Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Varnaan]

Wait till the spider walks onto the web so you can target it at range. Attack from stealth -> Surprise round. With a party consisting of 1x mage, 1x hunter, 1x cleric, 1x warlock. Round 1:

• Mage uses upcasted magic missiles with the amulet, average damage of 28.
• Warlock uses Hex+Eldritch Blast, average damage of ~13 after taking into account hit chance.
• Hunter uses Hunter's Mark+attack, average damage of ~15.
• Cleric uses Guided Bolt, average damage of ~14.

During the surprise round you have dealt ~70 damage to the spider boss. If 1 person, lets say the warlock, had targeted the web instead, they would do 48 damage instead of 13 damage, taking the total up to 105. Either way, provided nobody dies, the spider dies in 2 rounds. Environmental gimmicks not required.

Thanks for making me realize that I'm a retard for having a Fighter/Cleric/Warlock/Thief main party.

 

[Cryomancer]

Now I found a gargantuous sized red dragon with 256 hp. His level? 4...

 

[Murk]

You should have seen all those dead level 1 mindflayers with 70+ HP in the nautiloid.

 

[NJClaw]

Now I found a gargantuous sized red dragon with 256 hp. His level? 4...

That "level" means nothing. Monsters don't have "levels" in 5E.

 

[Varnaan]

Now I found a gargantuous sized red dragon with 256 hp. His level? 4...

Maybe they got the size flipped or something but in 5E monsters don't have levels they have a CR.

Adult Red Dragon
Huge dragon, chaotic evil

• Hit Points:256 (19d12+133)
• Armor Class:19 (Natural Armor)
• Speed:40 ft., climb 40 ft., fly 80 ft.
• Challenge Rating:17 (18,000 XP)

Ancient Red Dragon
Gargantuan dragon, chaotic evil

• Hit Points:546 (28d20+252)
• Armor Class:22 (Natural Armor)
• Speed:40 ft., climb 40 ft., fly 80 ft.
• Challenge Rating:24 (62,000 XP)

 

[Poseidon00]

HPs are an abstraction, they mean nothing on their own. 80, 130, 2.500 are just meaningless numbers. You can't directly compare them to "how many crossbow bolts you need to deplete them", because depleting HPs doesn't necessarily imply actually wounding your enemy:

What a crock of shit. So all the crossbow bolts, hit or miss, are all missing, but some of those bolts are "sapping their will to live".

So what, you shoot enough missed bolts and they commit suicide?

That "level" means nothing. Monsters don't have "levels" in 5E.

And you defend this shit.

 

[Immortal]

Wait till the spider walks onto the web so you can target it at range. Attack from stealth -> Surprise round. With a party consisting of 1x mage, 1x hunter, 1x cleric, 1x warlock. Round 1:

• Mage uses upcasted magic missiles with the amulet, average damage of 28.
• Warlock uses Hex+Eldritch Blast, average damage of ~13 after taking into account hit chance.
• Hunter uses Hunter's Mark+attack, average damage of ~15.
• Cleric uses Guided Bolt, average damage of ~14.

During the surprise round you have dealt ~70 damage to the spider boss. If 1 person, lets say the warlock, had targeted the web instead, they would do 48 damage instead of 13 damage, taking the total up to 105. Either way, provided nobody dies, the spider dies in 2 rounds. Environmental gimmicks not required.

Thanks for making me realize that I'm a retard for having a Fighter/Cleric/Warlock/Thief main party.

We sure have come a long way from dumping fireballs into fog of war to cheese encounters.
Good to see what 20 years of "game design" has brought us.

 

[NJClaw]

What a crock of shit. So all the crossbow bolts, hit or miss, are all missing, but some of those bolts are "sapping their will to live".

So what, you shoot enough missed bolts and they commit suicide?

I don't know man, I'm just quoting stuff from the manual. I'm innocent.

They aren't necessarily "sapping their will to live", they just aren't always wounding them. Their effect has to be determined on a case by case basis: if the enemy has a shield, maybe those bolts are getting blocked, lowering his stamina and morale; if the enemy is agile, maybe they are just scratching his shoulder; if the enemy has psionic powers, maybe he is deflecting them at the last moment.

And don't act like this shit got introduced by 5E. This is taken directly from the AD&D PHB:

These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and / or magical factors. {snip} Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

This isn't how 2E initiative works at all RAW fyi

It's my understanding that everyone declares actions first and then initiative is rolled to determine whose actions go first.

Each side rolls their initiative, it's not individual. There is no "turn-based" using standard initiative rules as would be understood in modern D&D.

Edit: Another demonstration. Casting a fireball:
In turn-based: You choose an area, and it's going to hit everyone in that area.
In phase-based: You choose an area, and if you win the initiative roll, you hit who's in that area. If you lose, you hit no one or some of them.
In real time with pause: lol those people are going to move out of the way long before your wizard stops ineffectively waving his/her hands around unless the one casting it is a cheating AI with a homing fireball

Casting time was an optional rule in 2E, btw.

The RTwP "cheating AI with a homing fireball" example is entirely within how spells are allowed to be targeted by the rules. Again, IE's fault. A "homing fireball" is not cheating at all RAW, a person was a valid target for a spell. From the PHB:

If the spell is targeted on a person, place, or thing, the caster must be able to see the target. It is not enough to cast a fireball 150 feet ahead into the darkness; the caster must be able to see the point of explosion and the intervening distance

It would be kind of silly if it didn't cast it at the target you wanted when you stop thinking in terms of strict rules. Why would you cast a spell towards the place where someone was? AD&D was not that gamey or rules heavy.

Spoiler

And there's an entirely valid argument that spells are targeted at their conclusion rather than at their declaration depending on how you want to read the rules and their intentions. This is indeed how it was done in 1E, after all. Hell, the guy who wrote the 2E initiative rules basically said they're nothing more than guidelines to help the narrative.

BTW, it helps to remember that combat in AD&D was not necessarily played on a grid and the core rules(along with all examples) did not assume you used a grid for combat.

 

[Sharpedge]

In my opinion, there are a number of reasons why they increased monster HP.
1. If you have any semblance of a brain in your head and they used the default values, combat would be trivially difficult.
2. They wanted to implement their surface system. If they implement surfaces with default HP values, most enemies will die just from walking through a surface (this is a significant buff to casters).
3. There are unfortunately, a large number of players who "do not like missing" and so by increasing HP and lowering AC, you can simulate a monster with the same effective HP, but with much less missing.

 

[Gargaune]

HPs are an abstraction, they mean nothing on their own. 80, 130, 2.500 are just meaningless numbers. You can't directly compare them to "how many crossbow bolts you need to deplete them", because depleting HPs doesn't necessarily imply actually wounding your enemy:

What a crock of shit. So all the crossbow bolts, hit or miss, are all missing, but some of those bolts are "sapping their will to live".

So what, you shoot enough missed bolts and they commit suicide?

I actually agree with him on the core concept, HP stands for Hit Points, not Health Points, even though we usually treat them as such. As an abstraction, HP represents the character's ability to take punishment, not the structural integrity of their organs. DMs will often narrate grievous injuries on enemy NPCs for the sake of providing players with feedback, but those flavour descriptions are largely incongruent with the system - your HP has no bearing on a character's ability to fight, whereas a Bugbear with a gaping gash in his gut would surely be in no condition to swing a sword. It's as much an abstraction as the attack and damage combo.

To apply this to your crossbow example, a "hit" need not necessarily translate to the bolt sticking six inches into a character's flesh. It could just poke a centimetre through the breastplate, or even fail to penetrate and crack a rib or just hurt like living hell from blunt force trauma. Yes, it's true that crossbow damage always counts as Piercing, but you can't go too far down the rabbit hole of simulationism, else you end up with Pillars of MySQL again.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What a crock of shit. So all the crossbow bolts, hit or miss, are all missing, but some of those bolts are "sapping their will to live".

So what, you shoot enough missed bolts and they commit suicide?

I don't know man, I'm just quoting stuff from the manual. I'm innocent.

They aren't necessarily "sapping their will to live", they just aren't always wounding them. Their effect has to be determined on a case by case basis: if the enemy has a shield, maybe those bolts are getting blocked, lowering his stamina and morale; if the enemy is agile, maybe they are just scratching his shoulder; if the enemy has psionic powers, maybe he is deflecting them at the last moment.

And don't act like this shit got introduced by 5E. This is taken directly from the AD&D PHB:

These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and / or magical factors. {snip} Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

Any attempt to explain HP as anything more than an abstract representation of overall health is going to be bullshit. It should have never been attempted.

 

[Varnaan]

Any attempt to explain HP as anything more than an abstract representation of overall health is going to be bullshit. It should have never been attempted.

It gives more latitude to the DM, I don't mind it, I like that kind of broad approach better.

 

[NJClaw]

Any attempt to explain HP as anything more than an abstract representation of overall health is going to be bullshit. It should have never been attempted.

If you look at HP as an abstract indicator of a character's health, nothing makes sense after a certain point.

"Hey, my 80 HP fighter is at 1 HP right now"

"Wow, he must be in dire conditions..."

"No, actually he is completely fresh, and he can keep fighting forever, provided that he doesn't get hit again"

You can lose 99% of your HP without even blinking, but as soon as you lose your last one you fall into a coma.

 

[jackofshadows]

In my opinion, there are a number of reasons why they increased monster HP.
1. If you have any semblance of a brain in your head and they used the default values, combat would be trivially difficult.
2. They wanted to implement their surface system. If they implement surfaces with default HP values, most enemies will die just from walking through a surface (this is a significant buff to casters).
3. There are unfortunately, a large number of players who "do not like missing" and so by increasing HP and lowering AC, you can simulate a monster with the same effective HP, but with much less missing.

This.

I don't get these complains about HP bloat, the game is piss easy atm. And is influating AC/saving throws would be better solution? Or what? Just more mobs to slow combat pace further?

By the way, gith patrol is a neat encounter w/o any HP bloat. Saw some guys consider it as the most difficult one in EA (don't think so personally, plus it can be easily cheesed anyway).

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Any attempt to explain HP as anything more than an abstract representation of overall health is going to be bullshit. It should have never been attempted.

If you look at HP as an abstract indicator of a character's health, nothing makes sense after a certain point.

"Hey, my 80 HP fighter is at 1 HP right now"

"Wow, he must be in dire conditions..."

"No, actually he is completely fresh, and he can keep fighting forever, provided that he doesn't get hit again"

You can lose 99% of your HP without even blinking, but as soon as you lose your last one you fall into a coma.

Depends on the game though. Plenty of games with either HP proper or a segmented healthbar have maluses associated with a health loss of different degrees.

 

[Poseidon00]

One of the things that DnD did right with health was the save vs. death when taking massive damage. Has fucked me over on more than one occasion but it is more believable than surviving a metaphorical cannonball to the head.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Any attempt to explain HP as anything more than an abstract representation of overall health is going to be bullshit. It should have never been attempted.

If you look at HP as an abstract indicator of a character's health, nothing makes sense after a certain point.

"Hey, my 80 HP fighter is at 1 HP right now"

"Wow, he must be in dire conditions..."

"No, actually he is completely fresh, and he can keep fighting forever, provided that he doesn't get hit again"

You can lose 99% of your HP without even blinking, but as soon as you lose your last one you fall into a coma.

Somewhat explained by adrenaline & the fact that it's simply not fun to get weaker with lower HP.
One of the biggest complaints about The Banner Saga is how your characters get weaker at low HP. It's just not fun and doesn't make for a good game mechanic.

iirc D&D 3.5e had bloodied or something similar when you dropped to low HP though.

 

[NJClaw]

Depends on the game though. Plenty of games with either HP proper or a segmented healthbar have maluses associated with a health loss of different degrees.

I thought it was clear I was only talking about D&D.

Somewhat explained by adrenaline & the fact that it's simply not fun to get weaker with lower HP.
One of the biggest complaints about The Banner Saga is how your characters get weaker at low HP. It's just not fun and doesn't make for a good game mechanic.

So "HP don't necessarily represent only your physical health" is bullshit, but "it's not fun to weaken your character" is fine. I mean, I don't get it, but okay.

iirc D&D 3.5e had bloodied or something similar when you dropped to low HP though.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Depends on the game though. Plenty of games with either HP proper or a segmented healthbar have maluses associated with a health loss of different degrees.

I thought it was clear I was only talking about D&D.

Ah, my bad.

 

[Storyfag]

I mean, you can only judge enemy HP relative to how much hurt the player dishes out per round, and that's a combination of damage figures and hit chance, among other things. I don't have the EA so I dunno, but in one set of circumstances Firkraag and his 184 HP constitute a boss encounter, in another your garden variety Greater Temple Bugbear and his ~120 HP are cheap enough that you get 23 of 'em in a box.

And I did it. Finger of Death deals on average 60.5 damage on 5e if the enemy fails on the save. On 2e and 3.5e, was possible to OHK dragons with it. An spell that could OHK dragons now needs 3 casts to kill a lv 4 mob... If this is not bloat and low lethality, what is?

You haven't actually played much of 5e, have you? If anything, fights there end way, waaay to quickly.

 

[Shinros]

This.

I don't get these complains about HP bloat, the game is piss easy atm. And is influating AC/saving throws would be better solution? Or what? Just more mobs to slow combat pace further?

By the way, gith patrol is a neat encounter w/o any HP bloat. Saw some guys consider it as the most difficult one in EA (don't think so personally, plus it can be easily cheesed anyway).

You have to remember somehow people are dying against the intellect devourers at the start, on the beach. Even with a cleric who has busted spells. Just look at the complaints on reddit and even on the Larian forums. It's clear, people are bad at the game. Even though the game is 5E.

 

[Lawntoilet]

iirc D&D 3.5e had bloodied or something similar when you dropped to low HP though.

4e had bloodied if you were below 50% HP. Stronger enemies could have different abilities if they were bloodied, too, which was sometimes fun in boss fights.

 

[NJClaw]

One of the things that DnD did right with health was the save vs. death when taking massive damage. Has fucked me over on more than one occasion but it is more believable than surviving a metaphorical cannonball to the head.

There's still a sort of instant death mechanic in 5E, but it's VERY rare, because you have to take A LOT of damage to trigger it. You need to take (in a single hit) enough damage to reach a negative total of HP equals to your maximum number of HP. This means that, if you have 50 HP and are uninjured, you need to take 100 damage in a single attack to die instantly; if you are at 1 HP with the same character, 51 damage are enough to kill you outright.

It still requires you to go to negative HP, so it doesn't have much to do with how it worked in older editions (where you could get killed even while having more than 100 HP).

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So "HP don't necessarily represent only your physical health" is bullshit, but "it's not fun to weaken your character" is fine. I mean, I don't get it, but okay.

There are plenty of videos of people getting shot multiple times and still fighting, yet are seconds away from collapsing.
Also, you don't even die when you drop to 0 HP in most D&D editions. You're merely disabled. Go a bit further and you're just bleeding out.

It was a variant rule in Unearthed Arcana, and there were actually a few to pick from.