Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Recent changes to the rules

How has this game been in development for so long and a month before release they just throw out long established rules om D&D. This thing has been in beta for so long and now they changed how multiclassing works and how race/stats work. The way it worked in beta was fine, why break it now. At least please provide us with a D&D rule toggle. Hate these changes.

The stat changes especially. Goes against all established fantasy lore and plausibility.

The Stat Changes were introduced in the official D&D book Tasha's Cauldron of everything.
This book was released and widely praised by the D&D community and the Stat changes were implemented at most D&D tables.
Larian's implementation is in line with the system that was released in the official source material.

How has multiclassing been changed?

The stat changes come right out of the table top.

Most people realize that pigeon holing entire races is a dumb idea.

Humans have had multiple apocalyptic level wizards it makes no sense that every gnome is an inherently better wizard than the greatest human wizards. Both Larien and Wotc have realized this.

Except it looks like they went overboard and screwed Half-elves and Shield Dwarves out of their bonuses along the way, Which Tasha's did not do. I'm doing my best to withhold judgement, but Imma be real cranky if they don't account for that somehow.

If everyone just gets a +2/+1 to put where they please as has been suggested, what's the point of humans? Just elves with bad eyesight and an aversion to bows, swords and cantrips?

Larian gave them polearm proficiency.

Also according to wolfheart there are race locked special weapons. Ie there might be a human only necromancer scythe.

Played Human. Achievement Unlocked.

Well that doesn't even begin to close the gap with other races. Maybe something like picking a feat at level 1 would be good...

Better than nothing I suppose. Maybe someone will come up with some niche build that uses a polearm without martial proficiency and justifies playing a human.

Edit: All I can find on this is some speculation coming from screengrabs of a showcase. Does anyone have any actual evidence for how this has been implemented? I've seen people saying half elves lose their +2/1/1, humans their +1/1/...1, etc, but the only thing I see any actual evidence for is the inclusion of the possibility to pick a +2/1.

There was no multiclassing in beta, so that may have been how it was always planned. Also, while the +2,+1 is from Tasha's, you can still use the normal system.

I don't think you can? Afaik, every race has the free-floating +2/+1 ASIs.

Thus, you can't make a Mountain Dwarf with their default +2 Str/+2 Con
You can't make a half elf with their +2/+1/+1
You can't make a normal human with a +1 to everything.

lol Larian would be dumb enough to think Polearm Proficiency is as good as Darkvision. Shame the Variant human got replaced with something arbitrarily worse.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The average gnome has an intelligence of 12 (+2), and the average human 11 (+0), but as a dedicated wizard, you can easily start out with 16 (+3), even as a human.

And of course, then you are only on level 1, level 1 wizards are not all that strong yet. You will get enough ASIs in your future.

Humans have produced more arch wizards than gnomes, but then again, humans are probably also 1000x more common in the world, so is that really surprising to you? It should not be!

As for mechanics:
Why would I ever choose something like dragonborn now, except for the lore?
Before, they made pretty decent Paladins. Now, that you REMOVE differences between the races, that just means that they compete with every other race for every other class, which means that there are a couple meta pics, which are always best.

In tabletops, you never have a reason to not go with satyr, half elf, ...
And similarly here, there will be optimal races (not sure how they will handle the +2, +1), because there will be optimal class features, and that will then be the best race for every class and every build.

Every gnome isn't inherently a better wizard than the greatest human wizard. But exceptionally great gnomish wizards have the potential to be greater wizards than exceptional humans, as long as various divine entities and over the top artifacts stay out of the picture. Which they usually don't. Likewise, every half-orc isn't going to be stronger than every halfling, but an exceptionally strong half-orc is reasonably going to be stronger than an exceptionally strong halfling. How is that remotely controversial?

Also, I seem to remember that Tasha's stat change rule was optional. And all it does is let people power game while pretending to RP, even though that power gaming has absolutely nothing to do with RP. To elaborate, please do try to make a non-silly explanation of why your paladin needs a dip (not a full conversion, just a dip) into hexblade. If you're remotely honest with yourself, you know it is total nonsense. Your DM knows it. The people you're playing with know it. And you getting to do that just because it is powerful and meta sets a bad example for everyone.

Likewise when you want your exceptionally strong halfling to be just as strong as an exceptionally strong half-orc. It is not good role-play. And your reason for wanting it is terrible. You don't have any real justification for how it makes sense, you just really want a bigger stat bonus for your class so you can power game better.

I wish I could upvote this post somehow.

This is a good and sensible take overall. I'd like to counter two points though.

I would love to play a system where the strongest half-orc has the potential to be stronger than the most exceptional human or halfling. But DnD5e is not that system. It never was. The upper cap is 20 and everyone can reach it. Strength is an abstraction of one's physical strength only in part - it's also the abstraction of one's ability to strike with a weapon (proficiency only pertains to experience with specific weapon groups). Githyanki get +2 to Strength despite their thin arms because they generally all undergo military training. I'd have much more respect for ability bonuses if they raised the upper cap, but they don't. They're arbitrary.

The second thing I'd like to counter is that the half-orc vs halfling strength comparison is an extreme example, not to mention a halfling can already be as strong as a half-orc anyway. What most people arguing for removing the bonuses want, I believe, is to be able to play a smart halfling wizard or a wise orc druid without playing second fiddle to the human. Starting with a decent number is not min-maxing.

They removed requirements ... you just take freely, willy nilly any class you want.

Pretty much, yes.

I know im repeating myself by this point ...
But yes, this is very good addition for Clerics ... and completely useless for litteraly everyone else.

Why do you think that this is a good addition for Clerics?

Well ...
First of all, in order to be effective with polearms, you need Strenght ...

Bcs the only thing proficiency with weapon gives you is +2 to hit ... and in BG-3 option to use special moves (with wich you usualy want to hit btw) ...

Meaning for all other classes that have at least 14 in their respective main stat ... that their chance to his is equal ...
And since its main stat, that we are talking about, its most likely it will be at least 16 ... meaning their chance to hit is allready higher ...
And that only apply if they dont have negative modifier in Strength ... if they do, their chance was higher allready better with 14 ...

The only classes that benefits from high Strength are: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and potentialy Cleric ...
Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin allready have Simple and Martial weapons ... two proficiencies on same type of weapon have no benefit, so this brings nothing to them.

That leaves us with Cleric ...
Some subclasses for Clerics alow them to wear heavy armor, so those Clerics only need Wisdom for spellcasting, and Constitution for concentration and HP.
Meaning there is nothing holding them back from showing some love to Strength score.
Clerics also have Simple Weapons porificiency only ... so this gives them option to use more weapons effectively, presuming they invested to Strength.

While what you say is true in a way, you should not forget that ALL Clerics can use shields too, which I feel is much better for a Cleric subclass that wants to be in melee. Because Clerics don't get Extra Attack having a higher damage weapon is not that big of a deal I think.

Out of 7 Cleric subclasses 4 get Heavy Armor proficiency (Life, Nature, Tempest, War). Tempest and War also get Martial Weapon proficiency, so they can get all weapons regardless.

We will have to see what Larian has done with the LVL 8 Cleric subclass abilities - those added extra damage either to cantrips or 1 melee attack, depending on subclass.

And we will have to see what the REAL final game character creation looks like and what changes they have made to the races.