Dipping : grease would be better... but it would also be better if the whole weapon was not on fire (including your hands, your clothes and so on...)
Grease is an AOE spell. You cant target it on just a weapon. IIRc some weapon oils excist in the game though that give you temporary buff so I cant see why you could grease up your weapon and set it alight for an ingame hour or so.
It's mechanically implsausible, it would weaken the metal that the sword is made of and certainly not do great things for your edge, and do you really want brightly burning fire on a blade that isn't that far from your eyes? You're probably only making it harder for yourself to see what's going on. Further, if the blade is aflame than aren't you cauterizing the wounds you're making? Why would you even want to do that?
Shove : is an action in DnD, not in BG3. And you don't shove so easily and so far in DnD.
PHHB page 195. You can knock an opponent prone or 5 feet away from you. There are feats in the game that allow you to push in other ways but yeah, feats. Dont know how far you can push people in BG3 though but the last time I did it someone only moved a very tiny bit. Granted when EA came out you could toss people off roofs very easily but that hasent been like that for a while now AFAIK.
What he meant is that shove is an action, not a bonus action. And that's what PHP says too.
As for distance, try shoving someone off a ledge from up high. I've seen the Giths take some amazing flights because they seem to keep whatever horizontal movement speed they had when coming off the ledge all the way down and then do a skidmark landing. One of the smugglers went from around the barrel in the back end of their cave to all the way out near the side at the vertical bottom. And survived it too. Mr Hobgobbo did his special attack on Shadow up on the rafters right next to the ladder and she ended up at the far end of the room.
Throw : is not a specific action in DnD. Not sure you tried it but what you can do in BG3 is ridiculous (at least, was... I did not try in patch 5)
Throwing something counts as a ranged attack. Also PHB page 195. Dont know what you think is so ridiculous about it though? I havent been throwing stuff around myself, have I been missing out or something?
You don't seem to be able to miss with throw potions and some of the surface effect from some of them is a bit much.
Crates : wierd things in BG1/2 certainly... but not crates and barrels. Ofc a bag full of armor is not really "realistic"... a bag full of crates and barrels is even less.
Consider I have infact, had barrels and crates in my iventory this point is kinda moot.... Yesterday I was carrying 3 bodies around in 1 person in his 'inventory' so id say BG1 and BG2 still have BG3 beat on this one. Specially when you consider the amount of metric tonnes that you can fit inside a bag of holding..... Ive dropped entire armories in there lol. BG3 has got nothing on that!
Those bags of holding contain a pocket dimension so anything in them isn't really in them. The bag just contains the gate to said dimension, not the actual stuff inside the pocket dimension. And I'm not sure when you get a chance to carry 3 bodies unless you're doing things in a weird order. There's that sick guy you need to give to the harpers, there's the bones of that priestess from the shade temple, and are there more than that?
Obviously the bulk of how much one can carry can feel over the top, but you only have so many slots and the weight limits were standard D&D, as I recall. In BG3 you have infinite slots. And barrels are probably still a bit underweighted. Come to think of it, however, I do not recall quests in BG1 and 2 that involved hauling crates and barrels around.
Climbing : Climbing a ladder in the FR has the same prerequisites as in our world : hands and fingers.
No infact, it does not. There are no rules for that. Climbing up 1 feet requires 2 feet of movement, unless you have a climbing speed in which case you use that. PHB page 182. Show me where it says you need hands for that.
Climbing a ladder specifically. Not just climbing. Obviously there's a difference between climging regular terrain and climbing up something that is very hard to use without fingers. You would also not expect bears and goats and whatnot to climb up ropes or vines.
Map design : the story sometimes feels inconsistent - the most common exemple being the goblins not finding the grove. The exploration is also very limited even if some things are great (lots of secret). The world is not coherent (a "forest" with 6 trees, a "swamp" that is not bigger than my garden, hostiles harpies living right next to the druid grove,...)
With a squashed map thats bound the happen. Not to say that the same dident happen in BG1 or BG2 btw. You often run into people who have a problem thats like 10 feet away from them. Or have to solve 'riddles' that are incredibly easy to solve. Like the murders in the bridge district in bg2. Seriously if you are even half competent you will snooze your way through that quest but the city guard cant? If we start looking for realisme in these games we will find most of them lacking in alot of areas...
Please don't even begin to claim that De'Arnise Keep and Trademeet are located right next to each other, with Umar Hills squeezed into a corner.
With this point I often see other people bring in Fallout new vegas as a simular comparison. And my counter argument is: would you want to slog to the real life sized mojave as the map rather then the ingame one? Dont know about you but I dont got in real life days to waste walking from location to location without running into something. These gameworlds ARE compressed, but thats because they need to be. Noone would find any enjoyment out of a real life sized map either. Then wed complain that wed have to travel for hours before finding things. They have to find a middle ground between the 2, and thats what we got at the moment.
What we've got at the moment is the most ridiculously compressed map that Larian could manage to create. It isn't a happy medium, it's an extreme that laughs at any notion of immersion. Here's a forest with a dozen trees!! Here is a druid grove right next to this colony of sirens! Here's an actual swamp that manages to be swampy despite clearly being in the same climate as the previously mentioned forest that isn't swampy at all.
And of course it becomes ridiculous when you get to the grove fight and the mercs are all out of breath from having run the what, 150 meters or so from the village? "What, you led them HERE??!", the tiefling dude asks. Well, couldn't really lead them anywhere else given the layout, could they?
Cheesy combats mechanics : things that create a good way of playing and a bad way of playing, leading to repetitive tactical combats. Highground, hiding to ambush,OP shove, OP diping, OP throw,... You can play without it but it's really balanced arround some of these things (especially highground and hide/ambush all the time)
Having the high ground is a very advantageous thing though. Wars have been won in our history because 1 side got the high ground and used it to their advantage. That said, I agree its abit much atm. Maybe just giving a flat bonus (or your opponent a penalty because the high ground gives you cover) would be enough. Flat out giving advantage is way OP. Hiding to ambush. Im a DM for a pnp group. My players ALWAYS try to get an ambush. Because a round of suprise combat is outright DEVASTATING. The inventive things they try to get it are quite hilarious and if theyre smart about it il reward them with suprise. But holy shit does it make the encounters significantly easier for them... If youre doing the same thing then grats: youre using tactics.
If you're DM then I'm guessing you're not just throwing blind kobols with tinitus after your group of players, though. And one would expect to have to do different things to ambush different enemies. And if the enemies are intelligent, you wouldn't expect them to literally be at their wit's end because you're playing honest to god peek-a-boo with your stealth-capable character.
