Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I think I'm giving up on Larian

No one is forcing you to respec. Just because an option is available does not mean you have to use it.
If you don't like the start stats are the same for everyone, when you pick a race give that race the stats that they had before. Problem solved. You are not playing against others. No one is forcing you to make these choices.
Why is MORE choice bad?

If only it were that simple... but it's not. Shield Dwarves, Half-elves and humans lose stat points they had before, in case of humans they lose 3 stat points for example. Also you have to consider multiplayer where it's quite frankly not an option to simply "gimp" your character unless your playing with your friends.
The choice between the old racial ASI and the new ones is simply not given, so no... we don't have more choices, we have less.

We must run in very different circles. At a minimum, Hexblade made multiclassing a requirement for Paladins and Melee focused Bards and I don't think I've ever seen a pure Barbarian or Fighter past level 5ish.

I'm with you there, the current game I am the DM for, which is 5e, four of the five original characters were multi-class by level 7. We lost three players and had to replace, and the two new players are just one class. In the game I am currently a player in, my character is multiclass Rogue/Bard at level four, and I know two of the other players are already considering a dip in other classes for their next level. So I think multi-classing, or not, is very much a YMMV situation.

I play in two groups, one as a DM the other as a player. Nobody multiclasses in the group I DM for and I’m the only person who multiclasses in other group. In our last campaign everybody was shocked that I went with just pure wizard for the entire duration.

I think for most people subclasses are enough. You need to know the rules pretty well to multiclass effectively in 5E.

Do we actually know how MCing is going to change, spell wise? I don't particularly care how it ends up changing, but knowing is the important part. Then I can actually map out builds. :v) So far it mostly just seems to be a lot of assumptions based on the interview?

Yep, I think we’re still filling the information void with speculation! I agree this is something we really could do with some clarity on.

Because it trivialises the weight of the original choice.

E.g. consider marriage. If you knew you could only divorce for a massive cost would it change the way you pick a partner Vs. If divorce was instant, for free and a new partner selection was guaranteed? Would you also invest the same amount of time in either case?

Answer honestly

this is a video game

Full xorrect Tasha does not cause this. It retains the races that more than +2 +1. So maybe the correct route is to give feedback that implement Tashas correctly.

Yes.

And quite honestly, if you wouldnt, maybe you shouldnt get married in the first place.

So I will finally be able to specc Shadowheart out of that Trickery Domain, which absoluteley does not suit my playstyle? - Great

I can optimize the abilty scores of story characters, so I no longer have to choose between optimized mercenaries and story elements? - Amazing! Long overdue in CPRGs

I can just start a game without previously reading a Doctoral Thesis about character optimization to not end up with crappy character? - Awesome

Joke:
Why are divorces so expensive?


Because they're worth it.

+1 to all these points

Perfect answer. 😂

That's a pretty bad analogy, in fact, if you wanted to use such an example, not having a respec option would be more akin to not having the option to divorce your partner. Divorces are pretty common because people make mistakes and sometimes things turn out different than you thought they would, so if you're unhappy with your marriage, you get a divorce. It gets ridiculous when you put it like this, the people arguing against respec are people that are happily married, that don't want other couples to be able to divorce even if they're unhappy, and that apparently couldn't stop themselves from going for a divorce even when they claim they are happy in their marriage, just because that option exists.

Yikes.

If you don't want to respec your character, just don't do it, it is not a mechanic the game pushes you to interact with, if you can't prevent yourself from doing something you don't want to, that's a you problem.

To be fair, it's very hard to make a (single-classed) bad character in 5e. Pretty much the only two places where you can go wrong are:
- Choosing poor stats. BG3 should indicate what your important stats are though, and when in doubt boost your main score to 16, and Dex and Con to 14 or maybe 12.
- Choosing poor spells. Luckily, every level up you can choose new spells. Additionally, there are plenty of scrolls to use throughout the game.

One feature of 5e is that you don't make that many choices when leveling up. You essentially only choose your spells, your subclass at level 3, and your ASI/feats at levels 4, 8, and 12. D&D 5e doesn't really have the whole "there are so many options, but many of them are trap options resulting in your building an ineffective character" that earlier editions/pathfinder had.

I love that one of your very first choices is one of the easiest ways to ruin a character lol

It's simple in that it requires few clicks, but also very easy to avoid by learning a small amount about the system. And as I said, the game indicates which stat is most important. I'm rejecting the "reading a Doctoral Thesis about character optimization" point. If you're at all familiar with D&D games, or take maybe 5 minutes to google "which stats are important in 5e," then you'll be fine.

That said, BG3 needs to do a much better job with its tutorial - including on the character creation screen. You should be able to hover over/click each attribute to get a useful summary of each stat along with examples of what types of characters would want it. And lowering your Dex or Con below 12 should probably come with a warning "Dex is important for AC in characters that won't wear Heavy Armor, and Con is important for your HP. Are you sure you want to proceed with these stats?"

The analogy was about stating more choice being always better is not necessarily true.

Argument being if marriage was extremely easy to break the partner choice wouldn't be so important and the decision wouldn't matter as much.

In retrospect I think you can push the envelope of this analogy even further: if you have been married or/and committed in a relationship for a long time (e.g. 10/20 years) you will know that you have modified your behaviour somewhat (I don't believe in that case where you partner just take you 100% like you are and let you carry on without affecting your life, unless it is a goldfish).

You commit, you adapt, you try to make it work and you reap the reward in the end.

I see a parallel here: free or almost free respec would I think encourage a sense of laziness in carrying on with whatever playstyle routine until you stumble on the combination fitting your playstyle. Costly respec would force player adapting to the choice they made in order to make the most of it, ultimately making them hopefully discover new playstyle.

Imo one elegant way to solve this problem would be to jack up the respecing cost to 4-5k in tactician and scaling up with the level because, sure, nee players and non DND player will make mistake and will need a respec mechanism but advanced players picking harder difficulties should benefit from being challenged