Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General If SCL = 0 and ToEE = 10, how much pnp like this g

>limits progression
how?
>Homogenizes the classes
how? because they are balanced? yeah sure, tier lists are great. Which is soemthing thats very real in pathfinder.
Thats what im talking about when i say misinformation.
People didnt play 4E, then looked at it, saw that they used a unified formating and assumed it all played the same.

Meanwhile in 3.5 and 5E, wizards, druids, sorcerors and clerics (and in 3.5 a lot of other classes) share the exact same spell list.
But this somehow is not them beeing "Homogenized".
Meanwhile in 4E all classes have completley seperate abilities and you can only have crossover if you multiclass.
Ok, tons of novels.
Theres also tons of romance novels for old ladies and tons of fantasy trash trying to emulate conan the barbarian.
my point is: it beeing in a book doesnt make it good. Everyone can write a book.
Very few fantasy books are actually good if you ask me, a lot of them realy are just derivative genre trash.
And even if a book is good, that doesnt mean it makes for a good game mechanic.
Gandalf would make a horrible player character for that matter...

Ironically, AEDU makes Vancian magic work better, because all classes are on the same footing. No longer does the fighter have to wait around for the wizard to suck his thumb a bit.

I also dont think "inspired by MMOs" is a bad thing. DnD was inspired by a lot things, a lot of them stupid. I hate how this is constantly brought up as if it means anything. MMOs aint bad in terms of game design.
MMOs have group focused gameplay instead of individual focused gameplay, the same is (or at leat should be) true for TTRPGs, TTRPGs are, with very few exceptions, cooperative endeavors. One on one campaigns exist, but they usually dont use DnD as rules.

>Removed high level power creep
They reduced it but it still falls apart at higher levels, and realy i dont think DnD is about high levels, most campaings probably dont make it past level 6. which is fine,
Less so in 5E because classes only start to work at level 3 realy.

>easier and funier to DM
this is not true, i can tell you that as my groups resident forever DM.
5E has the same problem earlier editions have where it doesnt compile informaiton and you have to cross reference, also, prose text belongs to a players manual, not to the DMs books.
the DM will read these things a lot, prose text just makes it harder to decipher rules text.
also , Challenge rating isnt fit for purpose.

Limits progression by the simple fact that all per day, all per encounter, etc abilitiy becomes the "same", on 3.5e, a fireball and a maximized empowered fireball costs different resources for eg.

About homogenization, 5e made the bloodline of the sorcerer much more important. And the caster classes are not the same on casting spells. Warlocks has the best cantrips and ability to regain spells via short rest and unique invokations, can melee with pact of the blade. Wizards are the most versatile, able to shift spells as longs they have money and scrolls to scribe their spells and sorcerers can "empower" his bloodline, draconic sorcerers can gain wings, can empower a spell of his elemental ancestry with increased damage

4e is another game ruined by the """ballance cult""", a believe that a sorcerer of silver draconic ancestry who knows only cold spells should be good as a paladin who dedicated his life on hunting undead in a heavily undead campaign. And despite you saying that melee warriors are weak, fighter is almost two times more used than sorcerer ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/ ) and for humans, fighters are 4 times more used than sorcerers.

According to the reddit, here is the classes in raw damage from attacks/cantrips.

source https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/do9o6c/oc_dps_over_time_of_all_classes_using_only_melee/

As for power creep, you criticized the massive """imbalance""" at high levels and now say that high level is rarely played. For online groups yes, but most D&D adaptations to video game has high level gameplay, except Toee(level cap = 10 but Co8 removes the level cap ,and the first baldur's gate) and descent to avernus goes up to lv 13, descent to avernus will probably inspire BG3 a lot.

PS : Other amazing thing that 5e did is to make magical items less broken powerful. IMO RPG's shold not focus that much on gear.

Ok theres things to unwrap here.
for one, you seem to be mistaken how AEDU actually works.

You do not have one Daylie per day. Each daylie power can be used once per day, simmilar to how a spellslot is expanded once its used.
That means that each ability uses a different ressource.

Secondly, what does this have to do with progression? Even if it worked like you seem to imply, then that would be about combat utiltiy rather than progression.
Progresison wise, 4E is very simmilar to the other DnD editions, you still get feats and new abilities on level up, very little has changed in that regard.

Im aware how 5E works, i played it. They still share large parts of the spell list, and empoweirng a spell doesnt make it a different spell.
4e also had that btw.
and Psionics worked way differently in 4e.
You didnt explain how AEDU homogenizes anything, you explain to me how stuff works in 5e, i know how stuff works in 5e, i fail to see how this is more diverse than how it worked in 4e.
Theres still the old spell slots. You just add stuff on top of that. 4e also did that, for Psionics it was the dedicated way psionics worked for example.

Also
>Balance Cult
you dont know what you are talking about.
yes 4E is more balanced than any other edition, but what you are saying is still wrong.

no, an Ice sorceror is NOT as effectie agaist Undead as a Paladin in 4E. Where did you get that idea? Paladins still get abilities that specifically target undead (so do clerics of course), and still can deal a damage type that specifically hurts undead more.
And yes, an ice sorcreror will do better against fire elementals.

>Fighters two times more used
yes, by normies. you realize most people do not optimize their characters. People play a fighter because they want to be Conan, not because its good. 5E is a game that generated a lot of hype, hence why theres a lot of new players who just dont know about class tier lists.

>Raw damage
Again this meme, as if raw damage is relevant to nothing. It doesnt matter if a barbarian deals more raw damage than a caster, if a caster can end the encoutner by banishing the enemy to a different plane.
Itwas never about damage and everyone knows this.
raw damage is simply something people fall back to when defending bad game design.

4e had 26 classes each with their own powers vs 5e has 12 classes,13 in November when Artificer is officially released. Its also likely Psion gets released in a year or 2 and I think the Blood Hunter and possibly the Warlord will become an official D&D class next year based on the survey WotC released where Blood Hunter and Warlord are offered as favourite classes in the D&D official survey.

So yeah 4e has way more options in customizablity and diversity in power choice then 5e, heck 4e didn't last long as 5e, but far, far more player content was released for it, BUT AEDU creates the impression of sameness in the structure of classes (aside from essentials) and some powers were alot alike, 4e powers between classes suffered from redunancies. Classes in 5e may share some spells, but most of the classes are, structured very differently.

Also battles could take a very, very long time in 4e, 4e makes for a great tactical war game in my opinion, but 5e focuses more on Role Playing, with combat being quicker and more effiencient.

The 4e Sorcerer already made bloodlines important, and there was the odd sorcerer from Planes Below.

What 5e did was continue to make Bloodline important, an influence from both 4e and Pathfinder, with some influence from 3.5e's Favoured Soul, Sorcerer, and Shadowcaster. Plus it weirdly stole Metamagic from the Wizard.

Side note 4e had 39 official races, 5e has 38 or 37 if you don't count feral Tieflings as completely seperate race. But 5e turned several 4e races into subraces, like Eladarin, Shadar Kai, ect...

Side note 4e had 39 official races, 5e has 38 or 37 if you don't count feral Tieflings as completely seperate race. But 5e turned several 4e races into subraces, like Eladarin, Shadar Kai, ect...

on to that: most races of 4E also had tons of racial feats and their racials tended to scale better, tho thats mostly for the PHB races, the races added int he Dragon magazine obviously got less feat support in late game

Sordak, come on. The closest thing that we have IRL to a lv 20 Wizard Fire bolt is a 12 gauge shotgun with dragon dragons breath rounds and a guy with a swinging axe can outdps this fire hazard... Sure, casters can end a encounter if well prepared in specific situations, but divine casters can heal, fighters and barbarians can fight for long hours without running out of resources, etc. The idea that someone who fights on melee needs to be subjected to the same rules of someone channeling energy from outsider planes or reshaping the reality makes no sense.

And again, i don't care about balance. If there are a lot of undeads in your campaign, a LG cleric/paladin will be better than any sorcerer who roleplayed his bloodline and din't picked fire spells. This doesn't means that play as this sorcerer in this campaing can't be fun. Nosferatu on VtMB had a much harder time than Brujah, Tremere or Ventrue. This doesn't means that play VtMB for those who wanna enjoy the hardness of being cursed with deformity in a very social game can't be fun.

Anyway, if even i posting a interview where 4e devs says openly that they took inspirations on mmos din't convinced you, i don't know what will. And now even 4e fans says that is a good system for war game, not RPGs...

PS : Conan is more akin to Barbarian than fighter. Totem Barbarian is a beast on 5e.
PS 2 : A small minority choose their class to powergame.

"but muh raw damage"
no.
raw damage is irrelevant, ive played enaugh DnD that i understand that this is irrelevant.
Especialy considering the way monster HP scales in 5E.

Ending the encounter without haivng to whittle down HP is always going to be better.
and the wizard has several ways to do this. the fighter has a grand total of none.

>Fighters can fight longer without running out of ressoruces
wrong. Fighters dont HAVE ressources. Barbarians do, fighters only have them in tome of battle and the battlemaster.

>It doesnt make sense
Why does Barbarian rage make sense then? Seriously every time i bring this up it gets conveniently ignored, because nobody can explain it.
Why do superiority dice make sense? Why are those thigns ok and AEDU, which do very much the same thing only better, is not?

I dont believe that there is an actual argument. I believe that it is pure nostalgia and pure aversion to a superior system.

>Muh MMO
it realy must feel awfull that MMOs came up with a better system than the one you cling to then
I dont care what its inspired by, i dislike this argument because its a boogeyman. "oh it was isnpired by MMOs oh no its like WoW".
Yeah you know what? DnD was inspired by Wargames.
What maters is wether or nto a system is good. And AEDU quite frankly is a better system, hence why thirteenth age and strike use it aswell.

>Cnan is a fighter
hes a multi classed fighter / rogue, but barbarian has the fluff down
>powergaming beieng a small miniroty
thats my point. People pick fighter because they want to be a fighter. Not because fighter is actualyl worthwhile or interresting.
its a rolepalying game, people pick the class they gravitate to because of what they want their character to be.
The myht that fighter players are meatheads that only want ot full attack each round is not substantiated by any actual evidence.

And its always funny that whenever i am in a discussion like this, be it about AEDU or about Martials vs Casters, the perosn on the other end of it is someome gravitating towards casters.
I somehow keep getting told what is a good system for a Fighter, by someone who probably wouldnt pick up a fighter, for exactly the reason im advocating for anothe rsystem.