Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
I do not agree with that (broken system). Of course difficulty can be adjusted for any player level (real world DM's do not really cap player levels at 12...). Look at Baldurs Gate 2 + Throne of Bhaal expansion, there was (almost) no progression limits (there was a numerical exp limit but was so high that you only hit it if you went solo more than one run, importing character into the next run an so forth). You could reach level 31 in some classes. And even making only one run, full party, you'd be able to reach lev. 20 and access ALL spells with any of the characters (That's why many people here, including me, complain that Jaheira should be, historically, incredibly more powerful than she actually is in BG3 and not even be suited to go with the party, alone she should be able to wipe out my entire party, I remember when she was in my party in BG2 at game end, incredible spells...).
In BG2 we did not fought some minor hell princes, like Zariel, we fought a GOD (or 99% of it's essence, concentrated on Amelyssan Blackhearted PLUS her minions which included elemental princes, Mariliths... ) and it was all OK... I can't see a problem with Larian do the same as a software team 30 years ago... So, whatever the reason, their excuse is not valid. Perhaps the most reasonable one is that doing so in ONE game would make its development TWICE or even THRICE as expensive. Thus, perhaps, an expansion, at the same price...
As for the Elder Brain, yes, I remember to have disposed of one, plus its entire entourage of illithids, in the underdark in BG2. We had those psionic blocking crowns though, so, it became trivial even with our party not being that high level at that time. An ancient Red is far, far more powerful than an elder brain, as long as you have proper mind shielding.
As for fighting gods and world ending spells, let's have them, that's what we want, some gods were, previously, extreme high-level mortals who "ascended", why shouldn't we?
Bring back improved alacrity and time stop and whirlwind, and wish :)
Raphael is, indeed, over "cooked", he and Mizora are both just cambions... Powerful but not that much. Raphael is of an higher heritage though (Mephistopheles), so, I assume more powerful, and Mizora is just an hellish lawyer, Zariel protection works only in hell... Wouldn't have saved her from quick termination in the illithid dungeons in Moonrise Towers were not for your... Benevolence.
Correction, she is the ruler of the 1st layer of hell... A fallen Solar. Powerful, but nothing THAT special and far from deity, even minor. My (our) party(ies) in BG 2 wiped out a Fallen Solar aided by 2 Mariliths, a succubus and an Alu FIend BEFORE going after Amelyssan (99% goddess replacement for Bhaal) and I (we) would only be able (should we wish) to become Bhaal, a minor deity, AFTER beating up all those underlings. Bhaal himself is a lesser (minor) deity.
Raphael is beneath Zariel, but he is a spawn of the 2nd most powerful archdemon and ruler of the 8th layer of hell.
I'm more familiar with 3.5+, but this feeds into my point. Expectations change between editions, and in the pre-WotC days while you average commoner probably had a couple of hit dice (characters who did physical work were recommended to get up to 3d8) they had no real chance against threats suited for characters in their mid-teens. I believe that Warrior classes even got the ability to just mop up basic mooks. 3.5 actually made that gap larger, but 5e crushed it down to be closer to what most fantasy TTRPGs offer.
Note that I'm not actually against 5e have crunched down the power for everyone, modern D&D is really two different games depending on which spells the casters have access too. 5e really wanted to be a game about the low level experience from 3.X and 4e for twenty levels, and would have succeeded if they'd removed the 'problematic' spells from the spell list. I honestly think that it might work better if levels 1-10 and 11-20 were split into two separate books which covered the relevant game styles, but that's a personal opinion. I'm also not a big fan of exactly how 5e dropped the power level, 1st level characters feel too incompetent for my tastes, but I own enough games to get around that.
I don’t think a lot of people, even some casual d&d players, understand that level 20 pc’s are basically nukes. You can wipe out entire nations at level 20 and it wouldn’t even be difficult.
Like elminster I think was level 35 in 3rd edition with a cr of 39. Asmodeus, the greatest devil, supreme master of the nine hells, was cr 32
Also there is a concept of a noble cambion, basically cambions born from the highest tiers of devils.
I`ve seen claims being thrown around that Raph is a son of ol` Mephistopheles. if true that would make him incredibly ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ strong, not Zariel level but still.
My points is that the assumptions vary, and actually in 3e and later that's straight up untrue (3.X gods being almost universally ECL40+ with 20 levels of Cleric). Assumptions vary between editions, and in 0e-2e that was the assumption, but it hasn't been for 24 years.
Back when 5e came out it's depowering of high level characters and their enemies was a Big Deal. To the point where one forum I frequent had many threads on how High Level Threat X could be killed in one round by Y commoners. Your standard village peasant (straight 10s, 1d8 hp, no notable proficiency in weapons or armour) is a weirdly useful metric for this kind of stuff.
If your world ending threat can be taken out by 600 peasants then it should find a way to be world ending that isn't 'I'm a big bad monster, rar!' Raphael actually does this successfully, while he's able to hold his own in combat his real danger is how he's used his charm and resources to get a lot of people dancing to his tune (even the PC until Act 3).
Not in 5e, although you could probably effectively wipe out a city (especially a Wizard or Sorcerer with no other uses for their spell slots). That's because an explicit goal of 5e was that a standard orc mook from the Monster Manual should still be able to hit and damage a 20th level character, even if they have to rely on sheer numbers to be meaningfully dangerous.
I honestly think a lot of the arguments against 5th Ed. Are entirely bad faith/ complaining because changes. I remember when 3.5 came out and everyone was making the exact same arguments
He’s the heir to Mephistopheles so… pretty damn strong
HDS? More like Stanley Tweedle
Raphael isn't powerful, it's just another "larian" thing. Keep in mind his father literally had the Crown for ages and didn't do anything with it. It's one of three objects needed to fail at being a God.