Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General My theory: BG3 is a OneDnD game and not a 5e game

My theory: With respect to all the discussion about BG3 rules and mechanics, and all of Larian's changes to them, I believe they are because WotC has decided the game needs to be based on OneDnD (or 5.5e or 6e or whatever name they eventually come up with) rather than 5e. OneDnD is hugely important to WotC, and I can't imagine their flagship video game not being based on it. However, WotC cannot officially label the game as a OneDnD game until OneDnD is officially launched, sometime late next year. So, until then, BG3 is in a state of limbo, a gray area with respect to edition/mechanics. All references to 5e are being removed by both WotC and Larian, and once WotC officially launches OneDnD next year, they will retroactively slap the OneDnD label onto BG3, and Larian will issue a series of patches updating the game to fully official OneDnD rules. And the changes already made to race in BG3 totally fit where WotC is taking the concept of 'race' in OneDnD, where race, like gender and alignment, becomes a purely cosmetic flavor thing with no mechanical impact on the game.

Relatedly, I have believed from day one that WotC's decision earlier this year to cancel five other ongoing DnD video game projects is also related to this issue. WotC wanted those games to also be OneDnD based games and not 5e based games. But they couldn't accomplish that under their current contracts, and so the only option left to WotC was to cancel those contracts. If any of those developers were willing to sit on their hands and wait a year and a half until WotC could potentially issue a new contract to continue developing their game under OneDnD rules, fine. If not, then their project is dead, because WotC at this point does not want anything DnD-related to happen based on 5e which they clearly want to phase out in favor of OneDnD.

I think it would be a very reasonable assumption for BG3 to gravitate towards the new ruleset that's already in testing.

What I would like very much from Larian is more collaboration with WotC where the rules are being changed. I still don't trust Larian have understood what is great about the D&D system and why WotC's design principles (e.g. action economy, advantage) should be respected. Almost every change Larian have made seem to be for the worse in favor or a more Divinity-like approach. Mixing two different systems does not equal better. I trust WotC being able to make a better version of multiclassing rules for One D&D while I'm expecting Larian to turn it into an exploitative mess for BG3 and then call it "fun".

I don't see the point of making a game one D&D while the rules are being tested and constantly changed. I'm also pretty certain Larian would not agree to it because you can't make changes as fast as they change TT-rules. Code doesn't work like that. The amount of issues that this would cause is tremendous. I've not taken a look at the play testing, I've just seen the amount of changed roll outs for the classes so far - that would be a nightmare to handle as game developer trying to finish a video game.

I'm certain though that Larian has insight into the development process of One D&D and probably exchanges feedback with WotC. But this game to me is 5e + Larian Homebrew (inspired by One D&D).

As far as I’m aware, the only OneD&D mechanic in the game is the +2/+1 floating attributes, and that’s already in 5th edition via Tasha.

Other changes to races and spell lists are not going to be implemented in BG3. Mark my words.

The suggestion that WotC canceled its projects in this way doesn’t make sense. They hold the license. There is no contractual reason any projects couldn’t just switch which ruleset they are using if that’s what WotC wanted.

Fuck Tasha’s.
All my homies hate Tasha’s.

My guess is that seeing how BG3 performs will inform decisions being made about OneDnD.

That's basically my stance. I consider Tasha's the worst supplement to 5E and will quit any group that uses it.

Out of the 12 people in the D&D groups I play in, only 1 guy genuinely likes Tasha's and 1 guy likes parts of it. The rest either outright hates it or is indifferent.


As for BG3 being OneD&D ... I think the assumption holds some truth at least. I'm not entirely sure how their licensing system works now, after their proposed changes caused some rather huge backlash.
It is a fairly safe bet that OneD&D had at least some influence on the changes to BG3 post patch 9.

It's actually just called 5e(2024) now, and the current 5e will be called 5e(2014) like that won't confuse people at all...

The floating ASI is already a thing they were moving towards in the reprints of races in Monsters of the Multiverse, which contained all the various races from volo's guide and other non PHB sources (like EE player's guide) all combined into one big reprint, it's not a new thing for the next edition, it's a now thing. As a pnp player, i get to talk with my DM and choose what version I want (within reason), but that's not a luxury everyone has.

The bigger tell is actually the special weapon abilities, which came out in the 5th round of playtest content. Each weapon has a mastery property and contains special effects like cleave and shove on hit. It's not the exact same as what Larian has done, but it's there.

But, that being said, Larian has got a lot of work if they want to bring the game into line with 5e(2024), and i don't know why they would bother releasing this year if they plan on doing that, it's so much time and effort, why not wait until the release next year?

Yes, I've thought of that too, since it makes sense in the long run instead of, say, BG 3 with 5e and a future BG 4 with One DnD. At least I have the feeling that Larian is in a transition phase here and if they prepare their coding properly, if this is at all possible, BG 3 DLCs then only have to adapt slightly.


This may as well be the case.

I doubt the Wizards put any pressure regarding this on Larian. Sincerely. They're rarely worried about this sort of thing, it's for them - way more of an advertisement than anything else. Many games under the D&D banner only very loosely adhere to actual ruleset. When BG2 came out, 3E was already there, too. Of course, that was TSR, still.

And even still, this OneDnD thing - gods I hate that name - is hardly different from 5E from what I understand. A little too much with the inspiration thing, but I'd homebrew that right out of there.

I feel like if that was the case we would've had Ardlings in BG3, they're like Aasimar but with animal heads like Egyptian gods, despite it being based animal headed deities, I'm still think Monkey Ardlings should be a thing, you know how many pantheons had monkeys as gods?

I'll tell you 6 pantheons in total, you have the ever popular Sun Wukong of China, the Hanuman of Hindu mythology, the Howler Monkey gods of Mayan mythology, Babi or Baba the baboon god of Egypt, Sarugami yokai of Japan and Honduras has a City of the Monkey God called La Ciudad Blanca.

5e(2024) has had a demonstrable influence on BG3.

Weapon Actions appeared in BG3 before they showed up in the D&D play-test materials.

However, unless any of us are secret Larian employees that were privy to the discussions between WotC and Larian, none of us can factually speak to the dynamic of who initiated those changes or how they came about.

Didn't one of the recent content creators videos reveal that WOTC has almost nothing to do with the game, speculating swen negotiated a non interference clause?

At the end of the day the rulesets are imperfect ever changing tools whose only purpose is to try and make a fun table top game, customization is a huge attraction for audiences which is why you see the rulesets shifting towards it.

Rules purists, especially those who follow specific editions of rules like some sort of canonical text miss the forest for the trees.

Stuff like gnomes getting +2 int makes no sense from a lore perspective anyway, when humans are far an away the most accomplished wizards lore wise.

i dont think so actually.
From all weve seen of DnDone, its essentialy 5e but less options.
Rather than 5e and *more* options.

it doesnt realy line up with what i see in BG3

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

And yeah, Swen said that WotC gave them a lot of free reign to make the game the way they wanted to. I didn’t interpret that as a non-interference clause though. I think it’s probably more likely that WotC just thought they were doing a good job and let Larian do it’s thing. They are the ones who approached Larian to make this game (after rejecting Swen’s initial pitch years prior).

If Games Workshop of all companies was willing to fork over as much creative control to CA as they did for the Total Warhammer series I can believe just about any company would be willing to be surprisingly hands-off when handing their IPs out to studios now, I suspect in no small part due to how explosively successful GW has been through Total Warhammer under that policy. No big company sitting on a potentially lucrative IP that would mesh well with the video game format can look at that and not think "We want that too." anymore.

Gw gave up on warhammer fantasy long ago.

Well, the BG3 EA has certainly coincided with WotC reviewing their revenue opportunities - sorry, I meant reviewing their rules-set.

Each may have influenced the other; only the companies involved know that. As both companies seek to address larger audiences, they also need to broaden the appeal of their products, which generally means making them simpler ( more accessible ) and more inclusive ( to avoid upsetting people ) and more configurable ( to appeal to different audience demographics ).

WotC will certainly have taken note of the feedback for BG3 and discussed changes to the ruleset with Larian, but BG3 at release will be like the earlier BG games - a modified version of existing rules. It doesn't really matter if the TT rules change subsequently, the game stands on its own merits. If there is an expansion or significant future game update ( which Larian are known to do ), and the TT rules have changed, then maybe there will be changes and re-branding; particularly if it's good for marketing.

I'm not sure how much it matters. If you don't like BG3 now because of the 5e rules, you probably won't like it under any likely future ruleset.

For me, Dungeons and Dragons died after 3rd edition (3.5)

I Will always love the lore, as a matter of fact, Ive tried other RPG's I cant play them. The only game I've been able to play in a fantasy setting is The dark Souls trilogy, along with Elden Ring and Sekiro.

GW is capricious, fickle, greedy, litigious and as many other negative adjectives as you want but the fact remains Total Warhammer is hugely successful and directly led to GW rebooting the original WFB, with new codices created specifically from their partnership with CA and using their input after allowing them the creative freedom to create whole new factions and rosters which didn't exist before. It's not a huge leap to imagine a company like WotC could see that partnership, how successful it was when a competent studio was given some slack to play with their IP and decide they'll adopt the exact same strategy themselves. I see more reason than not to assume WotC isn't smothering Larian with stipulations or creative interference.