(paraphrasing) I don't think a +1/+2 bonus is that strong, especially since it would replace Cover
Mainly the sharpshooter feat. Sharpshooter negates cover and now you have an extra bonus on top of no cover. I know SS is not in the game yet but GWM is and I suspect we haven't seen SS yet because Larian is well aware of how powerful it will be with advantage (it's already a very good feat to begin with). They will have to tweak SS if they want to implement it in BG3.
Also cover and height bonus, although may do the same thing, they affect the fight differently. If a foe wants to retain cover, they generally have to stay in their position or risk losing cover. That tactic won't work with height advantage. There's no turtling of mobs.
Sharpshooter will be both buffed and nerfed, right? It (along will all ranged attacks) will be easier to hit with. However, BG3 is not going to have both cover and height-bonuses, so the "your ranged weapons ignore half and 3/4 cover" aspect of Sharpshooter will be useless. I think this probably works out to a relatively small net buff.
I agree that cover and height bonus would affect the fights differently. But I don't think either case is better/worse than the other.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And this is something people unfamiliar with 5e fail to understand. They are only seeing the portion where the characters have not come to their own yet. At higher levels, the combat will be ridiculous, almost comedic if the current system remains. [...]
As mrfuji3, this is something I don't understand (without considering thé cover mechanic).
Can you please explain why combats would be rudiculous ?
I understand the concept of bounded accuracy but I don't get why a single +1/+2 bonus would break combats. As a vidéo game player, I see it as another reasonable tool to control our %to hit.
5e is balanced around having bounded accuracy, and all to-hit bonuses are small. In previous editions/Pathfinder, there were many many stacking bonuses. Deflection, dodge, natural, sacred, etc which mean that to-hit bonuses and ACs easily got into the 30s.
The worry, for 5e, is stacking bonuses. If Larian's BG3 allows a lot of stacking numerical bonuses, then it will unbalance the game. For example, Acid in BG3 reduces AC. If you combine an Acid'd enemy (-2 AC) with high ground (+2) with advantage (+~5), this adds up to a pretty big bonus.
My argument is that a single +1/+2 bonus isn't that powerful, especially if Cover is not implemented. But it is a slippery slope.
Currently, high ground and backstab grant advantage, and advantage doesn't stack. Thus, higher levels in BG3 will actually feel relatively weaker than PnP. All the powerful high-level skills/spells/etc that help grant Advantage will be useless.
I agree, and I don't really see the problem in your exemple.
- Acid (-2AC) mean you use an action and consider that the ennemy won't move. - Advantages, if proper D&D rules also mean an action or specific situations (invisibility, flanking, conditions,...) - Highground "free +1/+2" bonus.
Then yes, you can attack with a bonus to your attack roll. Which still doesn't mean you'll hit (RNG).
I can't see any problem here if we don't have nearly free (bonus action) acid potions everywhere. This looks like a cool tactic to improve your %to hit.
Finding ways to play with the %to hit in a tactical TB game is one of the most interresting things to do.
If you can't easily stack too much bonuses, I guess it could be interresting. But I'll also be fine if highground only gives a better range to ranged weapons. I'm not in the "missing is so boring" camp.