Paladins are a bit too strong...

[Cyroy]

... But not for the reasons one might think!
Paladins are well known for being the burster class, dealing high amounts of damage in a short amount of time due to their divine smites and the stacking of smite spells with divine smites, also when need be they can act as an off-healer (especially in BG3) with some decent buff spells in their arsenal as well. This, on the tabletop however, is of course limited in the tabletop 5e by the small amount of spell slots they have per long rest and not being able to get stuff back on a short rest.

So why is Paladin a bit too strong in BG3? There is simply too much food. There's so much food up for easy grabs that you can long rest after pretty much every encounter, so you can dump your holy load every fight you come across. Even if I try I can't burn through my food supply and I thought that food was introduced initially to prevent you from being able to just long rest whenever you want.

So TLDR: Paladin's kit is good, but the plentiful availability of food in the game makes the class too powerful.

[zodiacdragon2]

Publicado originalmente por (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥:

Publicado originalmente por Vixzian:

You don't. From my understanding of 5e rules they state that short rests have no limits other than they take a minimum of 1 hour. It then goes to say that long rests are an ending of the day type of thing so I'm assuming it takes a fair amount of preparation for a long rest.... but essentially you could do 24 short rests so to speak unless a DM arranged otherwise and a good DM probably isn't limiting you they are just doing things to interrupt your ability to rest as they see fit.

In a CRPG where time isn't a factor it's easy to see how this could cause a problem. But I don't think you create one management system to justify another for one thing and I also don't think you limit something that has no backing in the rules without having a good explainable in 'setting terms' justification for it.

Well on a tabletop you typically still try to put some limit on short rests...it's a fine balancing act, though. Usually in situations where you would do a short rest you are in a hostile environment, so it's very reasonable that a party who overdoes resting, encounters more and more patrols, negating the effectiveness of short rests etc, so it's somewhat easy to counteract. Though it obviously depends a lot on party composition, players etc, and takes a good amount of judgement from the gm, to get to a good point. Though a good rule of thumb is that you have 2-3 encounters per short rest and 2-3 Short rests per long rest.
As Long rests are limited to 1 per day, this also sets quite the limit.
Also encounters, while often are combat encounters, can also be other kinds of encounters, if they draw resources from the party...
It may sound super complicated, but for an experienced GM, this usually isn't that hard to balance.

Agree on the end of the day thing that is 100% accurate a long rest is done at the end of your day and that should not be changed it makes it unrealistic and makes it a survival type mindset and also messes with character development because during the long rest is usually when events happen with the party your companions and dreams major story factors a reliant on the long rest and camp scenes period just like in my campaigns settling down for the night is where players discuss things grow as a team get to know each other better start growing relationships this is a huge factor in these types of games it is imperative that it stays that way.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Publicado originalmente por Vixzian:

Publicado originalmente por (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥:

Well on a tabletop you typically still try to put some limit on short rests...it's a fine balancing act, though. Usually in situations where you would do a short rest you are in a hostile environment, so it's very reasonable that a party who overdoes resting, encounters more and more patrols, negating the effectiveness of short rests etc, so it's somewhat easy to counteract. Though it obviously depends a lot on party composition, players etc, and takes a good amount of judgement from the gm, to get to a good point. Though a good rule of thumb is that you have 2-3 encounters per short rest and 2-3 Short rests per long rest.
As Long rests are limited to 1 per day, this also sets quite the limit.
Also encounters, while often are combat encounters, can also be other kinds of encounters, if they draw resources from the party...
It may sound super complicated, but for an experienced GM, this usually isn't that hard to balance.

lol that's what I said. But yeah I think you could limit the 1 per day thing in a CRPG thing invisibly because that is absolutely how it works in the rules. My point was to just say that it's not written for short rests in the same way it is for long ones. Long rests it specifically states as a once per day (ending the day) thing. Short rests have no such limitations set on it outside of the DM specifically doing so and generally they do so in an immersive way.

I just wanted to elaborate on it for better understanding. :)

[KOHb]

Publicado originalmente por PEPEKING:

Yeah
also using swords against armor is immersion breaking because sword is not a weapon for battlefields, also swords are very expensive and giving every average NPC sword is immersion breaking too, what else is immersion breaking hmm?

Hehe, nice point here.
Spear is the cheapest and most common medieval weapon.
Arm every goblin with spear!

[dulany67]

Publicado originalmente por zodiacdragon2:

Publicado originalmente por dulany67:

Basically if you say that resting after each fight is fine, you're advocating for easy mode.

not true i enjoy the story not wanting to stress on resources or resting you just have a survival game mindset if thats the case go play a survival game I would rather enjoy and have fun playing a game then stressing and getting frustrated

First, my profile is open so you can feel free to search for survival games. Second, it's entirely true that D&D uses resource management to balance classes both against each other and against enemies and if you do not limit rest in some way shape or form, you will be playing easy mode.

Food is what they did, and they have no day/night cycle. So... if food is it, then limit the food. As I said earlier, Larian probably agrees with you. But the players do not.

[zodiacdragon2]

Publicado originalmente por dulany67:

Publicado originalmente por zodiacdragon2:

not true i enjoy the story not wanting to stress on resources or resting you just have a survival game mindset if thats the case go play a survival game I would rather enjoy and have fun playing a game then stressing and getting frustrated

First, my profile is open so you can feel free to search for survival games. Second, it's entirely true that D&D uses resource management to balance classes both against each other and against enemies and if you do not limit rest in some way shape or form, you will be playing easy mode.

Food is what they did, and they have no day/night cycle. So... if food is it, then limit the food. As I said earlier, Larian probably agrees with you. But the players do not.

you dont speak for all players but you have a right to your own opinion

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

It's not "opinion" that classes are balanced relative to each other (Wizards get their spell slots mostly back on long rest, while Warlocks get them back on short and long rests...at the cost of having far fewer slots).

If resting has no inherent cost or limitation to it, then these class design decisions throw class balance way off.

In other words, why does the Warlock only get two spell slots if we can long rest as much as we want so full casters (Wizards, Clerics, Bards) can blow their full compliment of spells in every fight?

[zodiacdragon2]

Publicado originalmente por Pan Darius Kairos:

It's not "opinion" that classes are balanced relative to each other (Wizards get their spell slots mostly back on long rest, while Warlocks get them back on short and long rests...at the cost of having far fewer slots).

If resting has no inherent cost or limitation to it, then these class design decisions throw class balance way off.

In other words, why does the Warlock only get two spell slots if we can long rest as much as we want so full casters (Wizards, Clerics, Bards) can blow their full compliment of spells in every fight?

well because if you run out during fight your almost useless anyways at that point so I do not see the point of your argument what they could do is make it long rest 1 per 24 hours and also make it where you cant long rest in a dungeon or hostile area other then that I think it is just fine

[dolby]

problem is this game system has a basic balance build on mutiple resources and larain used that same system and just gave it one resource that we can now just call charges per combat...
All other resources were destroyed with unbalanced amounts and are there now just for show they didn't even remove them, basically they give you 100000000 minerals and units cost 1 mineral... if this was a strategy game all you need to do is collect them by clicking on them.

and are now just pointless clicking but you still need to collect them all one by one...and send them to camp...again more clicking and then use them again more clicking for nothing... not only it means there is no balance it means you have alot of clicking to do just cos click is fun i guess.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Publicado originalmente por zodiacdragon2:

Publicado originalmente por Pan Darius Kairos:

It's not "opinion" that classes are balanced relative to each other (Wizards get their spell slots mostly back on long rest, while Warlocks get them back on short and long rests...at the cost of having far fewer slots).

If resting has no inherent cost or limitation to it, then these class design decisions throw class balance way off.

In other words, why does the Warlock only get two spell slots if we can long rest as much as we want so full casters (Wizards, Clerics, Bards) can blow their full compliment of spells in every fight?

well because if you run out during fight your almost useless anyways at that point so I do not see the point of your argument what they could do is make it long rest 1 per 24 hours and also make it where you cant long rest in a dungeon or hostile area other then that I think it is just fine

BG3 doesn't have any kind of timekeeper - there's neither clock nor calendar.

[Raï 𓆣]

Publicado originalmente por Pan Darius Kairos:

In other words, why does the Warlock only get two spell slots if we can long rest as much as we want so full casters (Wizards, Clerics, Bards) can blow their full compliment of spells in every fight?

Yea, why did they do that to the warlock? I don't quite understand. It's a new class, was it specifically written around this new resting system then? (To give it credence?)

Set aside the short resting, it is still a bit redundant, but that's totally fine with me. I don't mind if they short rest and heal up, it's easier that way too. (Though getting fully back to health is a bit too much imo).

[Carog the Fat]

They could add achievements for completing the game in under a certain number of rests, and maybe a mode where you lose if you don't complete in x number of rests, this would at least be motivation for people who need it to push a bit harder.

The other thing is you could RP in the RPG and not spend a day chilling after every fight.

[Benenlin]

The whole resting system feels like it was build with restriction of long rests in mind, and it kinda is but its still redundant, make food scarce but still exploitable to the level of long resting after every encounter if you know what you do, its how larian do their games anyway.
OR DIFFICULTY SLIDER how it does pathfinder crpgs

[dulany67]

Publicado originalmente por zodiacdragon2:

Publicado originalmente por dulany67:

First, my profile is open so you can feel free to search for survival games. Second, it's entirely true that D&D uses resource management to balance classes both against each other and against enemies and if you do not limit rest in some way shape or form, you will be playing easy mode.

Food is what they did, and they have no day/night cycle. So... if food is it, then limit the food. As I said earlier, Larian probably agrees with you. But the players do not.

you dont speak for all players but you have a right to your own opinion

You are correct, I don't speak for all people, but consider that the game released with no restriction to long rest and the food component was added in response to complaints.

[seandeven]

Concerning resting...
We just happen to have landed in a fertile Riverland trade route with a burning inn on a crossroads and Druid grove that recently became hella dangerous.

I have a sinking feeling that the maps are going forward are going to be barren, and we will have to stock our camp full of tomatoes. I do not like tomatoes. All that the vendor sells will be tomatoes.

[Linde]

Publicado originalmente por dulany67:

Publicado originalmente por zodiacdragon2:

you dont speak for all players but you have a right to your own opinion

You are correct, I don't speak for all people, but consider that the game released with no restriction to long rest and the food component was added in response to complaints.

Well... the food system was added in response to complaints, but it probably isn't working as intended by those who complained. So remove the food system and use an encounter based restriction that can then be suspended on easy mode.

Right now you need 40 units of food to rest and that is regardless of how many people you have at your camp, so right now food actually need to be more scarce the more companions you choose to pick up, but then increase in availability again if you kick people out of your camp, and that may be harder to code than to just scrap the crappy system that doesn't work as intended.

I mean it should be ezpz to implement something better... just make long rests X times per level. Or if you really want to make it linear then let players get a rest token at 33% 66% and 100% progress towards a new level. Could even have those percentages changed up depending on difficulty setting.

Regardless, no food is better than the current food system because it doesn't work as intended, to argue otherwise is the same as if I went into a restaurant and ordered steak, got a meat substitute and then argued that at least I got something shaped as a steak so it was better than nothing. Hell no. It wasn't what I asked for, so it ain't OK.