Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Unbalanced party choices

Weapon proficiencies are an important part of D&D character race and class, they help to create a cohesive narrative around the character and breath life into their essence.

For example, the Elves naturally have proficiency in arechery due to their sharp eye and steady hand, they can be great at range. Halflings are great rogues due to their small size are naturally proficient with daggers and shortswords... etc...

I do worry that many players of BG3 may miss much of the nuance around the D&D 5e law regardless of understanding the basic rules.

Okay, I think I understand some of the arguments coming forward. Ultimately, you feel, and I can see why, that you need to build your PC around your companion choices. The fact that Lae'zel has the highest strength at 16, with Shadowheart the second highest at 12 now, does seem to steer most of the companions away from being part of your IDEAL front line. And I will give you that.

I don't know that I have ever played any party-based RPG where the pregened companions/npcs were created exactly right, DnD or otherwise. There is always a flaw that you have to overcome. To me, and I've been playing RPGs for nearly 40 years, its the flaws in the characters that make them interesting. Being able to overcome their weakness with other companions , or your PC, is part of the fun for me. It makes the whole experience more enjoyable that despite, or inspite, of the party's flaws, we win!

That being said, I have put forth the request that there be an option to create all 4 characters, cause sometimes I don't want to deal with their drama, I just want to kill things. But I am also looking forward to being able to play a party just made up of them, because they are flawed.

Barverak - I’m an old guy gamer, just like you. I still have my 1st edition AD&D game manuals that I got for Christmas when they first came out in 1979. My comment is not regarding flaws to overcome. From a roleplaying perspective, Laezel should be wielding a great sword as a Githyanki; Astarian should be wielding daggers or short swords; Shadowheart, as a trickery domain cleric, should be sneaking around and stabbing people in the back with a dagger; Wyll has his Blade of Frontiers persona that demands a specific weapon to fit his Folk Hero status; and Gale should be slinging spells. This doesn’t have anything to do with having a perfect or optimized character. It has to do with roleplaying the characters that are given to us staying true to their personas and backgrounds. We are missing an NPC that would have a background that would fit a sword and board type of approach, or wielding a war hammer, or using all of those good spears, etc. So if you try to adhere to roleplaying the NPCs as presented, we are short on characters to utilize all of the strength based weapons that we find. That leaves my PC as the only character to use those weapons from a roleplaying perspective. I would love to have more options.

Ah, gotcha.

Okay, but, aside from Dwarves getting an assortment of axes and hammers, and elves getting a couple of sword/bow/crossbow proficiencies based on sub-type, that's not really a thing in 5e. Halflings do not, for example, get any kind if innate weapon proficiency. Outside of that, you get your proficiencies from class, and so if you're a cleric, as you suggested, then you have at least all simple weapons to choose from...

So, I'm still really not seeing anything at all that would even remotely suggest that:


That's feel like you're pulling it out of a personal conception/stricture that really has no grounding in anything (except possibly some rules in older editions that have rightfully been discarded by now), as far as I can tell.

You can favour whatever weapon you like (usually one favoured by your deity, if you're a cleric), within the simple weapons group, as well as any weapons you happen to get from your race or background... there's nothing at all restricting you to bludgeoning damage choices.

Exactly, That's what I mean by not having the video game be 100% like the tabletop version with the exact same rules. Look at Cyberpunk 2077, that's a tabletop game but CDPR didn't make the game act like a tabletop because they know that not everyone playing the video game played the tabletop. This is a good way to introduce the world to new players that never played the tabletop version. I have no problem with the Way Baldur's Gate 3 is right now, all I'm saying to for Larian not to implement too much of the tabletop rules as that might discourage new players. Unless, Larian has said somewhere that Baldur's Gate 3 is only for tabletop players of DnD. I haven't heard that but I have seen some people here in this site act like it is.

An ideal party is different for everyone depending on how they play. You don't need any specific roles, anything will work. Your desired party is 2 melee, a healer and a spellcaster, currently you can do this with Lae'zel, Astarion, Shadowheart and your sorcerer. If you do not like these companions then you can use the trick to make a custom party.

The game is completely possible to play with all sorts of combinations. Personally, if I am going to use a full party I prefer all ranged (two mages, crossbow ranger, and one other which varies depending on mood.)

Remember also there are a few more classes to implement...U would certainly like to see a monk class.

This is exactly what I mean about missing the nuance of D&D, no halflings on their own do not have weapon proficiencies, but their traits mean they suit some classes more than others and so have a natural aptitude toward certain weapons proficiencies that come from class, I gave the rogue as a perfect example.

This is exactly what I mean about missing the nuance of D&D, no halflings on their own do not have weapon proficiencies, but their traits mean they suit some classes more than others and so have a natural aptitude toward certain weapons proficiencies that come from class, I gave the rogue as a perfect example.



Not at all, Clerics have for a long time throughout D&D history had a warrior style which was later further developed into the Paladin class, but the traditional warrior cleric is still very possible and that's even before you consider multiclassing.

There is a wealth of warrior cleric D&D fiction out there and many a campaign including them.

A character with at least a 16 strength is definitely the most optimal way to go. My favorite playthrough was a Githyanki Abjuration Wizard G'kar, with a 16 STR and 16 INT. I gave him the great swords, and had Lae'zel use a glaive. I used the 5e Spells mod, which has the Shield spell. That really helped with keeping the Arcane Ward up. Lae'zel took Polearm Master at level 4 (More Feats mod).

My next strength based character was a Shield Dwarf Hunter Ranger, with the Dual Wielder feat and 2 battleaxes, no Lae'zel in that playthrough. I also tried a Half Drow Oath of Vengeance Paladin (another mod), oh and another Shield Dwarf that was a War Domain Cleric.

I tried a Wood Elf Beastmaster Ranger that was dex based. I used the animal companion as a tank. A High Elf Bladesinger Wizard that was dex based that tanked. I also played a Human Light Domain Cleric. I used only Lae'zel as a tank, enemies rarely got close.

You said that they did: you are mistaken. That is all I was pointing out. You can say that they have a propensity towards certain things, and that's fair enough - but when you turn that into language that implies that people Should use them that way, or even that they are Restricted you using things a certain way, then you are taking away from the game and making it less. You are being a poor Dm and you are stifling players, when you do that.

Halflings used to have a favoured class, in older editions. They do not any more: this is a very deliberate philosophical decision that was made and upheld for the betterment of the game as a whole and the enjoyment of its players. You can backtrack on that if you want to, as DM, and you can attempt to shoehorn your players into type-cast moulds because that's how they 'should' be playing... but no-one will thank you for doing that.

So, Again, I will ask you, becuase you still haven't adequately explained... Why did you say this:


Why would you EVER try to tell players that they can't be an effective cleric of their god unless they use bludgeoning damage?
Why would you EVER suggest that a Cleric cannot effectively engage in melee combat unless they use bludgeoning weapons?
Why would you dream of restricting players, or even strongly implying that they should restrict themselves, in that way, when the gods present in the multiverse are so extremely many and varied and all favour different weapons, styles, outlooks and approaches to conflict, and their clerics may equally well follow their deity's ideal in those many and varied different ways, or even their own preferred style that suites them, as long as they're still acting in accord with their deity's tenets?

You can state a preference for following the super traditional stereotypes (*Even where they don't fit at all within the lore of the specific cleric and deity that is being talked about, if you want to...*) if you want, that's fine - I'm asking you to explain and justify why you'd try to state those stereotypes as factual restrictions when giving advice to less experienced players. That's deeply reprehensible.

Niara, you're getting way too heated about this.

"deeply reprehensible"? really? Because he thinks that Clerics use blunt weapons most of the time? Step back and realize he's just talking about the general stereotypes that most classes have. Thieves use daggers, Clerics use blunt, etc. Those tropes are as old as D&D. No one is being "reprehensible" here.

My concern is that, the poster is stating things as facts, that would otherwise limit players, and they are doing it in the sphere of giving advice to less experienced players who may take these things on board as facts of the realm, when they aren't, and shouldn't be presented as such.

It irked me, yes, and I'm sorry... but spreading a personal preference for an extremely outdated stereotype, and presenting it as a factual restriction to newer players, is very irresponsible and something that should be called out.

To be clear... I think, generally, that EquinoxAlpha sounds like a wonderful DM in terms of how they'd run a world space and convey a sense of immersion in a setting, and presenting a living world to their players, and I realise I'm picking at a single point in an otherwise very positive outlook - I should have led with that, yes...

Have about 100 hrs in and have seen no issue with balance. I think having so many different ways to approach the game is a lot of fun. One of my favourite partial playthroughs was as as a warlock with Shadowheart and Astarion as my companions. In that playthrough I swapped out Shadowheart's armour and shield for leather only just for fun and as a way of making her less conspicuous as a Cleric. Obviously I was extremely careful in picking and choosing combat as I was extremely vulnerable to melee combat. Some fights and side quests had to be avoided and I chose an evil path ultimately bringing Goblin hell to the grove. Even with that weak party I was able to defeat the Druids though Astarion fell ( I don't use resurrect scrolls on my playthroughs).

I just love the variety on offer even in Act One.

I figured that since they had added the Druid to the game the last update whose mainly another spell-based Character that they would add the Paladin this time as well instead of the Sorcer. true the Paladin does use some spells but so do most of the characters in the game like Lae'zel. But the Paladin would have been more combat-leaning like that of Lae'zel.

As for Astarion being the only one for which should be able to pick locks and disarm traps I would fully agree with you on this if it weren't for the fact that I can't stand him and I've left him in the camp this whole playthrough. He's to Whiny and girly sounding for me.

As for the Gale the Wizard He's been hanging out in the camp as well due to the fact that I don't like his stupid ritual you've got to go through to resurrect him if he should die nor do I like the fact that he has to consume our magical artifacts. Maybe one day I'll deal with him and Astarion with a couple of playthroughs its hard to say.

Wizards aren't the only ones for which can cast spells as you've noticed playing the game all classes so far can cast various spells whether it be for better or worse.

No my party right now consist of the Caina a female Ranger knight wielding 2 weapons, Lae'zel Shadow Heart and Wyll and so far we've been tearing things up. Shadow has the best AC at 21. The spells Caina uses is mainly defensive. I had one battle in the goblin camp fight the group with Dror ragzlin that I lost 1/2 the party and only Caina and Wyl's imp were left fighting.

Like I said before running a 4 member part with Caina a Ranger-knight Lae'zel, Wyl, Shadowheart. I do use resurrect scrolls. And since you don't how do you get rid of the one that has fallen in battle or do you just play on with the ones for which you have left and leave the fallen one in that spot?

I agree, Ranxerox. There is plenty. As far as why they would limit, because this is not an open source sandbox. This is Larian's take on DnD. And they are absolutely correct, the cleric's restriction on blunt weapons goes all the way back to DnD basic and ADnD 1st edition. Until recent editions, that did not change even with racial preferences. Now, you have the option of Long bows and swords if you are a surface elf, rapiers and hand crossbows if Drow, battle axes if Dwarf, Any sword if Gith, and still be a practicing cleric. If you read different posts concerning the various companions, they are FULL of ideas on how to tweak them without adding a single mod to the game. Shadowheart, being half-elf, doesn't have an racial affinity weapons, so blunt weapons and light crossbows it it. And she is a beast now that they've respeced her. Give her mithara's mace, with the shield of the absolute, and slick chainmail for when she heals-Done.

It does, yes - I understand that better than most, in fact. It harkens back to a time where the mechanical class 'Cleric' was designed on a particular archetype and envisioning of what a cleric was, and imagined it purely as that armour-wearing, mace-wielding, undead-turning healer... despite the fact that that was only Actually appropriate for a very limited select set of deities, and completely inappropriate for many, many others. Surprise surprise, in more recent editions, it's been realised that that old stereotype based on one very particular type of cleric, was not actually appropriate at all as any sort of fixed rule or mechanical restriction, and the concept was wholesale abandoned in favour of giving clerics a simple range of basic proficiencies and placing no restrictions whatsoever on them in terms of what kinds of equipment they choose to use - because people and deities are so varied that the 'idea' of the armour-wearing, mace-wielding, undead-turning healer as being solely synonymous with cleric, and nothing else being permitted, was, in fact, damaging to the game as a whole and players' ability to explore creatively within it.

So let's Not go back to trying to enforce that unfitting and inappropriate forced stereotype on newer players as a matter of course, okay?

Anyway, I've spoken my piece on that; I'm off topic, and getting caught up in it further is not going to help anyone else, so I'll stop here and I won't pursue the debate any further. Sorry if I came off aggressively.

I agree with you about Gale, those instructions were annoying to me but I noticed that if you use revivify on him it will act as if you did the spell. He also comes off as being a little condescending about your knowledge of magic. He acts like he knows better. As for Astarion, I think he has a very confident personally and if he comes off as "girly" it's his vampire personality. That's common with vampire lore but don't be mistaken, they can very masculine when they want to be.