Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
3 
Report this post
Or even better, bait out their reaction. Useful with a counterspeller in enemy group.
Running out of an enemy's melee range will trigger an AoO that your character might be able to counter in some way. So, the game stops your character from continuing to run off once the AoO pops.
If you're taking a route that goes through the melee range of multiple enemies, expect the game to stop you each time an enemy takes the reaction. (Note: Enemies with no reaction available that turn cannot perform AoO.)
When moving, avoiding enemy melee range or mitigating AoO is part of the strategy.
I am not complaining about the AoO TRIGGERING - I am complaining about them STOPPING MY CHARACTER'S MOVEMENT, even if they MISS (which is the vast majority of times due to me triggering them with high AC characters), even if they have NO IMPACT on the triggering character's SPEED or TRAJECTORY, which is near always the case, or if there are no reactions that my character (or other characters around it) can make in response to being hit.
If the triggering characters speed or trajectory is not affected, there is NO EXCUSE to abort the movement. Even if reactions can trigger, such as an ally's Sentinel or self Hellish Rebuke or prompt for Shield, these still do not influence the character's final destination in any way. Make the reaction and continue the movement. Stop excusing bad game design. There are legitimate cases for aborting movement. If I get shoved, knocked prone, stunned, etc... then sure. These don't account for even 1% of the cases, and these are certainly not the situations which I'm discussing here.
I have been playing DnD for well over 2 decades, both as a DM and player. Do not attempt to lecture me on game mechanics or strategy. My argument has NAUGHT to do with it. If I wanted to avoid the AoO I would make different choices. If I wanted to bait it I would move differently. You're basically stating that if there was a 5s delay when casting Fireball and I complained about it then the solution would be to not cast Fireball rather than removing the delay. Ridiculous.
PAUSE the player, not STOP the player. The key distinction is that PAUSED movement can be RESUMED afterwards from the position where the moving actor was PAUSED. For the trillionth time, if the attack misses, doesn't trigger any additional effects / reactions, etc... or, in broader terms, if it does not affect the speed or trajectory of the movement in any way then there is no reason whatsoever to not resume movement towards the initially defined target position after all effects resolve.
And in case you find the distinction between PAUSE and STOP to be of insufficient significance because you are unaccustomed to the technical use of certain words, I've used the term ABORT before in my messages while explaining my point of view.
Moreover, on the subject of "understanding reactions", this is no different than PAUSING the resolution of an attack to prompt to player for the activation of Destructive Wrath, or Smite on a Critical. The attack resumes after the prompt - or any non-prompted effects - resolve, so long as none of the effects caused the attack to be aborted.
Plainly put: move begins, effect triggers, effect does not affect movement:
- Expected: movement resumes.
- Actual: movement is unconditionally aborted. Destination must be selected again.
You do know that people change the direction they move after an Opportunity attack, right? Such as attack fishing where they force the enemy to waste reactions attacking so then they turn around to attack themselves.
Sorry my guy, figure your **** out and think of other ways to not trigger Opportunity Attacks if that is such a big deal. You have dozens of tools at your disposal for this.
You do know that you don't have to spend the entirety of your movement allowance in one go, right? You can move to spot A to bait the opportunity attack, then move to spot B as a movement follow-up. Aborting your initial movement is not required in order for the bait tactic to work.
This is how you do it at the tabletop. This is how the rules have been for the last decade. (DnD editions prior to 5e were not so lenient in regards to movement splitting). Are you really incapable of easily figuring out how to achieve the same result if your movement isn't aborted? Because if that's the case then it seems that I am not the one who doesn't understand the tools at my disposal... but hey, you keep failing to understand that the issue has nothing at all to do with TRIGGERING the attack, but rather the laborious requirement of re-selecting the same destination several times, so...
And before you argue back with "different game, different rules" - sure, absolutely. That doesn't counter my argument. As the implementation stands, people who wish to split their movement into bait and follow-up can do so, but people who wish to have their movement resumed do not have a choice. Resuming movement would not affect you in the slightest - it would simply be an objectively more robust implementation.
When something doesn't detract from A but adds to B only a very special kind of individual would argue against it - but please, go on and continue being that kind of individual.
Yeah... what people are you talking about?
I really dislike when a single person tries to speak on behalf of everyone—or even a group.
Speak for yourself. Because if everyone started talking like they know what everyone thinks, no one could be taken seriously.
Simply google "BG3 slow combat" - or replace "slow" for "faster" - and feast your eyes on the plethora of Reddit, Steam and YouTube content on the matter.
I really dislikes when a single person asserts or assumes something that can be quickly verified or disproved by a 3 word web search.
Not as much as those trying to revive a two-year old topic barely anyone talks about anymore these days. Post-offical mod support, that is.
If they truly want it to be fast, they'd should consult the tools and figure out a way to make it possible. Or pay someone to do it for them.
Ok, so? The issues where STILL present, Larian STILL ignored them and they STILL had to be fixed by the community. How does that invalidate any of the arguments? And did you all just miss the point where I explicitly stated that slow combat in general was "merely a sidenote" in my post?
Look at it from a different perspective: the game is highly praised - including by me, unless you also missed my observation about "having a good time, except for X" - but whenever you see someone bring out some negative opinion of BG3 the thing that is usually brought up is "pace". And sure, pace extends beyond "combat speed", but it seems to be the one thing that Larian falters at. And it doesn't render the game unplayable in any way, but fellows, FFS, when there are such simple and clear QoL things that can be done by the developer to improve some players' experience without deteriorating yours... why are you so opposed to improvement? I'm not asking for fundamental changes that require weeks of development! It's baffling...