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

[SoupNazi]

I am enjoying 5e.

You never responded to my marriage proposal and I only ask twice.

 

[NJClaw]

Can a F/M on 5e access high level magic?

Of course it can, D&D is a very trans-friendly game.

 

[Storyfag]

It's the easiest class to qualify for, and it still needs effort, practice and training

I talk about mid and high level stuff, but would be interesting to play as a lv 0 character.

I am currently in the process of creating a one-shot in which the players play level 0 commoners trying to pay their feudal lords their due.

What say you, Storyfag?

The premise is solid. It's the execution that I am concerned about. Lacrymas I trust you will present your scenario as tribute to the Codex so that we can dissect it.

 

[Sharpedge]

At this rate the Gazebo will need a Lacrymas section.

 

[Mortmal]

ts not like previous edition when it automatically gain more damage with levels(...)A

This is IMO the greatest problem that I have with 5e. When you are lv 5, 8d6 damage is great. But when you are lv 15, is nothing. On 2e, each new lv up was +d6 damage on most spells, newer and stronger spells and +d4 hp until lv 9. After lv9, is just +1 hp. On 5e, going from circle 3 to circle 6 as an evoker, your best damaging spell grows almost nothing. Fireball? 8d6. Freezing Sphere? 10d6. That is 2d6 damage gain and the same caster from lv 5 to 11 got +6d6 + 6 * con mod hit points.

And evocation is the LEAST nerfed spell school. Conjuration, Necromancy, Illusion, Alteration and so on got extremely more nerfed.

In 5e wizard switched strongly to support, divination and abjuration is good still. I see no reason to specialize the wizard as a damage dealer in 5E , and yes necromancy is a big let down.

 

[Cryomancer]

ts not like previous edition when it automatically gain more damage with levels(...)A

This is IMO the greatest problem that I have with 5e. When you are lv 5, 8d6 damage is great. But when you are lv 15, is nothing. On 2e, each new lv up was +d6 damage on most spells, newer and stronger spells and +d4 hp until lv 9. After lv9, is just +1 hp. On 5e, going from circle 3 to circle 6 as an evoker, your best damaging spell grows almost nothing. Fireball? 8d6. Freezing Sphere? 10d6. That is 2d6 damage gain and the same caster from lv 5 to 11 got +6d6 + 6 * con mod hit points.

And evocation is the LEAST nerfed spell school. Conjuration, Necromancy, Illusion, Alteration and so on got extremely more nerfed.

In 5e wizard switched strongly to support, divination and abjuration is good still. I see no reason to specialize the wizard as a damage dealer in 5E , and yes necromancy is a big let down.

Well, if you look to iconic fire spells on previous editions VS 5e, fireball damage caped at 10d6 on 2e and 3.5e. On 5e is 8d6, which is 20% nerf at lv 10 and a buff in lv 5/6. Meteor Swarm is more powerful than previous editions. It is 20d6 bludgeoning and 20d6 fire damage which is far more than 3e and 2e versions of the same spell. What makes evocation far less effective is that enemies has ludicrous amount of hit points. Evocation is not as great as previous editions, but is not trash either. I would't call 40d6 damage "trash" even with the ultra inflated hp on 5e. Maybe on 4e.

IMO Evocation seems to have lost about 30~40% of the effectiveness from 3.5e to 5e. Necromancy in other hands, lost 95% of the effectiveness. Even at lv 20, you can only raise low CR undead, and not having more save of die spells, killed the other thing which made necromancy great in previous editions. Talking about damaging spells, Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting on 2e did up to 20d8 damage, on 5e, just 12d8. That is a nerf of 40% spell damage in probably the least nerfed spell from necromancy in a game where monsters has 3/4/5x more hp than on 2e.

Conjuration, is also heavily nerfed. But is more hard to compare with previous editions since there are a lot of variables and new mechanics to take into account. But at least conjuration of demons doesn't limit you to only ultra low CR ones. Black Tentacles is very weak on 5e but not nwn2 vanilla level of weakness. Cloudkill is another amazing conjuration spell on 2e and on 3.5e which is trash on 5e.

----------

About wizard as a support, many of the iconic support skills like haste, stoneskin, mind blank, etc got severely nerfed. Others, like
Legendary Proportions, removed entirely.

 

[Ninjerk]

At this rate the Gazebo will need a Lacrymas section.

Abandon genetic superiority, all ye who enter here

 

[Larianshill]

I see no reason to specialize the wizard as a damage dealer in 5E

While martians are kings when it comes to single target damage, they're really lacking when it comes to dealing with hordes. Only ranger has something even vaguely resembling the tools for dealing with many opponents. Casters have - fireball is still absurdly and intentionally overpowered, spirit guardians is probably the best cleric spell in the game, and there are all those non-damaging spells - stinking cloud, hypnotic pattern are very low level, and also very good. That's not saying that casters have no tools to get a big, bad enemy out of the fight - banishment and telekinesis are great for that. Telekinesis doesn't even allow Legendary Resistance to proc.

Conjuration, is also heavily nerfed.

No one reasonable liked the wizard summoning creatures that could replace the party's fighter, or necromancer's 50 skeletons taking individual turns. The latter is actually still present in 5e, which is why I think Necromancer won't be in BG3.

About wizard as a support, many of the iconic support skills like haste, stoneskin, mind blank, etc got severely nerfed. Others, like
Legendary Proportions, removed entirely.

Wizard didn't deserve those nerfs, he deserved much worse than that.

I am enjoying 5e.

You never responded to my marriage proposal and I only ask twice.

Provide me with a list of material goods and tangible benefits I will be getting, and I'll think about it.

 

[Mortmal]

I see no reason to specialize the wizard as a damage dealer in 5E

While martians are kings when it comes to single target damage, they're really lacking when it comes to dealing with hordes. Only ranger has something even vaguely resembling the tools for dealing with many opponents. Casters have - fireball is still absurdly and intentionally overpowered, spirit guardians is probably the best cleric spell in the game, and there are all those non-damaging spells - stinking cloud, hypnotic pattern are very low level, and also very good. That's not saying that casters have no tools to get a big, bad enemy out of the fight - banishment and telekinesis are great for that. Telekinesis doesn't even allow Legendary Resistance to proc.

Conjuration, is also heavily nerfed.

No one reasonable liked the wizard summoning creatures that could replace the party's fighter, or necromancer's 50 skeletons taking individual turns. The latter is actually still present in 5e, which is why I think Necromancer won't be in BG3.

About wizard as a support, many of the iconic support skills like haste, stoneskin, mind blank, etc got severely nerfed. Others, like
Legendary Proportions, removed entirely.

Wizard didn't deserve those nerfs, he deserved much worse than that.

I am enjoying 5e.

You never responded to my marriage proposal and I only ask twice.

Provide me with a list of material goods and tangible benefits I will be getting, and I'll think about it.

Yes fireball is good but you can pick sorcerer or warlock to deal with hordes and they are better at dealing damage. I prefer to keep wizard as controller, grease, web, suggestions, charms and so on .

 

[Larianshill]

That's a good point. And, if I may, counterpoint.

 

[Cryomancer]

No one reasonable liked the wizard summoning creatures that could replace the party's fighter, or necromancer's 50 skeletons taking individual turns. The latter is actually still present in 5e, which is why I think Necromancer won't be in BG3.

Wrong, very wrong. Only anti caster fags din't liked wizards on previous editions. What makes Wizards in D&D interesting is that things that you see arcane casters doing in novels, like Vance's novels, you can do in game. Wizards aren't mere fireball throwers like they are in generic modern gamers.

As for necromancer's army taking individual turns, just threat then as a "single creature" mechanic wise. If you have 50 skeletons, instead of rolling 50 dices to attack with their bows and 50 damage dices, just assume that if they need to roll 10 to hit a enemy, 50% of then will hit and they will deal half or max damage. That way, you would't slow down the gameplay. And guess what. In computer video games, you can have the computer doing all dice rolls and number calculations INSTANTLY. Clerics could conjure more creatures than wizards, create undeads at earlier level than wizards, shapeshift into creatures which could kill a army of fighters of the same level of the cleric but you RARELY see balancefags complaining about divine casters on 3.5e. Do you know why? Because they aren't pro balance. They are anti arcane casters.

And the fact that Larian puts a single summon limit only shows how awful they are. Look to Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous. You can become a lich and reanimate bosses to serve you. High level lich spell like abilities allow the lich to summon endless armies of creatures of darkness and he has OHK spells. Paizo killed Wizards on PF2e but at least they allowed OwlCat to follow the glorious PF1e on their newer game;

Wizard didn't deserve those nerfs, he deserved much worse than that.

Just kill the class instead. Is less awful. If you look to the most played classes on 5e, Fighters are wining by a big margin. Or you can go play 4e. Wizards are even more worthless on 4e.

------------------------

Wizards on 5e are trash, they are just less trash than 4e. But looks like you would like 4e Wizard, with awful spells like this >

And note that on 4e, monsters has ludicrous high hp.

If you have a squad of 5 wizards casting disintegrate at the same time in a mere lv 7 orc on 4e, the orc can survive despite failing multiple saves

orc status

Seems like you would love 4e. Spells are very lackluster like on Larian games. Orcus on 4e for eg lacks any nasty ability from 2e Throne of Bloodstone. On 2e, Orcus was a nasty enemy due the insane amount of OP spells that he had, 30d6 lightning bolt at will anti magic shell at will, teleport without error at will, and he also could use 6 wishes per day, heal, gate and other nasty spells. But he had only 240 hp on the module(The Throne of Bloodstone). Orcus on 4e he had only 2d12 + 12 necrotic burst which had d6 cooldown. But had 1525 hp.

Killing him was more a chore than a intense moment, like most battles on DOS2.

You would probably love 4e since even the Demon Prince of Undead doesn't have nasty spells and SLA. And think that 8d6 damage in a game with ridiculous inflated damage is OP. Serious. 4e seems perfect for you. At the same way that 2e is perfect for me.

PS : A CR12 Lich on retroclones like Swords & Wizardry is way nastier than 5e CR 20+ enemy spellcasters

 

[Yosharian]

You're honestly a fool of you think that Wizards are bad in 5E. They're pretty much S tier, and most would argue that they are the best class in the game.

 

[Cryomancer]

You're honestly a fool of you think that Wizards are bad in 5E. They're pretty much S tier, and most would argue that they are the best class in the game.

Other classes can be worse than Wizard, but IMO if a spell, SCI-FI weapon, superpower, mutation, psionc or whatever is called disintegrate, it should disintegrate. Which is not the case of 5e disintegrate. Nor 4e. And I din't said that wizards are trash in general, only that some spell schools on 5e like necormancy are complete trash and that he thinks that arcane casters are OP on 5e, he should seriously look to 4e, a game where even spells casted by the demon lord prince of undead aren't threatening.

Imagine if in star trek, they develop a gun which disintegrates steel with ease and the main character manages to get hit by it a couple of times with no problem. That would be awful. Why people accept this BS in gaming?

 

[Larianshill]

I'm glad to have finally met you after all those years of searching, you are THE casterfag.

 

[Yosharian]

You're honestly a fool of you think that Wizards are bad in 5E. They're pretty much S tier, and most would argue that they are the best class in the game.

Other classes can be worse than Wizard, but IMO if a spell, SCI-FI weapon, superpower, mutation, psionc or whatever is called disintegrate, it should disintegrate. Which is not the case of 5e disintegrate. Nor 4e. And I din't said that wizards are trash in general, only that some spell schools on 5e like necormancy are complete trash and that he thinks that arcane casters are OP on 5e, he should seriously look to 4e, a game where even spells casted by the demon lord prince of undead aren't threatening.

Imagine if in star trek, they develop a gun which disintegrates steel with ease and the main character manages to get hit by it a couple of times with no problem. That would be awful. Why people accept this BS in gaming?

Yeah Disintegrate is just terrible

 

[Yosharian]

• Deals force damage
• Turns the target into dust
  
• Only way to reverse it is with True Resurrection or Wish
• One of the only ways to deal with Wall of Force or Forcecage

RPGBOT on Disintegrate:

Disintegrate (rating 4/4):
Among the most damaging single-target damage spells in the game, Disintegrate's single-target damage is roughly equivalent to 21d6 (total average of 75). On a Dexterity save it's tempting to use this against big, bulky foes who tend to have a lot of hit points to burn though. Ideally you can save-or-suck those sorts of creatures, but sometimes things like legendary resistances make that hard. You can also use disintegrate to remove problematic things like walls of force (or of anything else), allowing you to do things like toppling structures or bursting through walls to surprise enemies on the other side.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Cryomancer]

[Yeah Disintegrate is just terrible

(...), Disintegrate's single-target damage is roughly equivalent to 21d6 (total average of 75).

Not terrible as in 4e but not great as 2e and retroclones. On Swords & Wizardry.

It doesn't deal average 75 damage and only disintegrate if the enemy falls under 0 hp. It actually transform enemies who fail to resist the spell into dust.

I'm glad to have finally met you after all those years of searching, you are THE casterfag.

I just think that spells and weapons should be consistent in lore and in mechanics.

IMO a enemy soaking multiple disintegrate shots is awful, doesn't matter if the disintegration beam comes from a spell, superpower, sci-fi weapon, superpower, mutation or whatever. Also think that a demon lord should be a threatening enemy, capable of killing even a high level if not epic level party quickly, not an "mmo raid boss" about spending hours managing rotations. Simple as that.

 

[Yosharian]

You're basically crying because a 6th-level spell doesn't autowin an encounter for you.

 

[Sharpedge]

Along with a Lacrymas section, we need a S0rcererV1ct0r section as well to keep threads clean.

 

[Cryomancer]

You're basically crying because a 6th-level spell doesn't autowin an encounter for you.

Wrong. The spell doesn't autowin any encounter on 2e either. Pick a Lich on Swords & Wizardry for eg. His saves against the spell is 3. Which means that you have 10% of chances of disintegrating him. And a lich is accompanied by lots and lots of undead. Even in the case where he fails the save, you still has a lot of undeads to worry about. And note that even the weakest of then, would be able to use this spells against the player.

Also, keep in mind that on this old school games, Magic Users are extremely fragile. A lv 15 caster on this retroclone would have about 35 hp, meaning that a cloud giant throwing rocks can OHKill him if he rolls high.

 

[Storyfag]

I'm glad to have finally met you after all those years of searching, you are THE casterfag.

Only the loudest.

 

[Yosharian]

You're basically crying because a 6th-level spell doesn't autowin an encounter for you.

Wrong. The spell doesn't autowin any encounter on 2e either. Pick a Lich on Swords & Wizardry for eg. His saves against the spell is 3. Which means that you have 10% of chances of disintegrating him. And a lich is accompanied by lots and lots of undead. Even in the case where he fails the save, you still has a lot of undeads to worry about. And note that even the weakest of then, would be able to use this spells against the player.

Also, keep in mind that on this old school games, Magic Users are extremely fragile. A lv 15 caster on this retroclone would have about 35 hp, meaning that a cloud giant throwing rocks can OHKill him if he rolls high.

I'm not wrong, you want your spell to instantly win an encounter if the enemy fails their save. That's not good design for a 6th-level spell you muppet.

 

[Cryomancer]

You're basically crying because a 6th-level spell doesn't autowin an encounter for you.

Wrong. The spell doesn't autowin any encounter on 2e either. Pick a Lich on Swords & Wizardry for eg. His saves against the spell is 3. Which means that you have 10% of chances of disintegrating him. And a lich is accompanied by lots and lots of undead. Even in the case where he fails the save, you still has a lot of undeads to worry about. And note that even the weakest of then, would be able to use this spells against the player.

Also, keep in mind that on this old school games, Magic Users are extremely fragile. A lv 15 caster on this retroclone would have about 35 hp, meaning that a cloud giant throwing rocks can OHKill him if he rolls high.

I'm not wrong, you want your spell to instantly win an encounter if the enemy fails their save. That's not good design for a 6th-level spell you muppet.

1. Enemies can use it against the player
2. Enemies can have 80,90%+ chances of resisting the spell
3. This spell is very situational, enemies with good saves and high MR aren't the best one to deal using that spell. In fact against the lich, with very good saves, is much better to cast Enchant item into a party member weapon or gear than to use disintegrate against him
4. A high level cleric turn undead can win far more encounters than mid level save or die spells.
5. Monsters has way nastier abilities. Low CR basiliks can petrify you instantly, succubi can summon demon princes,
6. 6th tier magic is not something weak. Is one tier bellow simulacrumm limited wish and so on and one tier above feeblemind, the worst enemy of spellcasters. One tier avove teleport
7. What is good or bad design is subjective. IMO the spell mechanic wise should be in line with the spell lore wise.
8. On old school D&D, a poison which can be made by a mid level martial character also could OHK on failed save. But you don't see balancefags complaing about it. Seem like only spells should't be able to OHK.

 

[Desiderius]

OHKs are bad. 10% chance OHKs are worse. Who wants such boring action economy? Especially when it facilitates reloaditis that kills fun.

Bulletsponges are bad too. Everyone doing their part with each part complimenting the other to take down tough foes is fun.

 

[Cael]

Save-or-die in general is far too hit-and-miss. In editions prior to 3.x, it is even worse, as it is wholly dependent on the target's level/saves. Your character basically had no say in it.

One of the things I liked in 3.x is the fact that your character had a say in how effective your spells are via the casting stat mechanic.

For Disintegrate in particular, the change in 3.x made it actually useful against a large number of targets. Undead, for example, is going to get hit hard by it. The removal of the save-or-die in favour of a save for fixed damage also meant that it is worth preparing/casting under non-optimal conditions. 3.x made it less situational, and I have to approve (plus metamagic and spellwarp sniper made it that much more fun, since it is a ray spell).