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

"CELESTIAL LEGACIES
Legacy Suggested Animals [...]
Exalted Cat, eagle, goat, mule
Heavenly Elephant, owl, pig, stork
Idyllic Bear, dog, raven, toad [...]"

Sure that part is a bit of a throwaway - as suggestion, but I kinda like the way it reads. The lower planes should get something somewhat analogous and brief though for parity. Something like say...

INFERNAL LEGACIES
Legacy Suggested Animals
Despotic Cat, bull, goat, mare
Abyssal Serpent, spider, rat, bat
Chthonic Hound, raven, wasp, catfish

With more to devils than just horns and tails right?

ps. sorry knocked it onto the next page I guess. General point was not so much what's there or what's not available in the wider scope of D&D, I'm familiar, but more in what they're choosing to highlight for the PHB gloss. They can set a pretty broad tone, since what's in the players handbook always carries the most weight. I kinda vibe on what they're doing with the Ardlings, but I think it would be more fun if it had a dark mirror going too. On the other hand maybe they want all animals to be good, which is understandable, since they are, but if I can't be Yertle the Wicked Warlock, or a catfish demon, then maybe do something similar but with just monsters instead of beasts for the lower planes? since there are plenty of monstrous hybrids already that'd make do. I see it as more of a visualization thing that they're going for to make it more expansive if somewhat generic as a catch all.

Organizationally I think they should list Ardlings and Tieflings next to each other in the layout so they play off one another. The way it is now they have humans listed at the top, then go alphabetical, but I think they should pair off a bit more. Like Elves and Orcs next to each other. Also feels like Humans are a little lackluster in the description. Perhaps a word about the Gift of Death or something to line it up with some of the other material that other races get. Not sure how many players figure on lifespan ever, but some kind of mystery nod for humanity might be interesting. As time goes on I guess the players have pushed the whole idea of character races to allow for a lot more 'party-of-monsters' themed adventuring as opposed to the old classic standard bearers like Elves and Dwarves. It's like the overused Nietzsche quote at the start of BG1 sort of came true over the long haul. They warned themselves, and then we got the Half-Orc highlight like immediately hehe. I get it though. I can kind of understand the angle there. Tiefs are kind of a very specific look that's been developed, but I could see them branching out. For example someone who wants to be a tiny goblin rather than a hulking orc, might choose a lower planes lineage that evokes all things goblinoid and then they got a quick plug and play sort of way to approach it. Not sure if that's where they'd go, but it might deliver if they did it down proper.

So ... theese are no longer bloodthirsty lowly Orc, but noble heavenly Ardlings now?

As long as humans don't get a extra feat in BG 3 it's all good. Even the Mutant Year Zero: Road To Eden kind of race...

Am I the only one who doesn't like these fantastical races with spectral wings and animal heads being basic PHB races instead of supplement material? We already have Dragonborn and Tieflings, now pureblood Orcs and Ardlings. Elves are more magical than ever with all of them becoming spellcasters. It's a bit much. D&D or Forgotten Realms is becoming more and more high fantasy. Humans, Halflings, Dwarves and Elves are starting to feel bland because they don't have fire breath, eagle heads or magic wings. How does an Ardling with a toad's head even speak unless it's a Disney cartoon for children?

I hope they develop a more low fantasy setting for players who prefer a more LotR or GoT style fantasy. Greyhawk? A change from Forgotten Realms would be really welcome anyway.

I allways find Humans, Dwarves and Halflings kinda dull compared to others. :-/

Personally I've never been super drawn to playing humans, dwarves or elves.They're just the obvious, standard peoples for fantasy and I like when fantasy has weird, high magic races. Even now I've only recently started appreciating dwarves more but I still tend to find elves kinda meh. I only really like them in Dragon Age because of the background setting and the hardships attatched to being one, which I find makes them feel much richer. But as soon as I was able to play a Qunari in Inquisition, I did so and it spoiled me for every other race.

As far as D&D, tieflings were my favorite race from the moment I saw them, with orcs not far behind. Ardlings sound super cool though I'm not wild about the animal-head aspect. Just doesn't jive with me. I personally agree that they should have a good low fantasy setting for people who want that, but this is the kind of thing I come to fantasy for, overall. I find that weird peoples like tieflings and ardlings and dragonborn are part of what really makes a fantasy setting feel fresh and unique, and makes them stand out. Those peoples, their origins and how they fit into the world.

Dislikes:

Ardlings seem ridiculous to me. Beasts are not celestials, nor are they good aligned (unaligned mostly I believe?) I feel they should have just kept a beast race category and given it its own special characteristics. It won't stop someone from playing an animal headed Aasimar since apparently all races can be mixed now.

It looks like they got rid of special weapon training for some races. Would rather have that than a forced cantrip, especially on a non caster character.

The tiefling new bloodlines are underwhelming.

Half elves will not exist as a separate race, so the main reason I play them (skill versatility) is gone.

Monsters not being able to crit is stupid. Feels like they are catering to the idiot players who rush without thought into everything and complain when there are consequences.

Spellcasters not being able to crit doesn't make sense.

Nat 20 and 1 should not be auto success/fail on skill checks.

Alert feat is nerfed.


Likes:
Feat for everyone at character creation.

Custom backgrounds being the standard with suggestions only for those who might need help.

You're definitely not alone, I feel pretty much the same about the freakshow D&D is becoming with it's overly fantastical core races.

I wonder if they'll rework various settings to fit their freak races in, for example Krynn has neither Drow or Orcs and neither does Athas (Dark Sun) as far as I know.

On a sidenote: One funny thing I noticed is how the "humans are boring, cause I'm a human in RL" crowd play their elf/dwarf/freak race characters exactly as a human, just with pointy ears or beast heads/scales/whatever. There is rarely a hint in the way they RP to make the characters feel different from a human. At least in my experience.

Y'know, something interesting I've seen brought up by developers in the context of new editions of games is the issue of bringing old content forward. The discussion was about updating the World of Darkness games into new editions and the devs were discussing how with new editions, often people expect stuff from the older editions to immediately be brought forward into the new edition on top of new stuff for the edition. So when I think about it in those terms, it does make sense to me that D&D gets more unusual races added onto it as core races as time goes on. You still have humans and dwarves and elves, everyone is familiar with that, but people want new stuff and designers generally like making new stuff. So why wouldn't you get more new races and potentialy new classes in the next edition of the corebook?

I wonder if part of the issue isn't that the D&D corebooks seem to try and be pseudo-setting agnostic? Like, you get setting information from the writeups of races and classes, but the books don't give you an actual concrete setting with nations and plot hooks and things. As someone for whom D&D wasn't their first rpg, it's actually kind of weird to me. There's definitely an assumed default setting, but it's not truly stated. That lack of stated setting means that from a story perspective, there isn't really any limitation on what they can or should include or not include in the core book. In a way it's almost better if the corebook introduces a wide variety of races to suit anyone's playstyle. If people want to make a low fantasy setting, they can do that. If they want a high fantasy setting with a lot of weirdness, that should be supported as well.

Amaterasu-ōmikami may want a word with you at some point...

A great many cultures have depictions and lore for celestial and heavenly beasts, whether they occupy the roles of guides, divine spirits or deities in their own rights, and the celestial realms in FR lore are not just the western-conception-of-divine, by any stretch. Celestials with animal features and forms are pretty dang common, culturally across the world, and the realms getting better at being a reflection of that is a good thing.


Yeah, this is carried by your background, which I do have to agree with them, is exactly where something that you've learned during your upbringing belongs. What I would like is for the final product to have a smooth provision for saying "Yes, I had an upbringing that follows my race's cultural norms", so that you get and retain everything that has been moved out, in some other way. As long as that's preserved, moving cultural and upbringing things that aren't biologically innate over into backgrounds it the correct move, I think.

Why? The Forgotten Realms are supposed to be fantastic and not a mirror of reality.

Anyhow, I only want Wizards of the Coast to choose a different setting to be Dungeons & Dragons' default setting; save The Forgotten Realms from excessive meddling/overexposure.

+1

WotC should leave the old(er) settings alone, instead of ruining them.

As long as the forgotten realms are treated as the default setting for material, then they also need to be a space for everyone around the world to whom the space is pitched at as the primary default space. In terms of the material plane, that means that they need to do a lot of work fleshing out the non-western-styled nations and continents; they exist (and have for a long time), but haven't received much, if any, love in many years, and that needs work. In terms of the divine and fiendish realms, that means that fantastical pantheons can and should draw their inspiration style and flavours from more places than just predominately western-centric sources.

The first caveat is important; I'm not necessarily disagreeing - If they stick to their orignal design intenions of being completely setting agnostic in their core book, and then publish an actual FR campaign setting book independently instead, that's different... but increasingly that seems not to be their intention.

Now I'm definitely not a fan of many of the most recent moves that Wizards has been making with their source material - but expanding the upper and lower planes to draw their inspirations and styles from more sources, and more than just western-centric sources, is not one of those places; that one is definitely a good thing. It's not taking away anything - it's only adding.

Everything coming out is heavy on the multiversal aspect of the D&D line. The Forgotten Realms is only one of the settings, and it seems most people think it's been played out. They're not going to have new editions anymore, that also means not rebooting FR every time they need to retcon something, but instead just making another plane for the new content to come from.

As for why they might be avoiding the "non-western" areas of FR, let me look through my copy of Oriental Adventures to get some insight.

WotC still has Legend of the Five Rings, right?

The classic D&D races have become more interesting because, with them, you have to place greater emphasis on roleplaying; the spectacle of visual features that lend these newer races their distinctiveness (e.g., wings, horns, scales, tails, glowing appendages, et cetera) quickly becomes stale.




Tieflings in 2e (Planescape) and even 3e/3.5e are fine due to their comparative rarity; Tieflings from 4e onward are seemingly omnipresent and, consequently, boring. By the way, I consider the use of Tieflings as analogous stand-ins for real-life ethnic minorities to be stupid, because fiends (i.e., Demons and Devils) DO exist in the various Dungeons & Dragons settings; if you bear a resemblance to evil incarnate, don't be surprised when people don't want you around.

P.S. I wish there had been more pushback against the "furry" intrusion.

I blame anime for the furry intrusion. More and more, anime races are becoming more popular in D&D. Like Kitsune.

Help I'm a rock
I wanted to be a peccary

Why? Can you articulate a reason for that, or is it just more unconsidered socially-trained hate? The nice thing about them simply adding more layers and more variance to their cosmology is that there are things there for various different people to use as it appeals most to them or as works for a particular game or adventure; if some element of that cosmology is not relevant, does not inspire or is something you're not interested in, then you just don't us it and don't seek it out. Lots of people love modrons, for example, while plenty of other people don't even know what modrons are. It's not as though 5e is the first edition to have beastfolk in wide variety, not by by a long shot.

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you think this 'furry intrusion' is, what you imagine it causes, and why you think it's a bad thing.

Thank you; I was not aware of that.

I agree the problem is crits not feeling special, but truth is spellcasters attacks almost all scale with level.

so its not 1d10 versus 1d10 spell vs weapon, after 5 its usually 2+d10 vs 1d10 on weapons. basically spell attacks are designed to get more damage dice. The 'critical' of spells is rolling well on many dice. In the current game crits strongly favor magical abilities, the meta for effective crits is to build large dice pools.

they could give spells a single extra die on crit, but would it even be noticeable as a crit? with say 4d6 versus 5d6 the luckyness of the rolls will tend to outweigh the criticalness.


the problem I think is the psychology, will rolling a 20 still feel great if its fairly weak? This is probably why they are making crits give 'inspiration' The big deal becomes the ability to force advantage or disadvantage, which casters can use to weaken saves on most their spells.

but will a delayed use of inspiration create a great enough feeling on rolling a crit?