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

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.

Over and over again, the uniqueness of EVERYTHING is being stripped from it in D&D. [...]
EVERY class is virtually pointless. EVERYONE wins a medal and can fill the role of every other character.

Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.

1) Giving each character more abilities means that every turn is more likely to contain an interesting, meaningful decision. For example, my ranger gets boring just casting hunter's mark and shooting his bow. Sure glad I've got all these scrolls, potions and weapon abilities to play with!

2) Blurring the distinction between classes helps alleviate the RNG inherent in the initiative order. For example, the rogue really needs healing but it's the fighter's turn and the cleric will go after 6 goblins. Sure glad I can throw a healing potion!

Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.

1) Giving each character more abilities means that every turn is more likely to contain an interesting, meaningful decision. For example, my ranger gets boring just casting hunter's mark and shooting his bow. Sure glad I've got all these scrolls, potions and weapon abilities to play with!

2) Blurring the distinction between classes helps alleviate the RNG inherent in the initiative order. For example, the rogue really needs healing but it's the fighter's turn and the cleric will go after 6 goblins. Sure glad I can throw a healing potion!

if each class can do everything then there really is no reason to have classes at all.

Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.

If you would NEED to have Rogue with you, since noone else is able to lockpick, stealth and disarm traps so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Cleric with you, since noone else is able to heal, buff you and debuff enemies so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Wizard with you, since noone else is able to cast spells from scrolls so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Fighter with you, since noone else can jump so far, handle heavy objects etc ...

You are totally right when you say that in DnD classes are much more important than in BG-3 ...
But you have to realize that in DnD there is no limit for party ... while in BG-3 there is ...

If you would NEED to have Rogue with you, since noone else is able to lockpick, stealth and disarm traps so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Cleric with you, since noone else is able to heal, buff you and debuff enemies so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Wizard with you, since noone else is able to cast spells from scrolls so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Fighter with you, since noone else can jump so far, handle heavy objects etc ...
You allready reached your limit, no Tav for you, sorry.

What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role.

Or you know you could design RPG with actual choice and consequnces. With various valid play styles, different exploration options for different team compositions.

I don't need to be able to speak to the Dead or animals if I didn't pick certain classes. I don't needs all my party members to jump like rabbits all over the place. If I pick all melee classes I don't expect them to also double as archmages.

With how much "depth" Larian put in the game, each playthrough feels very samey - and that's because interaction with the world doesn't change.

You also forget that there will be multiclassing - if you want your fighter to also cast weaker spells then dedicated wizard - you will be able to do that.

5e isn't as role-limited as you're suggesting here.

The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.

Yeah, it was never good methaphor ...
I was kinda affraid someone will take it litteraly ... maybe should have write Shadowheart, Laezel, Astarion and Gale ...

Im aware that there are other classes that *could* potentialy fit simmilar role (even tho, i still believe that no healer in the game is ever as effective as Life Cleric, since *healing* is their whole reason of existence but that is just matter of opinion), aswell as hybrid classes (or multiclass) that can fulfill those roles even better ...
But that was not my point ...

Point was, to put it more in general, that if you create 12 classes and every will specialize in something, and also you set 4 member limit ... you will allways miss something, that is inevidable ... in tabletop, people are counting with this, but in PC games that is not as popular way. :-/

What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role.

5e isn't as role-limited as you're suggesting here. Almost any party composition is viable which is one of the best things about the edition - the classic Figher+Wizard+Cleric+Rogue (+ Bard if 5 players) adventuring party isn't required.

• Any class can lockpick in 5e if they take the thieves tools proficiency through a background or feat. Although in BG3 lockpicking is currently based on Sleight of Hand, right? Which is even easier to get. (Plus, I believe the Urban Tracker Ranger in BG3 gives proficiency in thieves tools, for when/if that is implemented). And stealth is even easier - any dexterity class with proficiency in stealth can be sneaky.
• You can easily replace a cleric with a druid, bard, wizard, and/or paladin. I've had many 5e parties without a cleric; the hit-dice-on-short-rest and full-hp-on-long-rest makes clerics much less necessary compared to previous editions, and these other classes can buff/debuff.
• You can easily replace a wizard with a sorcerer, bard, druid, warlock, and/or the half casters. These classes can use many scrolls, some even that wizards cannot.
• You can have a barbarian, paladin, or cleric with high strength and athletics proficiency to jump and lift heavy objects; no Fighter required.

The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.

The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.

Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon

Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.

One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.

More or less an example of what Swen meant when he said "...because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions."

PC Games interview June 2019

So my takeaway is that these threads are largely melodramatic then.

The argument that more options are bad because they slow down fights is awfully stupid. In games based on tactical combat, the number of options the player has is extremely important. It's a turn-based game, after all.
I don't know if mentioning10lvl is a good idea considering that it was supposed to be the original level limit which means that we probably won't reach this level by the end of act 2 / the beginning of act 3.
Also, remember that about 80% of players don't even finish games (especially long ones).
It is enough to see how many people have ever reached Arx in DoS2 (26%) which I would say is much above the other games anyway.
Another example is Kingsmaker where only 18% of people unlocked the kingdom at all (it is about 50% of the game) and not even half of them completed the game.
In the case of WotR, barely 10% reached Treshhold.

What am I going to?
It is important to get players interested from the beginning. It depends on how long they spend in the game. If for the first 10-15 hours (even less than the current EA) the player will be limited to casting boring cantrips or using only AA, he will most likely quickly abandon the game and probably will not even buy another one.

Bonus action hide/dash being given to everyone instead of rogues?

Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.

.

NO YOUR STUPID!!!! lol.

Come on now. Was that really called for? It is not stupid. The point is that in the beginning, when you're level 1, you are not supposed to have a gazillion options and choices. As you level up, you gain more and more choices and options in combat. As your character grows, you as a player grow, learning more and more about what each ability does and how it can best be used. The point is that if you start with a gazillion options and then you add a gazillion more, you eventually get to the place where you don't know what half of your moves do and you're completely overwhelmed by choices. Multiply that by 4 because you aren't just controlling one character but 4, and you have a WHOLE LOT of options every round.

Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.

Now, take BG3. You're a Level 1 Fighter. You have Move and attack and Pommel and Lacerate and I think one or two other moves. Add to that Action Surge at Level 2 and Second Wind. Add to that the ability to cast any spells via scrolls or toss potions to heal and/or cause damage and/or poison enemies and/or put them to sleep and/or cast haste upon an ally or whatever. At Level 2, instead of only having maybe two or three options per round, you have like ten to fifteen because you have all these potions and scrolls you could use and special maneuvers that your weapons can use.

So, in the typical D&D 5e scenario, how much quicker is combat going to be for the Fighter who has maybe two or three options during combat versus the Fighter who has ten to fifteen options who sits there pondering which would be the most effective: Throwing an Alchemst Fire?... Healing their companion by throwing a Potion?... Throwing a sleep potion to put a few enemies to sleep?... Casting a spell via a scroll?... Using a special maneuver like Lacerate?... etc. etc. etc.

So yes, combat is slowed down because of too many options, and when we get these characters to higher levels where they naturally have a ton more options, how much slower is the game going to go when you can do a ton more things per round per character? And again, you have 4, so take everything from the Fighter and multiply your option count by 4.

It's too much.