Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Sorcerer - Quicken Spell an issue

I thought about things that exist in tabletop and are comparable in power to double spell / turn and actually there are some even without the obvious Action Surge. More specifically, these are Empowered Evocation and Overchannel, both of which belong to Evocation Wizard - Sorcerer's direct "nuker caster" competitor.

Empowered Evocation's exception to Magic Missile greatly increases its damage and makes it actually on the level of Sorcerer casting it twice in a row, but without additional spell slot and bonus action cost. While it is a single spell only effect, it is also one of the most common spells used.

Overchannel makes the spell deal maximum damage giving it 100% damage potential and can be used on Fireball as well. Sorcerer that double casts Fireball launches two Fireballs with 50% damage (average roll) potential. Both approaches have their advantage - single cast wastes only a single spell slot and has higher chance of failed saving throw (average 50%) while chance for two failed saving throws in a row is average 25%, but two casts can result in more than average damage done exceeding 100% damage potential and have an ability modifier applied to damage done of each cast separately. That's why Overchannel can be treated on the level of double casting the same spell in one turn, including AoE Spells.

With that taken into account, I don't think that allowing Sorcerer to cast 2 full spells / round gonna break the balance as much as many people here think. While I understand that these features require 10 / 14 lvl against 3 level for Sorcerer's Quicken Spell, Empowered Evocation has no cost and limits and is applied to every Magic Missile cast and Overchannel's first cast is free as well with subsequent casts' damage to Wizard being mitigated by healing or death-savers like Clone spell, while Sorcerer always wastes either his potential spell slots or class mechanic to use this feature.

However, I do agree that even if they keep access for 2 action levelled spells / turn for Sorcerer, it should be limited. There are many ways to do it - from big Sorcery point cost for levelled spells only or manual limitations of X per battle / short rest / long rest to a rule similar to old editions that increased spell slot level required for Quickened spells. They could even allow Quicken Spell affect levelled spell only from level X to keep it more in line with Empowered Evocation / Overchannel.

Empower spells was a feat in D&D 3.5 and is still existing in Pathfinder. Maybe this will be later (higher level) available in D&D 5e ?
Why not allow a wizzard to cast 2 spells? How many attacks fighter/mage/thief multicalss can do later (with sneak attack bonus)?

What is the point of using quicken spell if the only thing you can use is cantrip?
A much better use of the point is to recover the slot, let alone other metamagics.
Nowadays, many classes are able to cast more than one spell per turn, and guess what? It is enjoyable to use the healing word and anything but the useless sacred flame.
Why is balance such a problem when it is a single player game?
If some things are too op, so be it if it makes the game more fun. It still won't be close to pathfinder and some builds.

Empower does exist in 5e ^.^

It does not exist currently in BG3.

Empower is metamagic, so in 5e that belongs to the sorcerer too. And wizards aren't weak. They simply aren't as strong per spell given as a sorc is. But they have the advantage of having access to sooo many more spells. Which sadly doesn't help much in a crpg where the need of that many spells is low and situational.

Given that Larian manages to develop a good resting system that rewards being conservative with our resources, a wizard will be well balaced against a sorcerer as his spells will probably last over more encounters. We sorcerers burn brightly, but also burn out fast

But if the game would go to level 20 the sorc would have enough different spells. At the beginning the spell of the sorc are very limeted but he can have more than 2 different spells per spell level. Have to mention the end of NWN2 where at the final dungeon resting was not possilble. Here the wizzard had serious problems and socerer was the bette choice because he could cast the good spells more often.

But if you compare Sorc / wizard to a freaking fighter multiclass it seems to me that the arcanic classes are weaker?

At the end of the day, for me BG3 is the best game that is ever made. And I don't want to argue which D&D 5e rules are not reasonable. Just want to share some thoughts with you guys.
1. Thought: There is 2 types of people. A - If something is written in book that is the rule and no matter that if its not reasonable that is the rule. B - If something is not reasonable for them, they will just homebrew it otherwise.
I personally love homebrewing.
2. Thought: Maybe Wizards after years of games that are played in 5e rules saw that some rules need to be changed and decide that in cooperation with Larian will already put those changes in the BG3. Or that some changes need to be done to better fit the video game.
I am fine with that. Its there game anyway. They can do whatever they want. Just want to say that I notice some differences between 5e and BG3.
3. Thought: I personally love more D&D 5e then Pathfinder because you have more freedom as DM. I have feeling that you spend too much time for searching rule in book for some situation in Pathfinder.
Also live the idea that DM is above rules that are written in books. Gives game more fluidity and smoothness. And all those books for me are more like suggestion books then rule books.

Well. here in lies the problem with crpg campaigns. They offer a limited setting with far less different situations to handle than a tt session can. So, in crpgs, the sorcerer comes on top. But, that can be fixed with Larian being an amazing DM, putting in an abundance of situations where those situational spells that a sorcerer would rarely choose, will come in handy.

And yes, the whole point of multiclassing is to make characters that are far superior and more interesting than the original classes. That's why they are so popular.

You seem to forget that it works both ways. A fighter can multiclass into a caster. A caster can just as easily multiclass into a fighter.

Also, I haven't actually seen any conformation from Larian that multiclassing will be incorporated in BG3. Or what our max clvl will be. Multiclassing means giving up progression in our current class and for casters that can be disastrous not having enough clvls to compensate for giving up spell progression.

Take for example the sorcerer. At clvl 9 she learns her first level 5 spell. At lvl 10, she gains her third metamagic feat. If max clvl is 10 then that means that for her to multiclass she has to give up a metamagic feat and possibly that 5th lvl spell to gain levels in another class.


Atleast that is how it works in 3.5. Niara, does multiclassing still work the same way in 5e?

A EA game wich is not fineshed is the best game ever made? No matter what they do in act 2 or 3? And if they indroduce zombie nazis from space in act 2?

Its funny this discussion is only possible for a game with D&D rule set. In other RPGs there is only one wizzard class. In Dragon Age they even merged wizzard and preist. But it is not possible to have a dungeon master in a video game so the voice is fair engough. Since BG2 my main char is always a human sorcerer but the pathfinder rule set offers some very interseting wizzard subclasses!

This is incorrect. Cantrips level with you. At 5th they deal 2 damage die, at 11 it’s 3, and at 17 it’s 4. It is the same average damage as 4 sword attacks minus ability mod damage.

Oh ok that's new thank you.

No worries. WotC made sure no matter what class you play you deal a similar amount of average DPS. Multiclassing breaks this a bit (not enough to block it’s use IMHO) which is why it is an optional rule instead of a core one.

Tbh i feel like this change is actually great. It always felt really bad to take quickened spell to effectively "just" to be able to cast an additional cantrip. It costs a ton of sorcery points for a mediocre effect in the base game : Now it's actually useful

If they were going to apply the RAW for spells per turn, it should be across the board, not just for the Sorc using Metamagic. A cleric can still cast two healing spells per round, a wizard can misty step and fireball in one round, so to prohibit a Sorc from using two leveled spells with Metamagic when other classes can normally cast two leveled spells effectively penalizes the Sorc for using a class ability, and that would suck.

That being said, I don't mind this rule change, I think allowing more than 1 leveled spell per turn makes for more interesting options (and faster spell slot usage), a positive so long as combat encounters are designed accordingly.

Rather, the fight project shouldn't be a problem. So far Larian is doing very well in this respect (it would be better with the difficulty levels, but what to do, you have to wait).
One metamagic is unlikely to significantly spoil the game, especially as you said any class can.
This means that the game will be specially designed with the possibility of casting additional spells.
There is also no need to worry in advance that enemy sorcerers will be able to destroy the team during the turn.
It is unlikely that Larian will allow them to cast any spells using metamagic. Another thing is that npc doesn't obey class constraints anyway, so that's even less of a problem.

There's really only 2 ways to account for player sorcerers being able to cast two leveled-spells in the same turn:
1.) Do nothing, allowing the sorcerer to start out a fight by nuking enemies and doing loads of damage/CC/battlefield control. They can do this every fight and at level 6+ - if it somehow gets back to their turn - they'll be able to do it again (because long resting is trivial). This sounds un-fun for other players.
2.) Adjust enemy HP/STs/AC to account for the sorcerer's ~doubled damage. The sorcerer won't be able to have such a drastic effect on their turn, but now other classes will do relatively less damage to enemies. This also sounds un-fun for other players. Unless Larian also buffs all other classes, but then we enter an arms race and Larian will introduce even more (likely unbalanced) homebrew to achieve this.

In most of these cases, a proper match design is enough. If the enemies aren't grouped, the fireball will do nothing.
There is no chance that the fireball will retain a 6-meter area of effect when the range is heavily scaled down.
I bet it will be 3 meters maximum in the game, which makes fireball spam much less effective.

There's no reason to restrict this to fireball. Single/individual target damaging spells (scorching ray, blight), single(upcasting to multi)-target control spells (Blindness/Deafness, Hold Monster), AoE spells with different areas (Lightning bolt, Cone of Cold), all of these are quicken-able and can be used instead of/in addition to fireball. They won't do as much damage as fireball+fireball will against a cluster of enemies, but they'll still have a massive effect on enemies.

I can't comment on the size of fireball in BG3. One the one hand, many spells' ranges have been significantly decreased. On the other, Larian likes surfaces and fireball has the potential to create a big surface.