Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Suggestion - Larian, give us the option to go back to the old rules for Racial ASI and multiclassing

+1

It's doubly baffling that apparently one "hardcore-er" alteration was in fact made and Stealth is now a main action, finally, after being a cheesefest for so long. Wouldn't that take away the fun and the freedom, by that logic? Who needs rogues anyway?...

...though, now that you can multiclass without restrictions, you can have a paladin or barbarian 10(9) / rogue 2(3) or something regardless no matter your ability distribution, so I suppose that's a moot point.

I sincerely hope that a ~month-long window between announcing all of that and the release date is there to address at least some of the potential feedback that those alterations will have had received. Otherwise the EA stages and moments like "here come the gnomes, they are the smartest in the Realms, and so on" start to directly contradict the end product, so its evolutionary purpose indeed becomes questionable.

I agree. And I would also recommend that you submit this on Larian's feedback page as I have a feeling that they ignore the forums. Plus it would also show them that there are people who disagree with these changes.

I wish Larian had gone the DnD one route full out... couse now it feels like a mix of 5e and DnD one... and in DnD one while all races get a floating +2 / +1, its also complimented with a better rule for backgrounds...

So in DnD one, all races get a floating +2 / +1 to stats, all races also have certain traits that is seen to be more specifik to that race, in humans case you get inspiration after every long rest, a first level feat and a free skill of choice... every race has something but its actually fairly well balanced...

Backgrounds give skills, tools, languages and a first level feat... i like this set up alot as it give start characters alittle something and those first level feats while generally weaker then later feats still give you alittle something...

Half races in DnD one is handled difrently, their not really a specified race anymore, as you choose you parent races, and you take one of them that give you the technical bonuses, so if you has a Elf and human parent, you either choose human racials, or elven racials bonuses... then you can have any cosmetical features from the two races... this makes half races much more simpler and also feels more unique, you can be a gnome / orc, just pick the one race that gives you bonus, and cosmetics can be from either of the two races...

In anycase just my opinion, and we are going to have fun either way !

You forgot to mention that several sub-races were outright deleted by this proposal, with no recourse left as alternative.

I cannot, for example, play a Strongheart Halfling - doesn't exist in the new proposal at all - I either play a 'halfling' stat block, which is a lightfoot in terms of their racial abilities, and give up the poison resilience and other strongheart features... or I am forced to write dwaven lineage into my character (stronghearts and stout variants often had that old wives' tale attached but it was always rumour and folk tale, not factual) and be a straight up mechanical dwarf in its entirety, missing out on all other halfling features. There is no in between, in the new proposal, and no 'blending' of lineage at all; mixed lineages have actually just ceased to exist entirely, and they've just told you to cosmetically skin your character how you like - which was always an option between you and your DM anyway. This is, in fact, the opposite of "more unique".

The way pathfinder games handle it works much better for making actual mixed lineage characters - in that racial features have a weight, or a value, and there are some simple rules for picking and choosing between the various elements of a couple of different core lineages to determine exactly what blend your particular character is.

...

Out of curiosity, those in favour of the floating ability allocation, could you answer me a question or two?

I'd like to play a harengon ranger, but I'd like to play one that runs against type for their species... I've often heard folks telling me that I can play to or against type if I want, and just use the original attribute point placements... so.. where should I put my harengon's +2 and +1, to represent the norms of their species which they develop themselves against and in spite of?

Or, seeking to play my Owlin as an entirely to-type representation of the most common of their people, pulled out of that life and into adventure... where should I put their +2 and +1 one, if I wish to play them to type and show them to be the most normative example of their species. My Thir-kreen explorer? My Fairy musician? How shall I allocate them, if I'm playing to their species norms?

The most recent game that perfectly illustrates that too much choice actually ends being no choices at all because everything becomes the same is Age of Wonders 4. Every race can be everything, and at the end you end up an amalgamation of all options. Someone referred to too much choices as "the integer overflow of game design" which I think is beautiful.

If no choices matter, you in reality have no choices to make. It's differences and meaningful choices that makes anything interesting. I want races to be distinct. That's... that's what makes them interesting. Races being just "skins" for a character is exhaustingly boring. Half-races being removed as a distinct people is also really distasteful in my opinion.

Oh I created an account only to say that most people like AoW 4 design. I personally love it too. Especially that they are tweaking the reaserch costs so the players will not be able to turtle and reaserch for the whole game to make everything, so planning build will be more important, especially in MP. Anyway, cultures gives buffs and opportunities, and they cannot be researched.

If Larian will be able to keep races different one of each other and balanced, than it is fine. On the other hand I am worried that they will not and so "smaller" races (which are slower by default) or races which had 2+ and 2+ will be just overally weaker if they didn't get any other special powers/ feats etc. I am searching for info on YT about it, and there is no real comparison at all, so I am worried, that they only changed the main stats and that's all. That would be shame.

Yes Larian, please atleast make it an option to have ability score improvements like it is in players handbook. In other words, the default option that is NOT from Tashas. Human +1 to every ability score etc etc. Some of us, or should I say most of DnD players Id say. prefer the set ability score improvements.

Also please add an option for choosing a deity as Paladin. It needs one

+1 for a RAW option. I guess mods will be able to make the necessary changes but I'd love for Larian to make RAW options for all their homebrew stuff.

These changes were introduced in D&D 5e when Tasha's Cauldron of Everything was released in November of 2020. It's had 3 years of play-testing and the changes have been widely hailed as an improvement in D&D and adopted at most tables.

Half-Elves used to be an over-powered CHA race, now they aren't.

They trade weapon proficiencies and perception for the ability to grow facial hair.
Won't add to your power but you just sometimes want your elfin character to have a beard.


You can still raise your stats to 13 before you multi-class and only group with like-minded players.
When I'm recreating D&D characters that is exactly what I'll do.
Your solution at the end is having this as an option, it is still an option.

Not everyone wants the Tasha's cauldron additions in their 5e game - it is not core 5e, but something you can *elect* to use. BG3 was only ever referred to as a 5e game - and "the definitive 5e game" (or some such) at some point - not 5.5e, or DnD One or whatever the next iteration is (which I will be skipping). When I shelled out money, years ago, that was what I was expecting - not the 5e+/Larian hybrid we're seeing now.

If the game is designed around these changes/additions, even if a player tries to emulate the actual core 5e rules and experience, every other system in the game, including all the enemies you see, action economy etc, *will* use these changed systems. So you are forced to engage with them.

It's not even Tasha's Cauldron, it is a badly thought out homebrew. Tasha's still has Variant human. Half elf and Mountain dwarf still retain their stat bonuses as well.

Tasha's is a 5e rule-book.
It's not 5.5 or D&D One.
When you shelled out money years ago the website said based on 5e rules.
Tasha's are rules from 5e.

Variant Human is an optional character creation mechanic from the Player's Handbook.

And Tasha's Rules are completely optional as well. So why not implement them correctly?

Tasha's Cauldron is not a part of the core rules for 5E, it's an optional supplement. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anything related to Tasha's and sincerely hope we get an option to play with the core rules racial ASI.

Otherwise a mod will hopefully be quickly released.

Classic multiclassing? Get to second level in two classes simultaneously once you gain enough experience for third level like in first edition? Works for me.

Precisely what I first thought about when I saw the changes.

If it's all about choice and freedom, then how come about every "race" there ends up the same 2-3 end results, or people just play the "meta" combinations with whatever look they want to slap on them?

Not to mention that the cultures are still basically the old races. So the artisans are just dwarves, that can cross mountains and do geological surveys, as dwarves always did, but they can now wear the frog skin or whatever. It ends up being others cosplaying as dwarves, pretty much.

People have been clamoring for optional suplemental content since BG3 was announced:
Hexblade, SCAG cantrips, Tibaxi, Tortles.

This has nothing to do with it not being in the core rules.
You folks need to stop appealing to this imaginary line in the sand.

You simply don't like the change.
That's great feedback to give to Larian.

I fully support a toggle that switches between classic 5e attribute bonuses and using Larian's new floating ASI model. More options to play how we like is always good.

That said a lot of folks here and in the other threads about this are blatantly insulting everyone who likes the floating ASIs by calling them casuals/min maxers/saying they don't care about "proper world building" and it makes it reeeeeeeal hard to sympathize with y'all.

Also, I like Age of Wonders 4. It lets me make factions I want to play rather than just hoping one in the base game suits me.