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

So you're saying Chimpanzee's should all have a +2 to strength?

Game balance isn't a roleplaying concern. And talking about bad player behavior isn't a good reason to change the rules.

Yes, upbringing and personal direction IS the dominant factor, of course it is - no-one has, at any point, suggested otherwise. It's not the only factor, however, and you're mapping the distinction onto something real-world, which is part of the problem here. We are not talking about different phenotypes of what is functionally the same species of creature (as we are when we talk about race in humans) - we're talking about literally physically and biologically different entire species of creatures.

Cheetahs, by general propensity are capable of running faster than wolves in a sprint. Wolves, by general propensity, have more stamina and can run at their full chase speed for far longer than cheetahs. There will be outliers, but there is a tangible, very real biological difference here that is reflected when comparing their two distinct species of creature. Corvids have the awareness, information retention, detail processing and logic capability to solve complex spatial manipulation problems. Ostriches do not. Culture, training and individual self direction certainly have defining impact on a character, but they do not magically remove these baseline differences of biology.


I suspect you're not addressing this part to me, since it's the exact opposite of what I wrote... from my perspective, as I mentioned, one of the Most important parts of ALL of this is that an exceptional creature's individual potential is not controlled or capped by their race - that a character that focuses on being the best they can be in a discipline or area of expertise can literally become the best it is possible to be at that, regardless of where they started and what race of creature they might be. That's a very large part of the point; people are different, and that's good - despite our differences, which are things we should celebrate and cherish the uniqueness of, anyone who puts their mind to it can reach the same upper maximum of ability as anyone else, no matter how they were born or where they came from and that's also good. That is as it should be, and should remain so.

==

Our player characters are exceptional individuals, yes, but the ability scores are not there to represent the entire spectrum of all possible things that could ever happen to a creature. If we were to account for everything that could possibly happen, as well as every possible condition, abnormality, malady or prodigy that could be considered - and for any creature - then we would be required to throw out the entire character creation rule structure wholesale. You would have to choose to be any size between tiny and gargantuan, choose any speed between 0 and 500, and in any combination of flying, swimming, burrowing and walking, you would choose any lifespan between 1 and 5000, any height between 1 inch and 30 feet... any number of limb between 0 and 100... and even those limitations would not be enough, because all of these things are possible if we consider magical maladies, enchanted potions, divine diseases, demonic boons, planar influence and all of the other wild and fantastical things that occur in the realms.

In the video, it was mentioned that humans can now choose to be medium or small "because there are of course people of small stature in the world"... and this is a ridiculous move; writing selection rules into your system because "you might have a form of dwarfism" is beyond the pale for bad design. Yes, you might! And that's something you should discuss with your DM if you want to play a character that is unusual in that way. The rule structure cannot account for that, because if you do, you have to have it account for that for everyone, and you have to have it account for other similar things for everyone too - so, in order for that decision to make sense, you need to be able to pick large as well, because you might have a form of giantism... and they also need to not say that 'humans' are, mystically the Only species of creature that might have this; can elves not be of small statue in the same way humans can? Can orcs not? If humans can, then of course they can... but that's not being accounted for and it just ends up looking tokenary, as well as being mechanically othering, which is not good. ((And, because I just know someone will pick at this - I'm speaking here as a woman who is 134cm tall; in some places in the world, I'm small enough to be formally classified as a person of small stature; I can shop in the kids section of department stores. I'd still be a medium-sized creature; halflings and gnomes are much smaller than me.))

Ability score propensities are not about what is absolutely possible - as with height and weight they are about mapping the defining characteristics of your species within general bounds. The height brackets are not saying "Literally every halfling in existence is between these two height brackets". They are saying "the vast majority of halflings under normal circumstances fall into this scale"; you only need to read the language used in the books to understand that.

When you talk about "what if, in my background I was experimented on, or had this condition, or interacted with this archfey" etc., that's great - it's also Background; it doesn't change or obliterate the biology you were born with, it just adds to it (unless it does actually change your base biology in some significant way, and you're not actually a halfling any more; if you're playing something that extreme in your background, then you're playing a customised race already, and that's something you should be talking to your DM about; Customising is cool, but the rules themselves cannot ever account for the full spectrum of player creativity in customisation, and can't reasonably try without becoming devoid of meaning entirely)... More importantly - That Is What allocating Your Ability Scores Is. That thing that we do, when we've rolled our ability scores and are deciding where to put them? That's a background and roleplay decision. Allocating our ability scores is the representation of one part of our background. Racial bonuses are independent of that. If our character has brain damage, that's represented by us putting that 5 that we rolled into INT. If our character spent most of her young life running from guards and having to weave in and out of cramped city-scapes constantly just to survive, and is really pretty exceptional at slipping into and out of situations with agility and precision we are representing that when we put that 16 we rolled into Dexterity.

Cheetahs can run faster than wolves - this is to say that due to their pronounced differences in physical biology, a cheetah and a wolf with the same upbringing, opportunities, lifestyles and training will run at different speeds. There is nothing wrong with this; this is not a bad thing to say or acknowledge. It is not offensive or discriminatory or 'racist against wolves' in any way. If both of these creatures train and practice to the point that their abilities reach limits that begin to surpass mortal bounds and push them into demigod status, then those base physical propensities will functionally disappear in the face of how overwhelming both of their abilities actually are... but one will need to work a little harder to get to that point.

Maybe the cheetah has led a slovenly lifestyle, been pampered by comfort and luxury, and only really gets out for a run once every few days when he feels like he needs enrichment... maybe the wolf always aspired to be a track racer, and has trained to do that for years. That wolf will naturally be faster in a sprint than that cheetah - because that cheetah will not allocate their highest scores to their speed, while the wolf probably will - the cheetah still has a better natural propensity for speed, but the lifestyle choices of the two have overcome that base disparity; that absolutely does not mean that the cheetah is not a cheetah and does not have certain natural biological features any more - if the wolf had led as lazy a life as it had, they'd both be poor sprinters... but all other things being equal, the cheetah would retain a slight edge due to their native biology being suited to the task, and would win more often than not in that circumstance.

==

To the idea of different, racially dictated, ability caps - absolutely not. That is the very last thing that we need under any circumstance, and is a return to the exact thing that the twitter crowd is (falsely and in ignorance) accusing the current system of doing - limiting people's capabilities by their race. Absolutely not. Remember that in this system, a 20 is brushing on the limits of mortal bounds and beginning to tread the path of demigod status. We're not talking about Olympic athletes here (who are, in a conversion of this system, around about 16s in their chosen fields - do not underestimate the scale of the bracket or what our heroes are supposed to be capable of); the scale is larger than that, and edges onto things that are mortally impossible. If you are a being with a skill that is at that extreme degree of capability, the magnitude of it is not going to be affected by what mortal race you were born as; the halfling demigod of drink and brawling is not going to lose an arm wrestle with the orcish demigod of rock-punching because he is a halfling - they are both supreme representations of strength, at that point.

This matters, because it is important to acknowledge that different peoples are different, especially when talking of literal different species of creature entirely, and having racial bonuses is one important element of doing that that nevertheless does not actually create a hard limitation by race.

Who we are is, to use older terminology, contributed to by both nature and nurture elements; there are factors of who we are born as that we do not choose or control, and there are factors that we do have a say in, or that affect us outside of base biology. Both of these contribute and are important, but Neither limit our ultimate potential.

Our backgrounds are the nurture side of the equation of who we are; moving things like weapon proficiency, skill training, and other cultural and non-biological elements into Backgrounds is a Good move, because that's what that is supposed to be about. How we allocate our ability scores as per our rolls, or as we buy them with point buy, etc., is a part of this, and it is the greater part of determining out exceptional character's actual ability score spread.

The nature part of that equation are the things that our character did not choose; the biological elements of their birthright and lineage, the species of creature that they literally are, and so on. This covers natural features, opposite the aforementioned social and cultural training, and it covers racial physicality and native propensities (these are the racial ability score bonuses), opposite the aforementioned choices they personally made about their life. All of these elements matter in their own way and contribute towards making the unique people that our characters are.

Here's an exchange, as a thought piece:

In the context of Baldur's Gate 3, the "reroll button" will obviate any concerns that I have about stat bonuses altogether.

My reason is: a world with different races (species) that have similar stats is boring. It's more interesting to have races with vastly different characteristics than it is to have races that are essentially slightly-different humans. Which, sure, is my personal opinion.

I'm certainly not saying "realism has nothing to do with it." Fantasy or "it being a game" doesn't mean you can or should just throw out all logic; you need a baseline of logic/realism to make the fantastic actually stand out. Unless there is something else hidden at play, a race that is characterized by their strength & muscles (Orcs) should be stronger. A race that is shorter and doesn't visibly have more muscles than humans (halfling, gnomes) should be weaker. Dwarves, with their squatter and thicker bodies, should be hardier. Etc.

1.) It is more flexible, but at the cost of races being less distinct.
2.) The DM could always allow different ASIs, but now there is no default racial type to play against. This puts more work on the DM to create and explain their world (the DM already has to do way too much work in 5e) and makes players less certain of what [race X] will be like in any game world when creating characters.
3.) Sure, probably true.

Edit: For the record, I don't want ASIs to be entirely racial. I'd favor a system where you got +1 or +2 ASIs from your race, +1 or +2 ASIs from your background, and maybe +1 ASI from your class. Nature and Nurture please.

Edit 2: Currently, point buy/rolling for stats gives ~75 points of ability scores, which is entirely player determined and meant to reflect nurture and your character's deviation from the norm. If all bonus ASIs are for (player-made, per One D&D RAW) backgrounds=nurture, then this is essentially just giving players 3 more free-floating ability score points. At this point, why not just increase the points given with Point Buy and/or use something like 5d6 drop lowest 2 for rolling?

So they released details on the new Bard, Ranger, and Rogue, classified as 'Expert Classes', along with a big list of feats and spell lists.

https://media.dndbeyond.com/compend...x0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf

I haven't read through much of it yet, but College of Lore arguably received a significant nerf in that they don't get early Magical Secrets anymore. They instead get the ability to allow people to reroll Bardic Inspiration die. Song of Rest also appears to have been replaced by the ability to allow Bards to expend Bardic Inspiration die to heal party members as a reaction, and Bards seem to always have certain healing spells prepared now.

Sharpshooter feat lost its -5 attack/+10 damage effect, trading it for the ability to cancel disadvantage when firing at close or extreme far range instead. I also don't see Archery fighting style anymore. I don't remember the Inspiring Leader feat being there before, it seems like the replacement for Song of Rest.

I noticed the ruled give Inspiration for rolling a 1 on d20 tests. That just seems a bit much. Natural 1s are supposed to hurt, not give you automatic advantage for the next time.

They have no idea what to do with inspiration, so they're throwing it everywhere hoping that something will reveal itself at the table. Getting inspiration on a 1 is still uninteresting to me, but it's infinitely better than getting inspiration on a natural 20, especially in a world where a natural 20 is an 'auto-success' for everything.

Eh, please correct me if I've missed something but why would you use an inspiration on a 20?

Boost a d20 Test.
When another creature within 60 feet of you that you can see or hear fails a d20 Test, you can use your Reaction to give the creature a Bardic Inspiration die. The creature rolls that die and adds the number rolled to the d20, potentially turning the failure into a success.

So...you should only use the inspiration if you've failed and since a 20 is an automatic win...

I'm lost, what am I not following?

You're were being given inspiration for rolling a 20, they've changed it up so you're given inspiration upon rolling a 1. It's not Bardic inspiration, it's the GM fiat 'gain advantage on a roll' inspiration

I get the impression not a lot of people ever played with it.

There is a major problem with them changing a lot of these features to being reactive on failure... Here's an example of why:


(Character to NPC): "I'm glad that you've decided to help us with this information after all, Folks will be glad of your timely support!"
(NPC to Character): "Of course. After everything, it does seem like the right time to throw my lot in with the resistance after all. When the time comes, you can count on us."

(Player to DM): "So, I'm still cautious, I've been trying to get a feel for where she stands here - can I get a read on how sincere she's being here? Is she really with us?"
(DM to Player): "Sure, give me an insight check."
(Player to DM): "That's.... an 18."
(Dm, nodding): "Sure... so, she's a skilled diplomat, and plays the house game quite well, you know that, and she doesn't often give a lot away, but near as you can tell she seems pretty sincere in this. You don't notice any signs that she's trying to play you"

(OneBard, interjecting): "So, I'd like to use bardic inspiration if they failed that check; is the condition for my reaction met?"

(Dm, frowning): "Err..."

If the DM says that no, the condition for the reaction's trigger is not met at this time... then they *know* that the noble is being sincere, and the *know* that that check was passed. If the DM says that it IS met, then the check is *completely Superfluous*, because they *know* that the check failed, and thus they know that all is not as it seems - the discovering of which was the entire purpose of the check.

Sometimes, it's not clear how well or how poorly you went with a check, and the characters don't know this - giving a reaction ability that is contingently timed on a character failing a check, specifically, creates an innate meta-gaming situation that is actually hard to avoid - you WANT to help your friend succeed, but your ability requires you to ask your DM whether they failed or succeeded, even in cases where you aren't meant to know for certain, and obliges the Dm to reveal that fact when they're not meant to.

In the current situation, the bard can give the speaker inspiration, and they can use it if they choose - the player is deciding how the bard's inspiration motivates and drives them, and what they do with that bolstering of their morale; they may not know whether they've succeeded or failed, but the bard can still help them. In the new document, the bard either cannot help them in this situation, OR helping them completely negates and breaks the game system anyway.

I'm also not fond of bard being Forced into being a healer, no matter what type of bard you are or choose to be... or with the loss of access to spells like dimension door, tiny hut, bestow curse heroes feast or magnificent mansion)

Or with them characterising bards as polymaths.. and then restricting them to four spells schools in one spell list, and reducing their magical secrets so that, for their entire 1-20 career,they will never have access to more than two spells that aren't of that narrow, four school, arcane only, spell set... and those two picks will ultimately be counterspell and wish, 99% of the time, for 99% of bards.

Or that you don't get to pick and choose spells of your choice for having ready - you can't choose 22 spells of your choice.. you must specifically choose 4 1sts, 3 2nds, 3 3rds, 3 4ths, 3 5ths, 2 6ths, 2 7ths, 1 8th and 1 9th... if you, as an 18th level caster, want to have, for example, charm monster, dimension door, polymorph and greater invisibility prepared (which is pretty classic bard utility kit)... you Literally Can't in this new document. Similarly, if there isn't a second 7th level spell that you want right now, or there aren't 3 2nds that you're interested in... tough, you've got to pick some.

Bard is more restricted now than it's ever been, in this new document... but the same looks like it's going to be true for all classes in this first round of tests, so it may be best to look at this as a starting block.

Ah. Now I follow. Thank you

So far, I'm 100% tuned out to One D&D. They seem to be ruining the game to me with the newer rules. I just don't care for it so far.

Like half races. The concept is good to be able to have half dwarf half gnome or whatever, but the mechanics are terrible. You need to create a mechanical blend, not make elves with gnome paint jobs or dwarves with halfling skins.

Then Nat 20 succeeds no matter attack or whatever and no Crits for enemies and so forth. Yeah. I don't know who's at the wheel, but no thanks. I'd rather stick with 5e, thanks.

Same for me, I'll either stick with 5e or even return to AD&D 2nd edition. The One D&D stuff feels really crappy so far.

I mean, it could be they're just testing the waters, but so far not liking the direction.

Ironically, I've done a lot of Larian homebrew criticism, but I'd rather have Larian homebrew 5e rules than what they're doing so far with One D&D.

One D&D doesn't seem to have much regard for the DM's control over information to the players, sometimes part of the fun is not knowing absolutely what a roll means. Giving the player more ways to game the system is just making it less of a roleplaying game, and taking more tools away from the guy who is doing the lion's share of the storytelling.

They also seem to be making everyone a spellcaster. Even a little work on the presentation would make it more palatable (maybe it's just the playtest). I guess every class ability can be treated like a spell, but I've always thought that if your martial characters' abilities are just a spell with different flavor added to hide that fact, it was pretty lame and not really what I want from a fighter-type.
That includes things like superiority die, but just giving the ranger Hunters Mark or Conjure Barrage is like having Rogues all get Sense Vitals at level 1.

A big detail of this playtesting process is that they're trying multiple variations and asking for feedback. For example, you'll be happy to know that the most recent playtest packet is back to using 5e PHB rules for Nat 20s and crits.

Imo there's a lot of good ideas, a lot of neutral ideas, and a lot of bad ideas in the playtest material. Some of changes to Bard (healing on reaction, PB inspiration per long rest until level 7, restricted spells prepared) are pretty bad. Giving Expertise to Rangers is good, but Rogues got shafted as they don't get extra expertise to power them up; they actually lost power because they can no longer sneak attack on others' turns. TWF finally got a much needed buff as off-hand attacks no longer requires your bonus action.

Imo, in general WotC is relying too much on abilities that have PB uses/long rest and giving everyone spells instead of unique abilities. They say they want to discourage single level multiclass dips, but by making so many abilities PB uses/LR they actually are encouraging dips.

There are some things I like about One DnD, like moving stat bonuses from races to backgrounds. It opens up a lot of interesting RP possibilities and moves away from generalizing all members of a race as being some kind of eugenics-based stereotype. It's not the 1930s anymore, fantasy worldbuilders. But I'm not keen about what they are doing with Inspiration. It should really be just a Bard thing. I don't want all the players to be frequently using Inspirations and gaining them back again or passing them around. In a game that has a lot of mental load, Inspiration often feels superfluous and cheesy.

Sidebar:

I feel like the Bard's reaction Inspiration is going to work like this:

DM: The door is locked.

Rogue: I'm going to pick it. *rolls a 8*

DM: This is a surprisingly intricate lock, you're not picking it.

Bard: I'm going to whisper something inspiring in the rogue's ear as they pick the lock. You got this buddy! *rolls a 6 to add to the rogue's 8*

DM: Your roll is now 14, and you've succeeded in picking the lock.

It seems to me that a good fix for the problem that Niara outlined for inspiration would be to rule that in cases where success/failure should be ambiguous that the bard can opt to use inspiration after seeing the D20 result, but before the situation is resolved by the DM.

Why do I get a flashback of the infamous Swordfish "hacking under pressure" scene here? :P

Which is the way it currently works right now for the player who has an inspiration die, incidentally.