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.
Baldur's Gate 3 - Panel From Hell 3 Livestream
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
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.
They're still tuning the game, so I'm not worried. For ex. the rogue in BG3 is clearly overpowered. Perhaps it's better now if they got the cunning action right, which I'm not even sure.
Blaming them is a strong word, I'm sure they'll come up with something fine eventually. Perhaps if they stopped trying to please everyone, and if they stopped tinkering with a ruleset which was fine to start with, they would spend less time re-balancing the game and could do something more productive instead. We saw with D:OS2 that tinkering rules was not what they did best.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
You're going to make me quote the manual, aren't you? Do you play D&D 5E P&P? If not, I'm unsure why you keep arguing about this with someone who does.
The relevant passage in the manual, page 96:
"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra Id6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table."
That's how it works, as per the rules WOTC wrote. Period. You can't argue it. It's in the damn rulebook. And I didn't cherry pick. That's the whole section. Stealth rolls are not required by WOTC's rules.
In some cases sure, but why should you (in full view of others) now get to cast a spell when in dialogue, for example? That would be very suspicious, especially with some new person you'd never met, especially if they are hostile. At the very least, if it's dialogue related, then you should have to make some sort of skill roll to disguise it. I played in a campaign years back where magic was forbidden, and we had a special skill to 'disguise casting'. Something like that is at least plausible - of course, the same should really hold for any spell casting around hostile characters. I think this is just too powerful.
@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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2006
- Messages
- 3,486
There are various situations where you can get advantage in combat (spells etc), but as a result of positioning only (of charcters vs party members vs enemy) only the rogue gets advantage on attacks (+ extra damage as a result) - as far as I know, from the core rules. Flanking isn't part of the core, and requires very specific positoning. 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. At the very least the target should have a chance to notice you, and if it does you lose the benefit. In BG3 I was happily jumping over characters to then get advantage. Hopefylly new jump implementation fixes that somewhat, but I still think it's OTT (and made worse because enemies do it all the time, so you have to do the same otherwise you're hobbling yourelf).
Exactly so!
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
You don't have to be hidden in BG3 or D&D 5E, but you're right about D&D 5E not allowing you to get sneak attack damage if you're alone unless you have advantage. And I agree that you wouldn't be able to get advantage by just walking around behind somebody in full view of them.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
Is that the case? Any class can do this in BG3? I wasn't aware of that, and apologize to Redglyph if I misunderstood that part. I haven't played much BG3 yet pre-release, and I assumed it was just rogues who had that ability, as in the P&P rules.
The skipping around characters part is pure P&P rules, though. In D&D 5E, as long as you remain within 5 feet of an enemy you can move around them without incurring attacks of opportunity.
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?
That would indeed by OP and not accurate to the P&P rules. Seems weird and wrong to me, but I don't have the game installed to verify for myself.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
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.
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.
And the sneak attack was misunderstood by Larian as well, it could be used as cunning action and you could make as many as 3 sneak attacks every round. I think it's better now.
Here's an interesting video that says almost the same as I did about that, it's about BG3's deviations from D&D 5E, and the backstab is the 2nd feature. But maybe that, like me, this guy doesn't know D&D either
The video also mention the advantage one gets on higher ground, which has been improved.
Last edited:
Exactly.
My personal approach in these situations was to reload and cast the buff.
In BG3 I won't need to do this.
I'm not sure I understand, let me know if I'm wrong.
Normally one casts the spell or drink the potion before starting the conversation. For example, the player drinks Eagle Splendor to boost CHA before talking.
In a P&P game, you do that because you expect it to be necessary. But in a video game you don't know if you expect it, so you'd rather have the possibility to buff once you see it's necessary. That's what I understand from your discussion with others above.
The bit that is unclear is why you don't expect it in a video game while you do in a P&P game. If you start talking with an NPC, most of the time it's on purpose,
to progress in a quest or to get access to something. Usually someone else told you about that NPC. So you must suspect whether they may need persuading or not.
- Do you get more information before talking in your P&P game? If so, it's probably bad design in the video game. One should be able to inspect the NPC and get clues like "this one looks cunning, the conversation will surely be tricky".
- Or does the DM add persuasion rolls in the dialogue if you boosted CHA prior to it, in P&P? Which sounds a bit strange to me, but perhaps a case could be made for the game to do the same. It doesn't feel logical though, so I probably misunderstood that part.
EDIT: for the record, I'm not trying to defend BG3, or to say it's bad. I see the deviations, some are bothering me, but I know they're experimenting and will come up with something that is OK. The game has enough to offer to disregard those problems.
Last edited:
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.
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). And casting a concentration spell has a high resource cost in 5E - you have to drop another spell, potentially something quite important, especially if your dialogue triggers combat. I accept that. You can also encounter dialogues which you had no way of anticipating/planning for - so having 'precast' a spell sounds dubious to me. It also seems very unlikely you would keep your 1 precious concentration slot filled with 'guidance' - a cantrip - which last for only 60 seconds.
Yeah, I never claimed everyone got a rogues sneak attack damage (I was replying to an earlier post) - but everyone can get a Larian defined 'backstab' which means you roll with advantage. A huge, huge deal in 5E. Simply by edging around a character in your turn and sticking them in the kidneys. Or jumping over them - although that has been nerfed I think (yay!).
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.Anyway, I am glad Larian have dipped their toe into these troubled waters. Whatever they do with rules is going to piss off some 'camp'
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
Yeah, that needs to be fixed. I think allowing a rogue (or anyone for that matter) to hide during combat after the enemy has already seen you is ridiculous.
I like how stealth was done in the original games where light was also a factor. I don't think it's ever been done much better than that tbh.
The video I linked above shows examples of the backstab attack and how you can easily walk around a character. So the enemy really sees you walking to his back. That and the advantage are really nuts, they will surely have to address that at some point.
It probably comes from the backstab action in D:OS2.
And I remember using stealth like @booboo; describes, I could kill 7-8 goblins with one rogue.
That being said, shooting from stealth revealed the rogue's position in BG3, which is correct. You can remain hidden in Solasta, after a roll but that's still incorrect (though maybe at the limit of acceptable with the roll).
So they all have their quirks. Not a big deal as long as it doesn't break the balance. IMO it's fine in Solasta, but BG3 needs more work.
It probably comes from the backstab action in D:OS2.
And I remember using stealth like @booboo; describes, I could kill 7-8 goblins with one rogue.
That being said, shooting from stealth revealed the rogue's position in BG3, which is correct. You can remain hidden in Solasta, after a roll but that's still incorrect (though maybe at the limit of acceptable with the roll).
So they all have their quirks. Not a big deal as long as it doesn't break the balance. IMO it's fine in Solasta, but BG3 needs more work.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
It's not you as the player who needs to foresee it, it's the developer, who also need to code it.
Players of a P&P game can try to do literally anything. There's obviously a much smaller array of things they might be expected to do, or that woud make any kind of sense within the rules and the world, but even the most conservative number is going to be much, MUCH higher than what any game could possibly be expected to account for.
In a computer game, you DO NOT KNOW what the options for interaction will be until you're are already interacting. You've all played these games. You know that there is not a 1,000 point scrolling list of things you can do. Once you're in that interaction, you often cannot back out of it.
In a P&P game, as long as the action makes sense as something your character can do, the player has complete agency to decide what their character will do. And by saying what they're doing, the GM HAS to take into account and respond to what they're doing. A computer game can't do that. A player can say "I'm going to roll bluff on this guard and trick him into thinking I'm his relief." A player of a computer game can't do that. They have to wait UNTIL they're talking to the guard and see whether an option for bluffing comes up. Similarly, if the player wants to influence their chances of making that bluff roll, again in the first instance they 100% know they're going to be able to roll a bluff check. In the computer game, they do not, and so they don't know if there's going to be any point to buffing it until they are already in the middle of the interaction.
Last edited:
OK, that's interesting, I thought the DM would be more .. rigid about it, and would rather prepare the same surprises in the conversations so that you wouldn't necessarily know whether skills should be boosted or not. Unless you asked questions before the dialogue, to get some hints.
Of course the video game can't do what a human can do to entertain a game. But I still think that it's poor design if someone cannot guess the conversation may require speech abilities, charm, or anything else that could be prepared to increase the odds of success. Adding these band-aids as Larian did is taking the easy way and missing an opportunity.
Of course the video game can't do what a human can do to entertain a game. But I still think that it's poor design if someone cannot guess the conversation may require speech abilities, charm, or anything else that could be prepared to increase the odds of success. Adding these band-aids as Larian did is taking the easy way and missing an opportunity.