Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Thrown Weapons and Extra Attack

Currently the only way to throw a Spear or Hand Axe is to use the Throw Action.

When martial classes get a second attack this will place Strength builds at a disadvantage if the Throw Action doesn't recognize that the character should be able to throw twice.
At 11th level a Strength based fighter should be able to throw 3 axes in one round just as a Dexterity based fighter would be able to shoot three arrows.

As we may not get to 5th level in Early Access I wanted to give the feedback that Strength based fighters should be able to throw as many weapons as a Dexterity based fighter of equal level can shoot arrows.

IF we get 11 levels it will be time to worry about it then and if Larian doesn't give you extra actions its very easy to mod that in

We are going to be getting level 11 at least, Norway, so welcome to 'time to worry about that'.
Since this is feedback to Larian 'Fix this glaring issue with mods later' is not really a helpful comment either.

Right now, in game, enemies with extra attacks literally just have whole extra independent actions which they can, in point, use for anything at all not just attacking. It will be pretty terrible if Larian does that for players, but we already know that they treat enemies with different rules anyway - enemy casters having more spell slots of various levels than a level 20 character could ever possibly have, and so on - so it's a finger cross at the moment to hope that this isn't a sign of what they intend to do for players. As yet though, we have no further information.

These are the sorts of things that they should be seeking community contact and feedback on during their EA, as with a number of things that come in at 5th level... but they've held off, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Some of the Githyanki have spells and they already have extra attack, so can they right now cast two spells in one term with their two actions?
If so that would indeed be a major problem for caster classes with extra attack (most notably valor bard), unless they decide not to give valor bards "extra action" but a different feature to prevent this abuse

If this is indeed an issue, I wonder why, since not just EA is getting developed and playtested, and that seems like one of the most obvious interactions to notice. I strongly hope we get level 5 soon, maybe even in this patch.

I really like the game, and could absolutely see it being a future classic, but honestly it seems like they need more time still. Some fundamental systems are still broken and unfinished (what worries me here is that it is not just stuff being held back, many of the old subclasses still have unfinished features (GOO warlock, the other pacts etc))

Honestly I would prefer it, if they took another year to make the game, though that probably is not possible with their monetary constraints

ExtraAttack works in game per 5e.
You get extra throw, melee or ranged attack.
It needed a small change so the blade cantrips worked correctly.

They may change current implementation as they add more stuff into the game but I'm confident it will be 5e compliant.

So far Larian has been implementing extra attack as extra full action - that’s what I worry they will do for full release and that would disasterous for casters. I doubt they will implement multi action as in written rules - the game just doesn’t seem set up for that. A simpler solution would be to add “1 spell per turn” rule to limit fireball spam.

Yeah, honestly the "only 1 leveled spell per turn" from 5e would fix most things.
You do need to be careful about the interaction with quicked spell (which btw has to have its cost reduced to 2 SP again) and also still about valor bards, although honestly their cantrips are so bad it probably does not really matter...

For the record, 5e's rule is that you can only cast cantrips with that turn if you cast any spell (even a cantrip) as a bonus action - it's a pointless and arbitrary rule that only reduces enjoyment, causes confusion and second guessing and serves no real purpose of balance to the game, since it is entirely unnecessary; I've literally never had it improve play, only ever had it cause dissatisfaction or confusion, and never had any issue with its exclusion.

What needs fixed, in 5e, is simply Quicken spell, which should have the bonus action restriction applied to it specifically, and leave everything else alone. (That, and one or two other very specific BA spells that have very particular breaks associated with them)

To be clear - in 5e itself, these two examples are both correct and fully accurate and legitimate, as per the 5e rules as they currently exist, and it's silly:

Counterspell is cast as a reaction, so you can cast it normally after casting shield of faith.
That is also why you can coutnerspell a counterspell (despite having obviously cast a different spell in the first place)

And fighter levels for action surge slow down your spell progression, that is a pretty high cost, and sure, for that, you can sometimes cast two spells, but you only have one action surge per short rest, so not reliably, and not always. It has pros and cons.

Allowing everybody to cast multiple leveled spells in a turn just buffs casters, and they already are stronger than martials in 5e.

From Sage Advice Nov 2020, page 15:
“Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.”

Agree! I am glad that BG3 is not following that rule!

Actually, you cannot do the former. Per 5e rules: If you cast a bonus action spell, "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 Action." Even though counterspell is a reaction, it still is a non-cantrip cast during the same turn.

Meteor Swarm (9th level action-cost spell) + Counterspell? Fine
Shield of Faith (1st level bonus action spell) + Counterspell? Against the rules.

There are two different casting situations:
1.) Being able to cast two *leveled, action-cost* spells during a turn
2.) Being able to cast two spells, one action-cost and one bonus action-cost, during a turn.

Obviously casters shouldn't be able to do the former without taking levels in fighter, which as you say has a high cost. (Related: potions of speed/haste in BG3 should not allow the casting of an additional spell.) But the latter? It's debatable how much power it really adds. The spells still use slots, and bonus action spells generally aren't too powerful, so it's arguably still balanced - slightly more burst at the cost of an additional lost spell slot.

HOWEVER, in BG3 there are effectively no rest restrictions, so casters don't have to worry as much about preserving slots throughout the Adventuring Day. This mitigates the "slot cost" of casting an additional BA spell each turn, making it more of a pure buff.

In BG3 you can also use healing potions as a BA (which I think is great). Being able to cast a BA healing spell in BG3 is similar to how potions work in BG3 in that you can still cast a spell with an action and either buy more potions or rest after a fight if you want. To me being able to choose to cast a BA spell gives my caster more class flavor and fun spells to do on my turn.

I also love being able to misty step and still cast a spell with an action! To me these are great changes that make the game much more fun to play.

I'm not posting for the good of my health; I'm posting to inform and to help share accurate information and correct misconceptions. You're free to take it or leave it, but what you're doing here is actually making the point and being a prime illustration of the fact that the BA spell rule only serves to cause confusion and misunderstanding while giving no real value for its stricture. You have shown that you don't actually understand the rule or how it works, but are very prepared to be 'confidently incorrect' about it; that's part of my point and thank you for showcasing it so perfectly - it's a bad rule.

The rule is:


It's a tiny by-line, buried deep within the spellcasting section, but it's very specific and clear, adding onto the simplified statements from MrFuji:

Level 9 action spell + level 8 reaction + level 8 action spell = Completely fine.
Level 1 bonus action spell + level 1 action spell = Not fine.
Level 1 bonus action spell + level 1 reaction spell = Not fine.

More ridiculous:

Bonus action level 1 spell + Action cantrip = Fine!
Bonus action cantrip + Action Level 1 spell = Not Fine!
Bonus action cantrip + Reaction Level 1 spell = Not Fine!
Bonus action cantrip + Bonus Action Reaction spell = Not Fine!

The examples were parallels that illustrate the ridiculousness of the rule - how it does not, in fact, do anything to even remotely affect legitimate power balance concerns, and only limits in seemingly arbitrary ways, when something as silly as 'doing it the other way around' circumvents the rule perfectly legally.

You can counterspell a counterspell directed at your own Action spell because they are all action spells, none of them are bonus action spells, and so they can all be cast on your turn without limitation.

If someone counterspells your Action Cure Wounds, you can counterspell their counterspell.
If someone counterspells you Bonus Action Healing Word, however, you're screwed: you've now cast a spell as a bonus action, and so you cannot counterspell the counterspell directed at you, because, as stated "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." - and it is the same turn still, and your counterspell is not a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.


Everyone can already cast multiple levelled spells on their turn in 5e perfectly legally - that's the point. The rule specifically only interacts with bonus action spells, and there are relatively few of them, the majority of them completely non game-breaking at all. There is one single serious break issue amongst bonus action spells - one spell, or spell combination, that would need to be tweaked for the sake of fairness; the rest break or unbalance nothing, no matter how you combine them. That one spell combination, alongside a rewrite for Quicken spell to incorporate the BA limitation - since that metamagic specifically deals with bonus actions, and is the main issue that people are afraid of (quicken to double cast various breakable action spell combos etc.) - is what is needed to be tweaked to make the whole situation clearer, cleaner and more player-friendly for understanding, while not upsetting balance or fairness.

==

This is quite off topic to the discussion of handling extra attack. I apologise for derailing.

You fine folks may wish to open a new thread if you wish to discuss spells.

However, currently the only way to throw a Spear or Hand Axe is to use the Throw Action.

When martial classes get a second attack this will place Strength builds at a disadvantage if the Throw Action doesn't recognize that the character should be able to throw twice.
At 11th level a Strength based fighter should be able to throw 3 axes in one round just as a Dexterity based fighter would be able to shoot three arrows.

As we may not get to 5th level in Early Access I wanted to give the feedback that Strength based fighters should be able to throw as many weapons as a Dexterity based fighter of equal level can shoot arrows.

+1 that all things that can replace an attack action (shove, throw weapon, grapple), and thus are affected by Extra Attack, should be implemented properly.

+more that certain things shouldn't be allowed (e.g., Extra Attack shouldn't give you a full extra action).

+
+100

The reason why discussion went to spells is that from what we can tell so far (speed spell, enemies) Larian seems to be implementing multiattack as an extra full action - so yeah, it is likely that you will be able to throw multiple times per turn. It is other abilities that are not originally meant to be used multiple times per turn that might be a problem.

I was wondering few times how could Larian implement extra attack corectly ...

And the best way so far seems to be:
When character (that have Extra attack, duh) use action for Attack, all actions that should be useable again, would be once (or twice on higher levels) useable for free to the end of the round.

The question is tho, how about Special Weapon attacks? O_o
I mean, if i remember it corectly for example ... Piercing Strike causes our targets to get additional damage ... Pomel Strike reduces their AC ... Backbreaker knocks our enemy prone ... Rush Attack is free movement ... etc.

All great stuff, and i love it, dont get me wrong ... its certainly more interesting than slash > slash > slash > slash > slash -_- as it often is with meele ...
I just wonder it it wouldnt be a bit too OP. O_o

So essentially what Solasta does. What would be a bit more troublesome is that BG3 uses hotbar rather then authored UI - as such you don't have guarante what skills players will have visible in all time and therefore communicating they can still make additional attack might not work equally well for all players. Something could be worked out - like weapon icons having visual distinction between having attack being available or completely spent.

I suspect it might contribute to the reasons why Larian gives extra full action for now - it's a clearer indication of gained additional attack opportunity.

I don't think they are going to by any less balanced then they already are - the biggest balancing act for now is that one can use them only once per short rest so assuming it won't change with higher levels they should become even more of a side dish to the main attack.

i mean look at speed potion does that add only extra melee attack nop it doesn't but maybe they will change it somehow... the game still plays and people like it.:))

You can have 3 bonus action as well so not sure what to tell you. Larian wants more action economy even with all the changes we are no where close what DoS 2 succces did with AP, so they need to try to get close to that. In video games there is no need to limit actions as much, everything is done automatically and the game plays a lot faster then table top.

I think that much is clear by now no? all the bonus action items??? The buffs to all the actions like shove and hide... Larian is brining magic back into magic classes...
So yeah op i woudn't worry if anything you going throw more axes then you ever could in DnD...