Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Feb 2021
P
addict
Offline
addict
P
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by LordGiggles
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
But this is exactly what im talking about. smile "huge ongoing balance issues"? Is it? For me this like 25 pages thread "how bad movement in this game" . After 30 hour with friends and alone, i never had this thoughts. But may be i should be mad as other people, i don't know.

If talk about height stuff, i found this good for me in this game (know nothing about dnd)
1) It make some fight harder, than it is. It always good for me. Harpy, goblin ambush in village, many other. You have this disadvantage and you need deal with it somehow. May be you will rush to them, may be use x10 jump and attack\push, may be will use damaging flask (which have 100% accuracy). This is strategy and opportunity to move you character, and i like it (in dos2 you just staying and attacking from one position, which is boring).
Without disadvantage, you can switch to crossbow for every character and focus fire every enemy with no problem. Why move, why hide.
2) Height advantage not always free. Many times you fight for this exactly because it good (rush with melee char, to clear it for your team), or not. Your choice again.
3) Height stuff not make 56 or something spells useless (but i don't know skill for sure). Highground not totally free, and not always available, so skills which gives you advantage, still will be useful, just because should remove disadvantage\give advantage as usual.
4) It still accuracy right? Not double damage or something. I guess if calculate damage for one player in act1, who sometimes was on highground, sometimes not, you damage probably will be same, because again, its accuracy and not 100% extra dmg.

And even if you no need 500 iq to reach highground, it still something. And this push\jump stuff. I played as warlock with friends(i thought warlock is mage with some cool skills). Omg, 17 hours of eldrich blast. At least he have imp. I don't wanna say boring, but most fun was exactly when i did something "fun" as larian added in game. So if you remove height stuff, jump\push because it broken, some surface fire+acid combo, what should i do in game? Just keep clicking on button with no brain?

Backstab in opposite side for me. This not add any complexity in game, AI not using it at all. So it not good, not bad (but why true strike still in game). Just cheap accuracy to make melee character no feel like trash i guess.

So i will be angry, if Larian will listen community and remove all this stuff. i hope they not xd


Sure, but again here you're just not really explaining why things are the case, you're just kind of insisting that they are. I think this does stem from you not knowing much about the system, but advantage is a huge deal in DnD, there are some incredibly powerful spells dedicated to giving you advantage and enemies disadvantage against you.
Simply claiming that it doesn't make spells useless because sometime you might fail to gain the high ground doesn't really make much sense, because why wouldn't you be better off spending your spells on gaining the high ground? What about all the abilities that give melee attackers advantage that are useless because you can always walk behind an enemy?

I don't believe it's much of an argument to say "well some fights don't have high ground so entire major abilities being turned into niche uses is fine". Like come on man, your point 3 here is "These 56 skills aren't useless, but also I don't know what they are" lol

From the EA so far, it's incredibly easy to gain and maintain the high ground in almost every fight, and the AI does a very poor job at forcing you off it. It also removes any real creative tactics, because it is almost always the main goal of every fight. It is generally the strongest position, drastically increases how much damage you're putting out, drastically decreases how much damage you're taking, there's not really any situation where you aren't going to want to just take high ground and stay there.

I'm not sure what your point about warlock is here either, like you picked a warlock, a class primarily focused on blasting, and are annoyed you spent a lot of time blasting? You get a few limited spell slots (that should be stronger because normally there's a limit on long resting), and you throw around eldritch blast a lot. That's what pretty much all warlocks do. it's still pretty much all you're doing in BG3 too, that's just the classes identity.

I think a lot of your points here have some validity, early game DnD combat can absolutely be a bit boring, but you're neglecting the other issues created by the solutions.
The issue here isn't that they tried to incorporate new stuff, it's that there's very little consideration about how that impacts other things. Jumping around constantly heavily reduces your need to care about protecting your backline, and takes away a lot of the rogue classes identity. Giving you effectively permanent advantage in most fights, and often effectively permanent disadvantage against you, hurts the amount of freedom you have in positioning and makes classes that can create similar as an effect later on much less impactful feeling. It also makes abilities that don't use a roll to hit much less impactful feeling.

I honestly feel as if you might benefit from rereading some of the discussions people have had on this topic, because like the answer to your last part in point 1 has been talked about a heap. You're not just going to be standing still like an idiot if you don't have permanent disadvantage against enemies, they're still trying to kill you and the high ground is still absolutely an advantageous position, it's just not universally the most important element of every single relevant fight in the game anymore.


If you're not keen on rereading those discussions, at least read up on bounded accuracy a bit, or skim through some of the core rules for 5e, they're all pretty easily found online. I don't think it's fair for others if you're hopping into a discussion about a system you admit you don't really understand, and declaring their takes on the changes wrong or that it's somehow depressing to read them.

Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Lastman
˄Height advantage is HUGE in combat especially where you have range elements be it defense, accuracy, range, moral, everything it's the biggest advantage you can get combined all of those and you can stop huge numbers...

So i'm totally ok with a bigger numbers granted. I would be more happy if you could go prone to counter it but that would be asking to much just like overwatch. IF you were on ladder in the middle of nothing i would be fine with just range bonus...:)

As is, i know how important normal terrain height advantage is i mean +3 or whatever would be fine as well but that's not gonna fix the problems you have with combat. Because IF highground advantage is to big, then advantage it's to big for everything.
Due to the things i said before Hp and stuff... i was exaggerating a bit but still you get the point.


Like i said already they need to fix jump/disengage first before anything else. If you wasted 1 or two turns just to get to high ground no one would cry it's op.

But it looks like nothing is gonna change anyway so it's all pointless... and is just random forum fighting. So i'll use my Height advantage thank you and hope for mods and really hard and not a gimmicky Nighmare mode.

The main problem to me is not especially that "advantage is too big".
The main problem is that A LOT of tactical options (spells/actions/features) are now useless.

Those options are useless because something cheaper in regards of action economy give the same bonus.

I guess it would be fine if verticality was a part of very specific combats. You would still use faery fire and so on in other situations... But that's not how BG3 is build and I'm totally fine with it.

Keep also in mind that things has to be balanced because if stacked bonuses are too important, the %to hit himself become useless..

The easiest way to unlock MANY tactical possibilities and synergies between companions (without breaking the balance even more and keeping the verticality) is to remove the advantage to highground and rework it's bonuses so there are less meaningfull than advantages (+2 to attack roll + better range than the ennemy + better cover is huge enough according to me...).

But of course they could also rework every D&D spells/features/action that gives advantage to give them another utility or change their cost... But that would be very very risky for many reasons.

I'm not a game devs but it looks obvious to me that the easiest way is to rework 1 or 2 custom rules instead of all D&D spells and features^^

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/02/21 03:59 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Lastman
Height advantage just don't use it? Backstab advantage don't use it?

That's what i got when i was complaining about barrels and aoe arrows so just apply it here??.Don't use it ??... If those didn't go away, no way height advantage is changing the only thing that actually makes sense and is cool.
Even if you don't use those things the game is still ridiculously easy..

i agree backstab is broken but that's in part because jump/disengage - Attack of opportunity is broken.


If you remove situational Height advantage there is really nothing to do in the game tactically. 5e is so vanilla - boring due to the fuckin concentration limit and max 4 party limit. So the cross class combos are hardly there. And all you do is Auto attack especially at this low levers. Ow yeah i get Menacing Attack big deal it's still a glorified auto attack. :))

Why even bother with other stuff when you can just surprise and AA kill everything in two turns. Even if you don't use H.advantage and B.advantage you extend combat by one turn 2 MAX and that's if you unlucky... Everything still dies because base HP is so low for everything. And spells and abilities that do stuff are so rare thx to idiotic concentration limit.
Better of just throwing stuff, boot, other enemies whatever and enjoy how ridiculous everything is.

if you think changing Height advantage to +2 will make huge difference well whatever. Nothing will change.

Oh and lets not forget the AI. Stupid bad be it in Bg 3 or in Solasta it's so fucking bad it makes everything broken and easy.

And now you want them to remove the only good situational thing in the game and that's fighting for high ground. Meanwhile jump/disengage AoO will stay broken yeah sure GJ, way to make the game better.


At the moment, you can ignore backstab because the enemy AI does too. But if the enemy AI went for backstab as much as some players do, that would become miserable too. The game balance forces any range dependent class to go to the high ground or else their attacks roll at disadvantage, that's dull and boring. It incentivizes the player to use Magic Missile over everything else. Ranged attacks don't really get a choice when it comes to high ground, if the player doesn't go for high ground they get arbitrary disadvantage. (From Threatened, other enemies being on high ground).

Lastly, this is why I'm leaning towards all the situations ranged attacks can be at disadvantage compared to melee as possibly the real root cause of the issue. Fighter gets to choose, wizard doesn't (Not limited to those two classes).

Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.
It is okay for someone to say they enjoy the game. However when someone discounts discussion points from another forum member, it makes sense to supplement that with evidence (anecdotal or theoretical).

Person A) discusses with evidence
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
Person C) "We had a discussion going on here"

Why quote and reply? Why try to distract the thread from someone else's opinion? 5e is a comparable game because the rules are very similar. So similar it's almost as if Baldur's Gate 3 is derived from 5e's ruleset. (It actually is).

It is 100% Okay to compare BG3 to composite games, whether that is 5e, Fire Emblem, XCOM 2, D:OS2, Solasta. It is easier to discuss and compare with games people could actually play, than keep discussing further in abstract.

It's okay for forum members to discuss how combat could be made better, AND you don't have to derail discussions with "I don't know anything about 5e, I'm having fun now and couldn't imagine having more fun, swear words, I'm not sure about the terminology being used but I'm going to argue anyways, etc."

Joined: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

In the fewest words as possible, nobody likes having things mansplained to them about why they don't see things as a problem and why their proposals suck from a position of ignorance.

Joined: Jan 2021
D
Darun Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
And to add to this, people aren't just saying make the game closer to 5e. People are protesting because the some of the changes (and the total omission of certain features) have only served to create wildly worse imbalance rather than make the game any interesting on a tactical level. Going 'lol DnD isn't balanced!' as a defense means you don't actually have a real argument, because it's actually more balanced than whatever we have now.

The thing is ... I often read arguments that go like "in the PHB it says..." or "Solasta this, Solasta that"

Actually I even agree at least partially with most of the criticism brought up in these forums. laugh

However D&D is not a particularly amazing system, especially considering that we are talking about a video game, so the PHB is not the be all end all.

Do not forget we are in early alpha stage and I sincerely hope that Larian can design a game system around D&D that is more suited for a computer game and overall more interesting.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Well, like i said i'm fine with +2 +3 or +1d3 - 1d4 as long as we keep the height advantage. But seeing how Larian does things it's all or nothing. I just want o keep it in that's is all..

THe only reason it stands out now is because for some reason Larian forgot to make a cover system for characters on the ground...and you can't go prone. If you had cover AC bonus, that high ground advantage would not be a problem at all. If AI could actually use the combat mechanics that is.

Anyway, like i said your suggestions of +2 wouldn't do anything... the High advantage, backstab would be even more broken because it would stack with other advantages. And then you got to nerf the stacking and round we go!!..

i think all of that would be a overcomplicated for Larian anyway. They have problems as is and don't want to change anything anyway...

We need to fix jump first then move on from there..

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.

Joined: Feb 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
The game balance forces any range dependent class to go to the high ground or else their attacks roll at disadvantage, that's dull and boring. It incentivizes the player to use Magic Missile over everything else. Ranged attacks don't really get a choice when it comes to high ground, if the player doesn't go for high ground they get arbitrary disadvantage. (From Threatened, other enemies being on high ground).

Lastly, this is why I'm leaning towards all the situations ranged attacks can be at disadvantage compared to melee as possibly the real root cause of the issue. Fighter gets to choose, wizard doesn't (Not limited to those two classes).
Its true, but why this is boring? if you remove highground and you no need to deal with enemy on hg too, how it can be less boring? I assume that you will just attack from your starting position, why move or anything?

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.

PS For me biggest problem in game is AI, which attacking my fallen allies, but can't kill because them need 3 hits (i game with 1 action per turn), so i can help him and situation repeat. This free turns for 2 other characters makes me sad.

Last edited by alwayswrong; 24/02/21 05:57 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Lastman
We need to fix jump first then move on from there..

Can you expand on this please? Some of Jump is mod available.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Its true, but why this is boring? if you remove highground and you no need to deal with enemy on hg too, how it can be less boring? I assume that you will just attack from your starting position, why move or anything?
Again, we're not asking for all benefits of high ground to be removed, so range-dependent classes will still have an incentive to go to high ground. Just not a lob-sided "roll with Disadvantage or go to high ground"

In general if the player doesn't move they will be swarmed by enemies. Ranged casters have additional incentive to move because they're squishy. For example, wizard should have the opportunity to use scorching ray on a priority enemy without having disadvantage because combat started with an enemy ~3-4 meters away. Then they can move to safety. It's more fun to have player choice and it's more fun to have spell variety. Using magic should be as fun as playing fighter.

Also, having to always move to high ground slows down combat. The wizard in the prior example will always be in a sub-optimal position to deal damage if they're always chasing higher ground. So the player has to rely on guaranteed to hit spells like Magic Missile and Shatter to ignore disadvantage, while positioning the wizard where they need to be. (Being over-incentivized to use the same spells over and over isn't fun).

If the player doesn't use Magic Missile or Shatter and chases the high ground:
They have to move to high ground, now they're priority enemy may be out of range, now they have to start damaging another enemy that isn't a priority. (which slows down combat)

Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.
There are a lot of forum posts explaining why, it's worth it to take the time to read through other forum posts. If you're really curious about skills in D&D, there are plenty of online resources. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
one more crap thing from Dnd 5e... boring rules like i said.. but for some reason bless does stack. Whatever

And this is why i wouldn't bother with high ground at +2
Originally Posted by Scribe
Can you expand on this please? Some of Jump is mod available.

yeah i know mods are around...and we all know what's wrong with jump, loads of different ways to fix it... the main thing is, it makes AoO pointless...

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
one more crap thing from Dnd 5e... boring rules like i said.. but for some reason bless does stack. Whatever

And this is why i wouldn't bother with high ground at +2
Originally Posted by Scribe
Can you expand on this please? Some of Jump is mod available.

yeah i know mods are around...and we all know what's wrong with jump, loads of different ways to fix it... the main thing is, it makes AoO pointless...

Right, so beyond the AoO, was there anything major? I want to try and fix things if Larian won't, that's why I'm asking.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Lastman
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well the core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.
one more crap thing from Dnd 5e... boring rules like i said.. but for some reason bless does stack. Whatever

And this is why i wouldn't bother with high ground at +2
LOL dude even though you deride D&D 5e, it is rather popular.

I don't see how that would be a boring rule, especially when earlier you said if it stacks it'll be a problem. If you think advantage and +2 stacking would be more fun, be honest. Larian has already homebrewed enough of the game, they could homebrew more.

Joined: Feb 2021
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

Because making an argument about why a change to a system is good while openly admitting you don't know anything about the system is ridiculous. He outright says a point is wrong, but then immediately follows that up by saying he doesn't really know what the point is. He has no idea what is a good or bad design decision here, like he's outright arguing that advantage isn't that big a deal. It's not fair on anyone else to get into an argument like that without putting in even a tiny bit of effort to understand the topic. It's not like I didn't try to explain points to him.

100s of thousands of players won't ever get halfway through the game, building a game entirely around the casual audience is never a good idea. Should they just not bother including a good ending because only like 10% of people will even see it, and even less will be able to articulate why they have issues with it?

If you've got nothing constructive to add to a discussion, just don't comment.

Last edited by LordGiggles; 24/02/21 10:34 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.
There are a lot of forum posts explaining why, it's worth it to take the time to read through other forum posts. If you're really curious about skills in D&D, there are plenty of online resources. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
I don't wanna spoilers for me smile
But i read about entangle. so if you cast entangle on enemy on highground, it will remove disadvantage from your archers on low ground, who attacking this enemy. Or give advantage if it just plain territory. So spell still works great and improve you chances by a lot (if we saying that disadvantage have big impact). So why it (or any other spells with advantages) call useless in game with height advantages?

I guess i can answer by myself, becuase people only talking about situations, when you already on highground, and there no point to cast this type of spells to get advantage (because you already have it). True, but in act1 you not always on highground. And plus as you said, you can be out of range, so no point to rush on roof in each fights, when you just cast spell. So again, spells fine as for me.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Person B) I disagree because "I just enjoy the game and I'm not sure why"
If its me, i guess i describe it correctly smile

I just don't get why "this make bless or other spells useless". You not always can be on hg, sometimes enemy on hg, so there many situations when this or other buff will help. And idk skills in dnd, but can assume that there some projectile with advantage or buff for allies. So they still will work for 90% of time too. And I don't feel that it lose to not be a Bless bot (or another strong buff with advantage), you just cast it when team really need it.
There are a lot of forum posts explaining why, it's worth it to take the time to read through other forum posts. If you're really curious about skills in D&D, there are plenty of online resources. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
I don't wanna spoilers for me smile
But i read about entangle. so if you cast entangle on enemy on highground, it will remove disadvantage from your archers on low ground, who attacking this enemy. Or give advantage if it just plain territory. So spell still works great and improve you chances by a lot (if we saying that disadvantage have big impact). So why it (or any other spells with advantages) call useless in game with height advantages?

I guess i can answer by myself, becuase people only talking about situations, when you already on highground, and there no point to cast this type of spells to get advantage (because you already have it). True, but in act1 you not always on highground. And plus as you said, you can be out of range, so no point to rush on roof in each fights, when you just cast spell. So again, spells fine as for me.

Would you really use your action + 1 spell slots to try to remove the advantage of 1 ennemy ? (highgrounded ennemies aren't often packed and saving throw mean you're absolutely not sure to succeed).
I guess you'd try to go higher and/or dash because it doesn't cost any spell slot, wouldn't you ? Verticality is everywhere. There are very few situations where you can't go highground very fast.

Entangle doesn't look useless at all to me if you're highgrounded. It's main effect is to stop a pack of ennemies coming to you (i.e melee ennemies rushing your positions).

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/02/21 11:31 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by LordGiggles
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.

Because making an argument about why a change to a system is good while openly admitting you don't know anything about the system is ridiculous. He outright says a point is wrong, but then immediately follows that up by saying he doesn't really know what the point is. He has no idea what is a good or bad design decision here, like he's outright arguing that advantage isn't that big a deal. It's not fair on anyone else to get into an argument like that without putting in even a tiny bit of effort to understand the topic. It's not like I didn't try to explain points to him.

100s of thousands of players won't ever get halfway through the game, building a game entirely around the casual audience is never a good idea. Should they just not bother including a good ending because only like 10% of people will even see it, and even less will be able to articulate why they have issues with it?

If you've got nothing constructive to add to a discussion, just don't comment.
All you do is try to make me looks like idiot. You exactly person from my first comment, and keep confirm it. Why i have no idea what is good or bad design? Why its big deal, if it not, and explained why. Or my opinion not legit, because i don't know names of spells? I smart enought to imagine what a type of spells it can be, if it was described as "spells and attack which give advantages"

Overall as i said before, on this forum only 1 option. You agree with maintain idea that movement\height stuff\shove bad, or you casual\moron and your opinion not important. Because if you smart, you should be agreed with it, obvious.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
I don't wanna spoilers for me smile
But i read about entangle. so if you cast entangle on enemy on highground, it will remove disadvantage from your archers on low ground, who attacking this enemy. Or give advantage if it just plain territory. So spell still works great and improve you chances by a lot (if we saying that disadvantage have big impact). So why it (or any other spells with advantages) call useless in game with height advantages?

I guess i can answer by myself, becuase people only talking about situations, when you already on highground, and there no point to cast this type of spells to get advantage (because you already have it). True, but in act1 you not always on highground. And plus as you said, you can be out of range, so no point to rush on roof in each fights, when you just cast spell. So again, spells fine as for me.

Would you really use your action + 1 spell slots to try to remove the advantage of 1 ennemy ? (highgrounded ennemies aren't often packed).
I guess you'll try to go higher and/or dash because it doesn't cost any spell slot, won't you ? Verticality is everywhere. There are very few situations where you can't go highground very fast.

Entangle doesn't look useless at all to me if you're highgrounded. It's main effect is to stop a pack of ennemies coming to you (i.e melee ennemies rushing your positions).

It's still Larian's homebrew picking winners and losers with spell value. If the enemy didn't have disadvantage on incoming attacks, restrained would give the player advantage, not a normal attack. I'd like to add Entangle is coming in patch 4, so it hasn't been in the game yet. But it looks like you would need to jump around to get the full value out of entangle. (When the player should not have to).

If high ground didn't offer disadvantage on incoming attacks entangle would have more value in casting it.
It also costs concentration, when there are other uses for a concentration spell besides making the next ranged attack not roll with disadvantage. Entangle is also not guaranteed to succeed as the enemy can make a saving throw. It circles back around to why not just cast Magic Missile? Why not just jump over there? Why not go to equal ground or higher and attack with a crossbow?

It's rather boring what superfluous disadvantage for ranged attacks has done to the action economy. It would be so fun to have a druid cast entangle so that the next character could follow up with scorching ray with advantage. The characters could also follow up with with more optimized positioning.

Joined: Feb 2021
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by alwayswrong
All you do is try to make me looks like idiot. You exactly person from my first comment, and keep confirm it. Why i have no idea what is good or bad design? Why its big deal, if it not, and explained why. Or my opinion not legit, because i don't know names of spells? I smart enought to imagine what a type of spells it can be, if it was described as "spells and attack which give advantages"

Overall as i said before, on this forum only 1 option. You agree with maintain idea that movement\height stuff\shove bad, or you casual\moron and your opinion not important. Because if you smart, you should be agreed with it, obvious.

No, you can absolutely make an argument for particular points, but like a few people have said it's not terribly fair to come in, claim that everyone else is wrong and that it's depressing to read their posts, and then say you don't really know what they're talking about. There's a few people here I pretty vehemently disagree with on things, but they're coming from a place of at least understanding the system and being able to explain why they feel the way they do, or believe particular points are wrong. I just don't think it's very fair to expect people to engage in a more meaningful way with your arguments when you won't at least read why people who disagree with you feel the way they do.

I don't think you're an idiot and I'm not aiming to make you look like one, as I said I agree with a good amount of the criticisms of low level 5e that you mentioned. I just think you should skim some of the stuff people have said before, or some of the rules behind 5e so that you can better understand why people feel the way they do, before you argue that they shouldn't feel that way. It's not fair to argue that the skills aren't made useless but then also refuse to read what the skills or spells in question even are.

Last edited by LordGiggles; 24/02/21 11:39 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Problem is, forums still have a few Die hards(less and less most left) that defend anything and i mean any feature even if they don't care about it at all. Just because they like Larian and in their opinion they make prefect games and suggestions will ruin the next one somehow and those people are indeed...idiots.

Every game can be better no matter how good it is. SO yeah height advantage could be changed or other things could be changed to make it better. As long as they don't remove it and it stays useful.

Last edited by Lastman; 25/02/21 12:06 PM.
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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