Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Dump Stats?

Yeah, I use constitution as a dump stat quite a lot... especially if I'm playing a ranged character. Since I love making ranged rogues, str, con and wis can all become pretty dumpy. Also love making the big dumb half-orc fighter build which pretty much makes everything but str and con a dump stat.

NEVER dump CON!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk9vJZtRIvY&t=2m59s

I can't stand having low Wisdom on a Rogue, because I want to be good at Perception.

I totally agree. The game is 200% more fun if you can get past worrying about 'failing' and instead look for creative solutions and go with the flow if things don't work out.
1) Some events are supposed to fail for story purposes, but Larian gives you a small chance to 'succeed' which results in a less interesting story.
2) Many checks can be avoided completely by resolving issues before you have to check, ie the check is only offered as a way to bail you out for initial poor choices.
3) Sometimes there are alternative solutions even after you fail checks. eg the trapped burning guy . . . even if you fail the checks there is a way to save him anyway.
4) Many checks for traps and sometimes dialogue events can be skipped if you have search and found keys, books, notes etc. It pays to explore thoroughly.
5) Buffs!!! Buffs and more Buffs! Guidance (+1d4), Thaumaturgy (advantage), Friends (advantage), Charm Person (advantage), Disguise Self, Detect Thoughts . . . can all have a huge impact on passing checks or avoiding them entirely. And the first four can be cast AFTER beginning conversation . . . as long as the caster isn't the one doing the talking. Being a preferred race can have a big positive impact (or negative if your race isn't liked)
6) Character Builds . . . if you want to be good at Charisma checks . . . then build a character who can pass them. A 14 or even just 12 Charisma really helps (and of course 16 is even better) and pickup a couple of the related skills. The number of YouTube lets plays I've watched where players get frustrated at failing conversation checks and save scum . . . despite making an 8 Charisma character with zero skills or buffs . . . well what the heck did you expect!. 😊

Baldur's Gate 3 is really a game that rewards planning and thinking outside the box.

The game doesn't really let you dump stats. 8 is only just below average and a -1. Which I appreciate, I think it gets a bit silly if you can dump down to 3 or 4.

I actually find Strength the easiest to dump and most fitting for most characters. Unless you are playing a strength based fighter type, its not necessary. Sure extra jumping and carry capacity is handy but not essential (but this is why if I have one odd point left I usually put it in Strength).

And while Constitution is always good . . . given how much healing is in the game (food, potions, etc) . . . you don't need as much as you would normally.

Ah, the good old days of a half-orc or dwarf with a 3 charisma how the kids of today will never know how hard it was to intimidate even when you had a insane strength or constitution as a barbarian even while cleaving through half their friends. *Rolls Intimidate check and DM says - "They are not afraid in fact they want to fight you more!" -.-*

Funny stories aside I think you have the right thinking. I know most fighters usually go for the burly strength score, but fighters can have run of the mill physical stats and be just as effective in fact more so if they have some decent intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. I do like how it is easier to heal up in the game as a fighter though and not make it completely reliant on the cleric. Although I do miss cure minor wounds. I guess it got dumped since cantrips are cast endlessly now, which makes sense. However, it was a nice spell to have to stablize a down character or get a staggered ally back into the fight. Oh well, small trade off I suppose. Suffice to say, I agree with you. (Now I'm starting to sound like Gale.) O.O

On the subject of dump-stat barbarians; I played in a group when the Barbarian class first appeared in Dragon magazine. The GM allowed a player to play a Barbarian and, needless to say, said player dumped INT and CHA (this was 1e and so there were no real skills to worry about).

The Dragon write-up mentioned that the Barbarian mistrusted magic and wouldn't use magic items (!!), so the player decided that this allowed, nay compelled, his character to destroy or throw away all the party's accumulated magic items. "But my character is really stupid and annoying"....

Oh no, I do find the game too hard for me at the moment and would especially want the number of enemies to be turned down, my ego would be a bit hurt, but I would put it on easy. Although I have no issues with checks in combat, I know my statistics, it seems fair. However since I know stats skillchechks in dialogue are sometimes incredibly hard to master, since they require multiple skillchecks for the same goal. Take Nettie, depending on the dialogue, for the non-combat, good solution, you might have to pass 2-3 checks. One athletic for evading the thorn (which is fine, since it is a different issue) and two persuasion/intimidation checks for convincing her to give you the antidote, so for the same thing. And you might get +4 on every check, it does not have as much as an effect on the outcome as having two checks: 0.75 x 0.75 only equals a 56% chance. Add the third check and it comes down to 42%. That is with high bonuses and only for achieving one thing. With no bonuses whatsoever your chances drop to 25-12,5%
I agree though that the failure should be perceived as acceptable, or even rewarding, many systems do that now. Technically the Nettie situation does that, too, but it is a prime example of Larian offering a lot, yet not telling the player about it. The writing of the dialogue is not very good, so you do not really know what you are getting yourself into. At the same time only the good option (difficult to pull off, due to checks) or the "evil" option of killing her. You can also steal the potion (which is a mechanic not really explained in the tutorial), knock her out (which is often buggy or not working), or brew your own potion, which requires careful investigation of the room especially beforehand as the cauldron does not light up, so you might totally miss it.
What is missing is a more definite hint and way out of the fight with a prospect of other results. Why does not one companion step in and say exactly that? Or when entering the room, why doesn't Gale remark that there is an awfully big cauldron in the corner ready to make anything? Why does Nettie conveniently ingnore your companions running around with tadpoles?
Another situation is the tadpole crawling out of the dead dude at the bridge. You need to pass two pretty hard checks to stomp it and failure will result in disapproval from companions. That is enough of an incentive to reload multiple times. Your Illithid situation is also a prime example. I never saw the Illithid the first time, the camera was awkward, it did not light up, and the people actually did not dig at his body, but 2m away. In the cinematic dialogue it was not seen either, I just figured it was a meter or so below ground. After the fight you are again in a two check situation to gain control back, if I recall correctly. I think you could also totally walk away from it, without interaction. As said, I did not see it at all, as my focus was on the spot they were digging at, the illithid did not move, did not light up and it also blended into the environment.
There are several other encounters where the passing of a skillcheck will unlock more content, fluff, a reward or a shortcut. Fails will generally lock you out of this, you gain nothing and this is a mistake if you want players to be immersed and incentivized in failure as well. And as said, workarounds often do not help, because the checks are made difficult through having multiple to gain the same result and that can check for different things. Entering conversation with a certain companion also requires intensive knowledge of the conversation, which in turn requires a reload.

So you fight against the odds, you fight against psychological and haptic failure and you fight against the UI and glitches/bugs. They might give opportunities to think outside of the box, but they do not hint at it enough. At the very least they need a hotkey that makes interactable items light up, or a toggle. While at it, they should also do the same for surfaces, light level and beneficial geography. Add audio cues and companion remarks for situations. It would also help to have the option in conversations to let your "professional" take over.

I think I remember reading about that back when I used to get Dragon Magazine. Yeesh, I would have been ticked to have that happened. I would have still laughed, but mildly angry that someone had their character do that.

Dump stats are common for both mechanical and roleplay reasons. Personally I try to not dump a stat unless I have a roleplay reason for it.

For example, both of my Githyanki characters in BG3 dumped CHA because they're stand-offish, rude people who don't care about making friends. Meanwhile my dwarf ranger dumped CHA because he's not used to being around people anymore after spending years alone living off the land after his home was destroyed.

Also, since I see a lot of people here also have a hard time dumping INT; don't think of it as an actual intelligence stat. Think of it as an education stat.

Look at the skills it governs. Most of it is about what your character knows with only investigation involving actual critical thinking. The stat that governs how much of an idiot your character is is actually WIS, which governs the ability to notice critical details and determine if someone is lying to you or not. Which are traits I'd personally associate with actually being intelligent rather than just being well learned.

As an example: I had a Lizardfolk druid who dumped INT and CHA. His backstory was that his tribe got taken over by a dragon and only he was able to realize that the dragon was just using them for cannon fodder. So he left his tribe to find a way to convince his people of the truth. Either evidence of the dragon's nature or greater personal power so his words carried more weight with his tribe.

He had low INT because he was raised by a tribal community in a swamp and simply never received a real education. He had low CHA because he was bad at public speaking and him not being good at convincing others of the truth was a big part of his backstory.

But he had high WIS with proficiency in Insight because he was very good at noticing deception, playing into his interaction with the dragon. He was incredibly perceptive and often warned the party of hidden traps, and his skill in survival made him able to tell what berries were good to eat and what weren't, help with tracking enemies, and his modest skill in medicine made him quite good with dealing with poisons and diagnosing illnesses in others.

Was my druid stupid? I don't think so. I feel like if you met someone in real life with similar qualities you'd consider him quite smart, just not interested in having a wide breadth of accumulated knowledge from academia.

Basically, there's more to being smart than just knowing trivia. A truly intelligent character can be made with high INT or high WIS. I'd even argue a high CHA character to be intelligent in their own way.

You only get a genuinely dumb character when you dump INT, WIS, and CHA all at once.

Yeah, this makes sense in a roleplay and personal of way, but doesn't Intimidate and demeanour skill checks require charisma? In any case also being able to choose backgrounds and talents help in that regard, so I would agree with you and you give sound advice.
Intelligence is really a pet peeve of mine, even 12 I find almost too low for my personal character. I am now running on ten, which is a mental strain on me as a person and character, if you get my drift. I can not really disconnect intelligence from intellect. Otherwise there would be no real stat representing that. Wisdom is more real world knowledge, and Charisma is emotional and social intelligence (street smart). Intelligence, for me, therefore can only mean intellect and knowledge (eduaction) only in a more abstrct from like arcane, mathematical, chemical and physical knowledge on an academic level.
That is my defitnion, of course, but apparently I will be able to roll my characters, so I can pick up a +2-4 and I will be happy.

Intimidate being only CHA has always been weird to me. Like, yah. A small guy can be very intimidating with high CHA. But if you're a huge dragonborn barbarian who is obviously physically dangerous you should be plenty intimidating enough. I remember one group having a house rule that you can choose to roll your intimidation check with STR and it was a lot more fun for our big meaty friends. You can only get so far with intimidation rather than deception or persuasion so I don't consider it overpowered, personally.

Yah, I definitely get you there. There's something uniquely insulting by having a low INT score just because it is called intelligence, even if you can roleplay a very smart person with low INT and high WIS or CHA. But, at the end of the day, there is no stat that governs being clever, creative, and quick witted, which means even the most min-maxed barbarian can still roleplay a competently intelligent person.

To be honest I am glad there's no actual intelligence stat for that reason. Cleverness should come from the player, not the stat sheet. I don't think having an INT of 8 should forbid you the player from coming up with creative plays or using smart tactics because that fundamentally removes options from your role in the game and makes it less engaging.

Especially in the context of BG3. Can you imagine if the game told you that you couldn't make a specific play because your character wasn't smart enough to think of it? Oof. That'd be awful.

In full honesty, this could indeed be great. The first two Fallouts allowed you to play a total imbecile and get a totally different playthrough with very unique dialogue options. It was very limiting, but also very fun to play. In terms of storytelling and choice this is still a groundbreaking game. Pacifist, Sociopath, Samaritan, greedy mercenary, all could be played with little to no immersion cost.

There are also some great low-intelligence dialogue options in The Outer Worlds, and that's a recent game. So the idea is not completely dead.

Yah, but having low INT didn't mean you couldn't do things like lure enemies into traps or plan to use your abilities in an interesting or creative way, which is what I was talking about.

Plus in Fallout you had to go pretty far out of your way to drop your INT so low you made your character that dumb. In 5e you mechanically can't drop a stat below 8, and it is really hard to make a well optimized character without having at least one stat at an 8 (especially if you took a non-optimal class/race combo, those stats need to come from somewhere).

I'd feel pretty bad if the game insisted my low INT, high WIS or CHA character had to be a blithering idiot just because I was forced to take an 8 or suffer from my primary stats being too low.

If we were going to have "stupid" dialogue I'd rather it be tied to an "idiot" tag or something the player could opt into. It isn't like you can't be a high INT mage and also kind of a dumbass who makes poor life choices. -glances at Gale-

Yeah, well, that surely is a point, especially since we consider 8 just below average, or average.