high spot then hiding and watching the AI stand around and yell at you while doing absolutely nothing). This isn't about easy mode, it's about facing a surmountable challenge. CR isn't the be all, end all of encounter dynamics, but it gives a good idea of how lethal the encounter can be particularly at lower levels. I've had a CR 2 encounter almost kill off an entire party of 4th level characters because of dice rolls; I'm pretty sure the module designer expected that fight to be a throw away encounter to introduce one of the minor villains but it nearly ended the campaign.

The minotaurs are another example of this, 2 cr 3 monsters is a deadly encounter to a party of 4 4th level characters. Now if the DM is handing out magic items like candy then it becomes a different story, but generally speaking a common character of 4th level with a +2 con bonus is going to have about 31 hps (I'm basing this off d8 hit dice because I think it is the most common) and likely 15-17 AC give or take. A minotaur has a +6 to hit so about a 50% chance of hitting AC 16. Using the great axe they deal an average of 17 damage per hit. They can also use reckless attack which gives them advantage and that is absolutely huge, at 50% probability to hit it gives a 25% increase or essentially a flat +5 and it drops off at the edges to an overall +3 on the dice roll. Well now that minotaur has a 75% chance to hit anyone with a 16 AC when it does reckless attack, and 70% for 17 AC, so it will hit most characters on its turn. With an average of 76 hit points they can afford to take a few hits in return because 2 hits will likely put the average character into death saves (34 damage, but 39 if it successfully charges as its first action). Can the characters reasonably expect to deal 158 damage before the minotaurs deal 124?

Readied actions would help a lot in burning down one of the minotaurs quickly if they characters can choose which minotaur they focus on. Dodge won't help because dodge is an action, so you give up most of your ability to do damage except through bonus actions (barring monks which can do it as a bonus action for 1 ki) and if the minotaur is recklessly attacking it simply negates the advantage (still huge, but for someone with an AC lower than 16 you're still more likely than not to get hit). Now when the level caps are lifted some of these fights will become easier if you encounter them at a higher level, but right now with level caps in play they are not even remotely fair to the player that doesn't abuse verticality and line of sight mechanics against the broken AI.


Despite the shared system, there is an issue with simply balancing a 5e videogame with the 5e Tabletop CR system. This is because every PnP game is by default a "no-reload, ironman campaign".

When you adapt that into the videogame world, where reloads are expected, that is a massive layer of difficulty completely removed.

Most PnP encounters are balanced in a way that your chance of losing as a party (TPKing) is actually extremely low. "Deadly" encounters are scary in the context of a "you only live once, no reload mode", because there's a chance of an entire campaign ending. In a videogame, that's closer to the baseline requirement for challenge. BG3 needs to be balanced against the playstyle of videogames (i.e. with reloads), not ironman mode.

Per the encounter descriptions in the DMG (pg 81):
  • Easy: An easy encounter doesn't tax the characters' resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed.
  • Medium: A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
  • Hard: A hard encounter can go badly for the adventurers. Weaker characters might get taken out of the fight, and there's a slim chance where one or more character may die.
  • Deadly: A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more character players. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.


In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

Even "hard" encounters are designed for parties to never lose - at most, those drain your resources (which is why they should be in the game, as they do offer a strategic decision). If you factor in the extra loot and infinite resting in BG3, it's clear why Larian needs to use more "deadly" encounters* under 5e to ensure there is a degree of actual challenge sprinkled throughout.


*As long as it's "deadly" within a reason - i.e. the Minotaur encounter is a 2100 xp encounter vs. the 2000 xp threshold of a 4 people level 4 party, which is still fair.

Last edited by Topgoon; 07/01/21 02:20 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Despite the shared system, there is an issue with simply balancing a 5e videogame with the 5e Tabletop CR system. This is because every PnP game is by default a "no-reload, ironman campaign".

When you adapt that into the videogame world, where reloads are expected, that is a massive layer of difficulty completely removed.

Most PnP encounters are balanced in a way that your chance of losing as a party (TPKing) is actually extremely low. "Deadly" encounters are scary in the context of a "you only live once, no reload mode", because there's a chance of an entire campaign ending. In a videogame, that's closer to the baseline requirement for challenge. BG3 needs to be balanced against the playstyle of videogames (i.e. with reloads), not ironman mode.

Per the encounter descriptions in the DMG (pg 81):
  • Easy: An easy encounter doesn't tax the characters' resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed.
  • Medium: A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
  • Hard: A hard encounter can go badly for the adventurers. Weaker characters might get taken out of the fight, and there's a slim chance where one or more character may die.
  • Deadly: A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more character players. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.


In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

Even "hard" encounters are designed for parties to never lose - at most, those drain your resources (which is why they should be in the game, as they do offer a strategic decision). If you factor in the extra loot and infinite resting in BG3, it's clear why Larian needs to use more "deadly" encounters* under 5e to ensure there is a degree of actual challenge sprinkled throughout.


*As long as it's "deadly" within a reason - i.e. the Minotaur encounter is a 2100 xp encounter vs. the 2000 xp threshold of a 4 people level 4 party, which is still fair.

No-reload, ironman settings do not increase the difficulty of the game, they increase the cost of failing. The ability to reload or to save scum your way through the game has zero impact on the actual difficulty of an encounter, it just means you can inevitably make your way through it if you spend enough time replaying it. And ultimately it means that you always have the potential to finish the story regardless of the difficulty given enough time. So I completely disagree on your video game adaption theory.

I agree that most pnp adventures are balanced around challenges appropriate to the level of the adventurers, but you must not play much if you think that player deaths are uncommon even on a medium difficulty encounter. That is why spare the dying is a cantrip and revivify is a 3rd level spell. I've recently DM Lost Mines and had a Red Brand thug (1/2cr) take down 1 2nd level PC and put another down to 4 hp at the top of the first round of combat because of lucky crit on the first attack and a high damage roll on the second attack. In that encounter there are 4 1/2cr thugs making it a medium encounter and it ended with 2 players down and the other 2 severely injured. This is not uncommon, particularly at lower levels. In fact I'm pretty sure that you noticed that big text box underneath the descriptions you quoted talking specifically about this issue particularly at lower levels, and that how some monsters challenge rating doesn't reflect that some of their abilities can make it almost impossible for lower level characters to overcome. I love how the guide specifically points out that a CR 2 ogre can 1 shot a 1st level wizard, which goes right back to my point on how the minotaur fight works in terms of a numbers game.

In terms of the tactical model of the game, it's not difficult, it's just broken IMO. I think the increased level cap will deal with a lot of these issues, because the players will have the tools and hp to deal with the encounters. That won't fix the AI, and the fight cheese strategy of using height, line of sight and hide to kill your enemies, or infinite resting, or barrelmancy, etc.. but maybe it will make it a bit less save scummy.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Good points! =)

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
Originally Posted by Khultak
[quote=Topgoon]

In terms of the tactical model of the game, it's not difficult, it's just broken IMO. I think the increased level cap will deal with a lot of these issues, because the players will have the tools and hp to deal with the encounters. That won't fix the AI, and the fight cheese strategy of using height, line of sight and hide to kill your enemies, or infinite resting, or barrelmancy, etc.. but maybe it will make it a bit less save scummy.

I agree, but want to add: higher levels won't fix anything, when the issues with the incorrectly used DnD rules persist. You may get more hitpoints, more abbilites, etc. but as many people in this forum have already showed, is that most DnD spells, abilities will just not be useful, as you get the same effects (Advantage) by just running around an enemy or getting a little bit Higher.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

100% disagree with that.
This game need morz challenging encounter but it also need trash combats.

TB is very slow and players have to go forth while playing. Those playing 1 or 2h/day probably won't enjoy having only 2 combats because they're all "challenging".
You also have sometimes to feel that you're powerfull and if everything is a challenge : you're not.

Nearly every TB rpg I know have "trash combats".
Usually random encounter are trash combats but not only.

I would enjoy the game if it was more strategic and challenging (bosses, specific combats,...) so I agree with you on some points...
But I'll also love to feel that some ennemies aren't any danger.

BG3 is not XCOM. Combats are one of the most important part of the game to me (and I don't really like them at the moment) but it's first a RPG....

And in RPGs I don't want to be challenged each time I face the weakest creatures of the world.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 07/01/21 08:08 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

100% disagree with that.
This game need morz challenging encounter but it also need trash combats.

TB is very slow and players have to go forth while playing. Those playing 1 or 2h/day probably won't enjoy having only 2 combats because they're all "challenging".
You also have sometimes to feel that you're powerfull and if everything is a challenge : you're not.

Nearly every TB rpg I know have "trash combats".
Usually random encounter are trash combats but not only.

I would enjoy the game if it was more strategic and challenging (bosses, specific combats,...) so I agree with you on some points...
But I'll also love to feel that some ennemies aren't any danger.

BG3 is not XCOM. Combats are one of the most important part of the game to me (and I don't really like them at the moment) but it's first a RPG....

And in RPGs I don't want to be challenged each time I face the weakest creatures of the world.


Exactly! It's good to feel that you can steamroll some enemies, and those battles don't need to be long either! Just a handful of trash mobs or even one enemy can be over quite quickly unless a million of their friends join in. So "trash mob fights" are quite quick and can feel very rewarding too!

Joined: Jan 2017
G
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

100% disagree with that.
This game need morz challenging encounter but it also need trash combats.

TB is very slow and players have to go forth while playing. Those playing 1 or 2h/day probably won't enjoy having only 2 combats because they're all "challenging".
You also have sometimes to feel that you're powerfull and if everything is a challenge : you're not.

Nearly every TB rpg I know have "trash combats".
Usually random encounter are trash combats but not only.

I would enjoy the game if it was more strategic and challenging (bosses, specific combats,...) so I agree with you on some points...
But I'll also love to feel that some ennemies aren't any danger.

BG3 is not XCOM. Combats are one of the most important part of the game to me (and I don't really like them at the moment) but it's first a RPG....

And in RPGs I don't want to be challenged each time I face the weakest creatures of the world.


Exactly! It's good to feel that you can steamroll some enemies, and those battles don't need to be long either! Just a handful of trash mobs or even one enemy can be over quite quickly unless a million of their friends join in. So "trash mob fights" are quite quick and can feel very rewarding too!

Totally agree. There's lots of room for some small goblin patrols for us to run into. It feels really weird that Minthara is super concerned about finding this encampment but hasn't, say, sent anyone out to look for it.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Some aspects are broken homebrew.

Backstab in BG3-EA (hitting around the rear of a target) is a logic that is incompatible with 5e rules unless you add other homebrew rules around it.

In 5e, there is no facing logic (you defend 360) and any creature can run around a target without any risks (no Opportunity Attack risk for moving around a target if you stay in melee).

So, in BG3-EA, if you want to backstab each round, you can most times without risk. I have seen mobs move a few feet to hit me in the back and then move back in front on the same turn :P LOL. I presume most players do not use it every turn just to save time and it would get crazy boring, unless the character has the Sneak Attack feature.

Anyhow, with easy Flanking (with an ally), remove the Backstab unless the BG3 combat system is adapted fully for it (ie. therefore not saying BG3 must be like 5e).

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Baraz
So, in BG3-EA, if you want to backstab each round, you can most times without risk. I have seen mobs move a few feet to hit me in the back and then move back in front on the same turn :P LOL. I presume most players do not use it every turn just to save time and it would get crazy boring, unless the character has the Sneak Attack feature.

Anyhow, with easy Flanking (with an ally), remove the Backstab unless the BG3 combat system is adapted fully for it (ie. therefore not saying BG3 must be like 5e).

I think players use backstab each turn to improve their %to hit but often with the jump/disengage bonus action. As you said we can move arround targets without any AOO but we have to do it step by step, which is tedious.

Totally agree with flanking.
I hope they'll get rid of backstab to add flanking.

This would increase synergies between companions, this would add a lot of utility to "tank classes" and this would avoid jumping all the time to have a free advantage.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 08/01/21 07:00 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Online Content
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
+1 to add flanking
there is a lot of complaint that combat feels slow and tedious, i think part of the reason is because of the every turn jumping by all chars to improve the %hit. So i agree some tweaking here would be nice

Page 8 of 28 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 27 28

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