Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is Larian privy to WotC short term plans and will they add them to BG3

D&D is currently undergoing several changes, both with "optional" rules being published which, we are told, are showing the future direction of D&D like being able to freely swap around ability score adjustments.
But there are also lore changes (coupled with mechanical changes). For example, we wondered why Larian made Drow following Loth a separate race. Now WotC announced changes to Drow, making Drow following Lolth a own subrace among Drow. So in that light splitting Lolth Drow and unaligned Drow makes sense.

Another change that is likely coming is that Dragonborn will be split into 3 subraces, metallic, chromatic and gem with their own racial abilities and their appearence being much closer to the respective true dragon they share their color with instead of a generic brown look. The stats for them have already been teased and on the D&D Magic the Gathering cards which are slowly revealed Dragonborn look nothing like they used to.
So if Larian decides to add them, still not confirmed, do you believe they will use the old versions of them or the new ones? Or some self created mix?

I wonder what other changes to D&D there will be coming which Larian will (has to?) add to BG3?

Hard to say for sure, but I expect they do have inside info. BG3 is considered canon in Forgotten Realms, and so there likely is some degree of collaboration. On the other hand, Ranger got a homebrew treatment, but that could be "for the video game format" or something along the lines.

The dragonborn that were recently introduced seem to be an addition rather than a replacement, as per the flavour text in the UA file. Also dragonborn lore is a mess anyway, haha. It would be nice for BG3 to give all the options though, both mechanically and visually - could look amazing.

As example, Dragonborn in 5E at release:


Dragonborn as they appear in the MTG preview

Most people tend to agree dragonborn should have tails (actually in 4e I want to say they have tails and some can have wings?)

This image seemed a little odd ...
Then i noticed ... is it just me, or is his tail growing from aproximately middle of his back? O_o

Also question ...
Since im not quite experienced in DnD ... i dont see much difference between Dragonborn and Lizardfolk ... i mean visualy ofcourse. O_o
What im i missing?

I don't think Dragonborn are even supposed to have tails to begin with.

Err, i didn't mean lorewise but aesthetically. Most people i know who have a dragonborn character tends to give them a tail cause the whole draconic lizard thing.

Thats probably the biggest change. Currently Dragonborn specifically do not have a tail while all picture from the MTG cards where the back is visible shows that they have one.
Yeah, the placement is off in this one picture, but still.

Main difference to lizardfolk is the colouration and how similar they look to big dragons, especially the head.

Lizardfolk


Dragonborn


Dragon "parent"

So ... basicaly mostly horns and thorns?
Cool ... thanks.

//edit:
One more question, just out of curiosity ... would it be possible for some traveler "not very familiar" with their differences to confuse each other? Or would that seem odd?

depend on the setting. i think I remember an instance in a book of a guy confusing a Dwarf and a Halfling?

I don't think any feature from Tasha will be in the game given how long it is taking for them to add PHB features. In fact at this point I believe that there will be things missing from PHB.

I hope you are wrong. As the main mechanics get more and more done, I feel like it'll be faster and faster to add subclasses and spells so XGE and TCE could very well be added if they wanted to.

The new dragonborn are not form Tasha by the way.
People speculate they will come in a yet unannounced book in October. Only their stats have already been published as playtest preview.

It only comes up now because WotC pushes the new look (or at least a very different look than before) with the MTG crossover.

OMG that MTG art is so bad. Is that what people like these days? Everything looks vibrant and comical- like a 13 year old drew the stuff. Or the art director got advice from his grand-kids. Instead of more than scary/atmospheric. Even that beholder; is he laughing lol?? "And DONT FORGET TO BRUSH YOUR TEETH KIDS!! HEHE!!"

I mean usually beholders are otherworldly threatening creatures:

The OP Beholder looks like it came out from Ghostbusters.

i had to:

Honestly, I think I'd be more scared if I saw that at the end of a dark hall.

Right now we are missing from the PHB and I am not sure we'll have all of them for release:

Barbarian
Bard
Monk
Paladin
Sorcerer

There too many reaction abilities from most of these. That is probably why they not been added yet.

I am still surprised that they did not have proper reaction system worked before EA, it's so core to D&D.

Not that surprising when you realize that they just quickly slapped together a full-price EA using DOS engine and DOS-everything so they got the fund to actually get to work on... whatever they're going to work on. It's not because they'd had all the core mechanics in place that they made the EA available. I haven't played the EA but I get the feeling anything that is completely new to the DOS engine hasn't been implemented, or is far from properly functioning.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHA :'D