Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, I suppose, but this is yet another example of Larian changing rules for no good reason. Owlbears are monstrosities in 5e, not beasts. Speak with animals and animal friendship should have no effect on it whatsoever.
Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, I suppose, but this is yet another example of Larian changing rules for no good reason. Owlbears are monstrosities in 5e, not beasts. Speak with animals and animal friendship should have no effect on it whatsoever.
While I agree with him, the question posed was regarding animal handling and not spells that specifically target a class of monster (beast) that an owlbear isn't. Animal handling has no such restrictions.
Edit: Also, if Chris is who they are consulting I can understand why this strays so far from the rules. Find a 5e RAW group that pays ANY attention to Chris, please. He contradicts himself (and the rules) constantly. The only person the 5e community at large relies on for RAI (rules as intended) rulings is Jeremy Crawford.
Talking to the owlbear and using animal handling on it is fun and interesting and makes for an exciting encounter. To hells with specific creature types in such a scenario. Ask yourself this: in this specific encounter, is it really so important what the exact creature type is, and would it be worth it to remove it from the game altogether for the sake of sticking to this rule? I would answer this question with no.
Talking to the owlbear and using animal handling on it is fun and interesting and makes for an exciting encounter. To hells with specific creature types in such a scenario. Ask yourself this: in this specific encounter, is it really so important what the exact creature type is, and would it be worth it to remove it from the game altogether for the sake of sticking to this rule? I would answer this question with no.
To quote myself "Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things..."
I would argue though that no, being able to talk to the owlbear adds NOTHING to the encounter. You can't talk your way into being able to assist it and retrieve the spear point peacefully. Nothing changes other than getting a couple lines of dialog from a monster.
I would argue though that no, being able to talk to the owlbear adds NOTHING to the encounter. You can't talk your way into being able to assist it and retrieve the spear point peacefully. Nothing changes other than getting a couple lines of dialog from a monster.
If you look only at the possible outcomes, you are right, nothing changes. However, this is a roleplaying game that heavily focuses on player choices, and making you feel like your choices matter. Some such choices are simply creative ones, or even funny ones, but they add to the replay value (if only minorly) as well as help you roleplay your character.
I can certainly envison a D&D session in which my party meets an owlbear, and the ranger of my group going: 'can I try to befriend the owlbear?' And my DM would probably go: 'yeah sure, go for it!' instead of insisting that it isn't possible because of wrong creature types. That's what makes D&D so great, to me.
I would argue though that no, being able to talk to the owlbear adds NOTHING to the encounter. You can't talk your way into being able to assist it and retrieve the spear point peacefully. Nothing changes other than getting a couple lines of dialog from a monster.
If you look only at the possible outcomes, you are right, nothing changes. However, this is a roleplaying game that heavily focuses on player choices, and making you feel like your choices matter. Some such choices are simply creative ones, or even funny ones, but they add to the replay value (if only minorly) as well as help you roleplay your character.
I can certainly envison a D&D session in which my party meets an owlbear, and the ranger of my group going: 'can I try to befriend the owlbear?' And my DM would probably go: 'yeah sure, go for it!' instead of insisting that it isn't possible because of wrong creature types. That's what makes D&D so great, to me.
Trying to befriend it isn't the issue here. Like I said it makes little difference other than yet another in a LONG list of examples of Larian ignoring 5e rules for pretty much no reason at all. Using animal handling to try to befriend it or put it at ease or whatever, great use of an underused skill. Having a spell that works only on beasts work on a monstrosity... just pointless and opens things up to bad president. Owlbear is close enough to being a beast so why not is like saying ogres are close enough to being people so hold person is an option.
I told you that I don't think its an issue and that I like the roleplay potential it offers. You told me that you do not. I don't think there is any more point in arguing about mere opinions.
I told you that I don't think its an issue and that I like the roleplay potential it offers. You told me that you do not. I don't think there is any more point in arguing about mere opinions.
As you're electing to ignore the actual points I made, sure.
yet another in a LONG list of examples of Larian ignoring 5e rules for pretty much no reason at all.
I wonder what is your reason to fight against it ... Seems to me like there is none at all. O_o
BTW since you like rules so much ... have you ever heard about golden rule? You know the one that says that anything that GM, DM, PJ (or w/e you wish to call it) allows IS the rule no matter what rules say.
Larian is GM here ... and they decided to allow this ... "allow" is most important word here since its only one of your options, therefore if you dislike their decision, fell free to pick any other option and be as RAW as a fruit salad.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 17/01/2208:05 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
yet another in a LONG list of examples of Larian ignoring 5e rules for pretty much no reason at all.
I wonder what is your reason to fight against it ... Seems to me like there is none at all. O_o
Seems to me like you don't bother to actually read very much. That follows from your other responses though. I would reiterate my reasons but they are literally a few inches above this up the page.
You mean that fabricated story about how they could totally ignore completely different rule, just bcs they decided to "bend" this one?
Well yes, they can (golden rule, google it if you must) ... and they dont ... your point?
//Edit: Anyway my point was not to get your reason, just to be clear on this ... But to show you how easily can people interpret anything as "with no reason at all" ... just as you did. The reason is right there, its fun option and many people (except you as it seems) are using it just bcs its fun. Maybe it was not exactly "by the book" ... but litteraly: So what?
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 17/01/2212:54 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
It all comes back to the "based on" D&D 5e thing doesn't it. You can argue that if Larian doesn't like the rule that they can just "deal with it". If Larian is our GM who is theirs? Who sets the rules? Is this really 5e?
Personally, I think they should just stick to the rules here but It doesn't really matter to me that much. I just wanted to mess with you a little, Ragnarok.
If that's the case then it means nothing to say a game is based on D&D. If the "golden rule" is to be accepted then the game can be whatever Larian Studios wants it to be. This is starting to sound conniving...
A benefit of being a developer is surely being able to create whatever you want. If you claim that "Baldur’s Gate 3 is an expansive, cinematic, player-driven RPG based on 5e D&D" then it is a claim that you are not making whatever you want, right? You are accepting something that is already established. In particular, this means you are accepting the rules of 5e. Fifth edition is its ruleset, right? Without those specific rules then what is 5e?
Fun fact tho: "the game can be whatever Larian Studios wants it to be" ... and most probably will, even without the rule.
Its one of the major benefits of being a developer. xD
You clearly are not knowledgeable about licensing existing IP.
Also, it isn't even "the golden rule," it's "the rule of cool." Geez, if you're going to hinge your entire argument on it, might as well get it right. The golden rule is "do unto others..."
Beyond that though, what an individual DM does from table to table will vary, obviously and it should to suit the teeny tiny subset of D&D players that they are running the game for. This is completely a different situation. If you're going to make a game that you claim to be based on the D&D rules while making deviations necessary for the translation to computer you need to be addressing the largest possible audience and not some tiny subset with which you're intimately familiar. Other games have already illustrated that rules can be implemented, directly from tabletop to computer that Larian have simply chosen to ignore or modified into an unrecognizable state. The entire purpose of this post, from inception, was simply to point out another rule being ignored and I feel like it has significantly derailed from there.
