Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General The One D&D project. Thoughts?

I miss the times when a niche hobby didn't need to control their press like a multi-million dollar conglomerate...oh wait.
These press releases have gotten pretty bad in that regard, which I wouldn't be too bothered by, but I don't see much elsewhere, where a more substantive conversation can take place.

During the video, there were a few times it seemed like they were talking out of both sides of their face, but that's nothing new and it is a playtest I suppose.
It's a advertisement, where I'm more interested in talking shop.

It's possible WotC thinks a lot of their feats were half-baked, and were either never used or broken, so they're revamping them. All while they have consistently said that most tables don't play with them.

Can't say I'm thrilled about the proposed changes at all, as it seems now I'll either stick with 5e or return to AD&D 2nd (or even 1st) for PnP.

There's basically nothing in the UA playtest document I like (haven't watched the video though).

Does Savage Attacker seem massively OP as a level 1 feat to anyone else? Reroll attack damage once per turn and keep the higher roll. Like Advantage for damage that's permanently on. Seems really OP compared to the other level 1 feats.

Aside: Niara should not attempt to write posts when it is 2am and she is tired and cranky. She ends up writing more aggressively than she should.

Not particularly? It's the same as the one already in the 5e PHB. Rolling two 2d12s and taking the higher is an average of +1.5 points of damage; rolling 2d8s and taking the higher is an average of +1 point of damage. It sucks that you can't use it on AoOs.

It's not nothing, but getting advantage on even a single attack roll per combat (musician allow you to give out PB # of Inspirations per short rest!) makes you ~50% more likely to deal like 7 damage, so it seems about equivalent. In fact, Lucky allows you to roll a 2nd dice *after* you see the result of the first roll, which is much more powerful than basic advantage. Magic Inititate is imo the most powerful 1st level feat; the rest mostly seem to have similar levels of power (except for Crafter and Tough).

Oh but that's like half the reason we still come to these forums; for your scathing appropriately-toned critiques of D&D-related presentations!

You're not wrong regarding certain abilities/feats; if WotC is presenting them as "new and improved" (I didn't watch the video presentation), then that's disingenuous.

Really excited about D&D Digital Play Experience. Would be great to finally play dnd with online friends and not be tied to a particular video game (+ I think WotC will implement their rules and not some insane homebrew instead).

I think d D&D (for digital dungeons and dragons) would be great if they just dumped a gang of cash into a character/avatar/portrait creation system that worked with Unity/Unreal or cool modelling/VA as like some kind of plug-in. Don't make a movie - make that! But do it up proper so it looks top notch. That way the player could build a kind of library of character art assets which they could bring in to the games. I think that would have strong appeal. They've tried to do something similar before, but skimped on the artist and the compatibility element. I think they should treat it like an art book and do a lot of variety for the models standard clothing armor and weapons. That'd be so cool for the PC. They they could tie ins, like where the same assets worked in the officially licensed crpgs too. Sort of as a way to expand and standardize the dress up aspect or pre char creation. Do the same with MM a bit later maybe? I like the idea of it, but it seems like everytime they try it it's more of TT emulator exclusive and never works with anything else.


I guess they might as well at this point hehe. Usually the problem with each new edition has been that the actual games lag way behind the books so the timing is never quite hot enough for the iron. But with this one they're talking a big deal on digital so maybe DD&D? heheh with the double whammy if they could land a BG or NWN tie in?

Gah, I just don't like the One branding, too Parmenides for my tastes. I'd rather they go full Hex and just own the 6e. I suppose BG is doomed to always be stuck in the middle this side of the horizon. If they did aim for a kind of preview thing with the wizard's nod that would have some purchase for me though, even if it's a sort of an easy out and bound to get messy.

For the races the missing Half Elves are kinda notable since that's been such a staple, though I suppose it makes sense the way they're framing it out. Now that they're going with full on Orcs I kinda think they're missing a chance to do the Snakes at the same time. That race just has a lot of potential with the shedding skins and the venom fangs and Serpentor vibes, for something similar to Dragonborn but with a different flavor that works in a lot of settings. Cosmic snakes and eggs and all hehe. I liked exploring the Gith in BG3, but the Snakes would probably feel a bit more grounded. I suppose that could just be a Tief subtype with a lot of Merrshaulk-to-Set material to draw on. That would be kinda cool to counterbalance the Stargate Animal heads vibe on the celestial side, with some showcase variety for the Abyssal Tiefs say. You know so they could be more like Serpents with forked tongues rather than Devils with horns or whatever, maybe some snake hair. Just picturing how it might present in something like BG3 for a visual. Another route to the reptilian peoples of other games.

I still think Sprites are another interesting potential race that could do something sort of new, conceived as a counterpoint to the heavy STR Orcs maybe. I just sort of imagine a low STR race but one that does other things like fly with the tiny magic or change form to one of the standard humanoids, but more as a projection or something like that, switch on the fly. Basically Legend or Pan- those sorts of faeries. I like it cause it has the malevolent pixie side as well, so you could get a split going there. Faeries looking more Elf-like, Pixies more Drow or even Orc/Goblin like. Could do cool things with the wings too for flare. I also like the idea of clawing back some of the Faerie action for D&D instead of just ceding all that territory to Zelda hehe. I noticed Halflings "2-3 feet" which I dig. A 2 ft tall Halfling is something I wish they drum up for BG3. The spell list are an interesting tease there with the Primal Spells addition, I like the tripartite division for magic, just on an aesthetic level. I don't know hard to get a real sense for where it's headed, guess we'll have to stay tuned in.

Like, a full to rights, highly detailed, extensive, expansive character creator that was custom built for that express purpose, that we made available and accessible, so that the surrounding community to continue to add assets to its libraries via modding extensions, would be wonderful. There's a reason so many people have dozens of characters they've never played in their D&D beyond libraries... it's because deep down many us us still want to play with our virtual doll house, and more catering to that from a tool-and-function perspective would be great.


I'm kind of on board with this; we won't be seeing half-elves or half-orcs, because they're officially opening up the statement of half-anythings can work. It will be the first time that Wizards have publicly and canonically stated that most humanoid races can interbreed with each other successfully - up until now they've avoided saying anything directly and fallen back on the realms-lore that points to magic and divine intervention allowing couplings to work that otherwise wouldn't.... As long as they do this *well*, and the structures for mixed race parentage are well laid out and flexible for how they build into your character, I think this is potentially actually a good move. I'm not happy about several important race features up and vanishing, and I hope all of the things we know and love do make it back in (Where's my halfing's ability to hide in places that others generally can't? that's important! Actually the halfling block in general looks incredibly thin and light-weight compared to most of the other race blocks in the document... I'm concerned, honestly). In other news, my gnome sorceress is probably going to have to start being a little bit more careful about minding her dates and/or using protective cantrips, I suppose... rather than relying on the assumption that other gnomes are her only risk factor for partners.


Just checking, but are you aware of Yuan-ti, black_elk? The realms have the perfect sneeple representatives for you already ^.^ (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Yuan-ti)


They recently gave us the criminally underwhelming Fairy playable race, which was intended to cover all manner of small fey, however between the playtesting and the official release they gutted and strangled it into oblivion, so the block is an empty, bland, dead shell of what they intended it to be.... However... most people I know still absolutely use it to play as sprites, pixies, quicklings, nac mac feegle and other already established fey creatures that exist in the realms. Given your comment,s I think you might get a lot of value reading up about the feywild, as it exists in the forgotten realms; a lot of what you might be looking for, or feel is missing from D&D is actually there already ^.^


I was surprised (but not displeased) to see them tweaking the height scale for halfings. This is a good move because it's really affirming the slight difference between halfings and gnomes on this score. In early editions ,they went back and forth about which race was taller than the other, and there existed a lot of confusion. They made a firm ruling with 5e - halfings at 'about 3 feet' and gnomes at 'just over 3 feet', but as much as that was a clear answer, it was still a bit vague. By lowering the halfling bracket slightly, they've made the distinction in heights clear enough that folks shouldn't trip over it any more.

It also means that my little bard, Wren, is technically within the allowed heights now, since she's 2'6, which is lower than you can formally roll in the handbook (she's slightly fey-touched, to pixies, and so is small and slight, and is also only 17)

Also: Hey Larian, Halflings are small! Like, properly, small! Please Fix!

Yeah it's my secret fav for a racial archetype and I was excited when Volo dropped some deets on it. Though I think they kinda botched the resistances pretty hard out the gate, I think a cleaned up version is fun and maybe a sleeper hit. The most intriguing aspect to me as that they basically have psychopathy as like a core racial characteristic, being emotionless is entertaining RP potential, with fun connects to like just every world mythology too, since serpents are so universal. The pureblood concept, which definitely does a need better name, is pretty solid in my view. I think ultimately it's just kinda indulging the Cobra commander angle as a more generalized thing, but there's something to it with snake changes and Gorgon call backs. They're a bit more interesting to me than say Orcs. I mean it's kinda debatable how much mileage one can get out of snake people and demon people and animal headed Aasimar people (I feel like that last is sort of a catch-all there, but it kinda works for me), as opposed to more traditionally just getting exciting about Elves and the like hehe... but some players do seem to get a kick out of the idea. There's a fair bit of lore spread across across at least a couple setting they could tap, and in BG3 we got Kagha as a possible example for an alt visual. I like the idea of becoming a hideous snake monster at higher levels, or shedding skins to dissemble as a human, or just a giant snake at the end like Thulsa Doom in Conan the Barbarian hehe. I think og Thulsa Doom was like the prototypical Skeletor, but Milius went more snake with it, which was cool. Feels pretty hallmark D&D me. Anyhow, bit of a digression I guess, but since the UA covers a lot of race stuff.

So. Am I reading this right? Ardling = Aasimar as well as Genasi and Beast Races, etc. All lumped into 1?

And there is no Half-elf race anymore. There are standard races and you can mix-match any race you want? This actually makes more sense to me but Ardling is a bit weird to me.

This piqued my curiosity, so I did a quick calculation for d6, d8, and d10.

D6 average goes from 3.5 to 4.47
D8 average goes from 4.5 to 5.81
D10 average goes from 5.5 to 7.15

So that's pretty decent. I would need to read all of the other feats carefully before I can comment upon whether it is OP though.

For comparison, note that "Tough" grants 2 hitpoints per level, which is equivalent to +4 constitution. That's pretty tempting too.

It would be best with a Greataxe 1d12 getting appx. +2 damage. Makes sense but does seem really strong. Then again two handers need that against shields. I'm not sure requiring a feat is the best way to go about that though.

Seems a bit annoying always having to roll double dice for damage on tabletop. And in digital it's not as clear how good it actually is as a flat out +1 or +2 damage would be. Couldn't they just make it +1 with one handed and +2 with two handed weapons?

Tying backgrounds to both starter feats and stat bumps seems a bit restrictive. They either need more backgrounds (and thus more stat bump feat combos) or they need to give alternates in the background block.

For instance, Soldier could give +2 str/+1 con OR +2 dex/+1 con and then for feat savage attacker OR tough. This would give more customization choices, and would not force you to such a narrow set of background choices.

There's a video where they explain it in more detail. The default option is to make a fully custom background, but they also provide presets for those who want them.

Now that I actually read carefully I see that they actually put that option in the document too. Thanks.

I don't believe that Aardlings (Something makes me want to put the second 'a' in there for the upper planars, even though it's not correct...) will be replacing aasimar or genasi - this document is just about the core PHB races, which didn't originally contain those, but did contain tieflings... so if I had to interpret what they're saying (and they really could have done with confirming this), then the idea is that our base PHB will now have an upper and a lower planar set, while aasimar and genasi will still be in their respective books and sources too.

Are you looking forward to playing a truly traditional, "be-not-afraid" chariot wheel archon? I find the concept amusing, hehe, but I don't think the block stretches quite that far, even thought hey mentioned the archons of previous editions.

Well, unless I missed it, Drow no longer have sunlight sensitivity. They will get 120 Dark vision and Dancing Lights. No sunlight sensitivity was listed.

Hmmm... Not sure how I feel about that.

Yeah. I reread it. They have animal characteristics. The thing that threw me off and made me think Aasimar was:

An ardling gains a measure of magical power from their celestial legacy, as well as the ability to manifest spectral wings. An ardling’s moral and ethical outlook is self-determined, however, not fixed by ancestry.

The three celestial legacies are as follows:

Heavenly. The blissful harmony of Arcadia, the unwavering justice of Mount Celestia, and the bucolic paradise of Bytopia touch the souls of ardlings who have the Heavenly celestial legacy. Their celestial ancestors are staunch defenders of the Lawful Good planes.

The use of the suffix -ling, in Ardling and Tiefling (like Halfling) is I think maybe meant to make them more cutesy and lovable and accessible little devils and animal/angel people? The impression I get is that is meant to appeal to peeps who probably want to play as Tabaxi or Enueru or whatever, but instead they get an exalted Cat-headed person or a idyllic Dog-headed person, as like an expedient consolation prize that's easier to fit into a catch-all archetype lol.

I always thought Tief was a bit silly as a name. They took a very archaic word for "deep" and made Deeplings from it I guess, but until they show you a picture or start using synonyms for devils and demons it sounds somewhat goofy and doesn't conjure a particularly menacing visage for me.

Ard as a prefix connotes burning from the Latin, but I guess like a good celestial passionate sort of burn in this case, which we see in words like ardent or ardor. As a suffix -ard is much more common and pejorative. Examples listed from the wikti are like coward, dullard, drunkard, and curiously for our purposes wizard. But it also makes a sort of sense, if you figure a Wiz-ard probably wasn't a great thing to be in the middle ages, compared to say a Sage or Philosopher or something a bit more flattering. But they're using it up front, so I get fire. I feel like they definitely left a couple beasts out though. We can rock a Nick Bottom celestial jackass I guess, but they're missing the Bull and a few others I expected to see. To me the Goat would more properly be an Infernal avatar, (I mean kinda obviously right?) but they're up there next to Cats. The serpent, again, an infernal classic, but they don't seem to have paired off the lower planes so they mirror the upper ones in that way. Maybe they'll flesh it out more in days ahead?

To be fair, the animals listed are only suggestions - not a 'list'; nothing is 'missing' in that sense, there's just a few creature types they suggest to give you an idea.

Fun fact: the ard- etymology is also the same root source that gives From soft their Erdtree ^.^

I don't think the 'ling' suffix is deliberate for approachable connotations; within the realms space there's just as many, if not more, creatures that use the suffix that are not nice at all, and tieflings were originally amongst them - not intended as playables at all in their first iteration. ^.^ It does, however, feel a bit lazy to me. I'd have rather they had a non-derivative name of their own.