Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Why not raise the lv cap to at least 13?

I get that 5e tries to be good to the lowest common denominator, but they could bring some combat manuvers from 4e to 5e as optional rules... So the game will be accessible and offers more diversity than "i attack". Give warcries from D2 barb can also help making martial classes less "i attack"

Since you insist on using fighters as an example, let's look at the PHB, shall we? As a battle master you get maneuvers, superiority dice, and a fighting style to use. At level 1 you get 4 superiority dice that resets after a short or long rest; so basically you get 4 for EVERY encounter. Should I list all 16 maneuvers for you? They give a fighter all the tactical options they could want as a fighter; melee or ranged.

The only coop oriented RPG I know of are Divinity: Original Sin 1&2. And while they have many merits, a lot of it's issues when played as a singleplayer RPG experience could be tracked back to coop centric design. It ruined the game for me but it's also series' biggest strenght.

Baldur's Gates weren't designed around Coop. You can add Battle Royale and lootboxes, if it doesn't affect singleplayer campaign I don't really care. FiraXCOM1&2 have multiplayer. I don't care. But if FiraXCOM3 is primary a coop or multiplayer game I will raise my eyebrows, complain and either not buy the game at all, or wait for deep deep sale. Many RPGs in the past had multiplayer, but it wasn't a central concept around which every design decision revolved. Companions, quests, conversation wouldnt be designed the way they were, if that was a case. Neverwinter Nights was... surprise, I really don't like the game. Any of it. Even campaigns which aren't completely awful - even at it's best NWN had nothing to offer to me

As I stated many times before - it's great to have a coop-centric RPG series. I find it unappealing, as I can't imagine finding a friend or a couple with whom I could beat a 80h campaign, but it's cool it is there, and that there is audience for that. I don't even care that much that BG3 will most likely not appeal to me. But it is still series that have special place in my heart, and the demo they showed gave me a shred of hope that I might like at least some of it. At the same time, I do see a lot of coop designs moved over from D:OS2, which made me not enjoy that game. I went so far as to play through entire D:OS2, take notes, and write lengthy feedback in hopes it might at least in some way help Larian satisfy people like myself.

Singleplayer and mutiplayer games are different kind of experiences. I cannot think of a single game which would do both very well (possibly Starcraft2 and Warcraft3?). Baldur's Gates did single-player really well, and had underwhelming mutliplayer feature, which some people seemed to enjoy anyway. Divinities offer great multiplayer experience, and pretty mediocare singleplayer experience, though still there are those who managed to enjoy it. Which one BG3 will be? I wish for the former but I expect the latter.

Yeah, for one subclass, congrats D&D 5e. I pity the ones that want to play anything that is not a battle master. I hope they play in roll20 and could make a Macro with "I Attack" and "I attack again" because that's what they are going to do in any combat in the next 60h of the campaign. Saves you a lot of time.
And you forgot to mention that you could only learn 3 of those if you want another you have to replace it. Some of them are merely additions to your ATTACK!


A vanilla fighter, ranger or monk in PF2e has a higher number of manoeuvres like that from starters, and then you can get multiclass archetypes etc.

A ranger skirmisher of PF1e has 15 to choose, a swashbuckler over 8, first at level one, a gunslinger (not the DND5e dumbslinger, the original one of PF) over 12 deeds; and it's only one of the 30 classes and archetypes you may have. And that adds to the combat manoeuvres that any character can do (As I posted them before, they are much more than 3).

Look, it´s ok if you have fun with 5e. Me too. It´s like a mobile game, I spend hours in candy crush and have a field day with it. It doesn´t have to be complicated. It's simple, its fun, You do not have to justify yourself that you like it and enjoy playing it. I do.

But when you try to convince someone that a Mobile game like Candy crush is a tactical masterpiece that requires planning, knowledge and a strategic mind and compares to the tactical depths of Civilization and Total war... That´s just insulting to the intelligence of your listeners, man.

But since insulting seems to be your jam, at least you are consistent.

I never said 5e was a tactical masterpiece, but thanks for misrepresenting my argument. Comparing 5e to a mobile game like candy crush is ridiculous, but you've made up your mind so there's no point in arguing further.

Yeah, you´re right. Candy crush has a better fanbase and you need more than 2 buttons (move&attack) to play it.

Again yet another of your posts without presenting facts that counter my arguments, so there was never a discussion from starters.

>using the battlemaster as an example for tactical options in 5e
the battlemaster is the cherry on top.
the battlemaster is a "what could have been".

Even the battlemaster cant charge attack. He cannot flank.
you need an entire subclass to get the options that every class had in other games.

Note how this subclass is ofthen referred to as the de-facto fighter class exactly beacuse of that.
note how numerous paladin builds dip into battlemaster specifically to get those options.

Batltemaster is an argument against 5e, not for it.
The superioity die mechanic was SUPPOSED to be the mechanic martials use in 5e, only they scrapped it.
Just like they scrapped 5 foot step, just like they scrapped charge and locked it behind a feat.

Thats the entire issue with 5e, it locks all those "options" behind mutually exclusive choices and feat tax.
You want the Mark feature? better play a Cavaleer fighter, you get that at level 3. You want combat maneuvers? better be a battlemaster, oh you get that on level 3. You want to fear people in an AoE? yep, paladin subclass level 3 You want to be able to charge an enmy? better get that feat, level 4.
You want to be able to shield an ally? better get Protective Fighting style.

Note how in order to do all those things at once, youd need to multiclass and essentially have at least 9 levels to do all those things.


meanwhile, a Dragonborn Fighter in 4e does all of these things and more at level 1

Hell yeah, if Battlemaster was the vanilla fighter as first intended so you can choose another subclass and combat styles would improve with levels like the caster`s cantrips and the official Ranger would be the 2019 RR I´m sure many people will be happier playing martial classes. Not perfect, not comparable with other PNP games but it´s an improvement.



If you are playing a campaign, a one-shot... joking with your fellow players, roleplaying, taunting the enemies, having fun in the combat, you may not have a problem with playing a ... lets call it option-handicapped class like a fighter or a barbarian.

Warrior-types also usually have less support and utility options than other classes. Even the skill powerhouses of the rogues often cannot compete in utility with some wizard builds, so usually a Fighter often do not have much to offer outside combat if you compare it with other classes in D&D5e.

Since BG3 is going to be a videogame, and moreover, a multiplayer game and a Turn-based game (So you cannot put your fighters in autoattack to strike automatically instead of order them ATTACK, ATTACK ATTACK every turn) I concur with @SorcererVictor and @Sordak, I think some overhaul of the fighters would be needed to give them more options in combat than "I attack" for 50 h in the campaign because the rules of DND5e right now do not offer options outside homebrews.

which is an important bit to note here.
in a video game, you lack the leeway a DM gives you

Rangers are probably the class which needs more love on 5e. Among the caster classes, warlocks are probably the less versatile(but still far more versatile than martial classes)

Yeah, that´s my point, You cannot ask the game engine "Can I intimidate the goblins so they run in fear?" "Can I taunt the ogre using insults to attack me instead of my squishy party member? " May I throw my shield to the Ettercap´s head?" "I want to shoot an arrow into the cyclops`eye to blind it if its allowed".

Well, I mean you can, but If it answers you I recommend you to call the nearest daycare clinic and set an apointment just in case.


The lack of a human DM could be a little taxing to all characters but in the case of Fighters, rangers, barbarians it could be "crippling". Not in combat value, because they fight pretty well, but in tedium and repetitiveness.

What LArian can do in a adaptation is convert things COMMONLY asked in tabletop into "manuvers". Just like Wish on BG2 can't do 1% of wish in P&P but a lot of players asks for XP, for killing all enemies, etc; some times the wish is perverted, eg, if you wish XP a lot of powerful enemies will spawn and kill then to get the XP :P

So, if ranger players tends to ask the DM "can i use that plants to craft poison and poison my arrows", we can make it a ability. Try to intimidate like a Barbarian can be also converted into a ability. Same with decapitation. It can be covered into a ability. "i picked sand and trowed into enemy eyes" from a rogue also can be converted into a ability. It will not give 1% of the things that Martial classes can do on P&P with a human DM but will make then far better.

Archers on BG1 where great due the sheer amount of amazing special arrows that they can use.

I agree. In some editions of D&D (namely D&D 3.5) dropping prone grants you a +4 bonus to Armor Class vs ranged attacks; and you can also use a crossbow while lying prone.

In D&D5e, the game we are talking about, it´s different:




Ranged attackers have disadvantage against you, but if the enemies move into melee they attack you with advantage and you have disadvantage in all attacks.

pretty much, d ropping prone is never a good option. Its much better to go into evade and just move your highest movement.

Dropping prone would only be usefull if you are in a situation where you have no ranged weapon, no cover and are beeing attacked by range characters that you cannot reach, such as when you are on a boat or somehting.

In this case congratulations, your "tactical choice" of dropping prone is because your character would otherwise be useless

Also, probably, if you are outnumbered in ranged combat, dropping pone would disadvantage the opposition more than you, depending on the combatants' relative abilities.

not realy since you sitll shoot back just as bad.

If boht you and the enemy have disadvantage, the relative situation remains identical

No, it depends on the number of attack rolls that are disadvantaged for each side. If you have 2 ranged attacks per turn, and your opponents have 7 ranged attacks, you are better off dropping prone since statistically you will have a better damage ratio per turn if you do so. It will, however, lengthen the number of turns taken to complete the combat.

EDIT: This is a simplification that assumes you are superior to the enemy but outnumbered, since the chance to hit and damage done per attack by you and your opponents needs to be factored in to determine if dropping prone is a good idea. Disadvantage makes the likelihood of hitting non-linear, which changes the way you need to look at damage per turn calculations.

Ok, prone is a tactical cool thing that you can make on 5e. Now look how many things Pathfinder 2e and even D&D 4e allows his users... Rangers on 5e are probably the most lackluster class ever. And is possible to make rangers great. Just look to Rangers on Dragon's Dogma. I know, a action game, but most longbow skills can be translated to another game. Great gamble is probably the hardest skill to translate. But it can be translated.

Martial classes on 3.5e had cleave, disarm, grapple, knockdown(...). We could also add throw dirt inflicting temporary blindness on a failed save, decapitate, etc; if the DM allow improvisation on combat and if we wanna makes martial classes supernatural too, we can even add warcries, auras and other cool stuff for high level martial classes.

That IMO would be cool. Just like the caster can use a cloudkill to destroy a low level army on 3.5e and weaken mid to high level enemies, a barbarian able use a warcryes and make enemies who fails a save run in terror or die from fear, would be cool. When someone mention MID/HIGH level barbarian in a fantasy setting, i imagine Guts from Berserk fighting on Berserk armor, decapitating hordes of demons and making human enemies run in fear just by seeing him, not a guy "i attack" and "i attack", now "i attack"... And i honestly don't even know if i would consider him high level. For me, he is mid level. Similar to Thoth-Amon on Conan(to compare him with a arcane caster)

They really should put a "Like" button in this forum =D

Agreed to that, mate. Hope they take this and other ideas for martial classes for the game.