Some previews and new information are doing the rounds and what I'm learning is incredibly discouraging.

It took Larian three years to revert most of of their (almost universally bad) homebrew rules.
We had to fight for months and write down goddamn entire books to make our point about why these chances were not for the better, but here we were, close to the release and with MOST of the bad decisions finally reverted.
Sure we still have a bunch of lingering issues, but we were getting somewhere...

Then today new details started circulating.

- Apparently the player will be able to respec at will. But not just that, he will be able in any given moment to change everything about his character, including the stats and starting class.
- Apparently, the same will apply to companions too. They'll be tagged as "that companion" by the game, but you'll be able to change appearance, starting abilities and skills distribution AND STARTING CLASS, too.

Now, I know that there's always people who will argue that mods often give these options, but I think there's a fundamental difference and whole different level of abstraction between modders and use of external software and a game offering these options natively, with no barrier or filter of any kind.
It's like the game is going out of its way to remind you "Don't worry, everything about it is fake and there's no need to long term commitment about anything, because none of this matter".
Which is technically true, but heart-breakingly immersion-shattering as a message to the player.

it's not the end, thoug.

- In an interview with a popular Italian portal, the lead combat designer Nick Pechenin bragged about how they removed stat/abilities requirement for multiclassing...

...and if this wasn't already bad enough, what I read in the following statement made my eyes pop out.

- They are planning to help these "poor multiclassing underdogs" to unlock more spell slots and more quickly so that they'll be able to keep pace with the unlock of spells with their single-class counterparts. The example they made was that "It was disappointing for a multiclass player to have to delay so much the access to the fireball spell, while single-class could get it so much sooner".


This is depressing. I'm genuinely starting to think the people in charge of making key gameplay decisions at Larian may very well be some of the WORST rule designers I've ever witnessed.

The only one that really bothers me is changing Companion's starting class, especially given what we know about the Companions:

Does Wyll really make sense if he's not a Warlock? Shouldn't changing his starting class require that he relinquish his pact first?
Does Gale really make sense if he's not a Wizard? Does it make sense that we can respec him into a Barbarian?
Does Shadowheart make sense if she's not a Cleric?

Came here to complain about probably one of the most asked features

Every single one of the changes I listed ranges from BAD to ABSOLUTELY AWFUL, but yeah, I can easily agree that this one, more than anything, is completely nonsensical.
Beside, isn't this the role that "hirelings" were supposed to cover?

Fortunately, none of what you've mentioned will affect my gameplay. It is all options. If I don't like it, then I won't use it.

That being said, I am curious about some of these aspects like multiclassing once game is released. I don't think in my first run I will multiclass, though.

"Some people asked for it" is not enough to make a stupid idea not stupid, incidentally.

It just makes a fool of who asked for it.

Nobody forces you to use any of those features. They can add a lot to the gameplay. One thing I hate is irreversible choices and re-doing things just because you picked a wrong feat some levels ago. Larian delivers!

Most of that stuff you can just ignore. I know I will. The handholding for multiclass seems terrible imo but I also always hated multiclassing even in D&D 5e so I was already planning on never multiclassing.

I know when RQ wakes up she is going to be mad at me but I have to say it.

I see this trend in the United States,

For instance, I am a retired commercial Roofer/Architectural sheet metal worker.

Currently working as a security guard, I have that no BS look about me lol.

Anyway, on our store door, there is two signs "No open carry" "No Pets unless there service dogs"

All day we have animals in the store, I was told to not even bother,

Why? I ask.

Because we don't want to be sued.

Everyone is scared shitless there going to be on the end of a phone camera.

And this attitude is trending into every aspect of our lives.

I like to say "The kids are in Charge" well thats not exactly what I say, I just don't want to get booted from the forums just yet lol I am glad to hear that these rules are optional.

Absolutely none of those affect me except for the spell unlocks.

I'm not being forced to do any of those things so they don't concern me.
I'll have to see how the spell unlocks go, if they're unbalancing I just won't multi-class two spell casting classes (which I rarely do because multiple spell classes in 5e don't work very well unless you're just dipping)

... honestly I can see myself changing Astarion's haircut, cause I hate it. And maybe Shadowheart's domain, Shar also has Death iirc.

Please don't hate me.

RIGHT how DARE this 'evil company' put in completely _OPTIONAL_ features that serve to make the game accessible to a wider audience. SHAME ON THEM!........ (Seeing the threads here, i kind of understand why Larian Opt to not participate themselves it also reminds me why there's like 1 or 2 people at most from the group i used to Pen / Paper with as a teenager that i still have any sort of contact with today as an adult.)

The only thing that might bother me from these changes is the multiclassing spell slots tweaks, the rest seem like things I can just easily ignore. And these tweaks will surely be appreciated by a more casual audience that might be scared of messing up their characters when leveling/multiclassing, or that simply want to try different things.

I don't know man, this seems like a weird hill to die on.

I think a big issue within the community of this game is distinguishing DnD tabletop players from those who have never played DnD but are interested in this game. I believe that Larian knows this and are also catering to that group which is why they are giving players easier options.

Easy solution would be to put these features in some additional difficulty settings...
Turn off respec options
Restrict class changes
Reduce mutliclass progression
Etc, etc

I hadn't heard many of these.
This is...fine. You should be able to respec your character if you make poor decisions due to a lack of understanding of 5e/how thinks exactly work. The PF games have these and I like being able to do so. That said, the character building in PF is vastly more complex than in 5e, and so basically requires having the respec ability to not soft lock players. Whereas it's ~hard to build bad a (single-classed) 5e character unless you fuck up your original stats.
Ugh. Like, why make "Origin Characters" if everything about them can be changed? Why not just make their backstories be DAO-like backstories for a custom character (e.g. The Dark Urge).
...what.

Okay, there is a possible saving grace here. Although Fireball is mentioned by name, Nick always uses the term "spell slots." And technically, what is explained above is already how multiclassing full spellcasters works. A Wizard/Cleric caster gets the full progression of spell slots, but they only get access to spells according to their class levels. E.g., A Wizard 3/Cleric 2 has 3rd level spell slots, but only knows 2nd level Wizard spells and 1st level Cleric spells. So...maybe Nick is just being a dummy and is incorrectly understanding multiclassing...?

However, if Larian changes it so that a Wizard 3/Cleric 2 gains access to *both* 3rd level Wizard and 3rd level Cleric spells...sigh. The whole point of multiclassing is that you pay the cost of slower spell (and other class feature) progression in order to gain flexibility and/or synergy from a new class. At this point, just give us the option to at any point in the game use abilities from any class. Give every character all armor & weapon proficiencies, allow Barbarians to cast spells when raging, give every character bonus action Hide (ohwait). Sure, why not? It's all optional.

5e rules about multiclassing:

Honestly, I think Larian is doing the above in order to make coding simpler. It's much easier to have one pool of spell slots/known/prepared than it is to have separate pools for each spellcasting class.

This is a mostly reasonable take...mostly. And most of those are just options that can be ignored and I have no problem with that stuff. If I can ignore it then great. But there is a massive problem there with the multiclass handholding and that is terrible. Now as I mentioned above, I never liked multiclassing, even in D&D 5e and I had no intention to multiclass in BG3 so this doesn't really affect me. But I am also aware that there are people who like multiclassing and they meticulously plan their character progression with multiclassing in mind...those changes will completely ruin the game for those people. I think that just not allowing multiclassing in BG3 would have been better than this system...at least that way people know how to plan their playthroughs...it will be terrible for those who multiclass when the game launches only to find out after the fact that it ruined their character.

I agree. I'm actually happy about most of those changes, but if people care that much or can't keep themselves from not using them in their game (for whatever reason that is) I guess they could make use of those options.

Sorry to hear that you're giving up on Larian. You will be missed around here, I'm sure.

I have to support Tuco and how he feels, even though I know those changes are optional. The thing that bothers me is that all those big changes to the classic formula dropped out of nowhere RIGHT AFTER the dirty bear sex marketing trick that lured a lot of passing casual onlookers on a quest to do some bear banging shenanigans. It is like they did the actual DnD community dirty by being silent for several years and letting us play a COMPLETELY different game then luring some 'connoisseur of fun gaming' and dropping the biggest bomb of changes to appeal to THEM, not the fans of the source material. Changes like this should have been transparent to the community all this long-long time, period.

Edit: While I was typing...


THIS. Exactly this, but with the balance swung dramatically to appeal the general audience and make everything for them as easy and with as few restrictions as possible so that they could feel themselves at home.

No one said "evil".
You can spare me the clownish hot takes.

It's of questionable competence as game designers at best, though.


It literally doesn't matter if they are "forcing" me or anyone else to do anything.
Aside for the fact that if I'm going to join a multiplayer game I will potentially have to deal with this nonsense regardless of liking it or not, there's a problem at the source.

That's not how system design works. A game is defined by the interaction of its rules and subsystems. Messing them up randomly is not just going to be a blemish in isolation. It has a cascade effect in the way the game balances and plays out.
A game is defined by its limitations. People who think "you should always be free to do whatever you feel like" apparently struggle to metabolize the concept, though.

"Our new rule in this chess sim is that every chess piece on the board can act like the Queen when you really feel like it" is a disaster of a systemic change even if someone personally doesn't plan to take advantage of it.
Especially since that person in the will interact with other players in that ecosystem.

@Silverstar: not sure why I should care about what you are going to do with haircuts, but thanks for coming out.

No, I won't, because I never said I'm going anywhere.

And I can't say the feeling is going to be mutual, anyway.

Multiplayer with randoms or just people you don't know is always guaranteed to ruin your game experience regardless...especially in a videogame where a lot of the players will have never played D&D even if the game was a million percent true to 5e. The best advice I have, and this would have been no different even if the game were true to 5e: play only people you know and trust and discuss this stuff with them to make sure you all agree before the game starts that nobody will touch the bad stuff.

The only major issue here is multiclassing...that multiclass system should just not exist. No multiclassing is better than this system.

How does any of these changes in any way, shape or form equate to this absurd example you're offering? If you have to exaggerate the impact of the changes so much for you to get your point across, maybe your argument isn't as solid as you think.

While I am not a classic DnD fan myself (having been drawn to BG3 due to a general love of RPGs and DOS2), I do think that the classic DnD tabletop lovers have gotten shafted more than other segments of the fanbase.

EDIT:
I WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS DISCUSSION BUT THIS DIAL-UP ASS WEBSITE IS MAKING ME FEEL YOUNG AGAIN AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY

This feels like Larian is committing hard to courting players unfamiliar with D&D. Essentially, it's the non-optional mirror to story mode.

I don't mind reset mechanics existing, as the game will need to be marketable. I don't like their implementation, but it's fairly reasonable to take the mental load off new players.

I don't think I like them boosting multiclassing massively. It is entirely possible, however, that Larian COMPLETELY changed when we unlock what spells. If multiclassing legitimately locks characters out of strong spells late game, I can see an argument made for this.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a really questionable idea. It just may be reasonable mechanically, because they've completely unbalanced everything. I can't even discount that this is the smaller evil.

It did indeed woosh you if that's what you got from the post. But to put it in words you won't fail to understand; I don't mind the changes overall as they're something I won't use and I probably won't play this in multiplayer. I do however think I might make minor edits to some companions.

D&D fans attacked Sword Coast Legends for doing similar things (i.e. watering down or outright changi8ng D&D rules and mechanics). Will they hold BG3 to the same standard, or will Larian conveniently get a pass? I wonder.

I get it Tuco.

I have to approach this game as “based on 5e D&D”. I can enjoy this game based on that concept if the story is well written.

That’s being if they have done all this… I am pretty much sure stat rolling is in game or just choose your own stats…

Where did you hear about the multiclass change?
That would honestly annoy me, since you can already make multiclasses more optimized than the single classes and playing around with the tradeoffs was most of the fun in character building for me. I like that I get fireball later, and have a harder time in the early game, in exchange for greater power a couple levels later...

Well, Tempest Cleric 2/ Storm Sorcerer 10 abusing chain lightning, haste, quicken spell and the wet condition is going to be the meta after all, I guess...

In more than one. Thanks for asking and goddbye.

Here.

Well, if you really decide to give up on Larian and find that you can't offer constructive comments to a company you don't believe in, then we'll all understand, I think. And if you don't trust Larian to hear/heed the common-sense, business-savvy guidance you're offering, and that makes you ultimately decide to leave... we will do our best to continue, sans said commentary.

What do you think you are you doing here, exactly? The only commentary I don't find in the least constructive in this thread is yours... better share your feelings on the changes, if you have something worthy to say apart from 'I like it' and 'It doesn't bother me'.

This adds onto the bonfire of threads of people being mad about stuff that doesn't affect them to be honest. Why do you care? Just don't use it if you think it is bad, dumb, stupid or whatever. Those are your opinions to which you are entitled; but to discount and restrict other people's desires based on your subjective opinion is the very definition of bigotry. Literally the only feature you can't passively avoid is the one about multiclass progression, and that you can actively avoid by not using those slots. These kinds of arguments literally make no sense at all. Just. Don't. Use. It.

Would it be easier if you PM'd me a list of things I can/should say?

I'm giving up on Larian in the sense that I'm not going to concede them the "benefit of the doubt" anymore.
They proved over and over across at least three games that they are absolutely dreadful at designing subsystems and balancing mechanics. And maybe even worse at understanding the implications of the systems they put in place.

But sure, feel free (hell, even ECOURAGED) to "do your best" to continue on your own. It's not like I was ever finding myself in a spot where I was particularly valuing our interactions, anyway.

Try PMing your think tank for that info.
Not the easiest, but worth the effort.

That is terrible. I can only pray that something got horribly lost in translation like maybe the interview was done in English and they had a completely inept translator convert the interview into Italian and it's all just a horrible, nightmarish misunderstanding. If this was optional and maybe hidden deep in the game settings there was an option that said "ruin multiclassing, warning, you will not be able to play multiplayer with characters created while this setting is on" then I would not have cared. But this is just horrible. They would have been better off just not allowing any multiclassing at all.

I really like that we can edit the origin characters, ill probably change how they all look, I may not change all peoples classes, maybe

I wouldnt mind Shadowheart as a paladin of Shar or change her name to Viconia and be a drow cleric of Shar, it would almost fit

Wyll will stay as a warlock but id probably make him a dragon born.

ill be makeing gale a gnome wizard , or a tiefling sorc

Im not sure what ill change minsc in to but I dont really like the fact he was dragged from bg2/comics so if its not to jarring ill try make him like a random heroic npc (unless he goes on about boo a lot then hell have to stay as minsc)

Astarion will be a female halfling bard

Id definitely tweak lots of stuff to fit my personality, and remove some of the stuff i dont like, imo this is good

only news im really not happy with is races losing their unique stats, Ill suppose this is something i will have to hope a Modder fixes for me

Guys, both of you are better than this.
We want to support each other in spite of our differences and reach a consensus through collective effort rather than mutual criticism.

I totally understand feeling let down that the system isn't going to follow the table-top rules verbatim.

I am glad that they aren't though.

PHB Ranger and Monk (hell most monks to this day) are hot garbage. If you were a table-top gamer when 5e came out who loved rangers or monks you pretty much cried yourself to sleep for years.
I'm glad they allow all classes to have a use for their bonus actions. It isn't fun clicking 'end turn' with half of your actions basically unusable.
I'm glad that they gave martial classes some cool abilities to use with their weapons, gods know they needed something unique to do other than bonk over and over again.
I'm glad they added things like height advantage and expanded elemental interactions. Grease/Web + Fireball and freezing wet stuff were pretty much the only interactions in the PHB and it is nice to have other interesting things happening.
I like that we can get more than three decent magic items. I'm not sure how you personally feel about that, but I love the fact that I'm not just stuck with a weapon, armor, and shield for my magic items. New amulets, rings, and bracelets let me experience cool powers I would never otherwise have access to.
Magic items that interlink and provide a sort of 'set bonus' are a nice addition as well.


Do I like the way they are implementing everything? Not really.

It sounds like they are fumbling Tasha's racial rules by just swapping in the stat changes without balancing the other bonuses to fix the nerfs they introduced by doing that.
If they are opening up spell levels based only on access to spell slots, that isn't something I'd personally support at my table. But honestly, they did that in BG1 and BG2 as well, my favorite class was Ranger/Cleric and I got all the druid spells added to my cleric spellbook.

It can be frustrating when something we are really looking forward to lets us down, and I hope this doesn't end up ruining the game for you, because it feels like it is something that you could still have a lot of fun with.

I "care" because "If you don't like it don't use it" is a very solid principle applied to sex toys but it's garbage in reference to game design.
When I play the game I want to feel like it's designed to have a proper structure and balance; Idon't want to feel like I have to put in place my own restrictions and self-limitations to enjoy what experience it offers, otherwise everything breaks apart.

Let's say I like to make my character as efficient and powerful as possible. With these new rules in place I would now being basically forced to do some broken multiclass combo OR to pretend these rules don't exist and put a restrain on myself.

Other example: let's say I will play the game as a melee class, only to learn that way later in the game I will find several strong items setting my base abilities to incredibly high values in a couple of areas that matter (i.e. STR 24). In a normal tabletop campaign or a good videogame it would be "Whatever, I needed strength to make it so far, anyway". In this game the optimal solution would be "I'm going to reset my character and set my STR at 8, buff other stats, then equip this item. Here I am, exploiting the system without having to do the work for it".

I could listen other 50 examples of this type, eventually even focused on "roleplay" if the rebuttal is going to be that "power playing is a dirty word to begin with. Because that area is going to be affected as well.

Are we sure that we can actually change the appearance of the origin characters? I thought someone had a screenshot of the "edit appearance" option being grayed out. Maybe I'm wrong.

Can we turn Shadowheart into a man?

How can we see Astarion's teeth if we make him look like a half orc?

I don't know. This doesn't sound right. Is this really the way it's going to work or just speculation?

I think they should make it so that if you edit an Origin character the game should disable their story entirely...both if you play as the character in question and if you have them as companions. And there should be at least ten different, massive warning before you begin editing an origin character that if you go through with the edit the playthrough will be ruined forever and you'll have to start a new save file.

This thought Im having was brought up somewhere else in the forums, I am concerned and curious as well.

1. Lv 1 Wizard
Lv 1 Clr
Lv 1 Ranger

= LV 3 wizard for spells casting and Lv 3 Cleric as well This cant be right?


One level of every class x12 ( which I heard there is an achievement for finishing the game like this), will the 1st level wizard be throwing Lv 6 spells as well as lv 6 cleric and warlock...

Sounds pointless, if they removed the story you may as well just use a mercenary

Those were all good changes. They were introduced patch by patch though and were a direct answer to our criticism. I remember people saying that martial classes are boring in BG3 when compared to casters and then they introduced weapon actions. Ranger changes were appreciated by all as well, at least the initial ones. Patch 9 arguably pushed ranger over the top, I don't know if you've played but the beast master's companions are stupidly overpowered now. What they did now is such a big and sudden design decision, especially the multi classing changes. They just forced those on us without any proper open testing, without warning, without anything and I bet those will be hard to reverse. I am very curious about how this all turns out, I wonder why were they really confident enough to override the rules that's been there for a long time and proved to be half-decent at least. I'll be surprised if those recent changes result into a better experience, I'll try and hope for the best.

I'm afraid you may live in a sheltered environment in the table-top world, because that happens in TT as well. I mean, 95% of Paladin's have sworn themselves to an evil weapon from the Shadowfell. The Hexblade/Paladin/Divine Soul is exactly the same sort of multiclass combo that people will be making in BG3.

In the TT world you can ban combos like that, but at the end of the day those bans are just as much homebrew and self limitation that you would need to do if you want to curate your experience in BG3.

I just doubt the tech is advanced enough to support the animation mirror to another race, on any face, without awkwardness. Larian would have needed to hire a whole second set of voice actors, too. As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened.

I would be content with just easier respec and multiclass access, primarily for player characters. Anything beyond that: expedited progression for multiclasses, fundamentally altering companions, nullifying the significance of starting class... all of that seems to be in violation of the spirit of DnD or traditional CRPGs. DOS2 was built around that, but that was DOS2. This is not.

I see this type of argument used over and over... and conversely I'm afraid some of you don't seem to grasp that "X game has balance issues already" should never be considered an excuse/free pass to introduce even WORSE balance issues on top of it.

Yeah, and now with some of these changes the "Sorcadin" or the "Palalock" will come with even less drawbacks compared to what they already were.

How is that a mitigating factor, exactly?

Honestly, I understand your frustration and respect your opinion, but I understand it even less now. You're saying if you want to meta-game you are forced to meta-game. How is this different from not liking the RAW in tabletop and agreeing homebrew with a DM? That's changing the rules right? To do something you "shouldn't" be able to?

The issue I think Larian are contending with is that even 5e is a complex system. I know this from watching dozens of EA streams of people who aren't DnD familiar getting owned by simple mistakes because they don't understand that Shadowheart's Firebolt uses Intelligence to hit rather than Wisdom for her Guiding Bolt; or that her Mace is a Strength weapon and she is more likely to hit with a dagger. DnD is FULL of traps for inexperienced players to get hardstuck on without a DM to say "that's probably a bad idea".

Players feeling they have to restart a playthrough because their build turned out to be hot trash is a MASSIVE quit moment in gameplay. Quit moments are bad. Always. Larian need to make a product that people will buy at the end of the day - and the DnD market is a tiny fraction of the gaming market. The return on investment on making a game of the scope of BG3 without mass appeal outside of the DnD community isn't there. That's a major reason why the third installment took 20 years to come around. I'd be amazed if Larian's expenditure on this game is less than 30-50x that of Crown of the Magister or Wrath of the Righteous.

If the interview is correct, you'd get level 2 spells for each of those classes as your total level would be 3 -> grants access to level 2 spells. Additionally, as Ranger isn't a full caster class, it's unclear if it'll work this way. But for 3 full spellcaster levels (level 1 Bard + Cleric + Wizard): yes, they might gain access to level 2 Bard, level 2 Cleric, and level 2 Wizard spells.

Also, it's unclear how this will interact with Warlock...

The singular headband of intellect was fine. One additional headband/belt would also be okay. But if there's 1 of each of the stat-boosting items in the first Act (in particular, a Belt of Dex -- which doesn't exist in 5e) that'll be too much. Hopefully this quote wasn't an indicator that they'd be adding many more of these items...

I take it you aren't going to elaborate on that, or rather, can't. You clearly aren't here to offer constructive criticism or get a real debate going, you're just throwing a tantrum because Larian is taking some freedom in their approach to certain systems that wether we like it or not, will be most welcome by many players. You're also quick to dismiss others' points when they disagree or yours are challenged, your opinion is not more valuable than the others'.

Realistically, the only of these changes that will affect those of us who wouldn't normally want to benefit from these tweaks, is the one that touches spell slots when multiclassing, we don't know the severity of the changes yet, but worst case scenario, multiclassing will be slightly stronger than it should be for the price you're paying, hardly the end of the world.

Also @Darth_Trethon, multiclassing was one of the most requested features for this game, having it be stronger than it would normally be is clearly preferable over having it completely removed, suggesting otherwise is kinda ridiculous.

Just be reasonable guys, I don't personally like these changes myself, but they make sense and I doubt Larian will take them so far as to be game breaking.

IF MULTICLASSING IS EXPEDITED WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF FEATS THAT GIVE YOU ACCESS TO ANOTHER CLASS' ABILITIES, PERKS, OR SPELLS????????

I didn't even think about it before but this is a huge deal for Multiplayer. If we lose a player and we can't bring in a new player with a custom character - letting them simply respec the character they are taking over may solve the problem. I wonder if they can change name and appearance?

I'd argue that nothing is WORSE for character building than hexblade has been for 5e. But that is my opinion, you are entitled to feel differently.

My point regarding flaws in 5e is that BG3 is improving the rules in some ways, and arguably making them worse in others. It's a mixed bag, and for me at the current moment, the scales balance in favor of BG3 (even the WoTC crew are implementing some of the changes in DnD One or whatever they're calling it now).

It sounds like they are very much balanced toward the negative side for you.

However, I don't believe that any one person knows the exact right set of changes to make the game fit the perfect model for everyone. Anyone assuming they have that perfect answer may want to take a step back and give themselves time to process their feelings.

I feel like introducing a proper tutorial sections and properly tying it to a decent story should do the trick of introducing the game to a new player base. Unfortunately, it becomes impossible when you are from Larian studios and you build your prologue based solely on the rule of cool and then slap a clumsy and messy parody of a tutorial on top of this cool action. I think a proper tutorial and maybe a manual should solve these problems better than scrapping racial ASIs, scrapping multiclass restrictions, letting us respec every 10 minutes and giving fireball to anyone who dipped one time into Wizard.

I also fear it's more reasonable to have these options for all these reasons. The best mechanics in the world can be made unenjoyable.

What about a multiclassed hexblade with ACCELERATED spell gain? How would you feel about it?

That's a great point.

In all of this, my two least favorite portions of the news are:
-Expedited/Buffed Multiclassing (I want multiclassing to be easy. I don't want it to be uniformly better than single-classing in every respect. I want build tradeoffs).
-Altering starting class for story companions. Or altering anything about companions other than some stats and minor cosmetics.

Not pointless...that is the entire point. If you want to intentionally destroy the origin characters then you should be left with mercenaries.

Each and every origin character has a story centered on who they are before you meet them. Shadowheart is a cleric of Shar and you meet her while she's on a mission for Shar...if you change her then her story makes no sense so you should lose that. Lae'zel is a faithful Githyanki fighter and her story has everything to do with that...if you change that you should lose the story full stop.

Each and EVERY origin character has a very specific story centered on who they are before you meet them. If you don't like that, then fine, you can have mercenaries, but absolutely never a character that doesn't make sense running through their stories.

If Larian is taking feedback, I believe these are fairly uncontroversial points:

1. Reconsider the power up to multiclass
2. Restrict how often each character can be reset (one way or another. E.g.: at least one class locks at level x. Stats can be reset every x hours. Each companion x times).

Thanks for the reply

How would a normal respec not be enough to address this, exactly?


And frankly I'm not even a fan of basic respec in general. I just understand its convenience.
But frankly this is a ideological war at this point.

The ill conceived notion that anything that is "convenient" also makes a game better is a bane of modern game design, in general.
That's why so many games in the end despise investing more and more in presentation and production value turn out to be so toothless and insipid.

3. Lock story companions' starting class.

AND FIX THE FORUM WEBSITE

Its watered down for convenience and accessibility. The bane of any good game. Stick to the D&D rules. The beta was sooo long, why change the rules now, makes no sense.

Guys I am starting to believe that all this stuff coming out of nonsense foreign articles and unknown publications is literally made up nonsense. I just saw someone else post more nonsense articles talking about pact of the blade warlocks being confirmed in BG3 when Larian themselves literally posted the full list of classes and subclasses in the game less than two weeks ago and pact of the blade warlock was NOT on there. For now let's calm down and wait for official word from Larian or the release of the game because a lot of this might just literally made up trash.

BUT HOW WILL I BE OUTRAGED???
YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD
YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO

LOL. Yes, that would be worse; but hexblade isn't available in BG3.

How much you want to be we get a Feat every 4 character levels instead of every 4 class levels? :p

See this thread (or the interview it's about), where it's claimed that Pact of the Blade will be boosted in power to be closer to hexblade.

I don't have your optimism. I would fully expect the zoomer generation of gamers to brute-force through a proper tutorial without understanding it and never open a manual ever. XD

Pact Boon is a base Warlock class feature, not a sub-class.

100% agree with OP that every one of the items they mentioned is a fucking stupid idea. (can I say that here?). But it doesn't detract from my enjoyment one bit. In the PfH when Swen mentioned respecing, and don't recall if he said it would be free or if he said it in a way that makes me think it would be free, my gut was "why would you do that?"

But then he answered the question. It's an enormous game, and he'd rather not have people give up on it if their choices are give up, start again after maybe dozens of hours, or continue playing as something that's not fun for them.

The other changes are harder to justify for sure, but yeah, as others have noted, they all float around this idea of wooing folks less familiar with D&D and/or these kinds of games in general.

Would it be cool if those things were locked behind a harder difficulty mode? Yeah, 100%. Does it detract from enjoyment that they're not, not in the slightest.

If there are achievements eg "did such and such without respecing or multiclassing," that would be cool, but I'm not fussed in the slightest.

Really, if this is the stuff that's grinding your gears, I'm jealous of you. I've got stuff in my life that is way way way out of the normal for stuff that sucks, so a poor design decision in a fun game I can just ignore? Okay.

I really hope the multi-classing thing turns out not to be true. There MUST be restrictions and opportunity costs to multi-classing. Otherwise, everyone would do it. There would be no upside to single-classing. And in the end everyone would end up with very similar character builds. This is already enough of an issue in 5e, with everyone taking dips in hexbalde or fighter, they really shouldn't make it worse by removing the downside of multi-classing.

Pact of the Blade is a worthless pact without The Hexblade subclass/patron which is not in BG3. Long story short is without The Hexblade patron your pact weapon depends on your strength modifier and doesn't get extra attacks...so you might as well try to beat your enemies with a wooden stick for the difference it makes.

Thanks for sharing that

For clarity subclass pacts and pact boons are different. Pact boons aren't selected until level 3, and the better invocations, like extra attack, for Pact of the Blade (the boon) aren't selectable until level 5 or later and eat up rare resources. You only have 3 invocations by level 5.

If you need to have Warlock 5 Paladin 6 in order to get the Cha benefits, things may feel a little more balanced. Still not perfect, but far more balanced than just taking a one level dip.

Not surprised. They want it like DOS2 where you can be anything and everything without any roadblocks.

I feel this is why they hid multiclassing in EA. Who knows what else will be changed upon launch.

They were always going to do what they wanted to do.

That's where the table top ruleset is going too.

This is something that I have literally found out today. The new generation of D&D is coming out next year and some of these horrific changes sound like Larian are aligning BG3 with with the next handbook...this is genuinely just terrible. Hold on to your 5e books and take great care of them because Wizards of the Coast are about to kill D&D. If you don't have physical paper books for 5e go and get a set now before they go out of print because when they are gone they'll be gone forever and all the digital stuff will be erased and replaced with the new horrible stuff.

I really don't understand the issue there. Respec is a basic feature that every CRPG should have and that pretty much everybody request. Playing for dozens of hour and realizing you built your character wrong is a terrible feeling. Multiclassing in tabletop is a clunky system with only a very few viable builds, so making it more viable make a lot of sense. Why would you want a feature where the only purpose is to weaken your character?

I intend to make the most out of my play-through and am confident that I can have a really fun play through. I am looking forward to launch.


That out of the way, I am with you after this title.

Larian absolutely Hijacked a great franchise and ruined it.

If they wanted to make a Horror RPG set in the Faerun Universe, then get the WOTC licensing and build your own lore from scratch.

Secondly, don't make false advertising.


"But I love the game!". I am sure you do, because the lore they outright stole is amazing and not their own brainchild (pun intended).

The big problem I have is all the fans of the franchise that are on the outside looking in, completely screwed over because the game wasn't made for them.

Then there are those like me that are feeling robbed thinking "this is NOTHING like a BG title".

Is it visually pleasing? It better be, this is 2023.

The acting is bang it out of the park, but the characters are B roll at best. Where are the great characters?

Who here wouldn't trade sex for feature X (like a day / night cycle)?.

Never before has a D&D developer NOT created and tested a proper engine that would support the D&D rule set BEFORE building a world.

I could keep going, but this post is too long already.


When Larian announced BG3 it was better than any kickstarter...CHA CHING! Instant pre-sales funding. Shameless money grab.

Ok I had to stop at the horror comment, you do know the setting you are in right?

Oh god, thanks! I'm estatic! I pretty much expected these things to be in the game, since Larian knows how to make games, but having a confirmation send me through the roof! I can't wait!

There's not just one issue. I agree with you about the respec'ing (of Tav, not of Origin Chars' level 1 classes).

5e is not really designed for multiclassing, as evidenced by the frontloading of classes, the fact that multiclassing is an optional rule, the existence of the various subclasses which seem to fulfill the function of multiclassing (e.g., Eldritch Knight = Fighter/Wizard), and the evident brokenness of certain multiclass combos and ineffectiveness of others.

So yes, multiclassing in 5e is clunky, but Larain has done much more than simply making multiclassing "viable." Removing all restrictions for multiclassing and flat out buffing all caster muticlasses...aren't what I'd call decisions that make the system better. It doesn't seem like Larian is actually making an effort to improve multiclassing, but instead are just opening the floodgates.

Multiclassing should allow additional flexibility in character customization and gameplay options, but it is bad design if multiclassing is *the* optimal way of play. If a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard character is strictly better than an Eldritch Knight...why does Eldritch Knight exist? If a Wizard 3/Cleric 3 character has the same # of spell slots and can cast the combined spell list as both a singly-classed Wizard 6 AND a Cleric 6, then why would you ever play a normal wizard or cleric?

Ok I had to stop at the horror comment, you do know the setting you are in right?

Oh god, thanks! I'm estatic! I pretty much expected these things to be in the game, since Larian knows how to make games, but having a confirmation send me through the roof! I can't wait!


Baulder's Gate fans and D&D fans in general would not expect a game of this flavor at all because its unprecedented.

I heard BG3 and I clicked buy, "take my money please".


But beyond that, you simple don't take on a project like this and NOT respect both it's fans and lineage.


Now look at YOU. Even their supporters don't respect. TSK TSK, shameless flamers.

If you don't agree with an opinion ignore it.

I don't flame your posts.

So far all that I see is speculation. Of course removing all things that makes multiclassing a compromise would make it the best way to play the game. That is not what I am reading though, merely that Larian want to avoid for it to be a noob trap.

I know why they removed the multi classing requirement.


They wanted to dumb things down and make it so people didn't have to plan their builds ahead of time AND so they could respec at will.

Sigh, I guess this generation's brains would melt if they had to plan a build that spanned BG1 and 2.


My multiclass build was set already. Making a build is a lot of the fun. Respec was just silly anyway. Rewriting the rules nonsense.

Larian understands NOTHING about D&D.


This proves that this game was not made for D&D users, because what they expect and what Larian does are on separate planes of the Multiverse.

My 3.0-3.5 library is fully stocked. Its my favorite rule set. I play fast and lose and let things run smooth or I should say I did.

Larian went full on casual gamer mode.
I knew this would happen, make the game open for all and let you do anything for your class, making class completely meaningless...like DOS2. Its a sauce.
Just wait for it. When 90% of newcomers start complaining that spells don't get re-memorized after combat.
Larian will change that and people say, well, its more fun and if you don't like it just don't use spells. "Its completely optional".

Prepare yourself because it seems like things are much MUCH worse than that. As far as I can tell from some of the other changes reported about BG3 it appears Larian are aligning BG3 at least partially, with the next edition of D&D which releases next year. And a lot of these seemingly wild rule changes may not have been Larian's idea. I suspect it's Wizards of the Coast trying to dumb D&D down for more mainstream appeal and more casual players. God forbid any thinking or planning might be required...we can't have that.

I mean...
I'd be *extremely* happy to be proven wrong. But these direct quotes:
a.) State that there will be no ability score restrictions for multiclassing in BG3.
b.) State their intention that multiclassed characters get access to high level spells earlier than they would otherwise, possibly up to equaling what you'd get as a "pure" spellcaster (= based on character, not class, level).

Like, maybe this is just a 1 level bonus. "When multiclassed, your casting classes are all considered as 1 level higher for the purposes of learning spells." But even that alone is a significant buff, making multiclassing almost already strictly better than not...

Dare I say it...If you want to play a multiclass character, go play Baldur's Gate 2. By FAR the superior game (on so many levels...).

repare yourself because it seems like things are much MUCH worse than that. As far as I can tell from some of the other changes reported about BG3 it appears Larian are aligning BG3 at least partially, with the next edition of D&D which releases next year. And a lot of these seemingly wild rule changes may not have been Larian's idea. I suspect it's Wizards of the Coast trying to dumb D&D down for more mainstream appeal and more casual players. God forbid any thinking or planning might be required...we can't have that.


I did catch that.


Well the good news is I'm building my new bar /extended kitchen, and am taking to more in depth cooking.

Getting ready for football season, and spending time with loved ones. There is SCUBA, Kayaking, camping, and communal gatherings.


If WOTC gets too stupid I'll be sure not to miss them.

Now the problem with this campaign, is that if they start front end loading powerful spells early then it will have completely unknown balancing issues (not between classes, but for encounters).

Enemy casters will have these same spells too (and a s**t ton of barrels) so it will be a unique adventure that's for sure. I just hope these encounters are challenging.

I will pass on respec.

Oh wow, I just woke up to this.
As a big multiclass fan, I'm not happy with this changes. Why throw away the requirements for multiclassing, like stats? What good does it do to multiclass to cleric with 8 wisdom? Even if you get stat bolstering stuff ( which should not be a common thing). And why make it more powerful than a single class ? That is just stupid.
If I multiclass, I'm fully prepared to take the drawbacks, you get enough out of it as it is.

And changing the companions doesn't make any sense. Their classes are important for their stories. I'm ok with maybe giving Wyll a few levels in rogue or bard, but he should begin as a fiend warlock, because otherwise his whole story doesn't make sense. Same with all the other characters, except maybe Astarion, who imo is not really defined by his class.

Respec is ok for me. People not familiar with 5e might have specced themselves in a way, they don't have fun anymore. So that prevents them from having to start over.

More good news.

In spite of how I feel about Larian's poor decisions and character, I am still able to enjoy the amazing graphics and the turn based combat.

My inner circle is Jaheira, Minsc, and Wyll (as I have mentioned), but I think they will brighten my play-through.

I will do the other's quest's: Free Astarian, support Lae'zel when her eyes are opened, watch to see if Gale is a train wreck or not, and free Karlach of her servitude.


Shadowheart, poor thing died bravely on the Nautaloid, a true hero to be remembered on a playing card.

Alright, so now that I'm done rolling my eyes at claims about "this generation" ruining games and D&D - something I'm sure has been said about every generation regarding those things, since it's said about every generation regarding everything - I will say that while I don't personally care about a lot of system stuff, I agree that Larian are poor rules designers, I've thought so for ages. They're just throwing everything in with no consideration for what that'll do to the game. I support tweaking things to make it harder to get trapped into a bad build, but ultimately the sheer number of changes like this make for an inconsistent mess that I probably don't care about rules enough to fully appreciate or notice once I'm playing.

Okay, we all know don't we that while it's perfectly alright to be annoyed at any changes and to say so emphatically, it's not on to be rudely sarcastic or dismissive of other forum members? And we are all perfectly entitled to our views on the game and to express them. If we disagree with someone then we can say why and what we think instead, but it's not helpful to scoff at them for their opinions.

Which doesn't seem to be happening too much lately in this thread so apologies for perhaps trying to moderate something that happened hours ago, but I've just woken up and read it and my coffee hasn't had time to properly take effect yet!

I also don't think it's helpful to start blaming the modern world or young people nowadays for decisions a gaming company makes about their engine, but as long as it's kept friendly, we keep a sense of humour about ourselves, and doesn't start getting out of control, that's less as a moderator than as something that I just personally find less useful then debating the pros and cons of specific changes. And it feels as though some of these really need debating.

And on those new changes, do we have a source for the ability to change starting class details for companions? I was surprised by this given that in the build I played it wasn't possible to change starting class when selecting them as an origin but I guess (1) that may not have been final and (2) Larian might have decided to handle things differently for companions.

But I also wonder if there might be some confusion with hirelings, for whom at the presentation I attended on the morning of the PFH, Swen said there was one for each class, but then said we could use them to create a party of, say, four barbarians, implying that their starting class at least can be changed.

I feel there's plenty of things to be concerned about without getting concerned about possible misinformation as well, so if anyone can point me at what Larian have actually said about companion starting classes that would be appreciated! It doesn't seem to be in that Italian article shared.

I made an account just to reply to this.

It is extremely worrisome if what is translated here is correct. I can 'live with' Larian eliminating racial bonuses being locked to certain attributes, which I think is bad because it has the opposite effect of encouraging diversity. If all races get the same bonuses then what makes them special? I can also 'live with' removing stat requirements for multiclassing, when taking into account the level cap. I also think this is a bad idea but it's tolerable at least.

What is, however, absolutely bad design is to allow for full spell progression by multiclassing. This kills any opportunity cost and will guaranteed pigeonhole every choice into multiclassing. If this is true then there is not a single reason to ever go pure single class. There has to be some rhyme and reason to complexity and accessibility. If you stray too far on the accessibility front you will end up with a shallow combat system that will not keep the player engaged in the long term. What happened to encouraging players to learn a ruleset or system? Why does everything have to be dumbed down in the name of accessibility? So tired of this design philosophy in modern gaming.

It's more than likely that the change to racial ASI has nothing to do with Larian, but comes on orders from WotC like the removal of alignment did.

WotC want to get people used to not having racial ASIs. They are being phased out in the PnP game and will most definitely be gone in OneD&D (the 2024 edition).

My biggest concern with Larian's game rule changes is that if they are the only choice (not an option), then all Larian's NPCs - the enemies we face - will be buffed in this way. So *choosing not to use feature X* is simply not an option, if you want to have a reasonable gameplay experienced without lots of frustration. The existing 5e systems (core, not splatbooks and the like) are reasonably balanced, and what I expected from this 5e game.

In particular, you can bet you bottom $ that we will face many multiclass enemies exploiting their spell casing boost (should that be confirmed).

Also making fundamental changes like this with no warning on consultation is really disrespectful to the part of the community that actually wanted a BG **5e** game.

I also don't think you should be able to repsec origin characters - their builds were part of Larian's vision. Do they not have conviction in that? Isn't being a wizard integral to Gales story? If that is what they mean, that makes no sense.

I honestly don't think this is truly a thing done in the name of accessibility though. Learning that Larian is putting in a bunch of items specifically to make multiclassing easier and saying as much publically makes me think that they just WANT people to make absurd multiclass combos. It would fit in with their philsophy to date of stupid, crazy things being the most fun and encouraging those sorts of things (see for another example, all the items to buff spell attacks but the various nerfs to support and controll spells).

I definitely want more info about the multiclassing changes, which I confess are the ones that really worry me personally from the issues Tuco originally mentioned.

Google translate gives me ...


Which is quite ambiguous. To me, it wouldn't be "revising the use of resources a bit" to, eg, give access to spell level progression based on character level rather than class level. That would be much more than a bit. I'm not a fan of removing multi-classing requirements, but while I can live with that I'm less comfortable with the concern about the balance of multiclass characters.

I mean, I know I've seen the argument that multi-classing doesn't really come into its own until levels higher than we get in BG3 on these forums, and I could understand Larian making some tweaks to make it more satisfying up to level 12 if they agree with that take, but the snippet we have now sounds as though there's a worry they'll swing way too far the other way.

I feel like it is time for Larian to wake up and give official and factual informations on subjects that people are interested in. First we got racial ASI, which got somewhat confirmed by some streamers days after PFH, then we got the 72h thing and now everyone is dumbfounded on multiclassing and respecing. Please, to avoid any concern, talk to us.

RQ, Wolf said he heard Withers does it, so that's why you didn't encounter it

To the issue with stat points, it absolutely should be class based. Adventurers should be extra-ordinary even for their race and their years of training should reflect a honing of whatever stat they have used for this. There is no reason why a devoted cleric of some race should by rule be less in touch with their god. Dwarves have paladins of Moradin, they should be as good paladins as humans or half elfs or tieflings. It is still possible to play unusual class/stat characters, but the default should be that this person is as good at his/her job as he/she can be through the training and graft that is generally regarded as preceding a level 1 character.

But there is one strong argument for the new rules. Previously it was not possible for any human to have 8 INT and we all know that that is stretching the believability of DnD to the limit! Ha ha

It sounds like that are simply letting caster levels stack for the purpose of Learning/Preparing spells as well as number of spell slots. PnP rules are a bit woolly on that topic anyway.

As per PnP rules, it's possible for a multiclassed character to have a 3rd level spell slot, but not know any 3rd level spells to cast with it.

You’re welcome. And oh boy, you surely showed me.

“Joke is on you. I totally wanted for this thing to stink” is such a witty power move.

That adventurers are exceptional is represented by their point buy array.
But they are still members of a specific race and thus need to have the general characteristic of that race which includes being faster, stronger, more dexterous or smarter than others.

Sadly WotC in their quest for "more accessability" caved in to the combined whines of powergamer who refuse to play anything without minmaxed stats and people who want to virtue signal by screaming racism when a halfling is weaker than an orc.

You must be joking. No seriously, this cannot be real. Are you telling me I can veto Wyll's pact at any time by making him not a warlock? Are you telling me I can make Shadowheart a cleric of Selune? What the hell Larian?

I expected some respec option in exchange for gold and with reasonable limitations, but this sounds like they're just giving us the DOS2 mirror? Except in DOS2 there is a complete and absolute narrative disconnect between player skills and 'classes' and the world. This makes zero sense in DnD, it's too much even for Larian.

Am i only one who sees these changes as nothing but good? I rather have the respec option that realizing your build is trash and not being able to finish the game, nearly made me quit WOTR(i wanted the achievement so i couldn't lover the dif). Multiclassing being boosted to keep up with pure builds helps not have dead weight character until build is done is great.

Not to mention, do people complaining about game being "targeted at casuals" realize that this games is also a product made for profit and "casual" playerbase is lot larger than the wannabe "hardcore" one.


Ludonarrative dissonance is a term that exists.

Every single game franchise I have enjoyed and what made them great in the first place has been destroyed by this mentality.

Examples please.

Eh, I wish, but somehow even the WORST ideas always seem to gain SOME traction among any audience.

Yes, incidentally to describe something that should generally be AVOIDED if possible.

Dragon Age Origins -> DA:2/3, Diablo 2 --> D3/4, KotoR -> SW:ToR, Total War: Rome 1 --> Rome 2 to name a few, and more and more it's starting to look like BG1/2 --> BG3.

Your point?

No gonna argue Diablo, but rest is just opinion.
Story and gameplay separation. In this case optional. If people want to make/change character like that they can, narrative wont change around them tho.

A part of narrative cohesion and intricacies around reactivity is around what race, attributes and class that your companions are. If you can will-nilly change that it absolutely diminishes the depth to the story. It's a ridiculous notion to believe this doesn't matter and I hardly believe Larian has decided to make decision-trees around the 50000 different possibilities you can set-up your party if these factors are also interchangeable.

When I say that your mentality is what destroys the legacy of franchises, why for example everyone really cares about the fact that this is called Baldur's Gate 3 and not New-Larian-RPG, is precisely about this sort of stuff.

Thank god for mods...

It really looks like I'll have to wait with playing until the modders get their mods out and hopefully one of them is a core rules mod that aims to be as close to RAW as possible.

Regarding D&D 5.5 next year: From the looks of it, I'm done with D&D entirely. I'll just stick to my AD&D 1st and 2nd edition books.

Yes, we expect Withers to let us respec our party, but I didn't hear Wolfheart say anything about letting Withers change origin companion starting classes. If that's the only place that's coming from, I suspect it's a misunderstanding, especially as Wolfheart said he didn't have time to find Withers.

Being able to change custom Tav starting class is one thing - it's not something I would ever want to do, but at least this is just changing something we were able to specify in the beginning anyway - but in the build I saw we weren't even able to update origin classes (other than The Dark Urge) at character creation so it sounds bizarre that we could do it later, or for origins as companions.

But if there's another source, I'll take it more seriously?

I get what you're getting at, I think, but respectfully this is just a bad take imo. For three years Larian's been constantly promoting what astoundingly deep choice & consequence we can expect from their game, how much reactivity they're implementing, how many unique interactions and dialogue options there will be depending on your race and class, all to make the game respond organically to the character you choose to play. What's it all for if I can change my decisions on a whim? Whether my character is a tiefling druid or a dwarf cleric of Tyr reflects their background, their past, their entire life.

It's the commitment to your choices that gives them weight and value. Removing that commitment absolutely also cheapens the choice absolutely.

Commitment is so last millenium. Today entitlement rules and getting everything you want, whenever you want with no tradeoffs or consequences.

Many design decisions both in BG3 and D&D 5E can be traced to that.

It would make no sense if you can change the race/class of your companions? I mean how do they even design reactivity/story around that possibility? It would simply be impossible. So much depth would be lost in that case.

I mean, the same can be said if your own character can go from being a human lvl 1-5 and then suddenly be a tiefling. There is absolutely no way the game is designed to react to those changes.

Well said. Having an opportunity to respec on a whim feels like having an access to a debug room. I don't want to feel like I am a playtester with the sole purpose of stretching the possibilities of the game in one playthrough. I also think that they shot themselves in the leg with this change, because it very much affects the replayability of the game. Why would you try different tropes throughout several playthroughs, when can respect your whole background, class and race after every level up? Need a baldurian tag for your drow? Switch races and you are all set. This sounds terrible to me, yet still the most concerning thing is them being so silent about it and then dropping this changes out of nowhere and acting like if they were long expected.

That is sadly very true and the new DnD ruleset sounds awful. I mean I play a DnD First edition campaign atm and that is very limiting and unforgiving, but it makes you think of new strategies to come out of a fight with your whopping 4 hitpoints. I think 5 e gave a lot of freedom of choice without taking away the challenge, but it sounds, as if it will get watered down with the next edition, which brings me back to agreeing your statement.

Can't remember 100% but the mirror, in DoS2, only allowed you to change stats and appearance not race. So i kinda expect the same for BG3.


Sure i agree with you 100% when it comes to narrative, choices should be permanent and meaningful. But for gameplay, being stuck with a broken build is a game killer for me. I don't want to start a new game just to fix a build mistake.

Yeah, look - I'm not a fan of these things either. But some things are just not for me. Likewise, I'll not be straying from racial bonuses; I'll never touch exploration difficulty or give my characters custom genitals and weird pronouns. I'll also never play a Warlock or Custom Githyanki at all and none of my characters will have purple hair. It's all just not to my taste. And that's fine, I don't have to. Doesn't mean someone else should have trouble with that.

I can imagine that if you only have a a few hours or so a week to play, and you're halfway through after nine weeks - you might want to trade your feat or something. I get it. Can it be abused? Sure. Can it be ignored? Sure. It's not like it's a competitive game or anything; let people enjoy it how they want.

You might not, but the NPCs and companions might.
You cant escape it.

When you argued for 6-ppl party you literally said the opposite. So more options are good when they give you something *you* want, but bad when they give something you dont want?

No he didn't mention companions in the video, sorry for being unclear, but in his pinned comment on the original age restricted video he wrote that he confirmed from two sources that you should be able to respec companions too.

I'm ok with respecing stats/ levels for the player character, maybe you decide along the way, that your warlock fits better with Pact of Tome instead of Pact of Blade or so. I'm concerned about changing race/class etc. alltogether. That would be too interrupting for me.

This is something I'm agnostic on. I'll admit I probably did abuse respec-ing in Pathfinder WotR, but on the other hand it was my first playthrough and I don't really know the system so the alternative would have been living with some mistakes I'd made constantly being annoyed I'd not made a different choice, or reloading from way, way earlier in the game. I definitely see respecing as the lesser of those evils. Though I wish WotR had given me an additional option to just relevel rather than completely redesign my character, as after the first retry I was happy with them at level 1 and it was tedious having to do the whole character creation again every time. Though I suppose it was a bit of a disincentive to respecing, so perhaps it was intended.

I'll wait and see how BG3 handles it. It's not a feature I'd probably be clamouring for if it weren't there, but on the other hand I find it hard to see having the opportunity to fix mistakes as a bad thing, especially in single player and while I get to grips with the ruleset.

No, I didn't.
You were just poor at understanding the point back then as you apparently are now.

Not all "options" are created equal, anyway.
Being able to manage a larger party incidentally DOES NOT conflict with the existing rules, it doesn't remove long term commitment from your choices, it doesn't fundamentally alter the progression curve for each character.

I'd say it's baffling that you don't grasp the difference, but then again I'd be lying if I claimed to be particularly surprised by it.

Okay, so I'd assume that means that you can respec them from level 1 (or possibly the level we meet them at if it's higher), rather than that we can redesign them from scratch.

I'm going to continue working on that assumption unless and until we get something more concrete suggesting that we can make changes at respec that we can't even at character creation, and keep my fingers crossed that that part of the concern at least is a false alarm!

I think divinity only let you change the stats and appereance at the mirror not race or origin tags. Probably gonna be the same here.

I apologise, but it's obvious that the ability to change race and class of companions is nonsense, and it's not in BG 3. It's not said trivially anywhere but in this thread, there's no confirmation of it. Moreover, we have Queen saying that companions can't change their appearance or class, which is logical. Shedowheart can't be anything other than a Cleric, and Will can't be anything other than a Warlock. They can be multiclassed at the player's discretion from level 2, and that's exactly what would definitely be changeable: characterisation distribution, classes after the first, spell set. Basically, anything that doesn't define the character as such.

Characters already have lines where they refer to each other's races, Laezel's story is literally tied to her being a githyanki.

Please stop panicking and spouting nonsense taken literally out of nowhere.

Absolutely agree with you here, realizing 30 hours into a game that you've built your entire character wrong feels horrible and some respec should definitely be possible. There has to be a sensible limit though, as some things are so integral to your character that they shouldn't be touched. That degree, I suppose, is a matter of preference. Personally I think ability scores, feats, spells and subclasses are fair game, but race and class should be off the table.

I believe Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder Kingmaker/WoTR handle it well. PoE lets you respec your build for money proportional to your current level, allowing you to redo all of your attributes and talent choices but not your class or race. The Pathfinder games offer a complete change of your character including race and class, but there is both a cost and a narrative explanation (professional magic-aided retraining iirc) and the amount of race/class reactivity in those games isn't even remotely close to what we're getting in BG3 anyway. I think Larian should seriously tone it down if the OP is accurate.

Must have missed something here ..it’s essentially a single player game - yes you can multiplayer likely with friends and not randoms in which case you’ll play as per the group rules.
The point is it’s irrelevant what anyone else does with the rules as presented as long as they enjoy their own experience.
Many of us will self police certain features I’m a d&d fan but last I played was third edition so I’ll apply rules as I think will most help me enjoy my experience - who cares about anyone else’s ?
Larian are selling a game to as wide an audience as they can so it will be wholly successful to all spectrum of rpg fans.
I think this will be an amazing experience over hundreds maybe thousands of hours - choice matters in gameplay - if there are parts that you don’t like - ignore it and play it your own way and have a great time doing so.

I am all in for the respect system that allows you to fix mistakes, but only within the classes, races, and backgrounds you've committed to. Pathfinder WotR is a game that does not go an extra mile to immerse you into the world like BG3 does with all these cinematics and dialogue reactivity and unique identity. Thats why I think for WotR it is less harmful to have the full respec than for BG3.

Well, there you have it folks.

It sounds like Our PC (including if you chose an origin story) can be respecced to level 0 however there is no way companions can be reset to 0. Their story is tied to their level 1 class. I'm sure any respecc will only allow us to multiclass inclusive of that first level dip.

Common sense, otherwise there is no narrative.

I think the confusion came from the difference between origin characters and companion character respecc

JMO
Also its a single player game with no pvp. For the min max crowd, have at it. Go play on tactician and change your spec /build every fight if that makes you happy.
It's not a competition. It's a single player/co-op RPG

This can as easily be true as it can be false. Better discuss it now while it can still make some impact, though not likely.

Reasonable, I think you might be right and we're all overreacting to nothing here. I hope so.

Gotta admit. That chess 'analogy' made me laugh. It's like yelling ''meat is murder'' and then starting talking about what Hitler did during the Holocaust.



---

Regarding some of the claims, it's seems EXTREMELY unlikely that Larian would allow changes to Origin characters that could potentially eradicate their story through-out the game, even if 'choice' is paramount there will still be a general path in terms of who these characters are.

Man, this thread is wild.

Respec, I mean, it's 2023 and who out there can be bothered to learn D&D rules? It is what it is and I don't really mind too much. But respec without any kind of limitation is probably a bit over the top in terms of opening the door for all kinds of ridiculous cheese. And we know what the masses will say when they realise that hard encounters are trivial with a bit of cheese. "That not fair, I struggled so hard, that is cheating, fix and nerf now!!!11", in my experience. Also, that achievement for a level 12 multi with 1 of each class is suddenly not that hard to get, is it?

Companion respec, sure, why not, but I'm intensely not a fan of being able to redistribute companion stats or starting class. We have a story that has to make sense. Once we start opening the door for that whole "but can't we just pretend" stuff, we might as well also just pretend to always roll natural 20's. I guess I'd be okay with full companion respec in story mode.

Multiclass made easier, frankly to be expected, but it is one of those areas where Larian has to be super careful to not overdo it. If you need to add salt to your dish and all you have is a shovel then it is better to refrain. But it is hard to comment on whether Larian messed this one up without more info.

Ok, so now the advanced question for expert solvers: IF this turns out to be true, which it is?

"Obvious nonsense, no one would ever do something so stupid"

OR

""N-no, it's fine, if Larian-senpai decided to do it it's probably for the better"?

Time to place your bets.

You can escape it very easily by not respeccing the companions. They can't respec themselves.

Only that they might already start with the wrong ASI or unlimited multiclass combinations...

The companions are mo--capped to hell, there's no way they'll allow race respeccing for them.

My opinion:
Gale Wizard through and through, shouldn't be allowed to respec class, but I personally hate that 15 in con. I'd like to change that
Shadowheart. Only says she worships Shar, not a cleric (I think). Her backstory suggests she was picked for her skills in infiltration, maybe rogue, but her subclass more than covers this. Should be limited to Shar and trickery, with the option of rogue (but who in the right mind would pick that?). No other class or deity suits her backstory
Wyll. Absolutely his first class should be fighter level 1 then fiend warlock level 2. These should be the canon first 2 levels. He was a member of the flaming fist he would have had to wear the uniform and bear the weapon, there is no way he shouldn't have medium armour proficiencies and maybe martial weapons. His 13 dex just doesn't make sense either. A famous melee fighter in light armour with 13 dex? No way
Astarion. Everything about his backstory suggests bard over rogue. He's technically not even able to enter houses without invitation and his whole deal should be about personal charm and deception as that is what he primarily did to his master's victims. The only reason he isn't bard because it wasn't in the game yet and high elfs make better rogues. His starting spells should include charm person and disguise self and everything about the voice actor and fancy dan starting armour shouts high charisma. He has totally the mannerisms and affectations of a 'luvvie' actor
Laezel: Fighter, nothing else makes sense. Probably eldritch knight suits best lorewise. Most people will take battlemaster though

I'm still waiting on direct confirmation as this sounds like hearsay and possible misinterpretation to me, though no doubt offered in all good faith.

I'd find it really weird if you could make changes to origin companions on respec that as far as I could tell you can't make to them as your own origin PC. But anything is possible, including that I missed something at CC.

I'll admit that if it is true, I find it hard to see how it could work given how integral their classes seem to be to many companions. But I'll probably never find out if it works or doesn't, as while I could definitely see myself multiclassing hte companions in different ways, I can't imagine bringing myself to change their level 1 class.

EDIT: And with respect to the question, if it is true, then is it alright, then I'll admit that if it is, I assume Larian must at least think it works however much I can't see it myself. And if it does (even if I can't currently see how) then it doesn't bother me. I'm only talking about it at all as the information that changing level 1 classes for companions is possible seems in tension with some of the stuff I encountered so I still have my doubts it's true.

I agree, but let's be reasonable. There is no need to get into a heated discussion on a topic that was brought up out of nowhere. Purely logically, a full respec of companions makes no sense: their histories, race and class are related, and their appearances are unique. Can you imagine Astarion being a halfling barbarian? And a woman with a male voiceover at that? Yeah that would even have SO MUCH more significance on the cinematics. That's a different set of animations, created specifically, exclusive to that particular character.

This game is fully voiced for a reason, it has 174 hours of cut-scenes for a reason, many of which are unique to specific characters.

Let's not get crazy.



Here's an interview about multiclassing - it's really scary and worth discussing. It literally breaks the game balance.

Not everyone plays DnD you know, and learning ruleset just to play a single game seems bit much to expect from people.


From what i seen people will just call you minmaxer and that's it. Maybe also fix the balancing if it anything like WOTR.


Tha's just Abserd.


As someone wrote earlier, Origin character are class and race locked. You can only change stats and what not.


Yup just wait and see.

Now that I think about it, if anyone can respec freely then what is the point of the disguise self spell?

Again
The assumption cited by Wolfheart that the PC/Origin/Companion will all have the same freedom to respecc to level 0 is.....an assumption.

The storylines/narratives of the companions are tied to their race/class. Level 1 dip is mandetory. Certainly a 1/11 multiclass is viable.

Honesty Halsin not a druid? Wyll not a warlock or Shadowheart not a Shar cleric? At least one level?

Nah. Larian isn't going to waste all that effort

This is still nothing more than speculation. "I heard from that guy who heard from that guy." Again, let's be reasonable and not panic prematurely.

I'll be very upset if I'm wrong, because if this is all true, it's beyond stupid, but I still have faith that even Larian aren't that crazy.

Wow, learning the rules of the game you want to play is too much....

"Just don't use it if you don't like it" is an incredibly fallacious argument when applied to game design and mechanics.
In the very moment you are setting new rules and conditions, you are intrinsically changing how a game plays. That remains true even if the reaction is "I'm not a fan of it". You are basically asking the player to "pretend the flawed rule isn't there" and to self-restraining from taking advantage of it.

This fundamentally alters the "rules of engagement" between the designer and the players. It's not "Here's a puzzle/challenge, do your best to work your way around it" anymore; it becomes "You could unravel this entire thing with a button press, but try to pretend you are struggling with it".

Case in point: why would anyone have to struggle to make good use of the stat assigned to companions, when they'll be constantly merely two clicks away from readjusting each one of them at will?

But that's a bit beside the point, since in the end while INCREDIBLY LAME in itself, the "free respec" is by far NOT the worst news among these announced changes.

In this context(talking about availability of respec to fix broken builds) it is. I don't want to start a new game every time i make a build mistake. You can be dramatic and say designing character build before starting the game is part of the process, but that it just for you, not everyone. I just want to play organically not spend hour or however long to research best wizard build available.

Not having to go to the trouble of entirely rebuilding your character from the ground up, including designing what they look like, and then doing it again to change back. There are issues with this, but it replacing disguise self isn't realistically one of them.

Definitely. For me the multiclassing stuff is way more concerning, and I think there's already been some discussion of that over at https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=859247#Post859247.

I'm going to be away for a couple of hours at least, so in the meantime I'll just suggest that we try to have discussions on one topic in one thread to save all our heads exploding. I don't mind which thread it is though

There is and it is provided by personal choice and self-restraint.

You could of course just live with your mistake. That would truly be playing organically.

Yup, i like playing dead weight characters.

Hyperbole.
A single mistake does not make a character dead weight.

For sure. You'd ofc also not be playing a game that rivals the budget of a A-A-A SP in the style of say Horizon or TLOU hell you would not even be playin an OwlCat budget one.

Respecing the MC is just a granted, that's obvious, and respecing the companions at least from the point you acquired them (WOTR) come with it. People don't want to start over a story because their build didn't turn out as they expected, and if you can respec your MC you also should be able to respec the decisions you took for your companions.

Now, for "full" respec of the companions, I'm going put my clown hat on with this, I know, but: it's fun.

I don't expect to be able to change races of companions, as I couldn't in DOS2. As someone said before the game have a massive amount of cinematics and it would simply be impossible to make them work with new models. And there are a few more things that really matter, like Shadowheart worship towards shar. But classes and stats? They do have a meaning, sure, but only up to a point.

I'm going to play the companions as they are for my first and second play through, but after that I'd change them to have fun. I'm not interested in bringing around a mute hireling to have a barbarian party, I'd rather change Lae'zel and Minsc in barbarians.
Wyll made a pact with a devil, but not everyone who makes a pact with a devil become a warlock. He can easily be a fighter who made a pact with a devil. Shadowheart worship Shar, and will continue worshipping her as a death domain cleric, as a rogue or as a sorcerer. Gale as been rewritten so who knows how much he's tied to the idea of a wizard.

If I couldn't fully respec my companions it would change nothing to me, but having that option is just a plus that opens up the game to new experiences.

A single mistake? Sure. But one thing i learned playing WOTR is that you might think you are making the right choice, but you can't actually finish the game with your build.

What does budget have to do with this?

In all my life I never played a crpg where I didn't have to learn rules, and I don't want to. If Larian wants to make a game where you don't have to learn any rules, that's their prerogative, but it's not what I wanted when I paid 60€ for a game called Baldur's Gate.

I have to agree that these new changes to core rules are not very pleasant to hear.

I was planning to make gloom stalker/battle master/assassin multiclass with 8 STR 17 DEX 15 CON 8 INT 16 WIS 8 CHA stats. Now if I find some magical item from the game that changes my WIS to 17 or higher I can respec my WIS to 8 and raise my other stats significantly. This makes these regular not so good magical items to be legendary status magical items.

Some might say that well you don't have to respec your stats to abuse the game but I have to because this is now built in game mechanic and the game wants me to do this or else I'm being a dumb for being a bad player.

Oh please I finished WotR with several unoptimized and "badly" build characters, including one which was build from level 1 for combat in gold dragon form (already a suboptimal choice) instead of using respec, meaning for 3/4 of the game all of his feats were useless. On normal difficulty.

This argument is not fallacious in any way, shape or form. One of Larian's selling points for this game is the amount of choice they are offering via game design and mechanics. Choice implies that one or more options will not be chosen. Should I complain that Larian provides the option of killing the grove druids because I don't want to do it?

You appear to be making a tautological argument. Anything which allows deviation from the way you wish the game to be is bad. These choices allow the game to deviate from the way you want the game to be so therefore they are bad.

Meant that in context of not having respec needing to design character build before playing. With respec you can just play the game and fix build issues at any time.

Look at the chess 'analogy' they made early on. If there was any doubt before it, there was none after.

No.

Core difficulty here, I was stupid enough to start my first PF game at this difficulty and hit a wall somewhere in act 2. Thank god respec was bugged to be free back then else I wouldn't be able to progress further. But to be fair you can't mess a character this badly in DnD5e.

I played on core. Was having a good time with the party i had. Then i reach the cancer threshold and get demolished first fight there. No matter how much i micro, the spells i use, the buffs i cast. Toyboxed a respec and rebuild the entire party with builds from the internet. Boom easy.

I agree its pretty ambiguous and not something I would get worked up over until there are firm details or we have played it. One of the problems with multiclassing is that there are very fixed levels where it is optimal to progress to until multiclassing and with levels 1-12 over 100-200 hours I can imagine that they didn't want casual players to be super punished for not doing optimal level progressions. I can see them doing things like pooling 'warrior' levels so that multiclasses get extra attack faster if they level up each class 1 at a time (rather than knowing that it is best to get to level 5 then multiclass etc).

With the original character respec I really, really doubt you can change their class or stats. I suspect one of the reasons that the multiclass ability restrictions were removed was so that you could actually multiclass origin characters even though they may not quite have the stats to do so.

Oh my god, it has NOTHING to do with Larian's selling point, he was talking about SYSTEMIC design. Systemic design doesn't care about who wants what, it is set there in place in order to make systems work and create a fair and balanced experience. What they did is said: "Well, we are leaving big holes in our systems so that you can abuse them to feel good, and if it makes you feel bad, you can avoid abusing them and become a system designer yourself". This is so lazy, they made a poor system, disguised it with freedom of choice and then crashed it on top of every EA players' head. EA players are people who made this game possible at this scale in the first place and they played a COMPLETELY different game which is likely going to be substituted with some casual bs.

All of this does not apply if the news prove to be false.

Let's say I'm new to all this D&D malarchy with it's classes and feats and who knows what.

I create a fighter gather my party, save, and take on the Blighted Village. Not bad but what if . . . so I roll back to the save, respec to a sorcerer, gather my party and take on the Blighted Village. I can rinse and repeat that to my heart's content until I'm happy that I have a decent idea of what I want or need. A lot handier than scouring the web reading various people's opinion about this or that aspect.

As for the Larian or BG junkies. They could do something similar to experience all the dialogue options or whatever.

Or, shock-horror revelation, people who have no wish to respec can just ignore it.

I also started on core. That character had no exotic builds but also wasn't optimized either and I had to leave several encounters for later like playful darkness.
Still finished the game.

While I also would prefer WotR's respec to be a level 1 reset button rather than a full character redesign, I do feel it is appropriately punishing for wanting to retcon. To a degree it encourages you to stick with your choices while still allowing people not to. I just wanted to change my portrait and regretted one early feat selection, so doing an entire redesign almost wasn't worth it. I imagine min-maxing meta players doesn't enjoy the process any more than I did.

If BG3 also gets this full rewriting of characters at any time without any cost it's silly though. Come across a situation where being drow will let you bypass it? Quickload, warp to camp, change to drow, pop back out. A battle seems like it will really benefit from some more cloudkills? Warp to camp change to wizard, pop back out.

I agree with what a lot of Tuco is saying. I do think there is a certain level of being willingly ignorant of exploits in a game. For example I didn't use 'barrellmancy' or 'removing a party member' from combat in DOS2 because they just seemed like unintended exploits to me that weren't fun, nor were they really intended to be used in that way.

But I think the best example Tuco gave is with the Headband of Intellect. The obviously optimal thing to do whenever you get it would be to go to respec, set int to 8, buff up your other ability scores and go on your way. Then if you find The Belt of Dexterity or whatever the obvious thing to do is to go respec again and set int and dex to 8, then buff everything else up.

This strikes me as bad game design on two fronts:

1. It goes away from what makes classes and ability scores those things to begin with. A wizard should have (or desire) high intelligence, they shouldn't just have high intelligence because they found a cap. Or they shouldn't suddenly become a low intellect individual just because they found a cap (which will then magically make them a high intellect individual again) and want to wear it to get stronger in other areas. They shouldn't then randomly become naturally intelligent again when they find a different cap they want to wear besides the one that gives you high intelligence just by wearing it.

2. How can they possibly balance around something as obvious as what is listed above? In Exploration/Story Mode I don't think it matters. People playing that difficulty obviously do not care much anyways and do not want combat, skill checks, etc. to be a challenge anyways. In core or normal mode perhaps there will be enough casual players where they do not connect the dots to do this kind of stuff - but it seems like you could turn the normal difficulty into Exploration/Story mode rather easily by doing these types of things.

But then on the highest difficulty you know people are going to min/max... and Larian in the PFH said if that difficulty is punishing you, then it is your fault... not their fault. So are they going to factor in repeatedly respec'ing into the highest difficulty level to balance it? Are they factoring in these new multiclassing changes and will multiclassing be required/essential because it by default makes you significantly better because they removed any drawbacks from it? If so - that doesn't seem like this stuff is optional at all and that doesn't seem fun at all. If not - then isn't the hardest difficulty mode just going to be made rather easy for min/max players because they are obviously going to min/max if they are playing this difficulty level?

-------------------

This is to say... there are good ways to implement respec and bad ones. Just flippantly being able to do it without any penalty or cost seems bad, at least at a certain level or on certain difficulty levels.

Exploration Mode - You want to respec whenever? Fine, who cares.
Normal Mode - You want to respec whenever? No. You can respec for free until you hit level five, after that you have to purchase "TEH ORB OF PERSONAL RECONSTRUCTION!!11!!1" for $50,000 gold (or whatever steep price there is) in some Baldur's Gate shop and there are only a limited amount of them available.
Tactician Mode - You lose the ability to respec all together.

Even in DOS2 there seemed to be some level of cost associated with respec. It wasn't directly tied to the act itself, but you would have to go and buy all new skill books... and potentially buy all new gear if you completely changed the make up and build of your character.

-------------------

DOS2 and the origins/companions were also different than BG3.

Wyll makes almost no sense as anything but a Warlock.
Gale makes almost no sense as anything but a Wizard.
Shadowheart's description on the main website is literally "Cleric" and her opening line is "devoted Cleric of Shar".

I do think Astarian, Lae'Zel and Karlach could be somewhat class agnostic. Though Karlach's heart machine thing seems to tie directly into a special berserk and stuff like that. Which is to say... I did not associate any class with any of the DOS2 characters when I met them. With these characters I do and I did when I first met them in the game without knowing a ton about them ahead of time.

I also have no problem with being able to change origin character appearance in character creation if you are going to play as them - that seems like a good feature to me. But being able to completely change who they are when they are a companion seems... not good. Giving them some new clothes, a new haircut or getting them some piercings? That seems cool. Completely altering them into an entirely different looking and functioning person just seems... meh.

Can you explain why this is bad, apart that you don't like it?

I played the EA, i see no problem with these changes. Respec is kinda standard thing these days. If people want to respec every fight let them. If people want to abuse system they will and no one can stop them. On other hand these changes will help new players from screwing up and having to restart the game if they don't like the class they picked or want to try something else. IWhile i don't really care about changes race of the characters, i doubt Larian will give that option. Most likely it will be just class, stats, and feats for Tav and stats and feats for Origin characters.

Who would respec ? It’s an rpg you play your character from start to finish - optimised poorly or perfectly - it’s more challenging if it’s not perfect but that’s life - make the best of the situation & do the best you can - no character is perfect.

That’s me the rpg player not the power gaming min max look at my perfect build gamer - that’s not d&d - that’s a whole other thing…

Play your character as is no respec.

You know what would make respec better? Being tied to a very limited resource. Why not require soul coins for it? As far as I know those are very rare and are given as a reward for special occasions. Elden ring also has respec, and it was tied to larval tears which are very rare consumables, it was a good compromise.

Something like this would also work.

Aren't Tuco's chess analogy and button analogy good enough an explanation? I think those were well put (even if seemingly a bit emotional) and I really don't want to repeat if reading through them again more thoughtfully can suffice. Pls consider reading through once more, then pls let me know if those are completely alien for you to understand, then I'll try to come up with my one examples.

Yes, you CAN. You don't have to, but now you have the ability to.

I don't get this thread, so many faces here that were screaming "choice!" in some of the mega-threads and when Larian gives us a choice (albeit in a different thing, that might have something to do with it "why are THEY getting shinies and not US?" mentality and all that) it's suddenly bad?

At it's core it is a single player game, and saying it will make multiplayer unbearable because people will want to respec mid game...well, find people that like to play your way, it should be obvious in a RPG.

Also to all hardcore D&D fun-killers here - remember that this game might be the first contact with D&D for some people, if they get into it they'll learn the rules themselves and not ruin your single player experience any more...

You mean the SYSTEMIC [sic] design of a game built from the ground up to provide choice? Your washing machine gives you choice but there is nothing in its design to stop you abusing those choices - you can still choose to put colours in with your whites.

"What they did is said: Well, we are leaving big holes in our systems so that you can abuse them to feel good, and if it makes you feel bad, you can avoid abusing them and become a system designer yourself". Did they? Did they really?

So what if the people who played EA played a COMPLETELY [sic] different game? Firstly they didn't all play the game the same way and secondly, these alleged features weren't in EA so they weren't there for people to use or to get hysterical about.

And your quoting has gotten out of kilter. It was me who wrote that not BiasWINS

Let may say this, I'm not a hardcore DnD fan. I played BG1 25 years ago and I loved it. The main thing I remember from BG1 was the stat rolling from character creation. It was something unique and fun. I wanted to experience that feeling again after 25 years, but no, Larian decided that it is too much to have.

Instead Larian is giving me all these other things that make the game way too lenient and easy. What I liked about DnD was the strict rules that you have to abide. Now this game feels like some RPG that is designed to children, to make them feel good about easy gameplay and no hard strict rules to follow.

I'm not much of a gamer myself, I just wanted to experience that Baldur's Gate nostalgia gain after 25 years, but it seems that this is not what I'm getting.

The same people who screamed for the ASI change. Because to them a character is only worth playing when its minmaxed with the optimal attribute distribution and everything perfectly planned.

That attitude is pure toxicity, especially in PnP RPGs, but sadly the one that is catered to.

No. The thing is if people want to play like that, they can. If you don't like it then that is fine too. You don't have to play it or like it, but you can't take that choice from other people.


Also Mr. Hardcore, as previously stated, i played the game in EA too. and i welcome the changes as they make BG3 accessible to more people. So stop the gatekeeping.

I think at times it can be best to use extremes in order to drive a point home as to what people are saying.

Let's say you run into an NPC who is rather bad early in the game and easy to kill. You can either talk to them or kill them, but either way they will either give you or have 'THE CAP OF AWESOMENESS!' on their corpse. 'THE CAP OF AWESOMENESS!' sets all of your ability scores to 100, gives you every spell in the game and makes you have a million hit points. Is this good game design?

What is you run into other characters that drop the belt of awesomeness, sword of awesomeness, etc. And some of them set your ability scores to 30, some others set them to 50... but they overall all make you absurdly powerful. Is that good game design?

After all - you could just choose not to use these absurdly powerful items that are dropping all over the place... right?

The balance of a game matters and it is definitely part of the fun. It can be a tricky thing to get right because people are going to have different opinions on it. But I don't think this is a 'choice' thing. They are making these (total respec, multiclassing) fundamental parts (systems) of the game that will be presented to everyone to use. So they should at least try to make them balanced and make sense, even if it is a single-player game.

Yes, they did, lol, and you were just recently pressing those points yourself, remember, along with some others? Something along the lines of "If you don't like it, self-restrict yourself and don't use it?". Seems like a damn job to me, rather than entertainment. Like doing the chores at other person's home in order to get tipped a dollar in the end and still not be happy, because someone got tipped 10 for nothing.

@Vitani - The issues discussed in this thread aren't just about respec - look at the original post. It's also about other claimed broken /unbalanced changes - which are not part of D&D 5e and don't need to be there. If there is no option to disable these, if they are designed into the game, this will definitely impact the experience for those of use who want a 5e BG3.

This could all have been addressed by a "core rules" mode vs "Larian" mode. Then everyone would be happy (well, probably). This was suggested multiple times - and was supported in the older BG games.

What does this mean? Gatekeeping - in this sense?

There is a literal 'story mode' in the game that will make it easy enough so that if your character is built horribly you will still be able to beat the game. I don't see anyone complaining about it. If you have no desire to deal with the systems put in place in the game, then you should play that difficulty. If you are looking for something more challenging, then you should play the other difficulties.

I can't really understand what you are trying to say here or which of the points I made you are trying to answer.
"If you don't like it, self-restrict yourself and don't use it? As in you, a sentient being, choose.

Can you not call me that? This is impolite.

You being fine with those changes and liking them for what they are has nothing to do with them being poor design choice. Also, don't play the victim please, no one is taking the choice from you, you were instead given all the choice imaginable and more. Good for you, but bad for the game, because those new systems are fundamentally flawed:

- Multiclassing is dominant over the 'pure' classes. Both are ways people like to play. No balance between approaches which was present before.
- Scaling of spell slots makes proper high leveling in some of the classes useless, that means a game feature is useless which is bad design.
- Removal of racial ASIs with no proper substitution for half-races destroys the racial balance. Ones favorite race now pure trash -> bad system, bad design.
- Respecing your companions to be different classes favors gameplay and hurts the story, which is also bad design between two subsystems in the game.
- Same for respecing yourself.

So never use Jaheira as she will benefit from the multiclassed caster change? And also never use all other companions that have the changed multiclassing? Ditto for all other multiclasses companions or companions with changed ASI?
"Just don't use it" doesn't work when the game actively uses it for and against you.

To spend a lot of money on a game, you have to make a game people will want to play. Not the 0.2% of people who play DnD. The 2 billion people who play video games. What about this is hard to understand?

Then you should have waited for release like you were repeatedly warned through the Early Access purchase process.

More than anything?
The direct correlation between the features announced and this alleged explosion in popularity for the game.

I don’t care for features I can simply not use like respect. I do find the creatively weak, but I also think it is necessary considering how underwhelming companions selection is.

News about multiclassing are worrying. If brought too close to singleclass, than playing a singleclass character stops being an option.

I don’t have enough 5e understanding to comment on class requirements.

Either way, those are things modders should be able to address.

Sure if the game is balanced around items like that. But unlike those items respec or buffing multiclasses can be made with balance in mind. As i wrote previously if people want to abuse respec they will or they will just get trainers(those still a thing?) and cheat.

He means that I am some sort of internet warrior that defends my own idea of fun and opinion on how the game should be played, while denying any changes that can make him to have fun. What I actually do is criticize the systems for their flaws and thats it. But we are not on the same page thats why we can't settle on anything.

Wow this is dumb. I'm not even a DnD fan, but I took time to read the rules to plan out a build before release, and now I just feel stupid. I hope they at least use the DnD rules in tactician difficulty.

Tuco's post is honestly borderline troll. It's not about discussion on a forum its a statement that they are right, everyone who disagrees is stupid, and there is no possibility that anyone else might have any defensible point that applies to people that are not Tuco. No-one else's needs, wants or opinions matter. At this point even engaging is manifestly pointless.

It's just the usual old buzzwords and poorly disguised shaming tactics. If you have ANY standard whatsoever about game design, if you care about getting a gaming experience with any resemblance of depth or balance, then you are clearly a basement dweller, an irrational purist not open-minded enough and a gatekeeper.

The only trollish thing here is you throwing a tantrum fit and calling me names, simply because I didn't instantly buy your useless platitudes about how I should just pretend a problem doesn't exist.

Also, the comparison between a mechanical rule that I "could just choose to pretend doesn't even exist" and the narrative choice of "killing druids or not" was borderline embarrassing, anyway.

Yes, this is EXACTLY how I feel! I'm not a DnD fan. I purposely studied DnD for this game so I can play it well. I read the PHB and spend hours every day thinking what kind of interesting builds I can make and what are the restrictions. Now it's just like, "well there are no restrictions, just do what you want and enjoy easy gameplay". This is just my typical luck I guess, I never get what I hope for.

Eh? Don't use multi-classing. The alleged changes to multi-classing for your character and the ability to multi-class a companion are two separate issues. Either way they are still choices. You may not like the consequences of either choice but they are still choices. There will be players who are happy with both choices.

You have apparently missed the last decade of trends in game popularity. Am I sad that things have gone in the direction they have? Yes. Do I think the games produced are less engaging as a result? Also yes. Do the games make the developers more money. 100%.

I'm not seeing actual data backing the claim, incidentally.

Production value is what will make the game a big seller. Not how much stupid "optional" mechanics the game will include. Stuff that the OVERWHELMING majority of the "casual buyers" won't even be aware exists until 20-30 hours into their playthrough IF the devs are lucky and the players will remain engaged enough.

What you call flaws are things which allow players to make choice you don't agree with. That is why you are accused of gatekeeping.


Why? Just because you said so? Who are you to tell anyone how they should play their game?

Is Baldurs Gate climbing steam sales chart up to the top-2 positiom after they showed the bear stuff a good enough data?

Oh believe me, I learned my lesson. But calling their game Baldur's Gate brings a certain set of expectations, so have some empathy and allow me to feel cheated.

... Is this a serious question?

My statement is the game is easier on easy mode. It is harder on hard mode.

It isn't that way because I said so. It is that way because that is just how it is. I'm not sure if you are familiar with difficulty settings in video games - but that is how they work. I said the game isn't being "Gatekept" because there is a difficulty mode that will let just about anyone pick it up and beat it.

Hang on, hold your horses. What do we know *exactly?*

I doubt your caster level increases with fighter levels. So, a Jaheira won't benefit in Druid Casting by picking Fighter levels. I doubt Astarion gets 4D6 Sneak Damage if he never picks a second level in Rogue.

I think this casting spell level progression is more for those who want to go Wizard / Sorcerer, or Ranger / Druid or somesuch, yes? I *seriously* doubt I get new spell levels if I pick rogue for eleven levels. If not, I'm picking a new class every level; that would make absolutely no sense in the world, nor the nine hells.

What this has to do with the mechanical changes discussed in this thread?

I don't see my argument addressed in any way, thats why I don't have to say anything to you. If you address my argument instead of a strawman, then we can actually debate on the topic.

I was quite young when I first played Baldur's Gate. Those rules were a lot less intuitive than D&D5. I still managed to figure out tacos THAC0s though (thank you, manual!) and managed to enjoy and get through the game just fine. It's funny to me that people these days (not referring to you here btw) probably wouldn't get through Act 1 before uninstalling and leaving a bad review because they at an older age than me can't manage to figure out a system easier than the previous games'

Jaheira is by default a druid/sorcerer and thus will benefit from it. Maxbe even doubly and tripley so if she does not fulfill the multiclass requirements and has changed ASI, but that is not sure.

Sure. It means that this is much more in demand than the coherence of game systems. It means it very likely made and makes more money on with other stuff like romance etc. The whole fact that they focused on romance, identity, freedom, customization while showcasing gameplay with the highest level of incompetence in their own game - indicates what is the actual main selling point of the game, not its rules or game design.

I love the hypocrisy.

Yeah, and that would be PRECISELY my point.

The commercial success of BG3 was in no way, shape or form hanging on the introduction of some puzzlingly bad mechanical changes.
Changes that the OVERWHEMLING majority of the casual audience won't ever know exist until 20 hours or so into the game. If Larian is lucky and they'll get invested enough to stick around, I mean.

In order to get the sales (to recoup outlay and make a profit) Larian have to appeal to the largest number of people and in order to do this everything has to be made as simple as possible (dumbed-down).

I find this to be the rule rather than the exception when watching devs stream their games. Not that I watch a lot, but I still struggle to think of any I've watched that played well.

In your opinion.

I wonder what have they done to ASI/feats increases when you multiclass? Maybe the same thing has happened here, we eill probably get ASI/feat like every fourth level regardless how we multiclass.

Yeah, this is a platitude that gets repeated over and over for years at this point.
But despise the attempt to make it sound like a wise assessment, it doesn't actually answer the question: how many additional copies would you guess these changes will move, if you had to quantify?

Exactly.

This is very likely, because otherwise it can actually be puzzling to the new players. I mean, if Larian could make good and engaging tutorials, this could be left untouched, but their tutorials are average at best and only scratch the surface of the game systems.

Why would she be a Druid Sorcerer? She's always been a Fighter Druid.

And... do we know that spell progression scales across muliple classes? I doubt you'd get level 6 Druid spells with one level Druid. I may be wrong, but I just cannot fathom it working that way.

Edit:

How I think they implemented is; you get one spellbook.
Gain one level of X - That's your spellbook, modified by your ability score
Gain one level of Y - That's still your spellbook but with more spells modified by your ability score and/or your ability score
Gain one level of X - That's your spellbook, added spells modified by your ability score and/or your ability score
Gain one level of Y - That's still your spellbook but with more spells modified by your ability score and/or your ability score

Because Larian.

Sven did say that they changed the rules regarding multiclass because they wanted to make it more appealing to new players who never played DnD or know anything about multiclass. I'm one of those people, so if a game makes it easy for me to understand then I welcome that.

Well I read the 5e PHB and studied hours every day reading articles on internet just for that I know how to multiclass properly. All that was for nothing, LOL.

Wasting time on nerdy pnp rpg to play a videogame shouldn't be a thing

Yeah, that's funny, but is this confirmed? I seriously doubt this. She was portrayed with twin scimitars on her back. No Druid/Sorcerer would equip twin Scimitars.

Yes it is a serious question because your original statement said that these changes should be relegated to Story Mode and anyone who wanted these changes should only be allowed to play in that mode.

Yes I know how difficulty levels work in video games so I know that they do not all work in exactly the same way, e.g. hard mode in one game is not exactly the same as hard mode in the another. Some games, such as Solasta, have set difficulty levels while also allowing the player to tweak various elements to get things how one wants.

One does not 'beat' a game, one completes it. It is designed to allow you to complete it, not to stop you completing it. From what you just wrote it would appear that some 'newbie' 'beating' the game on the same difficulty as you is an affront to your masculinity or self-esteem.

I counter you with the Souls games, that are notoriously hard and unforgiving and don't coddle you in any form, yet people flog to them like moths to the light, so much so, they became their own genre.
You don't have to dumb down games to be successful, just make them engaging. And it's not like DnD is a niche product anymore, everyone knows about DnD nowadays thanks to media, so that should bring in the customers.
I understand the need for tweaking some rules to make it work better in a videogames, but there was nothing wrong with multiclassing according to RAW, you could still make very powerful characters and it is not hard. No need to dumb that down.

Yeah... this incredibly dumbed down multiclassing is not necessary. The existing story mode and free full resets are all Larian needs to offer to handle players unfamiliar with the rules

Was it something to do with the spell she cast? Or was it datamined?
I was wondering how a druid/sorcerer would work stats-wise. Not exactly an intuitive dual-class pairing.

Multiclassing in 5E isn't rocket science, there's absolutely no reason to make it easier.

Even if it isn't rocket science, I believe they are doing this for those that never played a DnD game before.

We are living in times when attention span is 10 seconds. I can totally see how people could just avoid multiclassing for being 'too complex'.

With all due respect, it's not logically easier that one (1) level wizard and 8 levels of a half caster give you every level 5 wizard spell.

But this change isn't making multiclassing "easier to understand", especially since there was hardly anything cryptic about it.
This is just making multi-classing more powerful, which is questionable in terms of fairness, since they apparently plan to remove most of the opportunity costs that came with it.


Speaking of "gatekeeping" that really shouldn't be for you to decide.

Souls-like games have next to no story or plot; next to no dialogue; next to no companions; next to no settlements with any sort of community; next to no NPCs; next to no lore; and no real tactics other than working out the moves of each opponent which are the same every time you meet that particular creature. They are dumbed-down to just being fighting every 100 metres. They are a niche market within gaming and many, if not most, are not big budget AAA titles.

First of all - I did not say that they should only be 'allowed' to play in story mode. I'm not the video game police running around telling people what they can and cannot do. I said people cannot be labeled as gatekeepers when a game already has a mode that makes it super accessible to everyone and that no one is criticizing that modes existence in the game. I do not think that unlimited respec should be available in the regular game mode or in tactician in this game - if it is there should be a cost associated with it that aligns with the difficulty setting. That doesn't mean people are not "allowed to play in those game modes".


This is an incredibly odd thing to say and it seems you are rather upset about something. First you think I am saying people are not ALLOWED to play certain difficulty modes and now you are trying to turn me into some person who puts all of their self worth in video games because I have an opinion on how respec should be handled. You can use the term beat the game, finish the game, complete the game or whatever else you want. It doesn't matter to me how you describe it. Nor do I tie up my self-worth in video games.

I personally played on the regular difficulty setting in DOS2 and a modded version with added some health to the regular version because I didn't find tactician to be appealing - because the crowd control mechanics got to be a bit much for me. I guess I don't see how that makes me any better or worse of a person, any more of less of a man than someone who spends way less time playing games and played easy mode or who enjoyed tactician and beat it.

I think free respec for higher difficulty levels is a bad idea and bad game design, especially in the hardest difficulty as it seems difficult to balance and hard difficulty settings tend to encourage min/max. I think changing an already pretty easy system in multi-classing to the point where it might be just flat out better than not to be bad game design (if that is really what ends up happening, Larian could have implemented this well, we haven't seen the finished product yet). I also think it doesn't make sense to let us completely recreate origin characters when some of their backstories are completely tied to their class, where as some other companions/characters it does make sense for them to be more flexible.

If you think that means I have low self-esteem or that I believe my masculinity is being questioned then I think it is more a problem with you than with me.

This is also why I brought up difficulty settings. Not every game has to be a Souls-like, but there are people who like a difficult experience. There are also people who enjoy just playing through for the story. There are going to be people who want to play through without the ability to respec... or when their character dies, they stay dead - it is why things like 'hardcore' mode got so popular in Diablo 2.

For all of the talk of choice the champions of choice sure do want to remove the choice from everyone else to have game modes or an experience tailored more toward difficulty and traditional 5e rulesets.

I see what you mean in terms of power. I think an issue that might present itself with new players that have never played DnD is the mixing of two classes. Such as a Ranger/Druid where they are very similar in regards to nature but one is more magic based than the other. That might be confusing to some, as to say why not just be a full Ranger or a full Druid.

Firstly, I agree that you shouldn't need to research D&D to be able to jump into BG3. And you currently don't. I didn't, and I've been playinn EA with only... 2 or 3 sessions of D&D under my belt.

Now onto the important part, I still firmly believe that what Larian is doing isn't "making multiclassing easier for newbies." Respeccing does that, and I'm fine with respeccing at least to level one. No, what Larian is doing seems very obvious to me as trying to make sure players do all sorts of crazy combinations of multi-class because that's their idea of fun. With the items they're throwing around and whatnot. Think about it, if you're new to the game and D&D, you're not going to find most of those items they're talking about sprinkling around. So if a newbie tries to multiclass, isn't it more likely they're going to walk into a bad build ratherthan less, in that case? I'd argue that the 13 attribute restriction is probably more a help than a hindrance, because it makes sure a newbie isn'g going into a multi-class woefully unprepared for what they need.

Look, are any of these workings confirmed? Becasue the way this topic reads is as if I can be a Cleric 1 /wizard 1/ warlock 1/ paladin 2 / ranger 2 / Arcane Trickster 3 / Druid 1/ Sorcerer 1 and effectively be a Cleric 12 / Wizard 12 / Warlock 12 / Paladin 12 / Ranger 12 / Trickster 12 / Druid 12 / Sorcerer 12, ast least where spellcasting is concerned.

The full caster classes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard.

Under this ruling, you can be a bard-cleric-druid-sorcerer-wizard with no additional cost. The only question is what buffs to spells you want and what it means for your casting stat

If you pick a half caster, it only counts as half a level of wizard, cleric, etc.

If this was a custom option, you wanna engage in the circus mode. Click the checkbox be happy with it.
But making it core even for Tactician? Makes zero sense and just makes the game designer looks lazy, I understand that 5e has serious issues regarding character identity and customization, but this is due to some factors.

Feat selection and progression.
Class choices and interactions
Weapon interaction and maneuvers (Larian fixed this thankfully by adding maneuvers)

The optimal way would had been homebrew new feats for BG3 and add 3.5 feat progression.

1st
3rd
6th
9th
12th

Basically you would have more interesting ways to define your character build without resorting to lets make pure classes useless. Because with this Multiclass no restriction you need to be a sucker to go pure class.

You say that about a game that was advertised as authentic experience to said pnp RPG.

Not a single word of this is of ANY relevance to the point she was making.

What you are missing on the other hand is that they are very popular and commercially successful games, despise hardly compromising on their defining "lack of hand-holding".
Not only they climbed up to sales numbers that Larian would probably be ECSTATIC to replicate (Elden Ring being above 20 millions, most of the previous Souls ranging to the 5 millions or so each on average), they can also boost a surprisingly high completion rate among players, with a percentage of roughly 40%.

Thats exactly why it is so important to make sure that your subsystems i.e. story/gameplay/visuals/worldbuilding/level design etc. compliment each other and always double check on each other for being a cohesive system as a whole. For example allowing you to change your companions to the point of making them the exact opposite of what they are (making SH a Githyanki Selunite Life Domain cleric for example) is good for the gameplay but bad for the story and overall results into an average if not bad system in general. Also allowing anyone to multiclass with no ability requirements is in some aspects good for gameplay but bad for world building, because it contradicts with how world presents different classes as someone with at least a portion of experience in their field of expertise. And so on.

It's not confirmed that she is a druid/sorcerer by default, in one of the clips they showed she was in the party as a level 9 druid/sorcerer multiclass but chances are they just chose to build her like that when leveling up, my guess is that she is just a druid by default.

Exactly, but I think, that user doesn't want to acknowledge the point, I was trying to make here.

Yep, had they been smart they would have tied this to difficulty settings where easy/story mode allows you to go full clown mode and re-spec to your hearts content. Tying this to every difficulty level means that for players looking for a challenge they are by design required to engage with the systems, in particular being forced to multiclass if they are going to objectively make that choice better than pure class.

People going against this in the name of choice are ironically limiting choice themselves.

Some people would have all restrictions gone, and ask us to do "staff only" runs if we want a challenge. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk! All hail the wooden stick! I'm feeling so free right now under this artificial self limitation that requires me to neurotically check if every staff is 100% wood.

Clearly very little. You answered it well before you edited your reply. It'll be the other stuff. So, firstly these changes will have minimum effect on sales. Currently steam spy has BG£ at between 2-5 million, up from 2-3 million. It'll be a big seller. You seem to think the optional rules will be a turn off though. I disagree. And I can point to the other forum of committed BG3 fans, reddit, and say the subject hasn't even made a splash there. Normies will give even less of a shit imo.


The people annoyed at these options tend to see a game system as a whole and if something is added that they see is holistically to the detriment of the system even if optional, they think it as bad choice by the devs. Most of the time here it boils down to how far they stray from 5e. Not just 5e mind you, PHB because they tend to disagree with Tasha's which is a core part of it now. It's a fair opinion, nobody can say someone is wrong for feeling that way. Saying just don't use them is not understanding why they don't like it and really isn't a valid counter argument. But it is only an opinion and no-one is speaking from authority, even if they obviously have convinced themselves otherwise.


The people who think different think it's all about choice. And that what Larian do too as Swen went into a lot of detail explaining, that it is their goal for a successful experience. But honestly for games like this, or even ones with light rpg elements, this is in fact one of the core design philosophies of a lot of developers. That's not an opinion, it's a fact you can tell from playing them and it is confirmed by interviews and youtube videos they make. Highly dependent on publisher, budget and technical issues, but it is very high on the design philosophy. Larian being Larian push the goofiness and cheese, but that is again a matter of taste only.


The existence of difficulty sliders and story mode even shows how the holistic approach just isn't as high up as people think. BG 1 and 2 changed the core mechanics of the rules and BG2 normal (default) difficulty was with party damage from spells removed. You had to actually change it to core if you wanted the proper rules. Even Elden Ring has a robust summoning system which most of it's hardcore players think goes beyond easy mode and borders on cheating.


I know a bit about DnD and all I care about is can I get it as close to it as I can. I'll ignore the cheese, exploits and optional rules. The only rule I'm worried about is the multiclass spells one, which I hope will be made optional. I think it's fair if some people think differently, But to be honest I think BG3 is going to be a bitter sweet experience for them, maybe not even sweet. Most of us are gonna have a ball for the most part. There's always the chance of patches, but I just don't think enough people care about an option that can be ignored and I don't think they'll make major changes before the Xbox/playstation crowd arrive.

If your game requires players to police themselves for balance that does not speak well for the quality of your work.

...but I didn't edit anything out of my reply? You are probably confusing it with some OTHER reply I wrote.

...Nope?
I wasn't even remotely arguing sales until other people came up with the BULLSHIT excuse that "these changes are necessary to access a bigger audience", Which I THEN argued against.
I was arguing that these changes are a turn-off for me *quality-wise*.
You are probably making some confusion here.

Most games are like that.....

Exploiting and breaking games is its own subset of gamer culture look at all the speed runners and the like.

You are confusing glitches and exploits with balance, no?

Probably the best way to put it.

Well we can start with Divinity: Original Sin 2 outselling Wrath of the Righteous, Kingmakers and Crown of the Magister combined on Steam by double the units and 3x revenue and still having more active players than all of those games combined despite being several years older...

Eeh... this isn't always true. I know plenty of games where you have access to overpowered things quite easily but it is way more fun to do the same thing in a creative way.

Not necessarily. Take souls like games for example were character builds are all built around exploiting npcs the most you can.

Or thr Skyren stealth archer which let you wash mode most combats of the game.

I know mate I was agreeing with you. That's why I quoted your reply.

The other bit you were right was in response to a previous post:
" Stuff that the OVERWHELMING majority of the "casual buyers" won't even be aware exists until 20-30 hours into their playthrough IF the devs are lucky and the players will remain engaged enough."

Maybe I read a bit more into the last bit as it seemed to me you were suggesting the changes might have an issue. Maybe you weren't though, no harm done

Still I prefer WOTR over DOS2

No, we can't, because the comparison doesn't hold up even just on a superficial level.

These are games with VASTLY different budget and production value, which lines up with what I was stating about what actually drives sales.

You could probably fund the entirety of "Solasta 2: the Biggest and Massively Improved Sequel" on the budget Larian spent on their BG3 cinematic intro alone.

Have you by any chance ever heard of a little game called Dungeons & Dragons?

It's not as simple as that statement makes it out to be, most games will require at least some extent of self-limitations in order to achieve the level of balance one may desire, which might also not be the same for everyone. Game balance is to an extent an objetive matter, but also has a subjective component, and the lines that divide these parts aren't as easily drawn as you might think.


That's one of the first things you're hit with in the original BG games. Do you believe that most players stick to the first roll they get? No, most players will keep rolling until they get something they're satisfied with, and those numbers will change from player to player.

Of these changes the only one that seems worrying is how they'll tweak spell slots when multiclassing, but we have absolutely no information of the severity of the changes and many people here just seem to be assuming the worst.

I've watched a ton of videos and read community polls regarding 5e, and from what I can tell, druids and wizards are the only classes that work really well as single class. Multi-classing isn't optional if you are min-maxing.

Do the BG3 changes make it far less punishing for spellcasters? Yep. But let's not pretend like this isn't how 5e is currently built, regardless of WoTC original intent or your personal experience. The way so many classes are front loaded makes dipping the best option for a majority of builds (many caster builds can do it without costing spell slots and only pushing back spell progression a bit).

As far as constructive criticism goes, maybe we can make suggestions on what would work to make you, Tuco, and others feel like they are getting what they paid for.

Would a "Core rules" difficulty setting or toggle be sufficient to assuage your concerns?

Tbh, I'm happy with the re-spec part of all this, specifically being able to completely re-spec the companions. It may be a rare Larian move I can get behind. As I've made quite clear, I can't stand the companions we've been given in their current forms, so if I can completely change everything about them, then that is at least something. I know I won't be able to change their ridiculous backstories or their fundamental bevahior, but I am at that stage now where grasping at straws is all I have left.

Haha thats a good one, but I haven't heard someone saying "Man, I think firebolt dealing 1d10 is too much, my character's firebolt will deal 1d2 instead"

Policing in terms of roleplay decisions, sure, but rules are written and only in some occasions are open for interpretation. And there is DM to help with any confusion.

Skyrim stealth archer is not an exploit. Any build relying on potions however, is an exploit and can surpass stealth archer by multitudes. The restoration loop was never fixed and so enchanting and spell buff are legitimately broken

It seems like that logic should apply to Elden Ring vs. BG3 as well, or am I missing something?

We don't know the EXACT budget of either, but no, they must be around the same "100 millions" ballpark, give or take.

Yeah, why not?
As long as there's a "proper" mode I wouldn't give a damn of what people do with their easy mode or even if they want to install cheats.

Great, that is a good place to start from.

Would you be okay with PHB rules only?

Okay...

*deep breath*

One final try. Why...do you think that is?

I think it is because the market for a strict DnD-based ruleset video game in the 2020s does not exist on a scale that allows for that production value.

Unfortunately, Larian seemingly *did not* invent a new system. Because of this, the speculation is actually precise from the right sources. TLDR: bard and sorc may as well be one class, as would cleric and druid. You'll have to use your brain a bit to count levels of half casters to see how far it gets your casting classes. The levels may as well be a in a big pool, though. You only want just enough levels of whatever to gain class features and make your subclass viable. Not branching out once or even twice is a heavy handy cap -- there is little point to pure classes.

My experience as a DM has shown me that most players care more about playing what they like and what appeals to them on an emotional level rather than what is numerically the most potent builds. That’s the very definition of policing yourself for game balance.

One of the players in my last game was a nerdy wild magic barbarian / wizard. I have a player in my current campaign who is a wizard trying to keep that a secret my lying to the party and pretending he is a monk. Everybody has the option to play coffeelock and hexadin, but nobody ever does in my games.

I think for me, I've come to a point where I've realized that Larian is going to be Larian, regardless of what I say. Because of that, I've decided to ignore the silliness I don't like, and try to enjoy the game for what it is. If there is an option to do something I think is ridiculous, I'm going to try to ignore it. Burying my head in the sand maybe, but I think it'll increase my enjoyment of the game.

That said, I can understand people being frustrated with where the game went, especially the more hardcore D&D players. I'm personally not a D&D person, Rifts by Palladium was my bag back in the day, and that system pretty much allowed any insane idea you could imagine lol.

The only thing you give a "final try" is stop making disingenous arguments.

You made a very specific implied claim at first, regardless of the fact that you want to recognize or not: that "dumbed down"and imbalanced mechanics would be a requirement to make this game a bigger seller.
You have yet to prove the point in any substantial way, and all your attempts so far have been a series of apples-and-oranges comparisons.

About "Why do I think that is", I implicitly already answered that question, as well. But let's go over it again:
It's because they invested heavily on production value with their previous products, gained a certain success and popularity with those, reviewed very well, obtained an INCREDIBLY POPULAR license on top of it (both because Baldur's Gate as a series is unversally welcomed as a timeless classic and because D&D in ITSELF has never been more popular before, especially since Critical Role exploded among a non-nerd audience), got a massive injection of fund from Google/Stadia AND then invested an unhealthy amount of money into making this the most expensive and ambitious title in the (sub)genre of "isometric CPRGs" so far.

So, in short, it's a culmination of SEVERAL factors, none of which is incidentally about the "necessity" of making the system dumber and more imbalanced, to apppeal to... whom, exactly?
Where is this imaginary demographic of people willing to go into a nerdy D&D turn-based game "...But only as long as they make the overall balance a lot worse"?

I think they may have ruled that coffeelock is not allowed.

Regardless, I think you are circling around the crux of the problem. No DnD table follows the exact RAW for every single thing written down through all of the official content. Ability rolls being able to crit is one of the most common house rules that I've seen. So much so that even a decent chunk of the Adventurer's League DMs I've played with just followed that rule rather than having arguments with players (or because they themselves didn't know).

So now we are here at BG3 and it is being house ruled to the high heavens and everyone has different levels of what they find acceptable when it comes to those house rules. Larian isn't going to be able to cater to everyone. What we can do via these forums is identify a common theme through the feedback we are sharing and provide a suggested solution that we feel can be implemented without requiring drastic amounts of crunch time in the 3 weeks we have left before launch.

Yup. Very true. If you look at DOS2, that game changed significantly from release ever after EA. I think it will be the same for BG3. I’m not sweating what the game will look like at launch, because I know this game is going to be an evolving chimera for next several years.

Its simple, if in PNP we have a DM to figure out the rules for everyone, then in BG3 we should get customizable ruleset to play with. In 2020 there was an interview where some Dev from Larian said we'll have more than two options for distributing our ability scores. The only thing we saw during the PFH were floating stats. The recent community update didn't mention this theme as well.

As I see it it is a bit like every new DM or Group you start playing D&D with as it is not an MMO, you can lay down some basic agreements with the people you want to play with. Some DM's are more forgiving with what they allow, some are less, some players are just Maximizers who want to be halfgods, some prefer a style that is more focussed on roleplaying. Myself I like to give my players some wiggling space for creativity even if it is against the rules, the rule of cool trumps the Book. So, as I see it, Larian caters to this possibilities, as the players can choose how they want to play the game. There's a certain possibility of conflict and discussion but letting the players "police" themselves is not necessarily bad quality, but, dare I say it, a more liberal approach to the fact that there are countless different type of players and styles of playing. A group of Teenagers new to the world are playing differently as a bunch of veterans who have decades of experience under their belly and that is ok as it is.
They allow flexibility to your style and that is not a bad thing.

So this Italian site picked up something the rest of the world failed to do so? It's confirmed, and not something misunderstood because of translation, and not regarding difficulty modes?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As i'm going to have to wait and see what did they do with plate armor models >.>

In an alternate universe, there's no respec system, but there's still a thread like this, only complaining the opposite, demanding a comprehensive respec option.

After years of watching the comments here, I've grown somewhat numb to the constant outrage, seemingly always coming from the same cast.

It's all half-facts, guesswork, and venom laced piss.

Worst case scenario: there's a respec system in the game that allows you to change everything so you make Lae'zel a half elf cleric of Shar and you make Shadowheart a githyanki fighter. Aw shucks! Now what? How could this happen? Shouldn't Larian have done something to save us from this tragedy!?!?!

There's no way they'll let us change more than hair and clothing. The animation is fragile. I'm not sure Larian won't force us to accept a minimum of one level cleric (SH) and fighter (Lae'Zel). This is completely in tune with their prior philosophy of only letting us customize characters after recruitment. You can reset your own choices, but you can't wipe the character. That's only possible with your Tav/Dark Urge. I suspect most people will appreciate the feature for hair and makeup edits. Got to adapt to your armour choices, you know?

Sure, at least for me it would work. Not sure if it could be done in time for release though...

I don't know why anyone would reject it. I don't want to constantly think about what actually is or isn't legit. If there's two game modes to create your world in, whatever.

It must suck to be that guy.


I can relate. It can't be too different from the mixture of boredom and contempt I feel every time I witness the usual suspects becoming gratuitously passive-aggressive toward anyone expressing anything less than unfiltered hype.


Well, I'm afraid you'll have to suck it up, then, since you aren't in the position to dictate how people should feel about things and you can't live up to your previous promises of ignoring me.

Yes, but there's a limit to the amount and quality of changes that can reasonably be made, particularly if the pitch to get people to join is "We're playing a game based on the D&D 5e ruleset (and you have to pay $60 to play)."

Some wiggling room for creativity? Fine
A bit of rule of cool? Fine
Making drastic changes to the system that invalidate entire builds, increase the power of already powerful builds, all under the guise of "well, I'm not banning any specific build, so you're free to play a suboptimal character if you want - others just might have all of your abilities and more"...I would not play with such a DM.

Also, there are already rules for multiclassing in 5e, which allow for the flexibility you're advocating for. With Point Buy, you can get at least a 13 in all stats - enabling you to multiclass into and out of any race! So Larian hasn't really added any flexibility - they've just massively increased the power of such builds.

That was no class act for sure...

Edit: Lets try and lower the degree of contempt to each other. The fact one has no complaints doesn't give moral high ground or something. Lets respect each other.

Personally, I think everyone should stop discussing the respec options and focus on the real problem here which is the alleged multiclassing changes. If we just complain about everything then NOTHING will be heard. Yes, respecing your entire character or the origin character whose class is tied to the narrative is ridiculous, though that's something we can live with and just ignore. I can't say that about this news of multiclassing.

For those that are saying the multiclassing stuff doesn't matter, sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about. Multiclassing MUST have restrictions and opportunity costs. This isn't my opinion, this is fact. By removing the downside of multiclassing, you make it the clear optimal choice, thus removing the choice of creating a single class. No one is going to pick suboptimal choices when building their character. By having opportunity costs in multiclassing, you are creating an actual choice--do I go this route and have this ability, or the other route so my PC can do this instead. One may not be better than the other, which is what makes it a tough choice. If there's a clear choice that's better than the other, that's what everyone is going to do and we'll all be playing the same characters!

It honestly makes no sense that Larian would do this because by doing so they are making the options that they worked so hard on for the past several years essentially obsolete. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned a good example of this. If I'm playing a fighter that can just multiclass into Wizard with no restrictions or sacrifices then what is the point of the Eldritch Knight? No one would ever pick that subclass because multiclassing would present the clearly superior option, thus rendering all of the work that Larian did on the Eldritch Knight obsolete before the game even launches.

This is a HUGE problem and this is coming from someone who does not whine about everything little thing that isn't perfect. I think Larian has done a great job on this game so far and I've been so excited to play it. I'm ok not getting everything I want, that's the reality of life, but this here is a real issue that could break the game and I'm so disheartened to hear about it. We need to be vocal about this. Accept the respec whether you support it or not. We have to pick out battles and I say the multiclassing is the battle to fight.

Venom laced piss is the tastiest kind I hear.

May I have your permission to use that phrase, because I think it's one of the best things I have ever heard? I also want to now offer guests "beer, wine or venom-laced piss" - if they choose that option I will give them some Maddog 2020 or Red Ripple.

Honestly, I agree with you btw. There seems to be a lot of speculative negativity and hyperbolic conclusions that occur on this forums.

"I heard X about the game so it's ruined forever"

"This exists in the game so it's ruined"

At this point it's just some form of self-flagellation - especially if you haven't played the actual game. It's not like Larian doesn't respond to player feedback and it's not like modders won't be releasing tons of changes that people can incorporate according to their needs.

It's like the only remedy is melodrama.

I was originally pretty disappointed Bg3 won't release while I'm on break.

With the nonsensical combat, and a system that treats worldbuilding along priorly implemented laws of physics as "suggestions"... it can wait. The comedic mechanics and serious undertones don't complement each other. If you want to be silly, commit to the bit. If I'm supposed to take this as a serious setting, I expect thought put into it.

This isn't innovation or a brave, iconoclastic move. It's dumbing down and unbalancing the already precarious. I'm not sure why Larian couldn't leave it at story mode and free resets. It could have been a great game. I don't trust Larian knows what they're doing anymore when it comes to combat. It was so, so easy to not mess it up.

That is why I was talking about arranging that with the people you are playing with - that's a "guys let's skip over the monster builds, they're boring" situation - I'm playing Shadow of Avernus at the moment as a player and we simply have NO Multiclassing because it was agreed upon that we don't like how 5th Ed handled that (the DM and 2 Players didn't like it, one is still complaining that he can't do it, I dont have a problem with the 5thed rules on that but wanted to play a singleclass Char. to begin with, and one is a total newbie who didn't know what we were talking about anyways)

As I said, it's just a matter of specifying how you want to play with your mates, and that is not that much to ask.
I totally understand that this changes seem rather unnecessary, i get it, I just think they are not that catastrophic given you play with some reasonable mates who can agree on stuff, especially if they are experienced D&D players.
And there's the single player option where you can do whatever you want basically
Maybe a "strictly 5th ed" Setting Option would be a solution?

I think respeccing companions from the ground up is great.
I think it would be good to race and gender lock them but other then that, go nuts.
Shadowheart really does NOT have to be a cleric to be a devoted servant of Shar, there are 2 more classes with a very clear religious focus: Paladin and Monk
Wyll being a warlock may totally be erased, because his first few levels are probably not warlock and upon being transplanted with the illithid fetus, he lost his levels. It would actually make sense for him not to be a warlock level-wise, but still having a signed contract.
Gale being a wizard makes a lot of sense but lets not forget that he is a wizard frustrated by his loss of power. He could totally be roleplayed as reaching out for another source of strength out of desperation.
Lae'zel and Astarion really aren't defined by their classes, they could be literally anything and it would still work.

Build tradeoffs are good.
There should be benefits and costs to a vertical build that goes all in on one class.
There should be benefits and costs to a horizontal build that goes in across multiple classes.

One form of build should not be privileged over the other. I think this is an important point, and more fundamental than the respeccing issues.

Well, since it's all optional and it's a single player game.

The only bad thing is removing requirements for multiclassing (is it actually confirmed?) - it directly breaks the rules of 5E and actually takes AWAY from the game, imo. And also that bit about bonus spell slots which I didn't really get.

Instead of removing restrictions for multiclassing (which are STAT requirements), wouldn't it be more logical to roll for stats? Just let us spend 1 hour rerolling to get the perfect stats - our character would feel much more special.

As for Companion re-spec - it's a good option, what if someone hates Astarion, but needs a Rogue in their party? Make Shadowheart into a Rogue! Or you are dead set on RPing a Rogue yourself, but you are also interested in a monk very much - make Laezel a monk!

Part of the fun of Icewind Dale games was tailoring your own party. I did the same thing in latest Pathfinder games - used mods to re-spec the companions into the most synergetic parties possible.

But it's just an option - don't use it if you don't want to and keep everything Vanilla.

Sure, I think everyone would agree with that last line. Unfortunately, it's not feasible at this point with less than a month until BG3 launches. Unless, I suppose, Larian has already worked on it and are saving it as a surprise...but that's fairly unlikely imo.

It seems like there will largely be one ruleset, with difficulty modes that change enemy numbers, stats, and tactics. Thus, the specifics of that ruleset are what matter. We don't get the option of "specifying how we want to play with our mates" because we'll be playing in a world with game mechanics, enemy & encounter design, and possible multiclassed companion characters are all given to us by Larian. And playing in an unbalanced world where you have to self regulate in order to not use easily-given-and-overpowered options...is not good design. I shouldn't have to design the game I'm playing. And no, the possibility of mods don't invalidate the need for the original game to be well designed.

If Larian are worried about players being disapointed about not having Fireball as multiclassed level 5 caster, the issue is information not game balance. Let players understand what they're in for before they commit. Besides, respec gives us a way out of unforseen build issues.

I love exploring Larian's worlds, but am not always a fan of their design choices. I don't really like classless RPGs, I quite like ressource management. I was extatic with the update to Hide and Reactions. I hope against hope the multiclass system doesn't turn into defacto classless.

Almost nobody cares about the minimum stat removal. The clownery lies in boosting multiclassing well over the boundary of the absurd. It's not needed for sales the way easy mode + resets are. Nor, even ignoreable and optional like a magic, appearance changing mirror.

No, it's at *best* going to clutter my game up forever. *Realistically*, even force people to use that playstyle, because Larian ramped up the combat difficulty with these builds in mind. There is exactly nothing optional about it. You cannot opt out

Someone on Reddit who speaks italian basically confirmed that this is NOT a mistranslation. They are making this that casual (but they do say that this fireball thing was said in a vague way, but it most likely means what it means otherwise I don't know if that part would even be said).

I hope what they meant is that you can use your highest unlocked spell slots for the upcast. That it means a (1) Sorcerer and 4(druid) could use a 3rd level spell slot to upcast a 1st level sorcerer spell. THIS is madness already but not as crazy as giving fireball to a level 1 sorcerer just because he is a level 4 druid.

I mean, you didn't really need to go that far to fact-check.

I happen to speak Italian as well and I read the full interview.
I wasn't going to "hearsay", despise what some moronic take may have suggested.

Ah okay. Just wanted to clarify. And it's not that far. Just been looking there and saw a comment about it. I am personally not playing D&D, but even I can tell those changes are... weird to say the least. It pretty much ensures that me who likes playing as sole class characters for roleplay will be screwed in terms of content. Because there apparently is also some powers origins characters can unlock and Dark Urge, but there was no mention of TAV. So pretty much if you are going to play a solo class TAV you are screwed and get the least content and power. I just hope the difficulty in this game is not centered around Larian assuming you will be multiclassing, I have enough frustration from Arx from DOS2.

Your first two sentences are how it already works in 5e RAW, if I'm not mistaken. So no changes to the system would be necessary.

My concern is that Larian specifically mentioned their desire for multiclassed characters to get "strong class abilities like Fireball" earlier, which implies they're making changes to spells known, not (just) spell slots...

Can we now expect multiclass enemies with these new OP abilities? Try ignoring that.

I absolutely fear so. I heard from people playing the early full access that the combat gets way harder. Now, that *is* hearsay, but it does not inspire confidence. Either we may need it to keep up, the enemies have it, or both.

I'm more concerned about every random-ass hobo goblin having grenades and exploding arrows. Concentration is going to be a dead mechanic.

And if the enemies keep hopping around the battlefield like they did in early access .... urgh!

Being able to respec your character is now so common in RPGs it would actually seem weird to many people if it wasn’t there, there would certainly be a lot of demand for it. Not sure whether there’s a cost to dissuade people from doing it all the time, which is pretty normal.

Respecing the companions to a different class could cause issues with the story and interactions. Presumably it’s some added flexibility for people who want to play with particular compositions but don’t just want a bunch of mute mercs in their party. So if you’re happy for the game to treat Gale like a mage for the story, but play him as a paladin or something in combat then that would be a option. If that’s going to bother you, best stick with defaults.

The multi-class thing could be more of an issue if it makes them too OP. Hope they don’t screw it ip.

Let's be honest, the reported changes to multiclassing would go a long way towards changing the game back to the classless system we know Larian prefers. And while yes the game is SP, this isn't really a homebrew you can abstain from without abstaining from multiclassing entirely. Honestly, that's not a big deal for me, but what about those who like multiclassing yet do not want to be cheezily overpowered?

This is not rule of cool. This is a calculated move to bring gameplay back to DOS, whether they just believe it's more fun this way, or to lean into DOS fans.

Is this a generation thing? Are players so entitled these days that they need to have unlimited free respecs and the ability to turn Gale into a Rogue because they want? Dump Intelligence completely and still multiclass into an Intelligence class? Get some readily available magic gear that fixes everything? I.e. do whatever you want. Why? Where is this coming from? Games have rules and the rules are what make a game. Without sensible rules being enforced it's just lame sandbox play that never feels rewarding since you don't actually have to even learn the rules.

Larian are taking this "power to the player" stuff way too far. To the point where it actually hurts the game, with or without the player realizing it.

Multiclassing in 5e is far from perfect. But WotC have to fix that, not Larian. All their rules changes in BG3 so far have made D&D a worse game. And the Divinity game system is pretty garbage, being the obvious reference here for what "works" in a video game. It doesn't. They will probably change multiclassing into something where everyone basically gets "fun spells for free". A Divinity like mess where every character is basically a spellcaster to some degree and class identity does not exist. Much like with the scroll use that has remained free for all for years now. There's a reason why multiclassing has ability score requirements in D&D. The restrictions aren't even strict but they give structure and strengthen class identity. Being a Wizard or Sorcerer is fun because not literally everyone can claim to be one, or even be encouraged to be one by the system design. This is something Larian will never understand, based on the Divinity system which is as lame as it gets.

Someone's personal preference of a classless game system is being pushed really hard into D&D and it's not acceptable.

seems pretty sneaky to just put it in in the end with out even mentioning it in the last panel from hell.

wonder if they new it would cause some backlash so tried to keep it quiet

Enemies don't use PC rules to be written in 5e. You could already meet a caster who cast heal wounds, Eldritch blast and thorn whip in 5e, and there would be nothing strange about it.

LOL right!!

EA at the start sucked. Acid baths and flaming arrows up the Kazoo

Also.. If respeccing everything will be so damn convenient and inconsequential, what's the harm in keeping the multiclass stat restrictions, then? Just respec more charisma for your PC if you want to multiclass into Sorcerer.

So the real agenda here is to allow players to multiclass into whatever on a whim and then provide a handy Item of Ability Score that bumps your Charisma from 8 to 18. Anyone can be anything, at any time.

Nonsensical powergaming multiclasses and "build" items ftw? D&D this is not. This has more implications to completely undermine the D&D class system and character building than it seems at first. Someone at Larian simply can't let go of their awesome Divinity system that apparently is not only better than any other game out there, but also the only option. Anything else will be forcefully assimilated.

Well, let me ask you this: do you have any doubt that they knew the reaction that would come from the bear scene- including the major sales that resulted over the last 3 days?

I like Larian a lot, but they aren't an indy any more.

Oof, I hope not. If they don't actually expect you to hit level 12 with any class, that's really disappointing.

God's forbid and extra organized and better equipped group of goblins act extra organized and better equipped

Why make it a DnD game if they want a classless system. A meme that this is just DOS3 is alive, lol.

But I’m sure we are misinterpreting something. If a lvl 4 fighter takes 1 lvl of sorcerer and can cast a fireball… then 1 lvl of sorcerer is still enough to get chain lightning and disintegrate as fighter 11 / sorcerer 1? Lol 😂

Caster classes count as a full level, half casters as a half level, fighters for 0 levels. So, you need a level 8 paladin with one level in sorcerer to cast level 5 sorcery. You need a fighter with 5 levels in wizard for fireball.

These changes won't entice a single buy. A 'casusl' won't be paying attention....

Now bear sex... that'll get some animal lovers maybe.

But, 'free mutli classing'? 'Respec'?

I don't know of too many people who decide to buy a game based on the existence if respec. Lol

Casuals won't even know what the 'free multi classing' even means.

The problem with Larian is they dont care or like dnd, bg, ir those fantasies. Thry also take them for granted because we're suckered fir the logo.

I enjoy Larian games, and I'm sure this game will be fun, but anyone expecting this to be a legit dnd/bg3 experience weren't listening.

It'll be fun but it'll fun in the DOS style, not dnd style.

Would be sad if they did get people into D&D, but the way they handle the rules will give more casual audience false perception of it and will turn them away when they will see how they REALLY streamlined it.

Oh yeah, can't really say I was particularly thrilled when during the Panel From Hell the combat designer commenting on Tactician Mode kept talking about "Adding a grenade to a Bugbear, giving an explosive arrow to a goblin, putting an explosive barrel here and there..."

At some point I remember blurting out "Jesus Christ, is making things EXPLODE the only way this guy knows to add challenge to an encounter?"

I'm not sure that's how it works. You're correct that "free multiclassing" means nothing to them as a phrase, but it does mean something as a play experience.

Free multiclassing: "this game is so fun! There are all kinds of neat, crazy things I can try!"

Correct multiclassing: "this game is really complicated, how am I supposed to understand what I can and can't do?"

Those of us that always know where our PHB is, and where it is is usually close at hand, we're not the primary target market here. They're trying to get people who aren't usually into RPGs to try this.

I might hate the rule change, and I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but I think these stupid rule changes are good for gaming in general. The more that RPGs are mainstream, the better. At least in my opinion.

I hate these rule changes, but I think they're still good. The game is less about crafting the perfect build in the traditional way; it's clearly meant to be more about story than about combat.

I know others hate that, but I don't.

Yes

Maybe it is a generational thing. I could never have imagined video games could come this far when I first played on an Atari 2600 or the early arcade cabinets.

Early access is good and I’m looking forward to full release. There’s maybe some choices I’d have made differently if I was in charge, but I’m not. So I’ll just play and enjoy the game they’ve made (probably not using the the respec). I guess that makes me entitled?

Alright. This will be the last thing I say about this.

I don't know. I haven't seen the game. I don't know how it plays, I don't know the difficulty curve, I'm not sure how I feel about all this. In the end, I want a fair game that challenges me when called for. Maybe the new rules make sense and I'll get used to them. In that case, fair enough. And perhaps not. And in that case, I will probably mod it in, that mod will be there super fast - as the game already lets you walk around naked [I think, what else are the genitals for?]. Not what I hoped for, but I suspect it's what I would want.

But, my gut says, Core Rules, even if it's only optional so it's casual for the casuals.

But. If you give others the options to do whatever, then whatever should include being able to play by the rules and be restricted in their choices. Choice and consequence in an RPG matters just as much in dialogue as it does when progressing your character.

I would *always* check the Core Rules button if it's there. *Always*, even if it becomes annoyingly hard and Tav loses an arm or a tentacle. Core Rules setting will affect my experience positively for the entire game.

I think I will pass on this now. At least BG 1 and 2 stuck to the d&d rules and not change everything for the causal whiny players.

Ah yes gate keeping dungeons and dragons... A game totally not all about diversity and inclusion.

Also BG1+2 changed plenty of things.

There is a lot of whining going on, but it’s never coming from the “casuals.”

I’m just happy I have an easy way to respec Minsc into a barbarian without mods.

I have seen no declarative proof that companions can be reset to level 0. Meanwhile the drama over removing multiclass restrictions is overblown as well. Point buy systems could have been replaced with dice roll and allowed Uber builds. By default if you mutliclass into a class with a low base score you will perform poorly. It's a built in check and balance.

I go back to the original DnD ( 1st edition) and we must remember TTRPG and CRPG cannot function identically. Since it's a single player/Co Op experience, I think some flexibility is warranted.
Rules as intended from 1st edition forward are at the discretion of the DM.
Game looks amazing
Enjoy it

Sounds like you're gatekeeping. There is nothing wrong with simplifying things for new players. That doesn't mean it will always stay that way.

Hm, I keep hearing this assumption over and over, but do we for sure have actual confirmation companions can be completely reclassed? I would assume it would just be to level 1, perhaps subclasses included, but that's it. I don't have a strong feeling about it, will probably keep everyone their own class, but small quibbles like being able to change Shadowheart out of the terrible trickery domain would be nice.

From what I heard, it seems Larian is using a lot of things they did with Divinity Original Sin 2. In regards to your companions you can change their class. Before they join you, they will tell you want they are proficient in and you can choose to either keep the class they are or change it to something you think suits them better.

More self-flagellating melodrama for a game ya haven't even played. Nice.

Center multiple companions' entire stories and personalities to specific classes
Make those classes optional
What could go wrong?

I have heard on both Fextralife and Wolfheart recaps of the private content creator preview that all companions can be fully reclassed.

Since this is optional, its completely up to you if Wyll, Gale, or Shadowhearts’ classes don’t match their stories. I think this is the right design choice. I won’t change any character with a class intrinsic to their background, but for players who don’t care about the dissonance, why not just give them that option? It isn’t costing anybody anything.

Going to make for some awkward conversations.

Yeah, options are option, but it betrays an underlying design philosophy that you can get what you want by modifying pre-existing fundamentals rather than the dev accounting for more options.

I'd have liked a bard, sorcerer, and monk companion rather than having to tear a companion's story to the ground to build one up.

Only some characters have classes deeply tied to their backstories. Astarion works perfectly well as a bard, Lae’zel could be a monk.

And while it would be amazing to have one companion for each class, just because that wasn’t in the scope of the project isn’t a reason not to give people this option.

I would honestly add Halsin, Jaehira, and even Lazael to a degree (she is definitely a martial soldier, would be weird to see her as a bard or sorcerer).

Once more, no strong feelings seeing as it's an option, but on a personal level I do agree it'll be goofy as all heck to see a paladin or ranger with boar pet Wyll talking about his warlock pact. If people want to do that to themselves, it's certainly their choice and if not Larian a mod would have done it. Just shocked it was Larian that allowed it, though.

Seems like at some point they kinda just throw out the 5E PHB lol and took a cleaver down in between gameplay and story. Probably when they started reaching for Tasha's stuff too and then homebrewing the rest hard and long. Whelp, luckily for me, I'm less interested in the DnD aspects of the game and more in the story, setting, and characters, and the combat is passible too so I get fun out of it. Heard encounters are much more interesting in act 2 from fextralife, so good.

Well, good to know, I guess. I know Team Min Max is orgasming right now.

Still don't like it; still think it's a very imperfect approach to the problem, but I can make my peace with it. There are certain places in this game where I would have reduced features and certain places where I would have increased features, but it's not my game, not my company.

Is it essential to make those snarky one-liners? How hard can it be to let those who want to feel certain way about things feel that way without belittling how they feel?

Even for those you could argue for class swapping, if only maybe at diffrent points

Mizora now seems to be more of the traditional patron and if will fully escapes her it'd make sense for him to lose his warlock level and put them into bard or something.

Shadowheart clearly isn't a proper Shar cleric and exhibits traits of being a sorcerer

Gale even makes sense as a wild magic sorcerer woth his chest thing

Yeah, BG2 added an entire class to the game that was never in 2e (sorcerer), and the monk was a bit of an amalgam of abilities that weren't really nailed down anywhere at that point. BG2 was more like a 2.5e in the same way that BG3 is turning out to be more like a 5.5e.

Wyll makes perfect sense as various other classes. The tadpole nerfed his powers but the infernal pact is still signed. This basically allows Wyll to level up from lvl1 as whatever he wants. Before being a warlock, Wyll was definitely something else based on his story.

It's nice to see people reasoning about how things could work instead of just getting mad.

Pure speculation,

But regarding multiclass spellcasters, the way I'm reading it is that if the character has high level slots without a corresponding high level spells known, they'll get some minimal access to the next high level spell known. It sounds too complicated for PnP, but a breeze for computers.

e.g.

Sorc2 and Wiz3 (caster level 5) with a couple level 3 slots. The Sorc gets access to say one level 2 spell known and the Wiz to one level 3 spell known.

This is comparable to a Wiz5, maybe a bit too generous even. The Sorc/Wiz has more flexibility and only a little less power. But at level 6, it becomes advantage to single class Wiz.

The weakness of multi-class spellcasters is most pronounced at lower levels and the stress point is level 5 when single-classed characters get significant power-ups. I'm guessing play-testers noticed the party gimp then.

Multiclass warrior-types at level 5 without extra attack stand out just the same. A bit surprised they weren't singled out for buffing. Then again, what can you do?

Propably said million times already in this thread. Effects to my single player game are limited only to the multiclassing rule changes.

Other changes are not even worth discussing.

Multiplayer changes the spell level change (if makes to release) will be visible in my game. Thus it should be at least an option!

Do you mean that if you multiclass you will feel the effects of this ruling, which is a fair concern, or that enemies will have it? Because in the latter I'm pretty sure it has always been like this. There is nothing in 5e that prevents from building a caster statblock with both mass heal wounds and scorching ray. Casters statblock don't even have spellslots, they just works differently.

I meant specifically change that would lead multiclass character unlock spells from their list faster than that class level would allow.

Fair concern. I personally have never multiclassed and I've never seen someone multiclassing at my table, so I didn't pay much attention to it.

I was thinking about playing a druid with a single level in monk but Larian confirmed in Reddit that monks features aren't usable in wild shape form, bummer, but even in this case I doubt I would have felt these rules.

"Its just an option" is too often a cop out for lazy or weak design. And, the insulting attitude people fir new players who may be interested in a dnd game is rather dumb. Dumbing down the game won't make any new dnd fans. Not a one.

I have introduced plenty of people to dnd. Never need to dumb it down fir them. I learned dnd at 10. I'm not a genius. I figured it out. Can you imagine if chess got dumbed down to attract 'casuals' or new players? Ridiculous.

New players should be presumed to be capable of learning how to play the game without dumbing it diqn. Afterall, if they are willing to pick it up abd play they'll likely be willing to learn.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work whenever you try something new? Learn how it works. The gatekeepers are the ones who think non players are too dumb to understand the game all of likely love. Well, unless you are a Larian first dnd second kind if fan. Then I get it. Laruan doesnt really like dnd or bg anyways. They've made that clear in the oast all the while claiming this will be a 'super accurate depiction of dnd' while changing major parts of it.


Now, this post is harsh, but it's not all bad. I've enjoyed previous Larian games. I'll likely enjoy this one flaws and all.

More than harsh is kinda unwanted to. I mean, the discussion were back to being civil and constructive, the you arrive screaming at the sky with a bottle of booze in hand like grandpa Simpson.

In Italy we say "di meno zio, di meno", which sounds like "be less involved uncle, less". Haha

I ain't the one who started a 'I'm giving up on Larian' thread. Literally made a thread about a dwarf joinsbke npc abd romance. Lol I also bragged about spending 100$ abd enjoying previous Larian games. The one being rude is yiu simply because you dislike my opinion. I also defended the honour of new players. Isn't that a positive? Why so negative? Dont be a gatekeeper. New playerscshouod be able to enjoy dnd/bg(3) like the rest of ys without feeling like they are beong talked down to.

Back to the actual thread. I personally have not given up on Larian. If I did, I wouldn't post here. I don't post on gane developers forums if I have no interest in what they do - ask BIO and Obs. They dint make worthy games anymore. Larian at least tries to.

I don't need to defend myself from yiu or why I'm here. I'm here to discuss bg3, not you or me. The fact that you joined this month but are trying to tell me I have no right to post here just because you dislike my opinion is laughable non inclusive rudeness.

Tdlr: bg3 has issues but has a good amount of good stuff so I look forward to it. Lmao

Sorry there, I just meat to joke, I didn't mean to be rude.

Your post has so many new words that I have never seen in my life. Can you please elaborate what some of these words mean?

-playerscshouod
-joinsbke
-abd
-yiu
-beong
-dint
-gane
-Tdlr

Thanks!

I really don't mind the respec thing, except for origin companions.
I really hope they didn't make their narrative incoherent for the sake of freedom. I'd really hate to see more inconsistencies between story/gameplay in BG3, especially because there were solutions to change these characters enough (eg SH subclass).

The new races bonus is also a huge mistake in my opinion as it will drastically reduce the races uniqueness. A while ago we complained about disengage as a BA / highground adv-dis / backstab and so on because it reduced the class uniqueness a lot... it tooks 2 years to change that and now they are doing the same with races.

And I would HATE if multiclassing was so OP.
Multiclassing is and should remain an "advanced" rule for experienced players. Thanks to the respec thing even noob players like me will be able to try many things without consequences... but I don't want multiclassing to always be the optimal choice for building characters. I want to play a full class without it being considered by the games rules as the weakest choice.

This tends to prove that Larian's developper have great ideas in mind but that they are totally unable to balance anything without players feeedback.
I will certainly not giving up on Larian's game as I already know that I'd LOVE BG3 no matter what happen at this point... but I can really understand the thread's point.

EA was very frustrating to me in the end due to bad communication / no engagement towards the community and they were too slow to change things we reported day 1 (and they haven't changed some... like shove despite the consensus about it).

I also really dislike some of their design choices to be honnest and don't get AT ALL why some things are not done differently.
I have a lot to complain about in BG3 but I already love it and I can't wait to play.

I just hope that Larian will listen to me A LOT MORE for BG4

watch fexlife utube clip just for how damn impressed he is in act 2 & the game in general - just let your anxiety drift away ....this game is going to be amazing ....truly amazing.

To be perfectly honest, nowhere did I read, that people want the game to be easier, no one voiced concern about multiplayer by RAW would be too complicated. So I don't know, If there are whiny casuals or if that wasn't solely Larians Idea.
I'm playing Guild Wars 2 at the moment and there are a lot of casuals, but the game never holds your hand and some fights ( Caudecus comes to mind, because I did that fight yesterday) are downright sadistic. And still people, casuals included, play it. So I don't think, that people necessarily demand a game to be easier, but the studios think, they should make them easier, dumb them down for the masses.

I just don’t understand why people are so fixated on your stats being tied to your race. This change gives you more role playing options. I’m ecstatic that i can play my dwarf arcane trickster without feeling like I’m shooting myself in the foot. The choice between do I want my character to be good or do I want to play what I think is a fun idea is not an interesting decision. Races still have unique traits. The game is reportedly highly reactive to your race with lots of special roleplay options. And there is apparently even race specific equipment and gear.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but this objection completely eludes me. Wedding race to attributes is dumb, was always dumb, just like restricting classes to specific races back in the day. I’ve been playing D&D so long, I need to play weird characters just to keep it interesting. How is have each class possess a few mathematically superior race options an interesting choice? How many half-orc barbarians and gnome wizards do we need?

And the best part is, if you really feel that your half-orc wizard should have +2 to STR, you are free to make that choice. But if when given that choice, if you would always obviously always pick not to, why would you want that forced on everyone who wants to play this combination? A half-orc wizard isn’t benefiting from Savage Attacks and is missing out on the option to get a more useful racial trait, so there is still a strategic cost being payed. But at least you don’t need also lose out on a feet because you start with a defect in your primary stat.

Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk.

And another one who thinks having 5% less success chance makes a character bad and unplayable and is willing to sacrifice immersion and racial distinctions because they can't stop minmaxing...

You don't even notice your own contradiction by wanting to play "weird" characters but insisting on them having the perfect, cookie cutter, stat array for their class.
You complain about the prevelance of gnome wizards? With floating ASI everyone is a gnome wizard.

Everyone wanting the game to be perfect... in their own vision.
I'd also like to point out that the actual majority is typically silent.

I'm more inclined to ask for statistics. Do those tell us that X feature is being used in Y way too much? Oh, wait, these changes are not in the general public's hands...

It does, and I'll tell you more, a 15% more is literally "legendary". Only the greatest artefacts in the multiverse of 5e gives you a 15% more, this should help you put that 5% in perspective.

I'm a player that in my last pathfinder game played a black handed oracle (my favourite class) half orc. I literally couldn't use my hands, if not for a shield strapped on my arm. But you can be sure I had my 18 CAR as an oracle. Is that min maxing? Because at this point playing anything above 8 is minmaxing.

16-17 is the sweet spot in which a character is able to do what he do the most in 5e. If you want to gimp yourself you are free to do so but my half orc druid and my wood elf barbarian should be able to do what they do without sucking.

I'm not sure if being smug, condescending and patronizing toward the opposing point of view would count as being "civil and constructive". You spent your last replies uncharitably dismissing anyone unhappy with these changes as a lunatic "getting mad" and only people sharing your viewpoint as "reasonable".
Also, we say a lot of stupid shit in Italy, anyway.

Its not. As it was shown and calculated several times at the beginning of the EA with Larians implementation of advantage and height bonuses, anything below a +4 is as good as unnoticable because of the D20.
Having "just" a 15 instead of a 17 has basically no effect and you could count the number of times that makes you fail a check on one hand. Calling characters with 5% less success chance unusable and useless is just plain stupid, especially when you use that to demand to drain immersion and the "role" out of a role playing game.

Then why do you want to force these completely useless and unnoticeable bonuses for races?

Do you know that the strongest orc will always be as strong as the strongest halfling? And that the strongest barbarian halfling will be stronger than any warrior orc ever existed?

If the math changed due to Larian implementation, cool, I'm interested to see how it plays it out. I didn't know because I haven't played the early access. But the point you are making for racial stats still holds no value because not BG3, not Larian, but 5e as a whole already left that concept behind.

What I think those people (us, I guess?) are fixated on is having actual distinction between different species of creatures. And floating ASI is one less difference between them. It used to be that lizardmen and orcs had higher strength potential than smaller creatures, like haflings and gnomes. Then 5E changed it so they simply had a faster path to max strength and thus a feat advantage. And now, with floating ASI, your dragonborn has no higher strength potential than a halfling. How much do you have to suspend disbelief to make that work?

Wedding stats to races is in fact the only thing that actually does make sense, though of course it isn't political these days, nor is it newbie friendly. But if you step out of D&D for a moment and consider, say, Star Trek, then please don't tell me that you think Klingons and Humans should have the same base stats. Please don't tell me Klingons and Ferengi should have the same base stats.

Lastly, doesn't it strike you as the least bit funny that you start out talking about RP options, and then immediately switch to talking about meta considerations, like whether you're wasting a feat, whether you have the main stat at the right value, and so on? What in the flying fart of Zeus does that have to do with role playing? What I take from that is that you really want the "weird characters" but only if it doesn't have a cost to power gaming potential.

From my perspective, such an argument ignores that part of the weird character's charm is that you leave the meta behind in order to get more character flavor. Yes, you will fall behind a little bit. But you're in a party, are you not? Can they really not pick up that tiny bit of slack?

Or are we really going to accept the conclusion that characters that don't start with 16 main stat and beeline to max are hot garbage and totally unplayable? And if so, why exactly do you think the solution is to change racial bonuses to floating bonuses rather than creating more utility value for 15 main stat characters? By the way, if a 15 wisdom cleric is completely unplayable then why is it even legal in the first place?

I focus on them because the stat bonuses are part of the identity for races. (Half)Orcs are stronger than others, elves more dexterous and dwarves are known for being though.
But that identity is now getting removed because of whiners that refuse to play something without maxed stat for their class, completely missing the point of a role playing game.

I'm sorry to say that, but the original post claim is really an overkill exageration. Whatever if you like or not the possibility to respec, you don't have to use this option if you don't like the system!

But not everyone is a mega expert of absolutely all the rules in D&D 5th edition + know all the differences from BG3 to D&D + we are currently testing 6th edition and we could mix / forget / confuse rules

I'm very happy that it's easy to respec, it's easy to make mistakes when we create a character, even when we are familiar with the rules and read some guides (not all of them say the same thing!)
obviously it's really wasting my game when I do mistakes on my main character, with whom I will play for 40...60... 80 hours. Who like to be forced to continue with a subpar character?
That would waste my experience.

Also, it can be interesting to test different builds. Obviously no one will change 40 or 100 times the build of their character during the game. That was a smart move from Larian obviously. Not everyone is top high level Dungeon Master who knows everything all the time, amongst the players.

Just a rapid research and I can find that in the last ttrpg about star trek species have stat bonuses too, but these can be easily compensated by "environment", "upbringing", "academy" and "career events", making them just a drop in the ocean between all the stats you can distribute on your character.

If 5e implemented such an elaborated system to make every class work thanks due to bonuses coming from class, background, ideals and whatnot, something that has been implemented by Pathfinder2ed, sure racial stats would be cool, but at the moment they are just a nuisance and an arbitrary limitation.

Kind of telling when the argument for unlimited, unrestricted respec is "if I'm not playing the most insanely optimized mega-monster character, my time is totally wasted".

I'm not against respec, but having some sort of limitation wouldn't hurt.

I do worry that people will play these monster builds, then complain that encounters are too easy, and then Larian will balance off of that.

RIGHT that's why they've tried for this license for well over 15 years. Because they don't like nor have any interest in DnD what so ever. That's why they burned a budget in the hundreds of millions and spent _SIX YEARS_ of their lives on an IP that they don't like and have no real interest in... Do you know what the number one idea behind a game is? That's it's _FUN_ to play that's day 1 of gamemaking school. This was never going to be 1:1 TT to C-RPG and the main reason for it is because it is simply not viable.

I saw someone a page or so back suggesting they should have made an ORIGIN character for every base class, that would have blown the budget through the roof and it would have put even longer development time on a game that is already close to 2 years late out the door due to C19. I would not be the least bit surprised at all to find out that LARIAN went considerably over est budget due to that.

It's fascinating honestly, (and depressing) because it's rare that you see a 'community' that feels this entitled to things, BGIII is a UNICORN it should not exist in this day and age, the sheer scope and presentation of it rivals that of ANY big budget SP games from other genres out there. I'm sorry but they did not make this game for _YOU_ they made it for _EVERYONE_



---------

PS: Spare me from any further FS babble btw, trying to draw paralells to how they get away with not being necesserily 'user friendly' and having a 'very steep curve' They make 3rd person games with the basic premise of 'BONK mob in head with big stick', the 'curve' is based on pattern learning. Tell you what if FS had decided to CRAM a PoE level amount of systems into their games (without any kind of guidance) their sales would TANK over night.


Bottom line, if you want C-RPG with budgets in the hundreds of million and presentation that rivals ANY industry standard in other genres, well then you'll also get the sort of ACCESSABILITY options that are expected of any modern game put in there.

The concerns about the NEED to appease the casuals are generally bogus, anyway.
No one will stick through a 150+ hours RPG REMAINING a "casual", to begin with. People will either get bored and bounce off or they will get invested and then start noticing the eventual flaws and cracks on the system by the sheer amount of times they'll interact with it.
No system needs to be "dumbed down" to have an appeal, that's a myth. Where the difference is made is in the on-boarding, on the other hand.
We are all constantly "newbies" for most of the things we approach in this hobby. Without going to far, I never played a single game of Pathfinder before approaching the two Owlcat games and I'm now playing (very sparsely) the Rogue Trader beta, based on a system I didn't even know existed until few months ago.


There's nothing "roleplay-enhancing" about removing intrinsic differences and possible barriers to appease immediate convenience. There's a reason if the "play pretend" at the foundation of roleplay across decades moved away from toddlers screaming at each other "Then I'll be X and do Y better than you!" without rhyme or reason to wargame-like setups, where people build characters according to fixed, well-defined parameters and manage combat scenarios (and more) through a set of shared "rules of engagement".

"But I wanted to have my cake an eat it too" may be something people can be very emotional about, but it's hardly the strong argument in favor of improving immersion.
For instance one could argue that rather than having half-orcs and gnomes be basically identical in terms of physical and medical potential (which to make sense basically requires for these archetype to stop meaning anything), your rules could be designed around a way to make a physically less powerful gnome viable as a barbarian leveraging his own innate characteristics.

I will never be convinced by any argument that boils down to "I strongly feel I shouldn't be limited in any way".
Anyway, this is a bit of a digression at this point, since what's done is done. And not even part of what the topic was about, anyway.

I suppose, at least you're honest about hating world building affecting combat for the sole reason of minmaxing. You'd dislike Warhammer so much.

I should get something about the warhammer world, but I've seen that there are many different systems that I honestly don't know which one I should pick. I honestly don't think that "worldbuilding" means solely what you are saying. There are various ways to build a world, and the world building in 3.5 (hard dungeon crawler) is different from the world building in 5e (narrative oriented), which is different from the world building in world of darkness (hard narrative), or any PbtA (hard narrative) for the matter.

EDIT: just narrative for WoD, because PbtA is far more narrative.

I haven't checked any Star Trek rpg system. And I'm not sure why that would be relevant to what I asked. I watched the movies and the tv series, because that's what defines Star Trek lore. Now tell me, are you suggesting that a Ferengi has the same potential for raw strength as a Klingon? That a human has the same potential for constitution as a Klingon?

Those are both yes/no questions. And they're not hard yes/no questions either. There's no trap in them.

Except of course for the absolutely unavoidable fact that Star Trek species are allowed the freedom to be physically different in meaningful ways. I don't see why D&D races should be denied that freedom.

^ The amount of sheer hubris that just radiates from this is honestly staggering. Tunnel vision does not even begin to cover it, You are using yourself as an example brosif...try looking around you represent the _MINORITY_ not the _MAJORITY_

I literally never saw even just an episode about star trek, just the "lower decks" cartoon series. So I can't honestly answer your questions. The only thing I'm saying is: here, you are talking about star trek, here it is the system. Species have a tiny +1 to a few attributes, and the rest of their lives make for the remaining ten or so points. Do what you want with that.

Guess I'll have to live with that.
The irony of you saying this to me while ANGRILY defending the narrative that "casuals need to be catered to" is not lost to me, anyway.

Not to mention that NONE of this was about "minorities" and "majorities" anyway, and is so-not current-year-friendly that you are basically implying minorities should be ignored and trampled on, if necessary.

The old race stat bonus don't make any sense in the first place though.

Humanity has had the highest concentrations of apocalyptic level wizards and sorcerers in lore. The idea gnomes or half elves are inharently better than them in these classes is laughable.

Heck one of the descriptions of the barb in dnd beyond is one soloing a frost giant.

The idea that these immutable stat difference exist is laughable.

I'd be surprised if Larian didn't balance normal difficulty round single class, reasonably default PHB-type characters. Especially given that they said that they expected mainly experienced players to multiclass and weren't trying to draw a lot of attention to it in level up (which I can attest to as it's just a relatively small "Add Class" button at the top right of the level up screen that could easily be missed if you weren't looking for it. What wouldn't surprise me is if, at some time down the line, once they have had chance to see just how exactly players are able to exploit their systems to wipe the floor with the game, they add a further nightmare difficulty mode designed to make the game challenging even for those players (and probably failing, given that an engine with as much complexity and flexibility as BG3's is probably unavoidably going to have loopholes).

And while I'm dropping into this thread, a reminder that we're all entitled to our views about the game and to express them here, and while it's of course absolutely fine to disagree and to say why, let's avoid implied insults or challenging others' right to feel as they do about the game, and try to keep it friendly and constructive despite the strong emotions some of these topics seem to be evoking.

Lol no.
The diffetence are numbers. There are a lot more "apocalyptic" human wizards because there are a lot more² humans than gnomes.
And what the barbarian has to do with this topic only you know.

If you don't like it, don't use it, eh? It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. We are talking about core game rules here, not optional features.

E.g. Larian have stated they have put more items like Headband of Intellect in the game that replace an ability score, to make multiclassing easier and to enable item-centric builds. That alone makes respec an integral part of gameplay if you want to play well. Find a belt that gives you a Dex of 18 > respec your Dex from 14 to 8, wear belt, enjoy your new buffed Dex AND Constitution and Wisdom scores. Such items already devalue character ability scores, but with respec it just becomes really stupid.

Knowing you can always respec takes away all weight from decisions when building your characters. You are mentally lulled into lazy gameplay mode where learning the rules and planning have no meaning. It's subconscious, but I argue that it makes the overall gameplay experience feel less rewarding. You have this feeling in the back of your head constantly that decisions are irrelevant in the end, you can always change into something else.

Respec ruins replayability. Why would I replay the game for a whole different experience using another class or build, when I can just respec into said class, or any class, nilly-willy during my first playthrough? Gameplay and storytelling are supposed to support each other, not be completely disconnected. What kind of a story has it's characters changing all time time? He was a Wizard.. no he was a Ranger.. wait no, what if he was a Gnome Cleric / Barbarian multiclass? Distracting. Larian are guilty of disconnecting gameplay mechanics and storytelling also when they demote Minsc and Jaheira, or Halsin, into low level companions. So clearly they don't get this.

For someone who really enjoys character building, planning and tactical combat, Larian are making a terrible gameplay experience. It seems like the devs want to make a dating sim with puzzle combat and the D&D ruleset is just getting in their way. When they should embrace it and understand it's a tried and true ruleset that is the game's greatest strengths.

Bruh maybe try debating the argument, not the person? Hubris? Tunnel vision? What exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree that the person who plays the game for considerable amount of hours seizes to be a casual and starts exploring the deeper layers of the game systems? Do you disagree that switching your perception of the game from casual to post-casual makes you more aware of the flaws in design? What is your point apart from brainfarting on Tuco's account?

You are jumping from a thing to another without sticking a single landing, though.

- Unsubstantiated claim
- Lore fact that ignores constant rewritings across few decades and selective point of view
- Random fact about a barbarian of dubious relevance (you can have any class potentially "soloing a giant", if it's about skill and overall combat prowess rather than sheer physical capabilities).
- No one argued about anything being "immutable" and degrees of variation already existed anyway.

OK, so Larian doesn't care one iota or really understand how to implement a D&D system, so the question being "will it still be fun".

I have watched two videos of people, who like The Red Queen, have played into act 2; WolfheartFPS and Fextralife.


Fextralife is definitely less biased and reports that act two ramps up in difficulty, complexity of combat, and story. This is encouraging as every time I get used to Larian's combat they start to change the rules.

Normally rule changes are implemented very slowly and cautiously. First it is "Unearthed Arcana" and tested for months before it is canonized. Larian's approach seems rushed at the end, so we'll see.

By first hand reports though, Act 2 should be intriguing and fun.


As far as the story goes, it has its bright spots and completely falls on its bum in other areas. Grymforge, is stunning in its construction, but the story is a complete fail.

The Deurgar have no culture or character, neither do the deep Gnomes in sharp contrast to established lore.

Deurgar meme: Vulgar, uncultured, angry, and excessively cruel.

Deep Gnome meme: Bitter, vengeful terrorists, simpering, pitiful, and boring.


These races do have a rich cultural history and its a shame Larian didn't bother to do their homework, assigned them an evil tag, and wrote them in their own cruel image.

That whole area is a wasted opportunity.


Fextralife reports that act two is great story telling, this will be welcome.

I look forward to seeing the Githyanki encampment, the Harpers, and Moonrise.


As far as Multi classing, it is rarely worth doing, but their are a few great synergies.

I myself have decided to stick with Pure Valor Bard to be more durable and get my 6th level spell and attribute boost.

Sure, let's go with that. You even typing 'angrily' in a thread (created by yourself) where probably 95%+ of the posts you've made in it will have you insulting someones intelligence. Uhm, pot you're black. You're strawmanning massively, it's not 'catering' it's making it accessible so that people will buy in, if you make the buy in, ''hey here's a wall maybe you can climb it'' ALOT of people are just gonna call it a day there and go play something that is more user friendly, no amount of money in the world has ever bought a single second of time, people tend to value what they spend theirs on.

Again, this type of game with this level of presentation SHOULD NOT exist in this day and age.

I you have not seen the show or the movies and don't really know the world then perhaps it isn't unreasonable to say that your ability to answer the question is somewhat compromised? I am shocked, of course, that someone hasn't at all seen anything Star Trek, but then people say the same when I've never picked up on Lost, Game of Thrones (read the books, never got around to the tv-show), or that living dead show.

But just to clarify, Klingons are generally bigger and bulkier than humans, they are consistently depicted as significantly stronger than even trained Starfleet humans, and they have all kinds of nifty things in their body to help them survive battle damage. Ferengi are significantly smaller than humans but similar in proportions, they have no tradition for hand to hand combat, and they are not very strong at all, which is a fairly insignificant problem in a sci-fi setting.