I think title says pretty well what I desire, but let me explain.

In DOS2 whenever a companion joined your party they sort of told you what class they were and then offered that you could pick another. That was great!

In BG3 that system wouldn't make so much sense, since the characters story and personality is closely tied to their class, Shadowheart's story just wouldn't work as anything but a Shar Cleric.

So my suggestion is that the player be allowed to choose either the default ability distribution or pick their own. I think Shadowheart's character would still work perfectly fine if I made her strength based so should could actually hit anything with melee weapons or had her start with 16 dexterity. I recently played a "multiplayer" game with 3 custom characters (Fighter, Cleric, Warlock) and Astarion and found combat a lot more enjoyable because their ability points were optimized for my playstyle. I did miss the banter and their constant complaining about my decisions though.

I would welcome the option. Especially for classes that have subclasses which require a specific score to work, like Arcane Trickster or Eldritch knight need good Intelligence.

The obvious use for such a feature would be to dump everyone's unimportant stats to 8 to make more efficient combat builds. But dumping Int/Wis/Cha wouldn't affect their dialogue or personality the writers had in mind when creating them. Attribute scores would be disassociated from actual attributes and characteristics, a.k.a "bye bye, RPG". I'd rather experience the characters as the writers and designers intended. I just hope Larian can pay enough attention to make them decent at what they're going to be doing while having the stat blocks accurately reflect their character.

Optimized characters are also absolutely not needed in this game. Combat is more about cheese tactics and pushing people and too easy as it is.

As for Shadowheart, I like her as a Dex based character more. It fits a Trickery Cleric. She's good at Stealth and Sleight of Hand which means she can double as a Rogue, very useful. Using a Crossbow at range or dual Daggers she can conceal to appear non-threatening make more sense for her.

I disagree with nothing that you said and I do play Shadowheart with crossbow and dagger, but do you have any objections against having the option of custom ability scores? Yeah, I am guilty of min-maxing, sure. I do it on my main. Does it bother you that I play that way?

But it´s not just about min-maxing for me. Sometimes I like to try stupid stuff like putting a two-handed sword on a wizard or plate mail on a warlock and neither Wyll nor Gale has enough strength for that...

Wyll has a straight up garbage build... 4 odd numbered stats. Ridiculous. Besides which, this isn't an MMO. If some folks want to min-max, where's the harm in letting people play the way they want to play?

I am fine with the companions the way they are. If the rumours that we will get to at least 12 level are correct, that still gives you significant freedom to respec the said characters. Now if the developers want to make it optional for the player to mix/ma it one way or another... that's fine, too. I am fine both ways, actually

I think Gale, Astarion, Lae'zel and Shadowheart are balanced the way they are. I think the stats of Shadowheart are perfect for a multifunctional cleric. She can tank (which is the role she had in my team), she can use maces and finesse weapons.

I am a bit more confused about Wyll. Statwise is he is fine but his stats do not really reflect his backstory... The "blade of the frontiers" who have negative strength and low Dex? I think that 14 intelligence is misplaced. I would go for something of the sort: Str 10, Dex 16, Const 14, Int 10, Wisdom 10, Ch 16 That or he became really lovesick after Mizora and has not trained for months.

Sounds like good idea to me ... +1!
(But im affraid i have seen something very simmilar around here!)

Why would it? O_o
I mean it dont affect your PC, so ... the same rules for everyone. O_o

Also, i know that naming the ability score "intelligence" (and others too, but this one is extra specialy obvious case) kinda imply that person who have it low is dumb ... but that is certainly not how this works. -_-
I know that many people tend to play low Int characters as almost Neanderthal barely even able to give long sentence together ...
Personaly i find that the oldest hurtfull stereotype ever. :-/

Intelligence is matter of how well can you remember instructions, or how exact are able to recall them in tense situation, how many different things are you able to remember, or how fast are you able to decript some riddle, or understand new language ...
So the character who have 8 Intelligence should certainly be able to speak exactly the same as character who have 20 Intelligence ... the only difference between then is that character wich 20 Intelligence will speak much more often, since he would recall (read as sucess on pasive rolls) much more informations to share.

-

Wisom, as official description say: "reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition ... might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person."

So, logicaly its not the case where high-wisdom Monk can say some mystical blabbering ... and low-wisdom cannot ... they both can. :-/
Once again, the difference here will be that the high-wisdom one will be much more intuitive ... will notice more nuances, or reveal more lies ... but that is once again matter of rolls. :-/

-

Charisma is in my opinion the second most often missunderstand stat, right after Intelligence. :-/
What are we using Charisma for? Persuation, Intimidation, Deception, and Performance.

As in previous cases ... its not like the person with low Charisma is unable to use good argument, say something frightening, lie, or play some musical instrument ... they are simply not as effective.
So as before ... charismatic character can say exactly the same sentence as low-charisma character ... the only difference is that NPC's will the first one like more, even tho they said the same thing.

-

So, dont be mad at me please ... or do if you wish, w/e. :P
But i simply cant find litteraly even single valid argument for why stats should affect their dialogue or personality.

Then simply dont change them ...

See? Everyone can be happy in the end.

For most classes, getting to level 12 allows for 3 ASIs. And considering that most of the game will be spent below level 12 it's really only a measly 4 ability points, which I wouldn't categorize as "signifcant freedom to respec."

Take Shadowheart: 12 14 14 10 16 10
If we wanted to make her a strength cleric, at level 4 we can bring Str to 14 and at level 8 we can bring Str to 16. Okay, now she has the equivalent strength of a typical level 1 str-fighter AND her wisdom is still at 16, meaning her spell attacks and DCs won't keep up with enemy AC and Saves. In addition, this assumes that you don't take any feats - no War Caster or Heavily Armored.

##########################

Potentially the game could allow a moderate level of initial respec'ing, with certain minimums to stats that are integral to the NPC's personality/class/history?

Again, take SH - she could start with 10 10 12 10 14 10 (or maybe even a minimum intelligence of 8), giving you the remaining points to allocate. So you could build her as any of the following:
16 10 14 10 14 10 (Str-Con Cleric with lower Wis)
14 10 14 10 16 11 (Str-Wis Cleric with emphasized Con)
15 12 12 10 16 10 (Str-Wis Cleric with balanced Dex/Con)
12 14 14 10 16 10 (SH Default)
10 16 13 10 16 10 (all-in on the Dex-Wis Cleric)
10 16 14 10 14 12 (Dex Cleric with balanced Con/Wis and somewhat charismatic)

But you wouldn't be able to make her incredibly weak or give her very low Wis. Similarly, Gale could have a min Int of 14 and Str of 8, and Lae'zel a min Str of 14 and Cha of 8. Customization, but inability to choose ability scores that completely contradict the character.

I doubt they'll allow us to customize companions unless we play as them. However, we'll be able to hire custom mercenaries, so that will probably be the way for min-maxers. For now, you can try the multiplayer trick to get a party of 4 Tavs, or just use mods to modify stats.

Incidentally, every companion except Shadowheart is using the recommended ability scores for their class, so I doubt their statblocks were made to reflect their characters.

I actually want them to create the characters accurately and well, and NOT have us tweak them until after they join us.

Wyll is the perfect example. Based on his character, he should be a Pact of the Blade Warlock. No options. He carries around a rapier, which most Warlocks cannot wield. By the time we meet him, he should already be level 2 and his path set with proper stats and so forth.

I think the issue is that many tend to not like how the characters were built, so they want to mess with them. I find this interesting because so many people have stressed how they are resistant to a party of 6 because they have to manage so many characters so much, but then you have the other extreme where you have people who want to even choose all the stats and abilities for all the companion characters.

These are characters with their own paths and stories. I think they should be set for us to some degree. Wyll makes no sense at all if he is not a Pact of the Blade warlock. Shadowheart doesn't seem like she should be a very dexterous gal. She seems more up close and personal with good strength. Yet they build her with good dex so she's better at long range. Yet she wields a mace and shield and doesn't even start with a crossbow? Makes no sense. And Astarion starts with Padded Armor which has disadvantage to stealth rolls? Nani? Makes no sense.

Having an option for players to do what they want would work, but I sometimes wonder how many freaking options Larian is really going to build into this game by the end. I mean, with just about every suggestion, people eventually come to the place where they say, "Well, I'd at least like the option for this. Larian, give us an option." By the time Larian's done, if they give us all the things we ask for as options, the Options settings list is going to be a thousand pages long.

She was using recommended, people on forum wrote that it doesn't suit her Trickery Cleric with Urchin background build, also Larian data showed that she was dying at every occasion in fights so they rebuild her. And If I remember correctly now clerics recommended changes with their domain so Trickery gets Shadowheart's stats.

I did not know her statline used to be different, but my thoughts on finding this out:

Why was she dying? because her AC was (and still is) trash, but so why did they tank her combat ability to achieve it? Maybe tank one of her dump-stats instead? Or better yet, give her heavy armour proficiency and make her starting armour chainmaille, similar to how Wyll gets rapier proficiency that he shouldn't have as per his class.

The last thing we need are more rule exceptions. This suggesting being exceptionally egregious as she is a DEX based trickery cleric. It would be completely counter productive to give her heavy armor. Her combat ability isn't tanked so I've no clue where you got that idea nor is her AC trash. Have you played a T1 5e adventure before?

Interesting idea and personaly i would love it.

Having more choise and flexibility would be great especialy for min/maxers but as i am reading this topic and RPG's hard inpact still with such option every site have a choise.

If fully customizable stats on companions still would be to much mayby at least give us a small option to interfere with them like +/- 1 mayby 2 max.

You'd think that having both int and wis stats would clue people in on there being more to overall intelligence than just the int stat, though the naming certainly doesn't help. A quick examination of what the int stat actually does in 5e makes it clear it is the stat for a very specific subset of intelligence; what you could colloquially call "book smarts" and the degree to which the character is formally educated. This is also backed up by the class that uses int; Wizards. Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights also happen to use Wizard spells.

Wisdom covers interesting skills that seem to be more practically applied than most intelligence skills. Survival v Nature, for example. The former is the application of the latter, though the application doesn't necessitate understanding it on an academic level.

A character with 8 int could be dumb, but they could also be someone who never had access to formal education. And a character with a high int could be pretty "naturally" dumb too, but also be someone who has a good formal education.

A funny observation from the Player's Handbook: Bruenor is the example character used to showcase how to build a character in the system and happens to be an existing character in the lore, being one of Drizzt's companions. He is the leader of a clan of dwarves, a skilled field commander and a master smith. He is also given an int score of 8 because every other stat is prioritized over it and he is described as being "a bit forgetful".

In short, the intelligence stat seems to only be one side of intelligence, the other part largely being made up of wisdom.




As for the topic itself, I definitely do think some of the characters need to have their stats rebalanced, Wyll in particular. The odd numbered values he and Gale has is likely a result of Larian building them as humans with standard array ability scores though.

To start off with, yes, I got into DnD during the pandemic, and played a fair bit over discord. Haven't played a cleric though, it doesn't fit my aesthetic, but I can still have opinions on character building. So lets get cracking.

1. Wasn't the point that she didn't used to be a dex-based cleric until they revamped her stats, but used the recommended ability spread originally, or did I misunderstand?

My point was that she is dex-based right now, which means that if she attacks with the str-based weapon that she gets as starting gear, she does less damage than if you give her a finesse weapon, but because she doesn't have martial proficiency, if you give her a finesse weapon, she does more damage, but hits less often, as she is denied her proficiency bonus. Unless you give her a dagger, which is only d4, and doesn't really fit with a shield aesthetically. I consider that to be tanking her combat potential.
Your option is to give her a ranged weapon, which isn't part of her starting gear, and thus isn't how she is intended to be played.

Her AC would be trash with a lower dex score, and with the recommended stat spread, she'd have an AC of 13, 15 with a shield, as she'd have a dex modifier of 0, which would be trash for a s&b character. Hence why I assume that them lowering her str and raising her dex was to up her AC, from 13 to 15, giving her 17 with a shield, which is decent, but not great. Compare with if you give her La'zael's half-plate, then she's got 17, 19 with a shield, which is in fact great. This could have been done much easier by either giving her heavy armor proficiency and heavy armor starting equipment, giving her AC 16, 18 with shield, or giving her starting armor with higher AC, like they did for La'zael, half-plate would give her 15, 17 with shield, with the standard stat spread.

Or do you think there was another reason why they switched up dex and str on her character?

2. While I disagree that rule exceptions are necessarily bad, they're named NPCs, pre-built, I have no issues with them having special stuff that other NPCs or the PC doesn't get, they're not necessary to fix Shadowheart.

I just built a trickery cleric on DnDBeyond, and with the recommended stat spread for her class, she'd have 14 AC, 16 with a shield, which is not great, but it's decent, and what the class is based around, because she'd start with scale mail. Of course, they've given her a chain shirt instead, I assume because they want her to be able to sneak without disadvantage. So the trash AC was their own fault for tinkering with her starting gear.

But, Shadowheart is high elf half-elf, and thus has access to Elf weapon training as a racial trait... give her that instead of a cantrip, and a shortsword instead of a mace, and you've fixed her AC, caused by the chain shirt starting gear, by making her dex-based, without tanking her combat ability.

Not to mention clerics can get crossbows as starting equipment, if she had that too, it would not telegraph "melee character" to the player.

Yup ...
Thats basicaly what im trying to say.

I dont argue that stat that is called "intelligence" isnt numeric expression of "intelligence" for our characters ...
I was just trying to say that its lack doesnt need to mean that character "is stupid", or even worse "isnt able of regular comunication" ... just as it was presented in the coment i was reacting on. :-/

I mean i could imagine that Intelligence 1 would have such effect, and evet that sounds like little hardcore to me ... we were never told what difference is there between character who have Intelligence 8 and another one who have 20 ...
Probably bcs that is up to us, and so we are not so limited in our imagination. :P

When someone try to tell me that my Barbarian with intelligence 8 should not be able to use full sentences, i reply that their Wizard with strength 8 should not be able to carry weight of his own body.
Just to show how ridiculous that whole claim is, once we start to use it for other ability scores aswell.

Remember also that the intelligence ability isn't just raw learning - it's about information retention, recollection, memory and how well you order your thoughts. Someone with an excellent memory who can near flawlessly recall every detail of a story they heard a week ago, and who can perfectly describe the room they were at the time; someone who can obtain a piece of information properly after having it explained to them only once, and learns it without need for repetition or double-checking; someone who can focus their thoughts with precision and order firmly and who never becomes muddled; someone who finds their way back to the pub after a long night by retracing their exact route turn for turn; someone who can reason through the manipulations of a puzzle by eye without touching it, and perform mental constructions of similar things in their mind when needed... these are people with high intelligence, regardless of what they actually Know, book-wise.

Wisdom covers what would these days possibly be called emotional intelligence; it's how well you can read a room and get a sense for atmosphere, how well you can understand and empathise - or manipulate - a person based on your understanding of their desires and emotional state; it's your natural instincts and senses that aren't related to higher order thoughts; this includes your senses and reading your environment to gain an understanding of what occurred or where something went. The high wisdom character might not understand the complicated instructions given to them for getting through a puzzle, but can more easily come to grips with it when they get there, observe how it works, and understand the method that needs to be taken, even though they don't know or remember the exact instructions. They find their way back to the bar from a long night because they know that they came a certain way, and as they amble back the trace the signs of their passage, and eventually landmarks that they recognise - not following the exact route they took, but possibly a more direct one.

Wich both dont affect ability of person to speak or act in any way ... and therefore is not useable as reasoning for forbiding players to adjust ability scores of our companions ...
Right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Intelligence influences higher brain functions and the ability to speak at least to some degree?

Feeblemind drops the target's Intelligence and Charisma scores to 1, and the result is a character who is essentially a beast: they can't understand language or communicate in an intelligible way, but can tell friend from foe and act accordingly. Unless we want to attribute understanding of language to Charisma somehow, it does seem to indicate that Intelligence plays a role in a character's ability to express themselves (as without a proper understanding of language it will be hard or impossible to communicate complex ideas).

There are also some spells which require their target to have a certain Intelligence score to work. Tasha's Hideous Laughter makes the target "perceive everything as hilariously funny", but doesn't work on creatures with Intelligence scores of 4 and below. Why is that? Perhaps because at this level of Intelligence the brain function is so simplistic it doesn't have a concept of humor?

In the real world, intelligence has many facets and means many things. But this is a game we're talking about, and it has to abstract some ideas in order to make a system. A character with an Intelligence score of 7 is on the level of a great ape or a monkey. And while both apes and monkeys often surprise us with how smart they can be (the gorilla who was taught simple sign language comes to mind), I think we can agree they're not quite as "smart", in the stereotypical sense, as we are. This should apply to characters as well.

Definitely not a fan of the idea of letting the player customize everything about companions.
Stuff like ability points or starting specialization should be a defining part of who they are.

I know there will UNDOUBTEDLY be mods that will allow to change even more than that, but still, I wouldn't be in favor of making it part of the standard experience.

Fundamentally yes, ofcourse ...

But there is several problems here ...

- For one, there is no deterministic breaking point, that could be seen as "minimal Ability score to speak properly" ...
- For two, any of your characters (basicaly except Wizard) who will dump Intelligence and have score 8 is totally able to create full sentence without litteraly any obstacle ... it would be kinda weird, if your companions would be sudently stupid just bcs their ability score is just as high as yours (asuming you dump your aswell). O_o
- For tree, even tho there are creatures (like those ogres) who speak ... well, the way they do, i dunno how to describe it ... like Tarzan prehaps? We dont quite know if this is bcs common is not their native language and they dont use it well enough, of if their brain (they have Int 7 as far as i know) is simply unable to create anything more sophisticated.
- And last but certainly not least (and that is its own problem) there are beings in this game like Spar ... the squirell that is listening to Alfira ... if you have Speak with Animals active, she litteraly tells you "our brains are melting" ... wich shows both surprisingly well created sentence, and surprisingly deep knowledge of anatomy ... for an animal who have Intelligence 2. :-/

Also, using the same rule for other ability points ...
Take Astarion for example ... with Strength 8 he is are able to drag 48Kg (or up to 80, but encumbered).
While his own body weights 50Kg (acording to his examine tooltip)
That either means that his own muscles are so weak that he is unable to carry his own weight ... or that he is able to carry almost double of his own weight without visible problems.
Since he is totally able to move, and even drag many other things in his inventory ... i would dare to presume that second option is the right one here.

Therefore similar as Str 8 still allows our characters to exists as regular human(oid) being ... move, jump, drag something, etc.
A Int 8 should certainly allow them to act like regular human(oid) being ... speaking, understanding, learning, remembering ... they will simply not reach as great results as character with Intelligence 20 ...

But simmilary as Str 8 does not mean that your character need to spend all his willpower to even make a step ... an Int 8 doesnt mean that your character is mentally retarded. -_-

True, that is the case for every stat. Some rulesets have defined ranges, but I believe DnD doesn't. We still have to make these calls. There isn't a definite threshold where your character becomes a clutz if you dump Dexterity, but that doesn't mean a character with 8 Dexterity and a character with 20 don't have differences in how careful/graceful they are. Same for Intelligence. If it influences language skills, there should be differences between high- and low-stat characters.

This is more of a matter with implementation and resource allocation than what the stat represents. Resources are not infinite, and rewriting every line of dialogue based on different levels of Intelligence is simply not a realistic goal. That says nothing about the system itself though.
Ideally, speech patterns should change both for you and your companions who have dumped the stat, and I see no problem with this. If you're dumping a stat, you're saying your character is worse than average in some way. If your character is worse than average, it should be reflected with an appropriate penalty/drawback. If you don't want to be penalized, don't dump the stat. It's possible to play without min-maxing.

Ogres have Intelligence of 5, and their languages are Common and Giant. Although I don't know if BG3's ogres' ability scores follow the official statblock, there is no reason to believe one of their languages was excluded.

You are using magic to communicate with animals, that changes things. When a bird chirps at you and you cast Speak with Animals to talk to it, the spell doesn't translate the chirping into Common or vice versa. It's a completely different process, or else you'd be able to use Comprehend Languages to understand animals, which you can't. What the animal says to you when you're under the influence of the spell is not a literal translation of the noises it makes, it's magic supplying you with the closest approximation of whatever the animal is trying to express (what it saw, how it feels, et cetera) in a form most natural to you, speech.

Weighing X kg does not necessarily mean you're able to carry X kg on your back. I know I wouldn't be able to lift my own weight, but I have no trouble moving my body around. A better example would be how Astarion, with his 8 Strength, somehow manages to maintain a full set of abs
But yes, I do agree that being able to lug around more than your own weight when you dumped Strength is silly. As I said before, dumping a stat should be penalized accordingly.
None of the carrying capacities are sensible. You can carry multiple sets of armor and a small militia's worth of weapons on you like it's nothing. Where are you putting this stuff? How are you able to fight or stealth in this state? And so on, it's all been said before. Inventory management has been a difficult balancing act for as long as CRPGs existed.

Agreed, a character with 8 Intelligence shouldn't speak like a troglodyte. Intelligence 5 Ogres are a good reference point for caveman speak in my opinion. But you also said
which I disagree with. Compared to a character with 20 Intelligence, a character with 8 should have a smaller vocabulary at their disposal, or if they have the vocab, they tend to use the more complicated words incorrectly. Or some other quirk, the specifics don't matter that much as long as the dumped ability score is reflected.

She is a trickery cleric with an urchin background... it only makes sense for her to be DEX based. They are practically divine rogues. As for using a STR weapon vs a DEX one... she has a 12 STR and a 14 DEX... that's a 5% difference to hit... that's it. 17 is decent but not great? What D&D campaigns are you playing in? For a T1, medium armor cleric, there's not a thing wrong with a 17 AC. Trickery clerics aren't supposed to be front line tanks.

Honestly, I just feel like putting it forward that far too many people put far too much value on AC. I mean, really... in one campaign I'm in at the moment, I play a front-line, dangerously aggressive storm sorceress who consistently puts herself front and centre and in harm's way, and her 10AC (10 dex, no mage armour) hasn't really caused her any problems yet, by level 10 and about two thirds of the way through the campaign. I work on the basic assumption that attacks will hit, and I play accordingly - occasionally something low-rolls badly enough that I can shield it, which is a bonus, but otherwise it's no big deal. AC is really not the be-all end-all that many people make it out to be.

Feel free to corect me but it seems to me that core meaning of this topic is to give us option to play it the way we want to.

Sure Shadowheart can be played as divine rogue ... but if i dont want divine rogue in my party ... if i want frontline high AC tank i see little to no reason why i should get used to anything else just bcs "this is not the way this kind of cleric is usualy played".

I bet you would also dislike if your GM would demand you to take 16Dex and demand that you will keep Mage Armor active all the time.
Bcs in his opinion that is the way Sorcerer is supposed to be played and in his eyes you are putting too much value to sustain a hit instead avoiding it.

Yup i worded that poorly ...
There could be difference (i still dont think it should be forced by rules, it seems better as "advised" but left for people to roleplay the way they want to ... i mean if you know Big Bang Theory, Sheldon is clearly 20Int character ... maybe even more ... and often he is stupidest of them all) ...
I was trying to say that they both should be able of "basic functions".

Simmilar as Dex 8 character dont trip over his own leg with every step, Str 8 character dont have so atrophied muscles so he dont even carry his own weight, as Con 8 doesnt need machines to keep his inner organs working, ... and i dont have any examples for Wis and Cha ... the simmilar Int 8 should not be unable to create full sentence, or use any longer words.
I mean just out of rules, Int 8 character have much less chance of remembering things, or solving puzzles based on this stat ... it allone should be enough. :-/

Seems like waste to be completely honest ...

Last game i remember that implemented changing dialogue options based on your Intelligence was old Fallout (first one, but you were able to get on Int 1 there) ... and while it was funny at first sight, it quite fast become pure obstacle for player and actualy adds nothing to your experience. :-/

I mean if your dialogue options are "hmmm", "ug ug" and "gyah" ... how would you choose?

That is certainly one way to see it ...
In my honest opinion your character is allready penalized enough by the fact that s/he will most likely fail in almost every situation tied to rolling on your dumped stat.

I mean character with Cha 8 is totally able to yell "Fear my blade, foul beast!" on goblin ... just as Cha 20 ...
The only difference is that Cha 20 will seem to that goblin to be so certain about his own power, so he will concider him actual threat ... while Cha 8 will just make him laugh.

Coming back to Intelligence ... i believe Nettie is perfect example here.
While your 20 Int character is able to recognize the plant, and remembered that it is very dangerous for its poison ... your 8 Int character recognize only that Nettie is holding some kind of plant ... hardly surprising, since she is a Druid.

If i wanted to be mean, i would say that people who play low-intelligence characters like stupid morons often lack a sense for complex ideas themselves. :-/
Its easy way, sure ... but certainly not the only way.

You are right, i was looking at wrong row.

Still ... we both know that there is difference between "knowing" the language ... and "using it corectly".
Sometimes even for native speakers.

True ...
It would still feel better if the Squirrel would complain by saying "head hurt" instead of "our brains are melting" tho. :-/

But im not the only one who complained that in this game animals are suprisingly intelligent and able to build quite complex sentences. :-/

I think you took it completely other way around.

That is not exactly what i was trying to say ...

Personaly i believe that "minimum 8" that is included in point buy system, is there exactly to make sure that we will (no matter what) be properly working human(oid) being ... meaning able to carry some extra weight (Str), able to ballance on slippery surface (Dex), will be regulary healthy (Con), able to compele full sentence (Int), will have all or at least most our senses working (Wis), and theoreticaly be able to at least try to represent oureself (Cha) ...
Meaning that if you would like to get under that "basic" level of abilities ... your score (again in my eyes) would need to get under 8.

Raistlin Majere (if you know Dragonlance) is perfect example for some incredibly unlucky person who (despite all rules of probability) rolled 4x 1 on Constitution. xD

That is different topic.

Im glad we understand each other.

Yup ...
I indeed worded that poorly.

Ok, WebSpyder, let me just double check that we are on the same page. I am talking about her current stats compared to the "recommended stat spread", which she apparently had before, and her current gear compared to what she should have going by the rules...

i.e. going by the gear she should start with, and the recommended stat spread, she should have +4 to hit with simple weapons, and +2 to damage, and an AC of 16, with scale mail and a shield, and can get a crossbow with +2 to hit, and +0 damage. However, she doesn't get a crossbow, and has been given chain shirt instead of scale mail (probably because a) they didn't want her to have disadvantage on stealth checks, because she is a trickery cleric, and b) martial classes don't start with chainmail like they should, so everyone gets to jump down a notch on the armor). The effect there was that she only had an AC of 13, 15 with a shield. Then the data showed them that Shadowheart kept dying, so they changed her to dex-based. I assume this is to fix the AC, giving her 15, 17 with a shield (and it is decent specifically compared to what she could have using La'zael's half-plate, that the player has access to at game start, not compared to what she would have at start in a normal 5e campaign), but the trade-off was that they dumped her str stat, giving her shitty melee damage, but better ranged damage, but they haven't given her a ranged weapon. Clearly from an rp perspective she should be a melee character, which is awkward if she gets a malus from her shitty strength. They have tried to fix this by dumping her charisma stat and raising her str to 12, whereas they could have fixed this by giving her elf weapon training, so she'd be proficient with short swords...

That is what I am griping about, the design decisions made to try to fix a problem they originally created, not that trickery cleric makes more sense as a dex build, I have no problem with this, I agree that it does, but then they should have given her elf weapon training and a short sword instead of giving her a mediocre strength score to try to compensate. They should be playing to her strengths, not trying to shore up her weaknesses. If we could customize these characters ourselves to a certain degree, as the OP suggests, we could make better decisions still in keeping with the characters rp theme, that aren't bad.

If you want a front line high AC tank then you don't want a trickery cleric. That simply isn't the role that subclass is designed for. You're wanting to do far more than just change stats at that point.

Where are you getting this extra +2 to hit from? There aren't separate to hit and damage bonuses in 5e. With a 14 DEX and a 12 STR she has either +1 to hit and damage with non finesse weapons or +2 to hit and damage with ranged and finesse weapons. 5% difference between the two. That's it. I haven't the first clue where you're getting +4 with simple weapons from. I will add though that I 100% agree she should just have elf weapon training over the silly cantrip. That's just a poor character choice.

Further: From the description in the PHB for Trickery domain clerics - Sure, you can play any way you like but "fronm an RP perspective" no she should not be a melee character.

Seems to me that you are mixing "asigned job" and "optimal role" ... but quite honestly:
I dont care ...

I got Cleric and i want him to do this job ... thats all i need to know.
Is it ineffective? Maybe ...
Will i find out? Maybe ...
Will i change her job afterwards? Also maybe ...
But until then ... if i WANT to send her in front lines with as much AC as possible, i shall. And there is no rule in the world that can stop me. :P

I suspect they are referring to total attack/damage bonus:

With the starting stats of 14Str and 10Dex;

Attacking with a ranged weapon (with which you are proficient) using Dex when you have 10 Dex, at level one (PB of +2), is a +2 to hit, +0 to your rolled damage.
Attacking with a melee weapon using Str when you have 14 Str, at level one (PB of +2), is a +4 to hit, +2 to your rolled damage.

They changed her to having 14Dex and 8Str, but didn't change her starting load-out, so, still no ranged weapon, and no finesse weapon;

Attacking with a ranged weapon (with which you are proficient) using Dex when you have 14 Dex, at level one (PB of +2), is a +4 to hit, +2 to your rolled damage.
Attacking with a melee weapon using Str when you have 8 Str, at level one (PB of +2), is a +1 to hit, -1 to your rolled damage.

They've changed her again now, giving her 14Dex and 12Str, but still haven't changed her starting equipment, so now her start-up is:

Attacking with a ranged weapon (with which you are proficient) using Dex when you have 14 Dex, at level one (PB of +2), is a +4 to hit, +2 to your rolled damage.
Attacking with a melee weapon using Str when you have 12 Str, at level one (PB of +2), is a +3 to hit, +1 to your rolled damage.

Thank you

Precisely. Thank you. You have to take into account proficiency modifier in the to-hit roll. Currently Shadowheart is dex based, but doesn't have proficiency with any finesse melee weapons except daggers. So if you give her a dagger she has 1d20+4 to hit, and 1d4+2 damage. Damage spread of 3-7, average 5. If you give her a str based d6 weapon she has 1d20+3 to hit, and 1d6+1 damage. Damage spread 2-7, average 5 If you give her a shortsword, which is a 1d6 like the simple weapons that she is proficient with, she gets 1d20+2 to hit, and 1d6+2 damage. Damage spread 3-9, average 6. Her damage spread is higher for a d6 finesse weapon, much like a ranged weapon, however, she has a 10% less chance to hit than with a dagger.

If you use her starting equipment, you have less chance to hit than with a dagger, AND your minimum damage is lower. Clearly dagger is better, but they have not given her a dagger. Both minimum and maximum damage is better with a finesse d6 weapon, but it's even lower chance to hit, because she's not proficient. If you give her a rapier, you have the same to hit modifier, +2, but suddenly it is 1d8+2 damage, damage spread 3-10, average 7. Clearly rapiers do the best damage for finesse melee, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But they mean for her to use 1d6 weapons, but have given her stats where they are less effective than a dagger. Give her elf weapon training, so she gets shortsword proficiency.


Damn... I miss my Rogue/fighter shieldmaster multiclass build now... half-plate, shield, shortsword, and shieldmaster feat! <3

Ok, I checked and now I can tell you for sure, that current recommended stats array in character creation for Trickery cleric is exactly same as Shadowheart. So they didn't just change her, they gave different clerics different recommended. Life and Light are also not the same there.

Hard no to this as I'm assuming the companions will all be roleplaying with their given stat spread in mind. . .

Fascinating... I wonder who builds their character statlines.

You keep on acting as if her stats are bad. But they are good enough for Trickery cleric.

And they are god-awful on Wyll. No one in their right mind creates a character with that many odd-numbered stats. Yes, it' is clear that they simply took the standard array and applied the human +1s across the board but that doesn't make it any less gimpy. It turns the one advantage that non-variant humans get into a completely inconsequential "bonus".

You'd give a dex-based trickery cleric 12 strength?


Agreed.

It gives her better jumping distance which is useful for stealth or reaching some values sometimes. So why not? Anyway there are not too many options where you can drop those points while building her. She already has 16 in Wis, she doesn't really need more than 14 in Dex...

This particular argument sadly doesn't really hold much relevance here. This just means you have a DM that is balancing encounters around your party's limitations, as a DM should.

A video game by default is balanced in a far wider scope, though there absolutely will be some baseline expectations on what a player's stats should be at a particular point in the game. In an environment where the game can't freely add or remove enemies on its own, the baseline will most likely assume that there is going to be at least one or two party members with moderate to high AC.

Though one would hope that Larian has far more reasonable expectations, lest they condition the community to hyper aggressively chase AC like the Pathfinder games.

+1

I think the initial build of a character is part of its background and personality and I think that allowing to modify it is a wrongdoing to the character itself.
Sure, one can say "why does it bother you if I do it in my game?". It doesn't bother me, as it doesn't bother me if someone cheats or bug abuses in its game, but this is not a reason to justify cheats or bugs being present as a game feature.

I think the respect option of Pathfinder, both Kingmaker and WotR, is the optimal one. You can respect everything that comes *after* your first meeting with a character. Everything that came before, is part of the character itself and of its identity, both combat-wise and RP-wise.

I really hate to break this for you man ...
But cheats actualy ARE game feature.

Its not part of the code when if you write something, the game will break in desired way ... creators had to implement them all, from the scratch, and they do that intentionaly.

Especially in BG3, Exploits as intended features are definitely (and unfortunately) a thing... Swen considers cheating and exploiting to be peak game-play (he's verbal to that extent in a few of the panels), and that preference trickles down into many things that end up making it into, or remain in, the game.

I would not see it so tragically ...
As long as those exploits are as easily awoidable as those we allready have.

Personaly i find Swens attitude refreshing and hope more companies will take it in the future ... it seems like "hey sure have fun" instead of "NOOOOO! YOU CANT DO THAT! BCS WE SAID SO!". ugh. :-/

The thing about Pathfinder, however, is that there are many options as you level up and adventure that make it easier to customize a character. You get a +1 to a stat every 4 levels, a feat every odd level PLUS bonus feats from classes, and - perhaps the most important - a plethora of ~guaranteed magic items that give bonuses to stats. Characters can wear ~10 magic items at a time with the head and belt slots being practically reserved for these stat-increasing items, and you're expected to find/buy them in your adventure.

Whereas in 5e, customizing stats and abilities is much more limited. You get a +2 to a stat OR a feat every 4 CLASS (not character) levels, and items that increase stats are fairly rare and take up a valuable attunement slot. Additionally, the more common D&D stat-increasing items Set a score to X, meaning we've either wasted any points invested in that stat or have to suffer with that stat being low until (if) we find that Belt of Giant Strength.

This isn't necessarily an argument for allowing respeccing of BG3 Companions, just that customizing a character through leveling up & magic items is more limited in 5e than in Pathfinder.

p.s. Oh also I almost forgot to mention skills - Pathfinder has skill points as you level up, whereas 5e doesn't. You don't even gain new skill proficiencies when multiclassing.

Eh, I don't really see it as a good argument to encourage even more an attitude that I don't particularly approve of, to begin with.

Swen Vincke being utterly and unabashedly fond of sequence-breaking and exploits as the culmination of game design is something that should be dammed, rather than endorsed.

I was not endorsing it - it's a pretty rotten thing to be influencing a game's direction. I was just commiserating.