Meh a cheat trainer solved all my complaints about the dice. Anyway I didn't watch the videos doubt I ever will. Frankly I decided to ignore all news till it's released in 2022.
WotC has nothing to do with that, and I doubt that a DM would go along with several people backstabbing one another overtly, over and over, since it makes no sense, there are prerequisites to being granted advantage. It would be fine if backstabbing were a one-shot, in stealth mode. But to each their own I guess. I just feel it breaks the balance and the interest of the feature, and is not in the spirit of 5E at all.And I'm telling you that the way it works in D&D 5e is an even stronger advantage which can also be used in any circumstances. No stealth rolls required, no flanking required. Your issue is with WotC, not Larian. You want them to nerf it, fine. But don't blame their implementation for being OP. Ya know?
WotC has nothing to do with that, and I doubt that a DM would go along with several people backstabbing one another overtly, over and over, since it makes no sense, there are prerequisites to being granted advantage. It would be fine if backstabbing were a one-shot, in stealth mode. But to each their own I guess. I just feel it breaks the balance and the interest of the feature, and is not in the spirit of 5E at all.
No, they can't, but in a computer game you often have no way of knowing that a roll is about to occur. It's a necessary concession to the difference between how a P&P game is played and how a computer game is played.
The way that D&D 5e actually works is even easier to pull off. It you have "backstab" damage, all that needs to be true is that a friendly is adjacent to your target. You don't even have to flank them. Making it impossible to backstab by moving around behind somebody may appeal to your sense of realism, but it would absolutely not be closer to the tabletop rules.
@JFarrell71;, @Redglyph;
Regarding backstab, I guess the both of you are talking past each other. I think we all have played Solasta and know how it implemented the 5e rules rather faithfully. Anyway, this is probably the gist of the matter:
1. Backstab != Sneak Attack. D&D 5E has sneak attack. AD&D 2E had backstab. Backstab worked only from stealth and from behind the target. Sneak attack, as described above, works for all attacks in which you have advantage.
2. BG3 does have a backstab mechanic, however, on top of the normal 5E rules, by giving advantage simply for attacking from behind the target, even if you are alone and the target is not engaged with someone else. You don't even have to be hidden for it to work, just walk around the target.
At least that's my understanding. If so, it sounds very cheesy. Haven't played the EA myself, just read lots and lots of complaints about the homebrew rules, which I generally agree with. I'm guessing there's still too many mechanics left over from D:OS that can't or at least shouldn't be translated 1:1 to the 5E ruleset.
2. BG3 does have a backstab mechanic, however, on top of the normal 5E rules, by giving advantage simply for attacking from behind the target, even if you are alone and the target is not engaged with someone else. You don't even have to be hidden for it to work, just walk around the target.
I do not have a problem with rogues getting advantage - they are over-powered in this respect, but that has been "their thing" for years. Unless you mean something else? I'm talking about Larian's arbitrary assignment of advantage to any character simply by virtue of moving behind someone. And not allowing that character to react as you happily skip around them to set this up.
In some cases sure, but why should you (in full view of others) now get to cast a spell when in dialogue, for example?
Thanks, I almost asked @JFarrell71; if he meant sneak attack, vs the BG3's custom backstab. But since he seemed to get pissed I didn't insist. He quoted the sneak attack from the PH, which seems to confirm the confusion, perhaps he didn't play BG3 or perhaps BG3 has changed since I last played it, which was a while ago. When I played it, those were 2 different things as you said.1. Backstab != Sneak Attack. D&D 5E has sneak attack. AD&D 2E had backstab. Backstab worked only from stealth and from behind the target. Sneak attack, as described above, works for all attacks in which you have advantage.
2. BG3 does have a backstab mechanic, however, on top of the normal 5E rules, by giving advantage simply for attacking from behind the target, even if you are alone and the target is not engaged with someone else. You don't even have to be hidden for it to work, just walk around the target.
Exactly.Because in a P&P game you can anticipate rolls and force rolls. In a computer game, you cannot.
For example, say I'm about to talk to someone and I want to know if they're lying. So in a P&P game, before I approach them for that conversation, I cast a spell. Detect Truth or whatever it's called (there is such a spell, I'm just not looking up the exact name of it). When I then speak to them and they answer, the GM is going to be obligated to take my spell into account. Same principle applies if I want to persuade someone, and I cast something (Guidance, Luck, etc) to improve my roll to do so. I know beforehand that I'm going to use it, and by deciding to do so and telling the GM that's what I'm doing, I create a situation in which the modified persuade roll is allowed.
In a computer game, I don't know if the game is going to allow me to persuade someone until I get into that conversation and see or don't see that option. I don't know if the game is going to take my Detect Truth spell into account. A game cannot account for all possible contigencies; it presents you with a set of options that the developers foresaw, and you choose one.
It would be terrible game design to force the player to cast such spells preemptively just in case they're about to be useful and then waste them if they aren't.
So in order to capture the spirit of the P&P rules as in scenario #1 above, you do what Larian has done with the active roll system. Makes absolute sense to me.
Exactly.
My personal approach in these situations was to reload and cast the buff.
In BG3 I won't need to do this.
So, you folks are saying that in BG3 ANY class can:
get behind someone and thus gain advantage
get behind someone and thus gain extra damage
do so without needing to be flanking
and do so without needing someone to even be adjacent to the same enemy?
Because in a P&P game you can anticipate rolls and force rolls. In a computer game, you cannot.
For example, say I'm about to talk to someone and I want to know if they're lying. So in a P&P game, before I approach them for that conversation, I cast a spell. Detect Truth or whatever it's called (there is such a spell, I'm just not looking up the exact name of it). When I then speak to them and they answer, the GM is going to be obligated to take my spell into account. Same principle applies if I want to persuade someone, and I cast something (Guidance, Luck, etc) to improve my roll to do so. I know beforehand that I'm going to use it, and by deciding to do so and telling the GM that's what I'm doing, I create a situation in which the modified persuade roll is allowed.
In a computer game, I don't know if the game is going to allow me to persuade someone until I get into that conversation and see or don't see that option. I don't know if the game is going to take my Detect Truth spell into account. A game cannot account for all possible contigencies; it presents you with a set of options that the developers foresaw, and you choose one.
It would be terrible game design to force the player to cast such spells preemptively just in case they're about to be useful and then waste them if they aren't.
So in order to capture the spirit of the P&P rules as in scenario #1 above, you do what Larian has done with the active roll system. Makes absolute sense to me.
Eh? Is it really implemented that way? I didn't notice that in the EA, but I haven't played it since the earliest version.
There's a gameplay video with the new patch (on larian forums - some reviewer I think) that shows a rogue constantly having to hide (in plain sight - which is not allowed normally) to get 'sneak attack' on every turn. The bonus action hide is valid 5E, but the rules also say you can't hide if someone has line of sight (if you are invisble that is a given). And there are other ways for them to detect you (noise etc) that might mean you are not hidden (bullete's tremorsenseâ So that is BS. He popped up and down like a yo-yo.
Let's agree to disagree then - that is what I have done in games which allow you to buff CHA for example, for exactly this purpose (dialogues). If I can't anticpate some scenario, that is my lack of foresight (or bad luck).