Talk:Raphael/Combat

Hold monster tip is good, but be careful.

hold monster is obviously simillar to hold person. This condition does guarantee critical hits, but only on attacks within 10 feet, so be sure to move in close before using your bow shots or eldritch blast... 75.104.54.114 10:26, 5 February 2025 (CET)

Raphael is vulnerable to Tasha's Hideous Laughter

On Tactician difficulty, I hit Raphael with Tasha's Hideous Laughter ability gained from the possessed necklace quest. He spent the remainder of the fight on the ground laughing, doing nothing useful, while the party cleaned up the rest of the mobs and destroyed the pillars. He, miraculously, was never able to win a saving throw and died, laughing on the floor. His corpse continued to laugh until the full 10 turns had completed. Felt somewhat epic death and worthy of noting here. Haggle1996 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2025 (CEST)

Would be hostile vs is hostile

@Raelin

https://bg3.wiki/w/index.php?title=Raphael/Combat&curid=25959&diff=441820&oldid=441524 https://bg3.wiki/w/index.php?title=House_of_Hope&curid=8537&diff=441819&oldid=441525 https://bg3.wiki/w/index.php?title=Yurgir&diff=441818&oldid=441809 Re "Since Raphael is always hostile to the party in this scene, saying "would be" makes no sense here, even in a hypothetical context."

Why do you insist on saying "is" and think that "would be" makes no sense here? This is (as you admit) a hypothetical, and it's in the future relative to the event in question (i.e. the usage of the Friends cantrip), which I believe are both reasons to use "would be", not "is".

I mainly want to make sure that this phrase could not be read at a glance and then be reasonably misinterpreted to mean Raphael is always hostile to the party. I don't like the "this scene" conditional you added to try to achieve this, since it's pretty vague: Does this refer to the House of Hope overall? Does it refer to only the dialogue before combat? Both of those interpretations don't seem unreasonable to me and neither would be (entirely) correct. Meanwhile, "would be" is a pretty concise way to indicate that this hostility is dependent on conditions already described prior, thus nudging readers that read the phrase at a glance to read the rest of the paragraph too to understand the phrase's whole meaning. I do normally put this kind of thought into the phrasing of my edits, but I don't want to try to explain it for you for each edit...

Would something like this be acceptable to you? (Or should I say, is something like this acceptable to you?) "This means the Friends cantrip can be used for this persuasion check without any downsides in tactician and harder difficulty modes, since even if Friends is not used Raphael would be hostile to the party regardless." Quaris (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2026 (CET)

I've changed it to use different wording entirely to prevent edit warring. Looks like I submitted the edit ~15 minutes before you submitted this comment. Sorry it was too late to save the trouble of writing all this. Taylan (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2026 (CET)