Barrels fixed?

[naginata]

Now i can not pick up the Nautilon Tanks. Are the barrels fixed as well?
Thanks for sharing this information

[Arlen]

dulany67님이 먼저 게시:

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

the problem with your argument is you are telling this player to ignore a very easy to use exploit in how the game mechanics work, this is similar to telling someone not to abuse the very easy logn rest, pickpocket, savescum exploit to acquire arrows and scrolls from the druid trader, or telling someone not to abuse the stealth/range exploits - they are exploits in thwe system, and it should not require a player to deliberately refrain from using such things. That is on the developer to fix it so it cannot be exploited so easily.

Larian invested a lot of time, money, and resources developing this game, and it is up to them to not trivialize or nullify the work put in to try and balance classes, with cheap and no skill exploits that easily bypass their work.

And I found no problem ignoring all that (except arguably long rest, but even then I tried to avoid it unless it seemed reasonable).

Because I don't use any of that, I would prefer it to be changed. However, the idea that no one has the ability to avoid exploits that detract from fun is silly.

is this early Access? is it not the purpose of early access to find exploits, and to use said exploits in ways that break the game, then provide feedback using the analytics, discussion and feedback forums? - I really do not care what YOU use or do not use - the point is, they are in the game, can be exploited rather easily, and breaks the games balance.

A player should NOT restrain themselves from using obvious exploit mechanics in a game, that is poor game design, The developer needs to fix obvious game breaking exploits, bugs and glitches - and how you presonally want to play be damned.

Edit - There are a number of ways to fix this

1. have a slider so players can choose
2. have the barrels require a strength thresh hold, similar to lifting and throwing bodies, and only 1 can be carried around
3. make the barrels static, so they cannot be lifted or carried, but can be used in the encounter with planning
4. remove them.

I advocate the first - removing something should be the last resort of the developers, providing options through toggles is the compromise, it allows each player to individually choose what they have in their game without effecting everyones game play.

But make no mistake - Larian is creating a game where class, abilities, and skills are the defining aspects to use to overcome an obstacle, not simply throw a barrel of firewine, or place barrels in tactically beneficial places without the enemy AI even questioning why you are doing so.

[maedden]

barrels should go!
all of them!
they do not provide anything meaningful that enhances the tatctical usage of your parties abilities ...
Therefore they are worthless for a tactical party-size RPG and have to go!

[Tulkas]

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

dulany67님이 먼저 게시:

And I found no problem ignoring all that (except arguably long rest, but even then I tried to avoid it unless it seemed reasonable).

Because I don't use any of that, I would prefer it to be changed. However, the idea that no one has the ability to avoid exploits that detract from fun is silly.

is this early Access? is it not the purpose of early access to find exploits, and to use said exploits in ways that break the game, then provide feedback using the analytics, discussion and feedback forums? - I really do not care what YOU use or do not use - the point is, they are in the game, can be exploited rather easily, and breaks the games balance.

A player should NOT restrain themselves from using obvious exploit mechanics in a game, that is poor game design, The developer needs to fix obvious game breaking exploits, bugs and glitches - and how you presonally want to play be damned.

Edit - There are a number of ways to fix this

1. have a slider so players can choose
2. have the barrels require a strength thresh hold, similar to lifting and throwing bodies, and only 1 can be carried around
3. make the barrels static, so they cannot be lifted or carried, but can be used in the encounter with planning
4. remove them.

5. Extended Adventurer kit ( surface immunity boots and anti-gas mask)
In a world where everything can be set on fire, the floor looks like a child messy painting and fumes can kill me, make sure i will walk through it with a decent pair of boots and antigas mask.

https://www.google.com/search?q=plague+doctor+fantasy&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&prmd=isvn&sxsrf=ALeKk01zNsElNfLQ4fJkgDTasToiqSFj4w:1607160508712&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiItt-5w7btAhWjuFkKHTfAA6QQ_AUoAXoECBAQAQ&biw=360&bih=634&dpr=3#imgrc=9eDyGAOnBtoDhM

But my first pick would be the slider too.

[Tulkas]

War Maiden님이 먼저 게시:

Tulkas님이 먼저 게시:

You guys are promoting a mechanic that needs balancing, not just barrells but every surface and cloud in the game needs to have a limit. Where is the satisfaction of placing bombs in your enemies face if they can't even notice? That is poor IA!

I'm sorry, isn't that the point of exploiting your battlespace, is that the enemy 'DOESN'T' know your doing it? Seriously. Why would you WANT them to know? That eliminates the element of surprise and makes your ability of survival even lower.

Tulkas님이 먼저 게시:

D&D is based around AC and DC for defence and surfaces get around it, making spells, arrows, barrels stronger then they are supposed to.
Larian itself is tuning it down because their number proved that players are dying mostly because of surfaces, especially fire.
Do not worry they will not get rid of the barrels, but like everything else they need some tuning.

They are possibly dieing due to a lack of forethought. When you are manipulating the battlespace, one has to think a few steps ahead in many possible scenarios. What will happen if I do this, and what are the effects on the enemy/area/etc..

Nothing, this is the problem. Nothing will happen, because the enemies are not programmed to react to such eventualities.
If someone places a barrel of firepowder in front of someone else's face, that guy should became suspicious (the same way that happens if you extract your weapons) and ask to remove said barrel away from him. There should be the possibility to bluff, and if the DC is passed the NPC will let the player place the barrel.

[bullse]

maedden님이 먼저 게시:

barrels should go!
all of them!
they do not provide anything meaningful that enhances the tatctical usage of your parties abilities ...
Therefore they are worthless for a tactical party-size RPG and have to go!

So says you. Others, including myself, assert otherwise.

[Alilatias]

I love how everyone keeps ignoring my posts. It's almost like no one in support of the opposing viewpoints have any logical counter argument to the points I make.

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

Edit - There are a number of ways to fix this

1. have a slider so players can choose
2. have the barrels require a strength thresh hold, similar to lifting and throwing bodies, and only 1 can be carried around
3. make the barrels static, so they cannot be lifted or carried, but can be used in the encounter with planning
4. remove them.

I want to add two other possible suggestions.

1: As an alternative to your second suggestion, increase barrel weight to the point where every character can only feasibly carry one in their inventory. A barrel full of liquid and explosives that's almost the size of the characters themselves should weigh much more than they currently do.

2: Instead of (or in addition to) the above, make it so that carrying a barrel is a logical risk instead of something you just thoughtlessly toss into your inventory like anything else. If one is going to use the realism argument to justify the existence of field effects, let's take it to the logical conclusion. If a character carrying the barrel in their inventory is hit by a damaging fire effect, have it immediately explode on that character. Suddenly everything is extra dangerous when considering how many enemies seem to posses an Alchemist Fire or some type of explosive arrow to throw at you during the first turn for whatever reason.

(Larian does have the programming capable of pulling this off - there is a skill in D:OS2 that causes unused special arrows in the target's inventory to detonate, though no enemy in that game possesses said skill for obvious reasons.)

3: Adding to the above, storing the barrel in a magical Bag of Holding should actually block the detonation effect if the character carrying it is struck by a fire effect. However, removing items from the bag of holding would most likely be considered a bonus action in itself - and you cannot actually throw the barrel either (moving it mid-combat should either require a Strength score of 14 or higher, or a shove).

If you want to keep the concept of barrelmancy that badly, it should have actual risks and downsides.

[Jack Hawklight]

Alilatias님이 먼저 게시:

War Maiden님이 먼저 게시:

They are possibly dieing due to a lack of forethought. When you are manipulating the battlespace, one has to think a few steps ahead in many possible scenarios. What will happen if I do this, and what are the effects on the enemy/area/etc.. Many folks don't do that, so they end up causing basically suicidal explosions that not only affect them but effect their enemy.

There's a huge difference between 'telling players to think more tactically' and 'overdesign encounters and abilities/skills/items to the point where you are expected to get destroyed on your first attempt, sometimes before half your party even gets their first turn, reload, and then unchain everyone/set up some stuff out in the field to do a counter ambush in your later attempts'. You know the old saying, 'Never split up the party?' Apparently, if you follow that advice in this game, you're a freaking idiot.

Demanding clairvoyance from players is simply not good game design. Sure, the game gives you the freedom to cheese back just as hard, but don't pretend that it's some genius tactical accomplishment and that you're smart for doing it. Such a concept doesn't make the game hard, it just makes the game frustrating to play in a normal non-metagamey fashion. A comment I read about two weeks ago put it best: If you're not abusing these surface effects and barrels, you're doing a challenge run. And the sooner people wake up and realize that the solution isn't just to ignore what you think is broken and that there are legitimate concerns about the fundamental ways that the game is designed, the sooner we can get back to having fights that are actually well designed on their own merits instead of a different flavor of 'how can I cheese this fight the same way I do all the others?'

Speaking as someone who cleared D:OS2 on Tactician with a full party of 4 (meaning no lone wolf cheese), such design was a novelty then, and rather acceptable as D:OS2 was really the first game to lean so hard into that kind of design. But to seemingly watch the same design philosophy imported into another series entirely is disheartening as hell. It isn't something we should encourage, lest Larian get ahead of themselves and fall into an unfortunate pattern of complacency.

Although they are showing signs of dialing back some of this. Removing surface effects from cantrips was a good start, because one can think further ahead and realized that leaving the cantrips as is would have likely led to D:OS2 necrofire-style memes by endgame once more. (This is especially taking into account that cantrips automatically get another damage die at level 5, which would have made most earlier damaging spells worthless in comparison had they kept their field effects.)

Maybe the issue isn't so much that the surface effects (and everything and their mother having throwable items to unload turn 1), barrelmancy, and other questionable things like high ground/low ground advantage/disadvantage and bonus action jump/disengage/shove existing. The real major issue is that some encounters lean way too hard into using them against the player, instead of, say, actually using the actual DnD source material in a creative way. Indeed, with the way many of these conversations are going, some people here behave like tabletop DnD isn't tactical at all, and that Larian added in all of these extra systems to flavor it out of necessity. I can understand why some people on the other side of the spectrum think this is straight up insulting.

Indeed, upon further thought, most of the difficulty that currently exists in BG3 is actually a direct consequence of Larian's own homebrew systems, rather than utilizing anything from the source material itself. A minor example of this that isn't immediately obvious is Harpies jumping everywhere instead of having actual flight (which would have made the fight still difficult in other ways), meaning you can't consider alternate creative strategies like casting Sleep on them to have them plummet from the sky and take massive fall damage (which you can do to flying enemies in a certain other early access game). I mean, one could go further and consider that the Harpy fight is literally just a worse version of the Phase Spider fight because you can't attack something in the environment to rob them of their advantage.

While I agree with you that encounters shouldn't be balanced around using barrels and other similar things, I disagree that you have to be clairvoyant to clear encounters the first time, or use barrels at all to progress through the game. I also disagree that you have to unlink everyone and set them up before time. The reason I disagree is that I have done just fine without barrels or tactically taking highground etc. before a battle even on my first playthrough. The only time I think I actually did that was with the githyanki patrol. On my second playthrough I could beat them without tactically setting up through the use of shadowstep or whatever its called.

I realise my experience is just one singular anecdote which barely counts as evidence, but it does show the possibility exists. This is why I have more of a live and let live attitude in regards to the barrels. If people want to use them, doesn't affect my game, if people don't want to then they can go that way as well. I think I can count less than 7 times in approx. 90 hours I have seen an over the top amount of surface effects in a battle and all it did was make me think for a couple minutes to change my strategy. Enemies haven't really used them against me at all. Grenades and arrows on the other hand they have but I didn't feel it was so overpowered most of the time.

I do not think most (if any) encounters are balanced around barrels currently, but people are correct in saying that they should not be balanced around them, just around the actual classes and skills. I do support the idea of an option to turn them on/off or better yet and has been suggested a few times through this forum of a slider. Just because more options are good and people should get to play how they want to.

[Alilatias]

funniesthobo님이 먼저 게시:

While I agree with you that encounters shouldn't be balanced around using barrels and other similar things, I disagree that you have to be clairvoyant to clear encounters the first time, or use barrels at all to progress through the game. I also disagree that you have to unlink everyone and set them up before time. The reason I disagree is that I have done just fine without barrels or tactically taking highground etc. before a battle even on my first playthrough. The only time I think I actually did that was with the githyanki patrol. On my second playthrough I could beat them without tactically setting up through the use of shadowstep or whatever its called.

I realise my experience is just one singular anecdote which barely counts as evidence, but it does show the possibility exists. This is why I have more of a live and let live attitude in regards to the barrels. If people want to use them, doesn't affect my game, if people don't want to then they can go that way as well. I think I can count less than 7 times in approx. 90 hours I have seen an over the top amount of surface effects in a battle and all it did was make me think for a couple minutes to change my strategy. Enemies haven't really used them against me at all. Grenades and arrows on the other hand they have but I didn't feel it was so overpowered most of the time.

I do not think most (if any) encounters are balanced around barrels currently, but people are correct in saying that they should not be balanced around them, just around the actual classes and skills. I do support the idea of an option to turn them on/off or better yet and has been suggested a few times through this forum of a slider. Just because more options are good and people should get to play how they want to.

Barrels are ultimately one of the issues this game has, and it's not even the biggest offender on the priority list compared to a few other things. It is low hanging fruit that everyone argues about due to how obviously DOS-like it is, though. Maybe if their presence is just an Act 1 thing for flavoring/world building because the goblins are implied to be drinking that explosive wine, and the prevalence even beyond that camp is only because they're the dominant faction in the region, then it'd be acceptable.

Unless it turns out they're popular as a beverage in Baldur's Gate as well, in which one would wonder how that city has survived without being blown up. Only Waterdeep could probably get away with that, because their mages would definitely have countermeasures in place that would span the whole city (and on that note, I'd love to see a Waterdeep game at one point, the city and the Undermountain would be a crazy setting for a game).

But since Larian is seemingly insisting that we'll only get to hyper test Act 1 and is hiding everything beyond like how D:OS2 EA went, we won't get to see if the same design carries over to the rest of the game. It makes me wonder if Larian learned anything at all.

(D:OS2's long term balancing problems were basically hidden behind a 20-30 hour tutorial that had been tested to hell and back for an entire year. There's a reason why Act 2 ended up being super railroady even though you could theoretically wander everywhere from the start due to the absurd damage penalties you had for even being 1-2 levels below enemies, most people started to sour on the game once they actually hit Act 3 and beyond, and achievement statistics show that about 50% of people who reached Act 4 didn't even go on to finish the game despite Act 4 being like 10 hours of gameplay at the most out of a 100 hour or so game.

It was so obvious they had to make a Definitive Edition to address that last part, and the actual changes in terms of the systems responsible for the massive late game imbalance were a band-aid solution at best.)

---

Anyway, moving on... As I've said, there are other, more major concerns than just barrelmancy. Balance needs one to look at the big picture. I think the bigger offenders are the bonus action jump/disengage being rolled into one, but one can consider that this is only a thing precisely because field effects exist. So here's a long list of changes I'd make to the game to bring it more in line with its DnD roots and make it slightly less DOS-style while still keeping it tactical.

1: As I've said before, make barrels explode in your inventory if you're hit by a fire attack, unless you're storing the barrel in a magical Bag of Holding. This is Faerun, not Rivellon. Expect actual consequences.

2: Make field damage tick once per turn. Rounds in traditional DnD are measured by 6 seconds of real time. There is no reason you should be taking multiple ticks of fire damage by simply moving within the fire, because at that point, that fire ain't regular fire anymore. There is a reason that most DnD spells and items that cause field alterations specify that damage is only applied at the START of a turn -or- only ONCE PER TURN if someone moves into their effects. The field damage tick could be increased to compensate.

3: Remove burning as a status effect entirely, or make it exclusive to spells like Heat Metal (which I believe is currently not implemented). There's not much difference between standing on something on fire and being on fire yourself, and there's also no reason you should take potentially doubled damage just because a designer decided that they had to be two separate things. The way it currently is, it heavily affects casters under concentration more than martial characters.

4: Changing how fire works with the above two suggestions makes room for Jump/Disengage changes. De-couple Jump/Disengage and change them into standard actions. Some may be concerned that this would result in your archers and mages being more helpless when they're threatened, but this would incentivize use of spells that target saves rather than making an attack roll, and it also means enemies can't just suddenly ignore your front line any longer.

The current design means enemy archers just disengage from your melee as a bonus action and nuke Gale in the back anyway. This change would mean they have to decide whether they want to make an attack at disadvantage or escape, not both at once (and your melee choosing to dash at the enemy back line instead of swinging at the nearest enemy might be the better tactical option). Isn't having to consider something like that actually more tactical?

Also, this would have the effect of altering the Owlbear and Bulette fight. Their Deadly Leap is basically just the current jump/disengage bonus action with damage attached to it. In actual DnD, Deadly Leap is considered a standard action, and it provokes attacks of opportunity if the enemy leaps away from melee attackers.

5: Reduce threaten radius. The current large radius at which characters can threaten another is quite silly, and it's another thing that necessitates the current flawed design of jump/disengage. There is no reason threaten range can match or extend further than light sources.

6: I know people are sick of people bringing up Solasta, but I mention this here for another reason. Solasta is removing disadvantage against enemies in dim light. What few people have talked about is that BG3 has a similar system too, it just got hidden by all of the other things happening (and high ground/low ground advantage/disadvantage ultimately masking its existence). BG3 should have that reverted back to tabletop rules here too, because that would make room to address the following worse problems...

7: Overhaul backstabs and the current high ground/low ground system. Backstabs should be exclusive to daggers, so there is an actual incentive to use them when their damage is typically lower than other weapons.

High ground/low ground should not impose advantage or disadvantage, because a free environmental source of those bonuses and penalties heavily cheapens the value of spells that impose those effects. It also means AC below 14 might as well not even statistically exist if you are attacked or attacking something from high ground, and spells that target saving throws are outright inferior in most situations. A much more fair system would be that high ground gives you a +2 or 3 bonus to attack, while low ground imposes a -2 or 3 penalty to attack.

This would make it serve as the pseudo cover system that the game currently lacks (and judging from developer commentary, a true cover system will most likely not be implemented due to the engine lacking support for that kind of programming and that it'd be a monumental task to create at this point).

8: Add in missing mechanics like the Dodge action and ready actions. Dodge makes it so that enemies that try to make an attack roll against your character do so with disadvantage until the start of your next turn (though I imagine falling prone removes it). Ready actions allow you to delay an action until certain conditions are met, like attacking the first enemy that moves into range of your attacks (and ranged/cantrips would do it without disadvantage, which is how ready actions currently work in Solasta). One could probably go a step further and ready action a shove against the first enemy to climb that ledge in front of you. So even if you have a character who isn't in range to do anything meaningful during their turn, they can potentially still do a lot even when it's not their turn.

[Arlen]

Alilatias님이 먼저 게시:

Barrels are ultimately one of the issues this game has, and it's not even the biggest offender on the priority list compared to a few other things. It is low hanging fruit that everyone argues about due to how obviously DOS-like it is, though. Maybe if their presence is just an Act 1 thing for flavoring/world building because the goblins are implied to be drinking that explosive wine, and the prevalence even beyond that camp is only because they're the dominant faction in the region, then it'd be acceptable.

Unless it turns out they're popular as a beverage in Baldur's Gate as well, in which one would wonder how that city has survived without being blown up. Only Waterdeep could probably get away with that (and on that note, I'd love to see a Waterdeep game at one point, the city and the Undermountain would be a crazy setting for a game).

But since Larian is seemingly insisting that we'll only get to hyper test Act 1 and is hiding everything beyond like how D:OS2 EA went, we won't get to see if the same design carries over to the rest of the game. It makes me wonder if Larian learned anything at all.

(D:OS2's long term balancing problems were basically hidden behind a 20-30 hour tutorial that had been tested to hell and back for an entire year. There's a reason why Act 2 ended up being super railroady even though you could theoretically wander everywhere from the start due to the absurd damage penalties you had for even being 1-2 levels below enemies, most people started to sour on the game once they actually hit Act 3 and beyond, and achievement statistics show that about 50% of people who reached Act 4 didn't even go on to finish the game despite Act 4 being like 10 hours of gameplay at the most out of a 100 hour or so game.

It was so obvious they had to make a Definitive Edition to address that last part, and the actual changes in terms of the systems responsible for the massive late game imbalance were a band-aid solution at best.)

---

Anyway, moving on... As I've said, there are other, more major concerns than just barrelmancy. Balance needs one to look at the big picture. I think the bigger offenders are the bonus action jump/disengage being rolled into one, but one can consider that this is only a thing precisely because field effects exist. So here's a long list of changes I'd make to the game to bring it more in line with its DnD roots and make it slightly less DOS-style while still keeping it tactical.

1: As I've said before, make barrels explode in your inventory if you're hit by a fire attack, unless you're storing the barrel in a magical Bag of Holding. This is Faerun, not Rivellon. Expect actual consequences.

2: Rounds in traditional DnD are measured by 6 seconds of real time. There is no reason you should be taking multiple ticks of fire damage by simply moving the fire, because at that point, that fire ain't regular fire anymore. There is a reason that most DnD spells and items that cause field alterations specify that damage is only applied at the START of a turn -or- only ONCE PER TURN if someone moves into their effects.

3: Remove burning as a status effect entirely. There's not much difference between standing on something on fire and being on fire yourself, and there's also no reason you should take potentially doubled damage just because a designer decided that they had to be two separate things. The way it currently is, it heavily affects casters under concentration more than martial characters.

4: Changing how fire works with the above two suggestions makes room for Jump/Disengage changes. De-couple them and change them into standard actions. Some may be concerned that this would result in your archers and mages being more helpless when they're threatened, but this also means enemies can't just suddenly ignore your front line any longer. The current design means enemy archers just disengage from your melee as a bonus action and nuke Gale in the back anyway. This change would mean they have to decide whether they want to make an attack at disadvantage or escape, not both at once. Isn't having to consider something like that actually more tactical?

5: Reduce threaten radius. The current large radius at which characters can threaten another is quite silly, and it's another thing that necessitates the current flawed design of jump/disengage. There is no reason threaten range can match or extend further than light sources.

6: I know people are sick of people bringing up Solasta, but I mention this here for another reason. Solasta is removing disadvantage against enemies in dim light. What few people have talked about is that BG3 has a similar system too, it just got hidden by all of the other things happening (and high ground/low ground advantage/disadvantage ultimately masking its existence). BG3 should have that reverted back to tabletop rules here too, because that would make room to address the following worse problem...

7: Overhaul backstabs and the current high ground/low ground system. Backstabs should be exclusive to daggers. High ground/low ground should not impose advantage or disadvantage, because a free environmental source of those bonuses and penalties heavily cheapens the value of spells that impose those effects. It also means AC below 14 might as well not even statistically exist if you are attacked or attacking something from high ground. A much more fair system would be that high ground gives you a +2 or 3 bonus to attack, while low ground imposes a -2 or 3 penalty to attack.

8: Add in missing mechanics like the Dodge action and ready actions (which I will explain when I have more time later). So even if you have a character who isn't in range to do anything meaningful during their turn, you still potentially have something to contribute.

I focused on the barrels because that is what this thread topic is about. I also focus on the exploits - but it is definitely beyond real expectations for larian to not include features they developed in Divinity, They are trying to mesh the two systems, and I would attempt this if I were them. height advantage is definitely within the realms of homebrew, the AI specifically targeting low AC/low HP first is not. if you want to simulate an intelligent AI that can determine threat and risk assesments, then that same AI not registering stealth attacks is a problem, which can be exploited easily in nearly every encounter

Another exploit is the ability of every class casting any scroll they want - why roll and eldritch Knight, when Battlemaster can get manuevers, and cast scrolls. By taking EK, you are gimping your fighter by not having manuevers.

Same goes for thief and arcane trickster - there is absolutely no reason to take that subclass when a thief can cast scrolls, and get the additional bonus action per turn.

another exploit is the pickpocket scrolls and arrows, long rest, and repeat the process, if you get caught and can't talk you way out of it, just savescum, and try again - this makes the scrolls and gimmick arrows plentiful.

As for the disengage as a bonus action, if Larian is listening to the feedback of their own poll they ran on their forums, then that is going away. as that was one of the biggest negative feedback issues next to enhanced cantrips.

[Alilatias]

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

I focused on the barrels because that is what this thread topic is about. I also focus on the exploits - but it is definitely beyond real expectations for larian to not include features they developed in Divinity, They are trying to mesh the two systems, and I would attempt this if I were them. height advantage is definitely within the realms of homebrew, the AI specifically targeting low AC/low HP first is not. if you want to simulate an intelligent AI that can determine threat and risk assesments, then that same AI not registering stealth attacks is a problem, which can be exploited easily in nearly every encounter

As for the disengage as a bonus action, if Larian is listening to the feedback of their own poll they ran on their forums, then that is going away. as that was one of the biggest negative feedback issues next to enhanced cantrips.

I've made a few minor alterations to my post above, though none that have any bearing on your post.

For intelligent AI, I'm not sure they can program a way for the AI to behave differently based on how they prioritize targets. Ideally, high intellect/wisdom enemies would always try to prioritize targets that are less likely to dodge/resist their attacks, while enemies low in both stats would logically just go for the nearest target or whoever obviously inflicted the most damage against them, which is how it works in actual DnD.

As for the latter, I felt the need to explain further than just 'jump/disengage bad', because changing that will cause a ripple effect of other things that need to be rebalanced alongside it.

[Arlen]

Alilatias님이 먼저 게시:

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

I focused on the barrels because that is what this thread topic is about. I also focus on the exploits - but it is definitely beyond real expectations for larian to not include features they developed in Divinity, They are trying to mesh the two systems, and I would attempt this if I were them. height advantage is definitely within the realms of homebrew, the AI specifically targeting low AC/low HP first is not. if you want to simulate an intelligent AI that can determine threat and risk assesments, then that same AI not registering stealth attacks is a problem, which can be exploited easily in nearly every encounter

As for the disengage as a bonus action, if Larian is listening to the feedback of their own poll they ran on their forums, then that is going away. as that was one of the biggest negative feedback issues next to enhanced cantrips.

I've made a few minor alterations to my post above, though none that have any bearing on your post.

For intelligent AI, I'm not sure they can program a way for the AI to behave differently based on how they prioritize targets. Ideally, high intellect/wisdom enemies would always try to prioritize targets that are less likely to dodge/resist their attacks, while enemies low in both stats would logically just go for the nearest target or whoever obviously inflicted the most damage against them, which is how it works in actual DnD.

As for the latter, I felt the need to explain further than just 'jump/disengage bad', because changing that will cause a ripple effect of other things that need to be rebalanced alongside it.

I have no issue with that per se - but owlbears, skeletons, and spiders would go for the nearest threat, and an intelligent creature would not run right next to dude with a greatsword just to hit the caster, which has happened quite few times when fighting at the windmill, and in the goblin camp.

[Alilatias]

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

I have no issue with that per se - but owlbears, skeletons, and spiders would go for the nearest threat, and an intelligent creature would not run right next to dude with a greatsword just to hit the caster, which has happened quite few times when fighting at the windmill, and in the goblin camp.

I'm pretty sure all of the AI currently prioritizes targets the same way. I've had the owlbear and bulette literally deadly leap over my front-liner character to reach Gale and Wyll standing in the back. I've watched enemies in melee range pull out a flask of alchemist fire and throw it at my back line instead of having any concern about my front line too.

It's really frustrating and it currently feels like tanks are worthless in this game unless your back-liners are REALLY far back.

[Aria Athena]

Alilatias님이 먼저 게시:

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

I have no issue with that per se - but owlbears, skeletons, and spiders would go for the nearest threat, and an intelligent creature would not run right next to dude with a greatsword just to hit the caster, which has happened quite few times when fighting at the windmill, and in the goblin camp.

I'm pretty sure all of the AI currently prioritizes targets the same way. I've had the owlbear and bulette literally deadly leap over my front-liner character to reach Gale and Wyll standing in the back.

It's really frustrating and it currently feels like tanks are worthless in this game unless your back-liners are REALLY far back.

This is an carry over from DOS2. There most, if not all, enemies had at least 1 Lore, which meant they knew how much magic and physical armour each of your characters had.

[Alilatias]

Aria Athena님이 먼저 게시:

This is an carry over from DOS2. There most, if not all, enemies had at least 1 Lore, which meant they knew how much magic and physical armour each of your characters had.

Oh yeah, I had forgotten that was an actual thing in that game. Though it was a minor thing, as that game had even more intense verticality than BG3, and a lot more movement options to jump in and out of danger with (as well as an on-demand invisibility spell and the ability to teleport enemies themselves).

The systems that were brought over from D:OS2 have only really served to overshadow the base DnD ruleset (as I've said earlier, BG3's current difficulty is a direct consequence of Larian's homebrew design and not anything to do with the base material itself), and that's probably what really rubs people the wrong way.

[mayrc]

billybobtexan1000님이 먼저 게시:

dulany67님이 먼저 게시:

And I found no problem ignoring all that (except arguably long rest, but even then I tried to avoid it unless it seemed reasonable).

Because I don't use any of that, I would prefer it to be changed. However, the idea that no one has the ability to avoid exploits that detract from fun is silly.

is this early Access? is it not the purpose of early access to find exploits, and to use said exploits in ways that break the game, then provide feedback using the analytics, discussion and feedback forums? - I really do not care what YOU use or do not use - the point is, they are in the game, can be exploited rather easily, and breaks the games balance.

A player should NOT restrain themselves from using obvious exploit mechanics in a game, that is poor game design, The developer needs to fix obvious game breaking exploits, bugs and glitches - and how you presonally want to play be damned.

Edit - There are a number of ways to fix this

1. have a slider so players can choose
2. have the barrels require a strength thresh hold, similar to lifting and throwing bodies, and only 1 can be carried around
3. make the barrels static, so they cannot be lifted or carried, but can be used in the encounter with planning
4. remove them.

I advocate the first - removing something should be the last resort of the developers, providing options through toggles is the compromise, it allows each player to individually choose what they have in their game without effecting everyones game play.

But make no mistake - Larian is creating a game where class, abilities, and skills are the defining aspects to use to overcome an obstacle, not simply throw a barrel of firewine, or place barrels in tactically beneficial places without the enemy AI even questioning why you are doing so.

THIS! Exactly