Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 28 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 27 28
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
Games like BG1/2 and NWN 1/2 had adaptation and changes. So does Solasta. But... they still played like DnD videogames. BG3... does not really. And it is sold as one. When A game is sold to me as a 5e experience game, then it is what I expect and if I go for this game it is because it is what I want. If it ends up being something completely different... well. Yeah. Then games that DO fulfull that allign more with what I personally want.

I agree both DOS and 5e systems have their flaws, changes and adaptations are a good thing and can make a videogame experience better. They are kind of mixed together in a bad way though, and with how different the systems are it is like trying to mix water and oil. Hence why I mentioned sticking to one or the other as a base. And then work from there with houserules/adaptations/homebrew stuff.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Games like BG1/2 and NWN 1/2 had adaptation and changes. So does Solasta. But... they still played like DnD videogames. BG3... does not really. And it is sold as one. When A game is sold to me as a 5e experience game, then it is what I expect and if I go for this game it is because it is what I want. If it ends up being something completely different... well. Yeah. Then games that DO fulfull that allign more with what I personally want.

I agree both DOS and 5e systems have their flaws, changes and adaptations are a good thing and can make a videogame experience better. They are kind of mixed together in a bad way though, and with how different the systems are it is like trying to mix water and oil. Hence why I mentioned sticking to one or the other as a base. And then work from there with houserules/adaptations/homebrew stuff.


Exactly, that's how I feel too! Larian promised this would be "as close to dnd 5th edition as it could get", and I was soooo hoping for *JUST THAT*, and so far I am not pleased with that. I will certainly play the game no matter what and probably love it, but... I really, really wanted a DnD experience.

Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
I tried out both games recently and personally likes Solasta's combat much more (not because its closer to dnd i just feel its more fun to me). Like it when enemies try to prone one of my characters down by matching their Athletic skill against my char's, like that the combat log is very informative and also the UI pop-ups gives me a pretty good understanding immediately what just happened upon a hit/attack, like you dont know all enemy stats without apropriate skillchecks, also i like the reaction system more and that you need to use disengage, action economy overall seems more tactical. Shoving is rewarding when im using it because its not used every turn. Movement also feels more natural if i wanna go to somewhere i click and character automatically crawls/climbs/jumps there. There are stones-obstacles to push with strengthy characters to reveal shortcuts which also makes melee chars more useful. It feels the game somehow needs more involvement from player side than BG3 atm. There is a couple of things I like in BG3 more (for example i feel the flow of combat seems to be better and i like the shared initiative idea), also the story and its graphics are out-of-question more superior. But it definitely needs improvement on combat rules to make it fun to more people and avoid it being repetitive on long term.
I think Larian also tries to make BG3 more accessable to everyone therefore they are experimenting with homebrew rules to make it more digestable. On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.

Last edited by Mat22; 31/01/21 07:58 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mat22
On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
+1
I would agree that granularity is the way to go, so every player can make this game the type of adventure he or she wants.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mat22
I tried out both games recently and personally likes Solasta's combat much more (not because its closer to dnd i just feel its more fun to me). Like it when enemies try to prone one of my characters down by matching their Athletic skill against my char's, like that the combat log is very informative and also the UI pop-ups gives me a pretty good understanding immediately what just happened upon a hit/attack, like you dont know all enemy stats without apropriate skillchecks, also i like the reaction system more and that you need to use disengage, action economy overall seems more tactical. Shoving is rewarding when im using it because its not used every turn. Movement also feels more natural if i wanna go to somewhere i click and character automatically crawls/climbs/jumps there. There are stones-obstacles to push with strengthy characters to reveal shortcuts which also makes melee chars more useful. It feels the game somehow needs more involvement from player side than BG3 atm. There is a couple of things I like in BG3 more (for example i feel the flow of combat seems to be better and i like the shared initiative idea), also the story and its graphics are out-of-question more superior. But it definitely needs improvement on combat rules to make it fun to more people and avoid it being repetitive on long term.
I think Larian also tries to make BG3 more accessable to everyone therefore they are experimenting with homebrew rules to make it more digestable. On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.


Exactly!! All those things are fun as heck, not least because it FOLLOWS the core rules! It just makes things far more tactical and fun, definitely! =)

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Fun is a matter of opinion.
But more tactical yes, definitely.

A game made by 20 people is more tactical than a AAA tactical TB game. That's a fact, we have more solutions in Solasta but that's only because everything is balanced.

BG3 is balanced arround a very limited number of custom OP mechanics. Use them or die (Highground/backstab/food/dip/grenades/potions).

Last edited by Maximuuus; 31/01/21 04:56 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Mat22
I (...)
(...) Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
For fun, one of the things they removed in Solasta (mid-January 2021) was actually a *homebrew* rule they had implemented that made lack of light more hardcore. Characters in dim light without Darkvision had a rough time (Disadvantage on attacks. In vanilla 5e, Dim LIght is Disadvantage on Perception checks only; not to be confused with darkness, heavily obscured, etc.).

I do see the following in Solasta's settings :
- You can choose to change Prepared spells without doing a Long Rest (by default, it respects 5e rules) ;
- Spell components : for each Verbal, Somatic and Material component, you can choose to disable it, make it basic or full (eg. full: you need a free hand to cast and Revivify cost 300 gold of diamond dust).

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Mat22
On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
+1
I would agree that granularity is the way to go, so every player can make this game the type of adventure he or she wants.

It's interesting how using 5e rules as the core system and tweaking it as options works. Who would have thought?

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah I REALLY hope we get hardcore, true-to-book core rules, and then maybe homebrew as optional!

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]

The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some powerful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).
(EDIT: turns out WotC meant per Action and not per Turn, sigh. Bonus Actions are restricted to 1 only per turn, hence the confusion.
So you can do Action Surge to cast two spells of levels 1+ along with one single Bonus Action spell!)

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en

Last edited by Baraz; 31/01/21 08:28 PM.
Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by Baraz
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]
The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some poweful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en

So, what you posted is not entirely correct.

The germane text from the player's handbook: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This doesn't speak at all to a limit on the number of spell slots you can use per turn.

The rule is bypassed with Action Surge (as mentioned in the tweet that you linked, in fact) - you can cast two full-action spells in one turn with Action Surge so long as you aren't also using your bonus action to cast a spell (because that would trigger the rule).

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Originally Posted by Baraz
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]
The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some poweful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en

So, what you posted is not entirely correct.

The germane text from the player's handbook: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This doesn't speak at all to a limit on the number of spell slots you can use per turn.

The rule is bypassed with Action Surge (as mentioned in the tweet that you linked, in fact) - you can cast two full-action spells in one turn with Action Surge so long as you aren't also using your bonus action to cast a spell (because that would trigger the rule).
Well, since Jeremy says so (Action Surge = extra spell), OK, but their damned rule says turn, sigh, so many concluded it was meant as a limit per turn.

The confusion comes from the Bonus Action limited to one per turn (Rogues do not get a second Bonus Action).

Last edited by Baraz; 31/01/21 08:31 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Baraz
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]

The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some powerful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).
(EDIT: turns out WotC meant per Action and not per Turn, sigh. Bonus Actions are restricted to 1 only per turn, hence the confusion.
So you can do Action Surge to cast two spells of levels 1+ along with one single Bonus Action spell!)

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en


Ahh yes, I *HAVE* noticed that! They do that in Solasta too? Damn. Oh well, personally.. I don't know. I am pretty fine with that change, but I certainly wouldn't mind if they made it true to the core rules either.

Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
The core rules for this come into play regarding bonus action spells only, however, they have some fairly ridiculous repercussions:

A high level fighter-wizard can: Cast meteor Swarm, have an enemy attempt to counterspell them, counterspell that enemy's coutnerspell, then action surge and cast an 8th level disintegrate on the upstart enemy caster. That's perfectly legal inthe core rules.

That exact same wizard might also attempt to first cast Shillelagh on their staff... the enemy caster counterspells this because they were waiting to counter regardless. The wizard then CANNOT counterspell that counterspell -that would be casting a levelled spell on the same turn as casting a bonus action spell. The also cannot cast anything with their action other than a cantrip, and even further, even if they then action surge, they still cannot cast anything other than a second cantrip with their extra action, becuase it's still their turn and they still cannot cast a leveled spell, because of the bonus action.

This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the rule doesn't need to exist - the vast majority of bonus actions spells are paladin and ranger spells, made to accompany using your action to attack, not cast more thing. They're all concentration in those cases too. If we remove all of the arrow, mark and smite-type BA spells (and others that rely on using your action to do something other than casting), we're left with a meager handful of spells indeed: barely a dozen of them in fact, the most notable of which are: Far/Misty step, Healing/Mass Healing word, Expeditions Retreat, Sanctuary and Dragon's Breath.

There's no real break or abuse in any of this.

Considering that a Paladin/Fighter of the same level as our Wizard above can nova off literally their entire daily allotment of spell slots in a single turn (over 11 spell slots), and all as guaranteed damage, perfectly legally, it's a bit strange.

Where it DOES become dangerous and abusuable is, as others have mentioned, with Sorcerers and quicken... and even then it still doesn't really measure up to the above paladin/fighter, and it doesn't do anything more or worse than the two-drop-levels-of-figter wizard action surging to cast multiple fireballs, etc. Same exact effect but perfectly legal... but it is still a potential for a lot of AoE, and other combinations that can be clever and strong (as though that's bad..?). This is the only place where the real breaks show up though... which means that the rule about bonus actions SHOULD be a rule that is written into Quicken Spell specifically, and leaves casters everywhere else alone.

(In games I play in, in one of which I play a sorcerer, we discard the bonus actions spell rule entirely, and instead rewrite quicken spell meta magic to read: "When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting. If you do this, you can't use your action to cast another spell on the same turn, except for a cantrip." It's simple, it's straight forward, it fixes the exploit they wanted it to without impacting anyone else, and it works.)

I'm personally GLAD they've ditched that rule, and it's the one place where I absolutely support them diverging from 5e, because the arbitrariness of that bonus action casting rule simply does not need to exist, and is a legacy left over from impressions of casters in earlier editions which no longer hold true in 5e.

Last edited by Niara; 31/01/21 11:29 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
I'm personally GLAD they've ditched that rule, and it's the one place where I absolutely support them diverging from 5e, because the arbitrariness of that bonus action casting rule simply does not need to exist, and is a legacy left over from impressions of casters in earlier editions which no longer hold true in 5e.

Agreed, and it’s a tough enough rule for seasoned 5E players to wrap their brains around, let alone someone who’s coming at this game with no 5E knowledge. They’d probably just assume it was a bug if it wasn’t letting you cast a levelled spell when you have your action still available.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
That rule they ditched (well, maybe just ignored or forgot) had reasons to exist: https://www.xanthir.com/b4tZ0

I wish both 5e and Larian adopted the fixed version of the rule:

A character can only cast one non-cantrip spell during their turn, no matter what actions they have available to them. They can combine that spell with any number of cantrips that they have the actions for. This does not restrict spells cast not during your turn, such as a Hellish Rebuke cast as a reaction.

If I still played P&P, I would adopt this rule as a DM. Wizards/Sorcs are OP even without completely ditching that rule...

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Niara
The core rules for this come into play regarding bonus action spells only, however, they have some fairly ridiculous repercussions:

A high level fighter-wizard can: Cast meteor Swarm, have an enemy attempt to counterspell them, counterspell that enemy's coutnerspell, then action surge and cast an 8th level disintegrate on the upstart enemy caster. That's perfectly legal inthe core rules.

That exact same wizard might also attempt to first cast Shillelagh on their staff... the enemy caster counterspells this because they were waiting to counter regardless. The wizard then CANNOT counterspell that counterspell -that would be casting a levelled spell on the same turn as casting a bonus action spell. The also cannot cast anything with their action other than a cantrip, and even further, even if they then action surge, they still cannot cast anything other than a second cantrip with their extra action, becuase it's still their turn and they still cannot cast a leveled spell, because of the bonus action.

This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the rule doesn't need to exist - the vast majority of bonus actions spells are paladin and ranger spells, made to accompany using your action to attack, not cast more thing. They're all concentration in those cases too. If we remove all of the arrow, mark and smite-type BA spells (and others that rely on using your action to do something other than casting), we're left with a meager handful of spells indeed: barely a dozen of them in fact, the most notable of which are: Far/Misty step, Healing/Mass Healing word, Expeditions Retreat, Sanctuary and Dragon's Breath.

There's no real break or abuse in any of this.

Considering that a Paladin/Fighter of the same level as our Wizard above can nova off literally their entire daily allotment of spell slots in a single turn (over 11 spell slots), and all as guaranteed damage, perfectly legally, it's a bit strange.

Where it DOES become dangerous and abusuable is, as others have mentioned, with Sorcerers and quicken... and even then it still doesn't really measure up to the above paladin/fighter, and it doesn't do anything more or worse than the two-drop-levels-of-figter wizard action surging to cast multiple fireballs, etc. Same exact effect but perfectly legal... but it is still a potential for a lot of AoE, and other combinations that can be clever and strong (as though that's bad..?). This is the only place where the real breaks show up though... which means that the rule about bonus actions SHOULD be a rule that is written into Quicken Spell specifically, and leaves casters everywhere else alone.

(In games I play in, in one of which I play a sorcerer, we discard the bonus actions spell rule entirely, and instead rewrite quicken spell meta magic to read: "When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting. If you do this, you can't use your action to cast another spell on the same turn, except for a cantrip." It's simple, it's straight forward, it fixes the exploit they wanted it to without impacting anyone else, and it works.)

I'm personally GLAD they've ditched that rule, and it's the one place where I absolutely support them diverging from 5e, because the arbitrariness of that bonus action casting rule simply does not need to exist, and is a legacy left over from impressions of casters in earlier editions which no longer hold true in 5e.
Very good points !

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
(...)

I wish both 5e and Larian adopted the fixed version of the rule:

A character can only cast one non-cantrip spell during their turn, no matter what actions they have available to them. They can combine that spell with any number of cantrips that they have the actions for. This does not restrict spells cast not during your turn, such as a Hellish Rebuke cast as a reaction.

If I still played P&P, I would adopt this rule as a DM. Wizards/Sorcs are OP even without completely ditching that rule...
Would be more balanced or safer. Niara's examples does show odd discrepancies (in tabletop 5e), where the Action Surge combo is oddly better than a pure caster :P.

Last edited by Baraz; 01/02/21 12:34 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Baraz
Would be more balanced or safer. Niara's examples does show odd discrepancies (in tabletop 5e), where the Action Surge combo is oddly better than a pure caster :P.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's better. Remember, in order to gain Action Surge, it will cost you two levels. That's two levels of delayed spells and you also end up losing one ASI (which are also delayed). There are definite penalties to multi-classing. I'd say in general, full casters would benefit just staying one class. Fighters on the other hand (as well as other martial classes) may possibly benefit from dipping into other classes. But even in those cases, it's generally best to stay one class.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Well, without some sort of limitation in place: Move to the enemy group, Fireball, Action Surge, Fireball, Misty Step away... smile

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Well, without some sort of limitation in place: Move to the enemy group, Fireball, Action Surge, Fireball, Misty Step away... smile

You certainly can do that with 2 levels of fighter but you've burned 3 spell slots on one encounter. In addition, you'd have to wait till 7th level at the earliest when other full casters were tossing fireballs at level 5. In PnP where long rests matter, that's a significant loss of resources. But in BG3 currently, why not? Just rest up and repeat.

Last edited by spectralhunter; 01/02/21 04:11 AM.
Page 13 of 28 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 27 28

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