Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 26 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 25 26
Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Magically shifting from the Ethereal Plane to the Material and vice versa is not teleporting. They are parallel dimensions. If a phase spider shifts into the Ethereal Plane, they still have to move up to you physically.

So, as a bonus, they disappear and move up to you. They could sit in the Ethereal for rounds. Then, as a bonus, BAM! They suddenly appear and attack.

THAT is a phase spider. Ninja assassins close range attackers.
And this would add so much more tactical depth to the game than Larian turning Phase Spiders into yet another enemy that jumps or teleports and has added ranged efficiency.

Larians obsession for ultra mobile combat on wide open vertical maps is killing the tactical depth of 5e. What we don't have is Ethereal predators who surprise you in melee range or more confined spaces for battlefields. But we have an endless horde of enemies who have been given teleport abilities and extra ranged and aoe surface attacks.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Robert, you are not understanding the difference between prepared and learned.

You do not prepare your cantrips; You choose which ones you learn at 1st level. You cannot CHANGE them; you just know them. At higher levels you will be able to learn more cantrips, up to 6 (in normal rules).

You prepare spells of 1st level or higher, and you can change them each LR (or in the game, at any time out of combat). You cannot, however, change your cantrips in this manner because they are not prepared.

In the game right now, you can scribe cantrips to learn new ones - this shouldn't be happening, but either way, if you do scribe a new one, again, it's just something you now know, without limitation. You don't have to choose between which cantrips you do or don't have access to on a particular day, because you always have access to every cantrip you know, every day, without preparing them.

I would encourage you to roll a wizard, as you say, and then get to a point where you can rest. Try to change your cantrips to four different ones that you had the option of picking on the character creation screen - you'll see that you cannot.

In more detail, to speak about BG3 specifically:

In character creation, you'll note that there are separate headings for cantrip, then spells, then, below that, prepared spells.

The first section lists the game's wizard cantrips for you - as you noted, there's 12 of them. You can pick 3 at character creation.

The second section presents all 1st level wizard spells - these are different from cantrips, which are functionally 'level 0' spells. You can pick 6 of these to learn at 1st level.

The third section asks you which of your spells you want to prepare. Cantrips are not presented here; you don't prepare them, you just know the ones you picked. This list presents you the 6 1st level spells you just selected above, asking you to choose which 4 of those you want prepared when you start the game.

Once you begin the game, you have the freedom to change your spells at any time when you're not in combat. You can open your spell book by pressing 'k' by default.

Here, you'll see your known spells, arrayed by level. Your 3 cantrips will be at the top, on a line of their own. You might have an additional one if you picked a race that gets a bonus cantrip. Notice how they are lit up, but do not have a selection line around them. This means they're available to use, but aren't counting against your prepared spells limit.

Below that, you'll have your first level spells. There will be 6 of them, and four of them, the four you selected in character creation, will be lit up, and will have white border around them; this means that they are available to cast and are counting against your prepared spells.

At the bottom of the spell book ,you'll see a blue bar that represents you prepared spells - it's showing you that you can prepare up to 4 spells, and that you currently have 4 prepared. If you click one of the spells with the white border, it will unpreapre that spell, letting you select a different one.

Given that I did misunderstand what I saw when I checked, then the cantrip scrolls would make even more sense for arcane casters. It would provide them with access to that cantrip, which is what I've been arguing all along. I didn't bring up scribing them. It wasn't something I was even considering. Scribing was referenced in regard to wizards scribing Divine scrolls, which shouldn't be a thing, and I believe I even said that. I believe I did everything I could, except use giant sized font of a different color to say that scribing has some issues.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Okay. Let me apologize. I think there was a major misunderstanding about this particular branch of the conversation. Right now you are really focusing on one tiny thing that I said. Meanwhile the overall point is being missed.

Yes, there should be only one use for a cantrip scroll. That use is to allow a mage who does not know that can trip to be able to cast it. That is the only use for such a scroll. The point I was trying to make, is that in the game right now characters who are not mages have yet another item that they can use to make mages obsolete and not needed.

In other words, if my fighter can simply pick up an item and even cast a can trip, then what good is a mage at all? My fighter cannot only take a lot of damage, deal a lot of melee and ranged damage, but he can also use scrolls to cast firebolt or frostbite or whatever the cantrip is. He can also use scrolls to make clerics null and void. So my fighter can cast revive cure wounds, guiding Bolt, etc.

So, again I say, why not just create a fighter, select a background that gives you sleight of hand and stealth, and then rely on potions, scrolls that heal, and so on and so forth? After all, now my fighter can do everything all by himself. He essentially has spell slots in the form of scrolls and potions and other magic items. So he doesn't need any other class at all.

That is my point.

Joined: Dec 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
GM4Him, please do not apologize. You had very valid points and folks cherry-picked sentences from it to attack you. Nothing new. Simply put, Larian should never have called this game Baldur's Gate 3...Call it "Forgotten Realms Adventures" or "Tadpole Mania" or anything else. Calling it BG3, for most people that played the originals, sets the bar in a place Larian doesn't seem willing to go to. Keep posting your good points, and I hope Larian pays attention.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Niara
You do not prepare your cantrips; You choose which ones you learn at 1st level. You cannot CHANGE them; you just know them. At higher levels you will be able to learn more cantrips, up to 6 (in normal rules).

You prepare spells of 1st level or higher, and you can change them each LR (or in the game, at any time out of combat). You cannot, however, change your cantrips in this manner because they are not prepared.
Im sorry if i understand the rule incorectly ... but i have to disagree here:

Source: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/wizard
Quote
Cantrip Formulas (Optional)
At 3rd level, you have scribed a set of arcane formulas in your spellbook that you can use to formulate a cantrip in your mind. Whenever you finish a long rest and consult those formulas in your spellbook, you can replace one wizard cantrip you know with another cantrip from the wizard spell list.

I really hope this will be implemented for Wizard in full release, since it gives them yet another versatility compared to other casters. O_o

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 04/12/21 08:21 AM.

If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Okay. Let me apologize. I think there was a major misunderstanding about this particular branch of the conversation. Right now you are really focusing on one tiny thing that I said. Meanwhile the overall point is being missed.

Yes, there should be only one use for a cantrip scroll. That use is to allow a mage who does not know that can trip to be able to cast it. That is the only use for such a scroll. The point I was trying to make, is that in the game right now characters who are not mages have yet another item that they can use to make mages obsolete and not needed.

In other words, if my fighter can simply pick up an item and even cast a can trip, then what good is a mage at all? My fighter cannot only take a lot of damage, deal a lot of melee and ranged damage, but he can also use scrolls to cast firebolt or frostbite or whatever the cantrip is. He can also use scrolls to make clerics null and void. So my fighter can cast revive cure wounds, guiding Bolt, etc.

So, again I say, why not just create a fighter, select a background that gives you sleight of hand and stealth, and then rely on potions, scrolls that heal, and so on and so forth? After all, now my fighter can do everything all by himself. He essentially has spell slots in the form of scrolls and potions and other magic items. So he doesn't need any other class at all.

That is my point.

For one "tiny thing", you do seem to want to put a lot of emphasis on it, which is why I focused on it. In your rush to defend yourself, you've overlooked the fact that in so far as spell casting/scrolls go, we've been largely in agreement. Other parts of the post I initially quoted were addressed in earlier posts, but this theme keeps coming back, so yes, I did focus on it, because despite largely agreeing with what's been said, I'm being told that I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then so are the people I'm agreeing with, right?

In your fighter scenario, for example, I brought up UMD, which someone pointed out was a rogue thing in 5e. I thought that was dumb, since if it's going to be focused on one class, it should be bard. I didn't see any reason to elaborate on that further, and went on to respond to your "cantrip scrolls serve no purpose other than (insert your fighter scenario here)". My response to that was countered with "no one needs to scribe cantrips", which I never said. Now even you are agreeing that yes, there is a valid use for them. It would seem that I was correct in my assertion, which was simply a response to "there's no other use for them" that you postulated.

So yes, in the absence of UMD, or a background that allows casting of arcane spells/use of arcane scrolls, spell casting, from scrolls or otherwise, should be limited to casters that can actually cast the spells.

I've already said that wizards shouldn't be able to scribe Divine spells

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Who's defending? I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from. You seem upset. Don't mean to frustrate you.

I think you're zeroing in on one little thing and missing the big picture.

BG3 = Items rule. Classes drool. Lol. Sign of old age, using such an old phrase.

Bottom line is that the way the game is built currently, SO many class features are messed up, making classes not special at all. The only thing you need is items.

So right now, best build in the game is fighter with background that allows stealth and sleight of hand, and buy scrolls and potions so he/she can cast spells too. You don't need anyone else.

Last edited by GM4Him; 04/12/21 02:00 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Except that, so far, my favorite romp has been on a rogue, that didn't do any of that? Again, I've already stated that some of this needs to be looked at, but again, you're rehashing the same argument, failing to realize that I'm not disagreeing, at least, not with this. I don't have to be upset to point out fallacies in your arguments, especially when you're arguing that I'm missing your point, when clearly, it's you that's missing mine.

So, I'm going to be crystal clear here, because it seems like anything else is wasted time:

1. Given the absence of a skill that allows a character to use a magical item, they should not be able to use it.

2. If you're truly looking for more 5e, then a fighter being able to take a background that allows stealth and sleight of hand shouldn't be something you're arguing about, backgrounds are about as 5e as you can get.

3. Arcane casters should not be able to cast/scribe Divine scrolls.

4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll. Note: Nowhere did I say anything about being able to scribe it, that fallacy came from elsewhere.

Which of your points am I missing, that cantrip scrolls serve no purpose? We've already gotten past that, I thought. Now, what is it you're arguing about?

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
What points are you missing?

1. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm done arguing over this stuff. I'm just presenting why I think having more RAW 5e would make the game better. To be clear, doesn't have to be absolute RAW 5e. Start with RAW 5e, and make a few modifications as necessary, like cover = +2 to AC and keep high ground as +2 AC/attack, etc. Minor homebrew is fine.

2. The suggestion has to do with too much Homebrew that destroys classes and makes items more important. If you agree. Great. If you don't, great. I'm not there to argue it with anyone.

3. So I'd like them to make rules optional. Set everything to RAW 5e including monster stats etc. With the exception of homebrewed bosses, etc. But keep the homebrew monsters to a minimum, not every monster in the game. Then, make it so players can choose what rules they want to bend/break.

Example: Drink Potion = Action as default. BA as option. This would be an option for the player to set.
Another example: Shove = Action as default. BA as option.
Another example: Items don't have special abilities. Option = items do provide special abilities like lacerate and cleave.

Then make it so you can set your favorite defaults for all play sessions. Maybe you always want Shove = Bonus. Set as default. Never have to tweak it again.

Last edited by GM4Him; 04/12/21 04:06 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
I think you're the only one seeing an argument, Robert. I'm definitely not intending to argue - just clarify opinions and support with information. No ill-will is intended here.

The way you wrote and worded something about led me to interpret something you were trying to say incorrectly, and that's fine; you clarified and we're clear on that score now and I didn't see any further need to interject. As long as what you're saying is that the literal only use for cantrip scrolls is or should be a character for whom the cantrip is on their spell list casting it (and destroying the scroll in the process), then we're on the same page.

Here's anther quick piece of clarification:

Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.

Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.
Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.
I dont think he was talking about "spell slots" just "slots" in general ...

Like if you pick Friends, Chill Touch and Dancing Lights ...
Bcs you know that you will find Fire Bolt in first Imp corpse you will loot ... so you will be able to learn it (or simply use it if you will really need to set something ablaze ... and / or you refuse to use the option Larian giving you by allowing to learn every and any cantrip spell you find on scroll). laugh

You are basicaly "saving the cantrip slot" for later level (4 if im not misstaken?), when you will be able to select another cantrip.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 04/12/21 11:49 PM.

If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
I think you're the only one seeing an argument, Robert. I'm definitely not intending to argue - just clarify opinions and support with information. No ill-will is intended here.

The way you wrote and worded something about led me to interpret something you were trying to say incorrectly, and that's fine; you clarified and we're clear on that score now and I didn't see any further need to interject. As long as what you're saying is that the literal only use for cantrip scrolls is or should be a character for whom the cantrip is on their spell list casting it (and destroying the scroll in the process), then we're on the same page.

Here's anther quick piece of clarification:

Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.

Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.

When you're debating, each position you state is an argument. There's no negative connotation implied or intended. My use of slot in this context was trying to oversimplify what I was trying to say, because just saying it was evidently confusing. So, I did choose my words poorly for that. Even that isn't getting the point across, however. As we can see from the post immediately following my last post. I once again pointed out that a class that doesn't have access to using a specific item should not be using it, and yet, we are being dragged back to that "ultimate fighter build". Even after clearly stating that it shouldn't work, it's being used as a cudgel. It's not the first time, or the first topic, where this has come up.

It's starting to seem like it's the only valid point in the position, and so it has to be hammered on repeatedly to beat others into submission, including those that agree that it shouldn't work that way. Now, I did use some caveats, such as in the absence of a skill, or a background that enables it, but on it's face, I agreed, and yet, here we are. With backgrounds, of which I'm not sure there are any that would enable that "ultimate fighter build", that's about as 5e as one can get. Given that UMD is rogue-centric in 5e, I still think it should be bards, but meh, it would make a skill highly unlikely as well. I'd be willing to bet that a fighter that "splashes" rogue for Arcane Trickster would short circuit GM completely. Assuming, of course, that that's even possible in 5e.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Yeah, as I said, I'm not arguing or debating - just adding or clarifying factual information.

No need to be verbose; just clear. For example, if what you're saying is that the only use of cantrip scrolls is (in 5e) or should be (in BG3) for use by casters for whom the spell is in their list but not known by them, then it would have been very simple and clear to just say "Yes, that's what I meant." when the statement was put forward. Simple and clear.

GM4Him has stated her thoughts and opinions on a number of topics, and you've stated yours on a number, several (though not all) of which overlap. It also seems like, of the points you're overlapping your opinions one, you both agree on a large percentage of them, though again, not all. It seems clear enough that you both view certain key things in fairly different lights, so stating your differing opinions and acknowledging each other is probably as far as you're ever likely to get ^.^

Quote
I'd be willing to bet that a fighter that "splashes" rogue for Arcane Trickster would short circuit GM completely. Assuming, of course, that that's even possible in 5e.

I doubt it ^.^ Since that's an investment they have to actually make, after all; they're giving up their fighter progression to take rogue levels instead, and gaining that value, and it's fair - GM4Him's main gripe on this particular score is largely about the dilution of class individuality and blandifying of all classes by way of creating a more extreme power imbalance accessible to any and every character, regardless of their actual investment. Namely, BG3's excessive item utility and access drowning out class features.

It might interest you to know, as an information aside, UMD is not only Rogue restricted, but it's a perk specifically of Thief-rogues (not Arcane-trickster, in fact, surprising as that may seem) in particualr, which is one of their subclasses, and is not accessible to any other subclass of rogue. The perk itself only comes in at 13th level, as well, so it's a powerful boon that really identifies thief rogues specifically, now, rather than being the "everyone needs ranks in this always" skill that it used to be in 3.5.

==

Personally, I like it being tightly restricted, but I don't disagree that it's something that feels like it should go to bard a little more than it does rogue. I'd like at least one bard subclass to get it as well, or a version of it.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I cited Arcane Trickster because they get Arcane spells, and thus would be able to cast them off of scrolls. I am unsure of whether or not they could scribe Arcane scrolls, I haven't played one. It was also intended to inject a bit of humor into this, because it seems there's some tension building, even if it's not my own.

I also believe that, initially, UMD was a bard thing. I've slept many times since that came out, so can't be sure. Then there's DDO, where there's a faction of players that believe that every class should have enough UMD, regardless of what they have to sacrifice to get it, to use Raise Dead scrolls. I found that totally ironic, since they also preach "you must be self-sufficient". I can't imagine a scenario where one would be casting Raise Dead on themselves... I never subscribed to that philosophy, and in the TT sessions I played, it wasn't expected.

I also took issue with the "the only build you need" premise. Now, maybe it's just force of habit, since some classes can't use some scrolls elsewhere, but I always pass scrolls to the appropriate classes. Divine scrolls to Shadowheart, Arcane scrolls to the Arcane casters, etc. I did a ranger run, and kept the appropriate scrolls on the ranger, but otherwise I pass them to the classes that they're historically appropriate to. So, I've never run into this "the only build you need". I strongly suspect that there are other players that do exactly the same thing, and some of them may even be aware that they could do otherwise. While I have agreed that it needs to be addressed, it's also something that can be completely ignored by players that aren't interested in exploiting it. I have, even if it's "accidentally", since using it never occurred to me.

It's sort of like the LR abuse, I've missed more content because I don't abuse it than I'd care to admit. To the point where I've even suggested doing what's done in swtor when comps want to talk and putting an icon on their portrait to indicate that. There could even be a variety of icons, for "go to camp, but don't need to rest" and "need a LR to trigger", like Astarion's first camp interaction. That way, players like myself, that aren't actively abusing an exploit in the system don't miss out on anything that could be important later. They can add different rules for different difficulties, right down to hardcore rules once the game releases, or nears release.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Part of the problem is that I can exploit the homebrew rules, and more importantly, the monsters DO exploit them. So I might limit myself to as many 5e rules as I can, but the monsters and NPCs will not.

Also, I am a DM. However, even I can't remember who can cast what spell every time. So, in order to even play true to 5e, I have to constantly look things up myself and restrict myself if I want to play true to 5e... Which I do try to do. But sometimes I just say, ah forget it. Because I don't feel like looking it up, I just guess. That's frustrating and annoying.

But regardless, the game doesn't include certain class features and abilities like expertise for rogues which SERIOUSLY diminishes their class. And then there are other homebrew that make class abilities null and void. Those are the ones I have bigger issues with. Stealth and Drink Potion as Bonus makes Rogue Cunning Action and Fast Hands less valuable. I cannot change this or fix this. I just have to accept that the homebrew completely strips the Rogue of their uniqueness.

And Haste being 3 rounds makes Haste potions worthless to me. Instead of using them for boss fights, expecting them to last most of the fight, now I'd better only use them for baby monsters or maybe as a final boost against the bosses when they're almost dead anyway.

All the homebrew throws all previous strats I might know out the window. That is not cool. I know strats for fighting phase spiders, for example, but I got utterly destroyed in BG3 (originally) by them because now they can teleport everywhere. Without Ready Action, the normal strat of wait for them to pop up at melee and get a readied attack is out the window. Same with Readied spells. And I was NOT expecting them to pulverize me from a distance. So many things I'm familiar with tossed in the trash because they changed so much. I go from DM to noob player who doesn't know the game at all, and it's all because they homebrewed SO much.

That said, I still enjoyed the game. I just had to REALLY adjust my way of thinking. Instead of playing with D&D strats and such, I had to learn a WHOLE new game. And at the end of the day, I think the whole new game is too heavily based on items and not based enough on classes and your characters working as more of a team.

When I say, "the only build you need" I mean that with items being so easily acquired, and anyone can use any of them, I can literally create a superior character build as a Fighter. With Fighter, I can use all weapons, all armor, all scrolls and potions, so all spells, including healing and resurrection, I can throw potions, replacing my need of a cleric altogether, talk to animals and undead, and if I pick the background that gives me sleight of hand and stealth, I can do everything just as good as any rogue can too including stealth as Bonus Action and picking locks just as well because Rogues have no expertise. That was my point.

Last edited by GM4Him; 05/12/21 06:01 PM.
Joined: Aug 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by GM4Him
When I say, "the only build you need" I mean that with items being so easily acquired, and anyone can use any of them, I can literally create a superior character build as a Fighter. With Fighter, I can use all weapons, all armor, all scrolls and potions, so all spells, including healing and resurrection, I can throw potions, replacing my need of a cleric altogether, talk to animals and undead, and if I pick the background that gives me sleight of hand and stealth, I can do everything just as good as any rogue can too including stealth as Bonus Action and picking locks just as well because Rogues have no expertise. That was my point.

That’s interesting. I wonder if anyone’s tried an “Oops all fighters” party composition. Is there enough money in the game to meaningfuly load up 4 characters with potions, spells and effective equipment?


Larian, please make accessibility a priority for upcoming patches.
Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I've never tried it, but when I created my Fighter, that's when I realized it's broken. Fighter playthrough, I can do it all. Game is on easy as a Fighter, so I imagine if you created 4 fighters...

Joined: Nov 2021
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Nov 2021
As I continue to test early access I've noticed the lack of specialization as well. A good general strategy, in my experience, has been to just support the fighter. The fact that all enemies seem to be capable of shooting and throwing bottles farther than my party can makes me default to finding a choke point (or a room) in the map and putting Lae'zel at the entrance.

The fight with Auntie Ethel is one where the situation greatly benefits from having a magic wielder that can cast Silence. However, with the existence of silence scrolls, any character can cast silence. I feel like the other characters are there so I have more actions during combat and not because they are uniquely equipped to deal with certain enemies in the most optimal way.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Part of the problem is that I can exploit the homebrew rules, and more importantly, the monsters DO exploit them. So I might limit myself to as many 5e rules as I can, but the monsters and NPCs will not.

Also, I am a DM. However, even I can't remember who can cast what spell every time. So, in order to even play true to 5e, I have to constantly look things up myself and restrict myself if I want to play true to 5e... Which I do try to do. But sometimes I just say, ah forget it. Because I don't feel like looking it up, I just guess. That's frustrating and annoying.

So, you don't know who has the ability to cast Divine scrolls, and who can cast Arcane scrolls? Is this what you're saying here? With no context, this is what it appears to be from here.

Quote
But regardless, the game doesn't include certain class features and abilities like expertise for rogues which SERIOUSLY diminishes their class. And then there are other homebrew that make class abilities null and void. Those are the ones I have bigger issues with. Stealth and Drink Potion as Bonus makes Rogue Cunning Action and Fast Hands less valuable. I cannot change this or fix this. I just have to accept that the homebrew completely strips the Rogue of their uniqueness.

And Haste being 3 rounds makes Haste potions worthless to me. Instead of using them for boss fights, expecting them to last most of the fight, now I'd better only use them for baby monsters or maybe as a final boost against the bosses when they're almost dead anyway.

All the homebrew throws all previous strats I might know out the window. That is not cool. I know strats for fighting phase spiders, for example, but I got utterly destroyed in BG3 (originally) by them because now they can teleport everywhere. Without Ready Action, the normal strat of wait for them to pop up at melee and get a readied attack is out the window. Same with Readied spells. And I was NOT expecting them to pulverize me from a distance. So many things I'm familiar with tossed in the trash because they changed so much. I go from DM to noob player who doesn't know the game at all, and it's all because they homebrewed SO much.

That said, I still enjoyed the game. I just had to REALLY adjust my way of thinking. Instead of playing with D&D strats and such, I had to learn a WHOLE new game. And at the end of the day, I think the whole new game is too heavily based on items and not based enough on classes and your characters working as more of a team.

When I say, "the only build you need" I mean that with items being so easily acquired, and anyone can use any of them, I can literally create a superior character build as a Fighter. With Fighter, I can use all weapons, all armor, all scrolls and potions, so all spells, including healing and resurrection, I can throw potions, replacing my need of a cleric altogether, talk to animals and undead, and if I pick the background that gives me sleight of hand and stealth, I can do everything just as good as any rogue can too including stealth as Bonus Action and picking locks just as well because Rogues have no expertise. That was my point.

So, do backgrounds need to be removed now as well? After all, everyone can choose a background that grants thief abilities, and thus they'll homogenize all the classes. After the scroll thing is fixed, all one would need to do to replace your "the only build you need" is roll a bard instead of a fighter, right?

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Part of the problem is that I can exploit the homebrew rules, and more importantly, the monsters DO exploit them. So I might limit myself to as many 5e rules as I can, but the monsters and NPCs will not.

Also, I am a DM. However, even I can't remember who can cast what spell every time. So, in order to even play true to 5e, I have to constantly look things up myself and restrict myself if I want to play true to 5e... Which I do try to do. But sometimes I just say, ah forget it. Because I don't feel like looking it up, I just guess. That's frustrating and annoying.

So, you don't know who has the ability to cast Divine scrolls, and who can cast Arcane scrolls? Is this what you're saying here? With no context, this is what it appears to be from here.
5e spells are more specialized than just "Arcane" and "Divine." Some spells are available to wizards but not sorcerers; some spells are available to clerics but not paladins, etc.

There is ~some logic to who gets what spell, but remembering the class restrictions for every single spell sounds ~impossible.

Page 13 of 26 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 25 26

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