I think chromatic orb should not create surfaces

[a.out]

It is not in the PHB either and I think it's for a good reason. I feel like the acid surface alone makes it a must pick because of the -2 armor. Such strong effects paired with highest level 1 spell damage and versatility just seems a bit over the top, no?

[PocketYoda]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Cirayu:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffeh:

Hard agree. I really hope that someone will end up making a mod that takes out all the gimmicky combos and barrelmancy. I respect that some people find it entertaining, but to me it's one of the lamest thing to have ever entered the RPG space.

Would you say Web + Fire is gimmicky? as that is definitely R.A.W, unsure about grease though

The way Larion uses them yes..

[Cirayu]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DanteYoda:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Cirayu:

Would you say Web + Fire is gimmicky? as that is definitely R.A.W, unsure about grease though

The way Larion uses them yes..

I do agree there are maybe too many fields, HOWEVER - it does also allow a bit more... customisation, - so remove it from spells that shouldn't, like chromatic orb, but combine things, like idk... Is there a spell that creates a hole in the ground? You could combine that + create/destroy water to fill it with water to drown something.

[SnarkOne]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dulany67:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

Yeh ... sexier .. maybe .. a short kick for the kids. I don't see how it adds anything to the tactical game. It does the exact opposite. You get the cake and can eat it too.

Well, surfaces affect you, too. so you can't necessarily just lay them down willy-nilly.

Yeah, and we like cake!

However In the name of balance, I agree with the initial preposition that surfaces should be removed from Chromatic orb Since it makes them a bit too useful; but...
I'm curious to read how "it does the exact opposite" of adding "anything to the tactical game"

[a.out]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SnarkOne:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dulany67:

Well, surfaces affect you, too. so you can't necessarily just lay them down willy-nilly.

Yeah, and we like cake! :partyboo:

However In the name of balance, I agree with the initial preposition that surfaces should be removed from Chromatic orb Since it makes them a bit too useful; but...
I'm curious to read how "it does the exact opposite" of adding "anything to the tactical game"

What I mean with the cake is that If you have a spell that does 2 in one, you use the spell that does 2 in one ... especially if its a cheap level 1 spell. Instead of creating water and hitting it with lightning you just use chromatic orb. Instead of casting grease and setting it on fire, you just use chromatic orb. If you have the choice between chromatic orb and any other level 1 spell, you'd always chose chromatic orb. Boring. There are also throwables that are being made obsolete.

[Talithmara]

I'm on board for Homebrew that helps adapt the tabletop rules into a DM-less digital format. What they did with Thaumaturgy is a perfect example.

Chromatic Orb's surfaces are not only NOT one of those times, but actively works against the tabletop rules in a gamebreaking and gamechanging way.

Consider: Sorcerers. Larian sure did; Chromatic Orb was added to the game in the same update that added them!

Chromatic Orb is a prime candidate for Twinned Spell early on due to Twinned Spell costing 1 Sorcery point per level of the spell, and that Chromatic Orb is quite powerful by Level 1 spell standards due to a diamond worth at least 50gp being needed as a spell component. (It's not consumed, but is still a substantial prize to have at low levels; even if your DM lets you use Starting Wealth rules and just start with one, it does bite into what other equipment you could start with.) It's not the objective best in any one category for it's level (Inflict Wounds outdamages it, Magic Missile has longer range and higher accuracy, etc) but it's incredibly powerful and versatile overall, to the point that the cost-of-entry feels justified.

But... uh... the surfaces make Chromatic Orb an AoE spell, and thus no longer viable for Twinned Spell by 5e Rules, making the fact that the surfaces still work with Twinned Spell in BG3 actually quite overpowered by level 1 spell standards. "Okay, just use Quickened Spell, instead!" That's ALSO not legal in 5e (You can't cast two levelled spells, aka non-cantrips, per turn!) despite BG3 allowing it.

So to reiterate:

- Larian removed the cost of entry.
- Larian expanded the effects without applying limitations that should now apply.
- Larian actively removed existing limitations (but made Quickened Spell cost 3 Sorcery Points instead of 2 because I guess they didn't know that limitation and felt 2 was too cheap for how OP they misinterpreted the effect to be?)

Basically Larian made Chromatic orb the FOOS (First-Order-Optimal-Strategy) play instead of the "Okay, it's GOOD, but is another option BETTER?" decision it was, before. And honestly, this is incredibly short-sighted and has ripple effects that undermine other elements of the game. Which really isn't okay.

Don't get me wrong; I get why some people like surface effects. Spells like Wall of Fire are some of my favorites in 5e, so I get liking those kinds of spells. But I think those effects should be left to the spells designed for them and balanced around them. Chromatic Orb is not one of those spells.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Cirayu:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffeh:

Hard agree. I really hope that someone will end up making a mod that takes out all the gimmicky combos and barrelmancy. I respect that some people find it entertaining, but to me it's one of the lamest thing to have ever entered the RPG space.

Would you say Web + Fire is gimmicky? as that is definitely R.A.W, unsure about grease though

Web + fire is fine.

[Space Dog]

They really need to stop obsessing with the surfaces and adding them where they don't belong.

There ARE spells for that already.

Changing the spells would be less annoying if spells like Chromatic Orb worked like in 5e, but allowed the option of targeting the ground for a surface effect INSTEAD of the standard effect. Chromatic Orb: Fire could be either 3d8 fire damage targeted at a creature, OR make a small fire surface on the ground.

[dolby]

i miss Baldur's Gate II Chromatic Orb that's all i'm gonna say about this spell.
You would think people would get the idea what Larian is trying to do by now.

[a.out]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dolby:

i miss Baldur's Gate II Chromatic Orb that's all i'm gonna say about this spell.
You would think people would get the idea what Larian is trying to do by now.

I think they are trying to make a good game.

[dolby]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dolby:

i miss Baldur's Gate II Chromatic Orb that's all i'm gonna say about this spell.
You would think people would get the idea what Larian is trying to do by now.

I think they are trying to make a good game.

You know of any devs that tryed to make a bad game on purpose?:))

[a.out]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dolby:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

I think they are trying to make a good game.

You know of any devs that tryed to make a bad game on purpose?:))

Ah, a hater. Of course. My condolences.

[dolby]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dolby:

You know of any devs that tryed to make a bad game on purpose?:))

Ah, a hater. Of course. My condolences.

Not at all i'm indifferent to devs, the point is that every dev i know wants to make a good game including Larian and thats's not in question here at all..so you answer was a given.

The idea is that Larian is trying to repackage DoS 2 features in to DnD game that is all and for reason people like you have some problems with those, surfaces are just one of those features.
After a year of EA. one would think people would get used to Larian homebrewing dos 2 features into the BG3 i guess that's not the case.

[a.out]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dolby:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

Ah, a hater. Of course. My condolences.

Not at all i'm indifferent to devs, the point is that every dev i know wants to make a good game including Larian and thats's not in question here at all..so you answer was a given.

The idea is that Larian is trying to repackage DoS 2 features in to DnD game that is all and for reason people like you have some problems with those, surfaces are just one of those features.
After a year of EA. one would think people would get used to Larian homebrewing dos 2 features into the BG3 i guess that's not the case.

You are claiming, that they have, quote:
"tryed to make a bad game on purpose"
If you are not a troll, you are experiencing a disorder that makes you stick around a community of a game that you are hating irrationally and for that I pity you. There is nothing else to be said.

[dolby]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

You are claiming, that they have, quote:
"tryed to make a bad game on purpose"
If you are not a troll, you are experiencing a disorder that makes you stick around a community of a game that you are hating irrationally and for that I pity you. There is nothing else to be said.

Not sure whos trolling now...
Again for the last time no game developer wants to make a bad game ever!!.
Why wound they want to? That would be like crazy...
Developers want to make a good game that is self explanatory, how did that even become a question.
Even those who do not succeed at the end wanted to make a good game.
So your Statement that they are trying to make a good game was pointless.
anyway forget i said anything cos cleary you didn't get my point.

[a.out]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von dolby:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von a.out:

You are claiming, that they have, quote:
"tryed to make a bad game on purpose"
If you are not a troll, you are experiencing a disorder that makes you stick around a community of a game that you are hating irrationally and for that I pity you. There is nothing else to be said.

Not sure whos trolling now...
Again for the last time no game developer wants to make a bad game ever!!.
Why wound they want to? That would be like crazy...
Developers want to make a good game that is self explanatory, how did that even become a question.
Even those who do not succeed at the end wanted to make a good game.
So your Statement that they are trying to make a good game was pointless.
anyway forget i said anything cos cleary you didn't get my point.

You are saying you are not trolling, yet your second statement in this thread was that they are making a bad game on purpose. Now you are saying no game dev makes bad games on purpose. What exactly are you trying to archive here if not just trolling around?

Either you add something relevant to the topic, or you troll. Or you have issues. It's that simple.