Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Some races are objectively better than others...

Let's be honest here...the races need some kind of rebalancing. Humans are terrible; so are halflings for example. Why not add something extra to them even if it is not officially in the player's handbook such as halfling luck being a +1 to any roll and humans getting extra proficiency points. Obviously not everyone is going to powerplay but it is only fair.

I’d be surprised if variant human rules were not implemented. This gives fewer attribute points but let’s them choose a feat at lvl 1.

I’m pretty sure critical misses means free opportunity of attack from the enemy your trying to hit, or atleast puts you at a disadvantage. Same should go for all 1 rolls, negative effects. If those were implemented I think the Luck skill would be quite beneficial

Humans tho...if your just strictly going for high stats for skill check maybe they’d be worth it, but even then I doubt it. No harm in completely dumping atleast 2 stats in most builds. Maybe multiclassing with stat requirements will make humans worthwhile with the extra points, just can’t tell yet.

D&D designers have spent a long time, with plenty of input from users, to balance the races. This has been going on for decades. The older edition saw rather clumsy attempt to balance races (level caps and so on), but the designers have had plenty of time to work on it since.

Well in BG2 you could argue that humans could dualclass, creating likely the most powerfuk hybrids the game had to offer. I do wonder though if the slight differences in the races we have right now really matter past Act 1.

Humans are not bad at all, you just need to learn how to build them properly.
By default they give +1 to all stats, hopefully they add the ability to use the variant human as they get a free feat at level 1 which can be very powerful.

I know people love their Tieflings but I find Halfling to be great Warlocks. With their racial bonus you can get 16 in Dex and Cha to start. Free stealth proficiency and Lucky seems useful for landing your Eldritch blast more often. You can get the same stats with Drow plus Darkvision but you have one less skill and give up Lucky.

I'm playing a Halfling Warlock now and through the prologue and the Lost Chapel he has not missed with Eldritch Blast yet, now that's lucky!

Critical misses just mean that you miss regardless of your modifiers and the target’s AC; it does not punish you even further. A natural 1 on a skill check is no worse than any other roll - if your modifiers bring it above the DC, then it’s still a passing roll. More fundamentally, I don’t see why you think it’d be fun to get punished for rolling badly, especially when rolling badly is itself already an inherent punishment.

Does the halflings lucky apply to spells as well?

ive played pnp campaigns where weve houseruled feat at first lvl regardless which i think would be a nice feature you could toggle on/off for your campaign as you prefer, particularly in mp - sure that could really lead to some overpowered characters (two feats 1st lvl variant human) and idk how realistic that may be for larian at this stage, but id argue it could also open up some new playstyles and/or get a particular character build off the ground faster (particularly if there is a lvl cap)

"attack roll, ability check, or saving throw", so spells which have attacks, yes, but spells where the enemy makes a save, no.

Well it's just D&D things tbh.

That said, I hope they won't implement Variant Human, because it's such a power pick that it basically mandates every other build to pick a boring goodie two shoes human and toss all other cool races in a ditch.

That or maybe if they do make VHuman, then at least tone it down a bit, maybe only +1 to attribute of your choice in addition to feat/skill.

Meanwhile in the classes department rogues are hugely nerfed due to having no expertise... Sorry, had posted this in the wrong topic first, as this is somewhat OT.

Yes, I agree with you. Also, I feel like the rogues and the rangers are somewhat reversed. I'm used to the rogue being the one with weapon proficiency and not the ranger, although the ranger can have maybe a dagger for close enemies. To me the ranger is always in the back alongside the mages with their bow and arrow and the rogue always in the front with their daggers or short sword. I know Baldur's Gate is DnD and maybe in DnD the classes are different than in other fantasy settings. I'm new to DnD so I wouldn't know.

Wait until they include V.human and Aasimar and you will learn what it means to break combat by complete accident.

And yeah there is a lot of content missing so far including most classes.

I agree with adding something extra to the races but I will say that I don't think Humans are terrible. Humans I think are the third after Orcs and Dwarves that make good warriors or fighters in rpgs. Instead of Humans having +1 on every stat, they should have a +2 on strength and constitution. Just like how other races have certain natural abilities like dark vision, resistance to fire, ect., Humans should have something as well. I know in DA:I, Humans get extra 2 points to add to their skill tree and Elves have a resistance to range damage. In Baldur's Gate 3 they can say add hit bonus point for Humans, maybe a +2 on a hit roll or something else.

Oh god adding HP bloat and statsticks to D&D? No thank you.

Human is meant to be a jack of all trades master of none kind of race. V.human are meant to be jack of all trades master of all. Other races are meant to be about their unique racial abilities such as Half-Orc racial that is broken with barbarian, paladin and fighter.

D&D Things!

The ranger in D&D is kind of a weird class. The architypical influence is probably Aragorn from Lord of the Rings -- wildernessy with survival and nature lore, and basic healing magic. Aragorn, of course, wields a sword not a bow. The 1st Edition AD&D had ranger as a subtype of fighter, with no particular weapons specialty. Over the years, though, rangers have become archers too. In recent editions of D&D (like, everything from Y2K forward), there are basically three main ranger paths:

• archer
• dual-wielding expert (probably because of this guy from Forgotten Realms novels: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Drizzt_Do%27Urden)
• animal companion fighter (yeah, also that guy)

In 3.5, both rangers and druids could do the "animal buddy!" thing, with druids doing it better. In 5E, they've made druids focus on shapeshifting and left the animal companion to the ranger.

5E, unfortunately, does the class kind of badly, and the animal companion one (beast master) is horrific. This is one area where I don't mind some of Larian's tweaks. There was a Variant Ranger that WotC floated a year or two after 5E came out, but it's generally regarded as overcompensating, and anyway nothing really came of it. Kind of a shame.

Rangers always had the ability to dual wield melee weapons, even in 1st ed. AD&D (though back then they could only do it while wearing studded leather or lighter armor). D&D 3.x had them choose between dual wield and archery, with either fighting style only being available while wearing a chain shirt or lighter armor. D&D 5e did away with the armor restriction (as well as the penalties you'd normally receive for dual wielding).

Back on topic:

I think the races are fine. Sure, I'd want the variant human of course, but it will come eventually. And if not, someone will probably mod it soon enough. Not every race has to be good for everything...

I feel like humans should get some type of perk just like other races have. Yes, humans have always been a jack of all trades but humans also have an unyielding spirit. They can incorporate something like that for Humans. I know DnD is different but it's still an fantasy rpg game. I don't know too much about tabletop DnD.