Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules

Raggy just doesn't want the game to change at all. He doesn't get that it's EA and we're supposed to suggest how to make the game better. 😏

And what do I know about DMing? I've only been doing it for like 30 years. I don't know anything about encounter building or nothing.

And I also don't know RPG video games neither. Been only playing them since the Commodore 64 days. Pshah!

Suggested Encounters for BG3:

First, don't cater to such a wide spread party size. Make a decision and base encounters on that decision. If this was just a single player game, basing encounters on one player character would be fine, but since they are making this game with multiplayer in mind, to make the game well balanced, encounters from the beginning should be based on five characters. The game should allow you to create four custom characters with default character designs so that if the player only wants to create one character, they can do so and just accept default custom characters. Then, before the first encounter, you add Lae'zel to the party for a total of 5. Us should be a severely nerfed intellect devourer so that it is more of a companion newborn and not carrying the party as a full blown intellect devourer.

With this in mind, here is how the combat encounters should be. Note, the intent here is to create appropriate encounters based on level and standard party size while providing a variety of monsters to add more flavor to the game. If you, the player, don't want to play the game based on a standard party size, that should still be an option, allowing the player to choose to not have any other characters in their party if they want. In other words, if they want a challenge and want to solo the game, they should have the option to not even have a party of 4 to begin with. But again, the encounters would be based on a party size 4+ from the beginning. Also, using standard 5e stats.


First encounter = 8 Manes, AC 9, HP 9, +2 to hit

Second encounter = 1 wounded imp with 4 HP and 2 Manes. This would be an optional fight on the top deck.

Third encounter = intellect devourer with 2 HP and 3 thralls with 3 HP and 10 AC and + 2 to hit. This would also be an optional fight on the top deck.

Fourth encounter = 3 thralls same stats. Optional fight only if you press the wrong button on the machine near Shadowheart.

Fifth Encounter = intellect devourer by itself with 4 HP. Optional fight if you ticked off the collective by fighting with the previous intellect devourer or you killed Us.

First helm encounter (based on Shadowheart now being in the party as well, since it is likely that many will not just leave her. If they do, one less character shouldn't affect the balance too drastically) = 1 wounded imp with 2 HP, 1 hellshog, and 4 Manes with 3-5 HP each.

Second helm encounter (this should be like a final boss fight and should be more challenging. It should be almost like a capture the flag fight instead of a last man standing fight. In other words, your objective is to just get someone to the helm. It is NOT to kill everything. As it already is in the game, Lae'zel and the mind flayer urge you to just focus on that objective so you know killing everything is obviously not your goal. If you do, kudos, but the encounter should be built with this objective in mind. Simple AI attacks whoever is closest to the helm) = 2 imps at full health, 1 dretch with AC 11 and 9 HP because wounded, 1 hellshog and 8 Manes with 4-9 HP.

Beach Nautiloid Fight = 1 wounded intellect devourer HP 5, 8 Neogi Hatchlings AC 11 and HP 1-7. Fight assumes 4 PCs + Shadowheart. Shadowheart tips you off to stay at a distance from the intellect devourer. Again, simple AI. Attack closest.

Fast forward, because most of the in-between battles would be fine: The Fishermen, Gimblebock, Marli and Barton's Mercs, etc.

Dank Crypt Encounter = 6 skeletons. 2 should be level 1 mages. 4 should be typical skeletons. I think it's totally fine to be able to disarm them first. Makes sense and if you go with that strategy, it would then make the fight easier. Either way, you should not face 4 magic using skeletons. 1 or 2 is good with 4 grunts. That's a solid encounter.

Grove Entrance First Encounter (based on story, the number of enemies should be greater because they make such a big deal about you being a hero who saved the grove from this raiding goblin band, and by this time you should have at least a party of 6) = 2 goblin bosses, 1 bugbear, 1 bugbear chief, 2 worgs, 6 goblins, 2 goblin booyahgs, 2 ogres who toss goblins up to the walls.

This fight seems huge, but it doesn't have to be. The goblins think they are going to overpower the grove and slaughter everyone, especially Aradin and his two party members. So, instead, you show up and ambush them. The AI could be built in such a way so that once you attack, one of the two goblin bosses panics and calls for a retreat. They don't know who's attacking them or how many, and they believe it's an ambush; a trap. "It's a trap!" one cries, and then he calls for a retreat. Then you can choose to either chase them while they are trying to flee, shooting them in the back, or you can let them go.

This would then explain why Zevlor is so upset that Aradin led the goblins to the grove. He knows they've gotten away, and so he's upset because he knows they'll be back. So, now they have to start packing because they'll need to risk leaving before the goblins return... unless YOU do something to save them. NOW you're a great big hero who's going to save them from certain doom because you not only chased off the raiding party but you're agreeing to do something to stop the goblins from returning in greater numbers.

Not every fight has to be a slaughter everything fest. Therefore, not every fight has to be so dramatically long when you have huge numbers. Let the enemies get routed and flee. That's more realistic anyway. Most enemies don't fight you to the death. They fight you until they perceive that they aren't going to win. Then they retreat.

As for the Sazza situation, if the goblin raiders escape, well then it's not as important that Sazza tells Minthara where the grove is. However, they could change her dialogue lines so that instead of saying, "I know where the grove is," she could say, "I know of a secret entrance into the grove, Boss-Lady. There's these tunnels that me and some o' the others snuck into before I got caught. There's statues there, and such, but it's a way in we could use. Some explosives would make short work o' them statues and we'd be able to gain easy access into the grove."

Now, rescuing Sazza and telling Minthara about the secret tunnels would make for a different avenue that the game could go, a battle in the secret tunnels as opposed to on the walls. Now, Minthara's forces that she brings could have more of a chance of success, for the tunnels would be harder for the tielfings and druids to defend than the wall, thus making Sazza's rescue valuable from an evil perspective, and quite detrimental from a good playthrough perspective.

There is many things that BG 1 & 2 had and BG-3 dont ...
And vice versa.

Its not necesarily a bad sign tho.

On the contrary ...
He would like you to change your attitude ... in best, go back to ignoring me, those were sweet times. -_-

I believe it was Composer (not sure tho, since i cant search it) who said multiple times around here that if you dont have anything to say to topic, and just want to coment other people, you should not post at all ... think about it, if you are able to ...

It was me who said that, yes.


That's equally uncalled for. No need to comment on other people, even with passive aggressive taunts.

I am blocking RagnarokCzD again, Ignoring him.

Maybe that'll help. Him and I just don't see eye-to-eye, and I can't take it anymore.

Sorry, RagnarokCzD, but I'm throwing in the towel. I've tried to make these chats work, but you and I seriously can't get along. Best to just not try anymore. I'll ignore you. You ignore me. Everyone's happy.

Owlbear Cave

You have a party of 6 + Brynna and Andrick

Mama, Papa and Baby Bear fight

Imagine. You are making your way in, but the cave is much darker. It's a cave! Ever visit one? They're really really dark.

You're about halfway in. Ominous creature noises.

THEN Big Mama comes out of the darkness into your light. It starts by you seeing her eyes first, reflected in your torchlight. Then her silhouette. She is wounded from her fight with Ed, so she has 30 HP. Scene plays out like now.

If you fight her, baby comes out of the darkness. Then, unexpectedly, here comes Papa. He has 70 HP.

So you endorse those exceptions, but take exception to them here. Which begs the question, were they really all that close, or is it the rose colored glasses phenomena? I mean, there's a Red Dragon in BG 1, with a max character level of 7. Should be lunch time for the dragon every time, right? How many GMs were giving away explosive arrows to a level 1 party? I don't even remember if they were actually in TT for 2e, not that that means anything, all things considered on my end, since I can't even remember what, or if, I had dinner last night.

What I do know is that the game we're playing in EA now isn't the same as the game we played when EA launched, and I expect that there will be more changes before we get close, and even more changes afterwards. This based on what happened, anecdotally, with DOS 2's EA.

You are mistaken, there's no dragon in BG1

His name is Firekraag, or something similar. Edit: My bad, this was in Baldur's Gate 2. If we're going to "trip" over the difference between wyvern and dragon, the definition of wyvern says:

wyvern
[ˈwīvərn]
NOUN
heraldry
a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

Source

Have to agree with robertthebard here. Wyverns are classified as large dragons in the monster manual.

Sure, they don't have the challenge rating or stats compared to an adult true dragon(6 vs 13) but technically, they are still dragons

Yes, from what I understand Wyvern is a dragon-type enemy for lower level parties. Your point being...?

That's the problem with snipping posts, you remove context. Since the context has already been clarified, in the post you almost quoted here, I'll let you figure it out for yourself.

The dictionary definition is irrelevant. In any other context I would agree with you about wyverns being dragons, but not today. You know full well you weren't thinking of the wyverns when you wrote that there was a "red dragon" in BG1 and that was what I responded to when I said "no dragons". You even said you were thinking about Firkraag from BG2 yourself. Wyverns are not interchangeable to dragons in context of dnd -- where saying "dragon" assumes you are talking about "true dragons" and not any other kind of synonym-for-dragon-in-the-dictionary such as drake, lindworm, serpent or python -- and much more level appropriate to BG1s level range than a red dragon would be.

...and, as you can see by the edit in the middle of the post, I owned up to my mistake. I just didn't delete the post because I was wrong. I have no problem acknowledging when I make a mistake.

Bringing this one back to life with a Raise Dead spell that only a cleric can cast.

Why I want more D&D 5e rules:

What makes D&D truly D&D? What is at the heart of D&D? What was its original design, and what makes it a classic that has withstood the test of time? 5 editions later, why is it still the best RPG out there?

Party-based. It was meant to be a party-based game where the players work together as a team, co-op, to adventure together and defeat enemies. It was never meant to be played solo. How does one make the game party-based? By making unique classes. Each character has a specific role that they fulfill. Clerics are healers and status buffers. Mages are heavy damage wielders and crowd controllers, but they are weak and squishy if not protected. Fighters are the front line troops who keep enemies from the clerics and mages. They are the meat shields. Rogues are the scouts and spies and are versatile, able to deal heavy damage under certain circumstances like Sneak Attack, but they are in no way tanks or super damage wielders. They are the skilled ones who pick locks and pockets and hit and fade from the shadows. Each has a role and a purpose, and their skills and special abilities are unique so that they are special and so that they can feel rewarded for playing their part effectively and that they are needed in the party for it to succeed.

Currently, BG3 undermines this completely. Items negate the need for classes altogether. Drink a potion as a bonus action or toss it at an ally and they are healed or hasted or whatever. No need for a cleric or wizard. You've got potions and/or scrolls that everyone can use. So, you don't need a cleric to cast Revivify. You've got a fighter who can do that with a scroll. You don't need a cleric because a fighter can throw a potion and heal everyone. Likewise, you don't need a fighter because you've got weapons that provide you with special combat maneuvers. Now everyone can cleave or knock someone silly using the pommel of a dagger, or whatever. Who cares about the Battlemaster's Trip? You've got a quarterstaff with Topple.

Over and over again, the uniqueness of EVERYTHING is being stripped from it in D&D. That is why it is feeling less and less like D&D altogether. It is set in a D&D world, and it is called D&D, but it is nothing like D&D because with all the homebrew, there is a muddled mire and mess and chaos of abilities that completely strips the entire foundation of D&D from it.

Again, I love this game, I really do, but the fact remains, this is not really a D&D game. I know a lot of non-D&D fans could care less because they either don't like D&D or they've never played it and don't know what they're missing, but the bottom line is, you might as well just make the game completely like DOS and skip the D&D elements altogether because it is in no way a D&D game. EVERY class is virtually pointless. EVERYONE wins a medal and can fill the role of every other character. This is not a party game at all. This is a Lone Wolf game where a single player can do it all.

Except wizards are now the underdogs altogether because they are soft and squishy and can't take many hits. So there is really nothing good about a mage. The fighter can cast spells via scrolls, so it is better to be a fighter. Fighters can heal, wear the best armor, use the best weapons, cast spells via scrolls or just throw potions, they can heal themselves with potions and scrolls, they get extra combat maneuvers, they can pick locks just as good as rogues, etc. etc. etc. So why be anything but a fighter. GG easy playthrough. Be a fighter and use all the homebrew to cast spells and heal. You can even sneak and snipe just like a rogue too. There's literally no down side that I've found. Fighter rules BG3. Hands down.

Well said (the above post). As I keep saying, why bother making BG3 if their intention was to just gut the established ruleset and liberally flavour it with their home-brew/DOS imports?

+1 to all feedback asking for a closer alignment with the D&D 5e ruleset.

Unfortunately, the folks at Larian seem to think that diluting the classes into jacks-of-all-trades and allowing unlimited Long Rests is a good thing. I think they fundamentally struggle to understand what is so great about D&D's classes. DOS games have no classes even though they pretend they do in character creation, which is just extra confusing. So perhaps the class-based system hate runs deep over there. The limitations on what classes can't do is what makes them cool and unique. DOS characters feel really bland and lacking identity no matter how you build them. They're all just characters with a completely random set of skills.

The party based "teamwork" in DOS2 was also incredibly badly designed. My Wizard was chipping away at the enemy's Magic Armor while my Archer friend was chipping away at the Physical Armor of the same enemy. Anyone who makes a design like this has no clue what teamwork should be like. It was absolutely counter-productive for magic and warrior classes characters to try to work together.

I still hope they will understand this during development before it's too late. And revert class-identity nullifying stuff like the absurd potion throwing, liberal scroll-use and constant power-shoving into using D&D rules.

+1 to the call for DnD. I played dos2 for 1200 hours. Its a fun game. It's also an unbalanced mess which is easily exploited with several spell effects that are not as effective as advertised. The optimal strategy boils down to using your biggest damage cooldowns in an MMO rotation and stunlockinh the enemy. DnD is a different game and should feel different. The limited resource component forces players to he conservative with control and damage spells. Positioning and identification of an enemy's weak saving throws should be the most important elements of DnD combat.

Unlimited long rests from anywhere subvert all risk management and resource management. A lich's Grimoire full of scrolls useable by any class and an alchemists stockpile of potions which can be thrown for greater effect than spells further overrude the resource based gameplay and undermine class identity.