The point of this thread is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the various classes based on D&D 5e and how they are meant to interact with one another as a team - because D&D is a team-based game. It's not meant to be played solo.

Let's start with Cleric.

Basic Cleric is meant to be a Tank, Buffer and Healer. Usually able to wear heavy armor and wield shields, they standardly start with AC 18 - this with chain mail and shield or scale mail, Dex +2 and shield. So, even at level 1, they are hard to hit. This is so that they can focus on buffing spells and healing even if enemies are surrounding them. They are the best healers in the game with lots more healing prowess than any other class, and clerics are one of the only classes that can revivify and raise dead. Yes, no one else in EA so far should be able to do these things. Only Cleric, Paladin and Artificer can use Revivify, and only Cleric Paladin and Bard can Raise Dead.

What's bad about clerics? What balances them out? Weapon proficiency sucks. It's not the worst, but it is rather limited. They also don't usually get multiple attacks even at higher levels, not like fighters, paladins and rangers. Their spells can be powerful, but even they are not standardly area effect fireball-like powers. Basically, they aren't meant to really be damage dealers. They are meant to be Tanks, Healers and Buffers, and they are vital to survival since they are one of the few who can put you back into the fight even if you die. No cleric usually means no resurrection, and you have to make do with lots of potions and such to stay alive. Oh, and they typically suck at stealth (Trickery Domain being an exception.)

Clerics are also limited by spell slots, and unlike wizards, they don't even get an ability to let them recover spell slots during short rest. This is made up for, though, by providing them with Channel Divinity which allows them to use a special power or two which IS recharged by a short rest. This is often the power to turn undead, destroy them or depending on the domain, the ability to heal a bit more or Invoke Duplicity or Cloak of Shadows or Destructive Wrath.

How are clerics, therefore, nerfed in BG3? Potions galore that can be used as Bonus actions which is more effective than cleric spells. They can also be thrown to heal others, so even Healing Word is made virtually worthless because of potions. Anyone can use Revivify scrolls. Anyone can use cleric scrolls to cast their spells and buff others (last I checked anyway). Anyone can boost their AC with height, making them tanks, and since stealth is so broken, clerics are even more lame because they can't effectively use one of the biggest gimmicks in the game. So, they wind up being one of the most useless classes in BG3 because lots of other things replace the things that make them most valuable. The only real thing that sets them apart in BG3 is their Channel Divinity. That's pretty much all they are good for.

I don't have time now, but I'll follow up with more of an in depth on each Domain for Cleric; their pluses and minuses in 5e and how they differ in BG3.

I am going to have to disagree slightly in the fact that I find a Life Domain Cleric VERY useful, they are such, because when they heal they do bonus healing which means I have to use potions less often and of course their channel divinity can sway a battle from near doom to success, but yeah I find the other domains kind of Meh in BG3

Throwing potions is the biggest travesty imo. I mean, if they want to come up with a holy healing grenade fine... but keep potions as potions.

Of the 3 domains currently provided only 1 can use heavy armor, and of the 7 in the PHB only 4 can, so just over half. Your assignation of the "tank" role to cleric is just that, your assignation. They certainly CAN be played that way but by no means is it "meant to." Trickery domain clerics are closer to rogues and Light are closer to mages. If you do want to infer what is intended however, you can simply follow the PHB suggestion that wisdom then charisma are the primary attributes for a cleric and then utilize the standard array. You won't have a cleric with a +2 DEX modifier in most cases though. Also, as you want to lean on starting equipment to infer intent, then clerics are meant to value STR over DEX as well based on their starting weapons.

All that said... classes, in general, are nerfed of their individual specialties by Larian's implementation of the game world. It is pretty clear from their previous games they dislike class based systems and they are making every effort to eliminate class from this one too.

That said, the ability to inscribe their holy symbol on their shield combined with the starting proficiency in medium armor means that most clerics (Dex +1 or +2) will have level-one ACs of 16-18, which is still not bad. At least partially a tank. Especially in BG3 which I imagine, even in Full Release, won't care about free hands for spellcasting.

This is the point where this topic lost any seriousness it could potentialy achieve ...

Look i know you think that you are experienced Dungeon Master ...
But even if that would be true ... that dont make your reading of rules pure gold. :-./

If i may suggest something here ...
This topic would be much better as some kind of "builds i would like to play, but game makes them uneffective" than "is meant to be". .:-/
An if i may not ... well feel free to simply ignore me.

Wow. Ever here of generalization, guys? My first post is generalizing what the role of a cleric is from a broad standpoint. I said I'd go into the domains later. Of course there are variations. Domains create a variety of cleric types.

Note the main point. Most standard/general cleric abilities are made meaningless in BG3 by items and a lack of limitations and restrictions on other classes. The point is, if you don't stick more to the 5e rules, you undermine the importance of various classes. I'm trying to point out just how undermined the cleric class is in general.

Why am I doing this? Because if they aren't implementing classes well now, giving them true meaning and purpose, there are a TON more that are going to be a huge waste of time.

Here are the Cleric Domains. If they can't give true value to the ones they have in game, then how will these be valuable at all?:

Arcana
Ambition
City
Death
Forge
Grave
Knowledge
Life - in game
Light - in game
Nature
Order
Protection
Solidarity
Strength
Tempest
Trickery - in game
War
Zeal
Blood

Not to mention:
Twilight
Unity
Order
Peace

I will say that the cleric in my tabletop game dishes out Lesser Restoration pretty often but I’ve never needed to use it in BG3. Is anyone getting any mileage out of it?

Not a single use because they aren't doing diseases, blindness, deafness, paralysis or poison as conditions.

the one playthrough I could have used it on I did not have it prepared and that is: I was left partially blind (which had the effect of not having disadvantage on a certain check I think and inability to crit)... yeah I could have gone to camp switched out spells and taken care of it (or at least tried... not sure if lesser would have done the job... that might require greater), but I had done everything else you can do in early access, so there was little point...

Well, since so far we only know that Player's Handbook subclasses will be added ...
Shouldnt that list be a little shorter?

Namely:

//Edit:
Oh yes ...
You can help Pandirna with her legs problem ...
You can help that gnome in Myconid village (she dont have entry on wiki ... and i dont remember her name) ...
And i believe it can become quite usefull in fight against spectator.
And acording to this topic on reddit ... it sounds like usefull spell against Hag aswell.

I didn't have the PHB in front of me. Just listed the ones in the app I use. The app has every class, race, subrace, subclass, background, etc. even from other sources. Makes character creation a breeze and quite diverse... Lots of options to choose from.

You know, half the time I'm writing these posts, it's on my phone, on the go... And often I'm just going based on memory, so it's hard to always be super technical and exact... Trying to remember what's actual 5e and what isn't.

Cut me some slack. Sheesh.

If the app in question is DnD beyond, then it's all legal 5e content. Otherwise, there are online resources you can use to look things up, though technically if they aren't affiliated with WOtC or DnD beyond they are infringing the game license if they contain non-srd content.

It's a shame they only plan on doing PHB classes, I hold out hope they will do more after launch.

Me neither ...
You wouldnt probably believe it ... but i was siting in my dentist waiting room, writing it on my phone ... and this was my source: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/cleric

Also i didnt mean it as any demand ...
Just poiting out wich are certainly relevant for this game ... nobody knows if Larian will implement any other.
(In my honest opinion, most Cleric Subclasses sustain from different Channel Divinity spell ... everything else should be allready there.)

OK. First 3 domains will be the ones in BG3:

Life, Light, and Trickery

Life - BG3 actually has implemented this one well in terms of there is no difference between Tabletop and cRPG. The Life Domain is the Classic Cleric Domain, where you are the Tank, Healer, Buffer. So, I won't go into too much detail on this because I've already mentioned how BG3 kinda strips this Domain of its effectiveness. Yes, Disciple of Life does add a little extra boost to Healing Spells, and they will become more effective with higher level spell slots, but overall it's still not much more effective than potions that can be thrown across the board at allies. Think about it. The very basic Healing Potion provides 2d4+2 healing. That's 4-10 HP restored with a single potion. Cure Wounds is 1d8+Spellcaster Modifier. So, typically something like 5-12. With Life Domain, that's 7-14. So some buff but not much.

The real homebrew that makes this more effective in BG3 is that you can cast multiple spells in the same turn. So, in D&D 5e, you aren't supposed to be able to cast a Level 1 or higher spell and then cast a Bonus action spell as well. Meaning, in 5e, you are restricted from casting Cure Wounds AND Healing Word in the same round. You can cast a Cantrip as an Action and then a Bonus action like Healing Word, but you can't cast a Level 1 or higher spell as an Action and then Healing Word. So, Larian has offset the Healer Cleric nerf by allowing spellcasters to cast both a Level 1 or higher spell like Cure Wounds AND a Bonus spell like Healing Word in the same round. This does make the Healer Cleric more effective because they can heal 7-14 HP with Cure Wounds and then 7-10 HP using Healing Word. That IS much more effective than a single, basic potion.

Well then. What's the problem? The problem is that by allowing such a rule, now ALL spellcasters can cast Level 1 or higher spells AND Bonus action spells in the same turn. Why is that a problem? Wizard, Level 5 has Level 3 spells. He can now cast Fireball and blast an entire group of enemies doing 8d6 damage, even at point blank with enemies all around him. Then he can Misty Step as a Bonus action to get away and run an additional 30 feet to get even further away. Thus, the wizard is now OP. What once limited the wizard in that he had to choose between either using Misty Step or Fireball, he is now no longer limited in this way. He can do both.

What will this mean for later in the game? Imagine you are facing an enemy wizard at level 5 or higher. You win initiative and run up to him to try to prevent him from casting Fireball on your party. Only your fighter won initiative, so only your fighter gets up close. In RAW 5e, the wizard would likely Disengage and retreat, or use Misty Step and retreat, rather than cast Fireball because there's a good chance that if he doesn't that fighter is going to beat the living tar out of him on the next turn. Action Surge plus 2 Attacks already at Level 5 plus Menacing Attack or some other maneuver. Yeah. Wizard could die in a single round from a fighter moving into close range like that. So the AI would likely have the enemy wizard retreat, like he should, allowing his meat shields to rush in and keep the fighter at bay. This allows other characters, like your cleric, to do things like cast Silence, etc. to try to keep the wizard from hurling powerful spells at you and your party.

So, allowing Bonus + Level 1 or higher Action spells unbalances the entire system, and it's going to be a serious problem for later in the game. What this means is that either Larian has to go back to RAW 5e, and limit spellcasters to Cantrips + Bonus, and thus make clerics not as effective as Healers (barely better than potions), or they'll have to come up with another solution to try to prevent wizards and other spellcasters from becoming too OP. OR... which is entirely possible, they can just not do anything about it, and what you're going to have are super OP wizards teleporting everywhere on the map AND hurling high damage spells - which, to me, will be VERY frustrating. Imagine the Phase Spider Matriarch as a Level 5 or higher mage. Misty Step 30 feet away from enemies. Hurls Fireball. Boom! Party loses half their health. Party tries to Dash to the wizard. He Misty Steps again on round 2 and Fireballs or Lightning Bolts your party. Ugh! Forget Fighters. They'll never be effective against such an enemy, especially if they Misty Step to high ground for +2 AC AND they have Mage Armor enabled AND they use Blur or Mirror Image.

As far as scrolls go, I have heard that Larian does plan to eventually restrict scrolls to proper classes. This WILL make clerics more valuable than current. As it stands, because anyone can cast Revivify and Raise Dead and use any cleric scroll, no cleric is necessary. Between scrolls and potions and magic items, you can do everything a cleric can do as a Rogue, Warlock, Wizard, Fighter, etc. You can even Speak with Dead using the amulet (which is a Bard/Cleric spell only) and cast Bless with the staff you find in the Arcane Tower. I mean, there's pretty much nothing special about the cleric when you start adding all the weapons and items into the game.

So, my recommendation is to restrict the spells like 5e says to so wizards can't use Bonus Actions and Action Spells in the same round, and so Clerics can't cast both Cure Wounds and Healing Word in the same round. Restrict scrolls so only those classes that can cast Revivify and Raise Dead can actually cast them. Stop allowing throwing potions and limit it to using potions ONLY at melee range with your ally - meaning you have to get up close to Use Potion on a friend. This makes it so the Healing Word is MUCH more important and valuable, being able to heal someone 7-10 HP from a distance. Limit how many potions you can acquire as loot, forcing players to purchase more potions if they need them. Thus, adding value to the cleric healer. After all, if you have a cleric healer, you won't have to spend as much money on buying healing potions because THEY are more of a healer to you than potions. Certainly make it so players can purchase a ton of potions, but the point of this is to limit parties without healers so that they aren't AS capable of buying better weapons and armor because they have to focus some of their resources on buying healing potions. If you don't have a healer, you have to pay the price. This vastly increases the value of Shadowheart as a member of the party, or any other healer that you might make.

As for the items and weapons that provide cleric spells to anyone - like the Amulet of Voices which provides Speak with Dead to anyone who wears it, or the Bless Staff of Mystra (can't remember it's name) - I don't think they need to be removed or nerfed. Having an item or two that provides anyone with such abilities is fine as long as it's not overdone. Speak with Dead amulet is a good story item that would be a shame to remove from the game or nerf it so that only clerics or bards could use it. Weapons like these are okay and don't terribly offset the balance and are fun to have in the game, in my opinion. But, again, as long as they aren't overdoing it and providing a weapon or item that pretty much devalues all or most of the cleric's (or any class's) abilities that make them special. The problem I have currently with the items is that a LOT of them are negating the special-ness of the classes. I'm not suggesting they remove the items, but I am suggesting that they maybe tame them down a bit - spread them out so you don't find them so frequently.

Disagree with this!!!!! I love being able to cast misty step + a damage spell or a healing spell + a damage spell.

Light - Mostly implemented the same as Tabletop. The main difference between Tabletop and BG3's Light Cleric is that Tabletop provides a limit on Warding Flare. In Tabletop, Warding Flare can only be done once per Wisdom Modifier (minimum 1) per long rest. So, if you have Wisdom 14 (+2), you can use Warding Flare 2 times a day. This prevents a major spamming of Warding Flare.

BG3 allows unlimited Warding Flare, at least according to the Character Creation screen. I haven't actually tried to use it, but I didn't see anything in the character creation screen that limited this ability. What Warding Flare does, in both TT and BG3 is it allows the Light Cleric to use a Reaction to impose Disadvantage upon an enemy that is attacking them within 30 feet of them. Without limitations, this ability makes the Light Cleric exceptionally hard to hit on a regular basis. They can use their Reaction to always hinder at least one enemy per round with Disadvantage. Now, this said, like I said, I never tested it. Maybe Larian does have something in place to limit this, and if they do, that's great, but if not, that's a bit too OP, in my opinion.

One of the main purposes, typically, of the Light Cleric is that they are Tanks and powerful spell damage dealers. Channel Divinity: Radiance of the Dawn, at level 2, provides them with the ability to use an Action and dispel all darkness, including magical, within 30 feet of you. Additionally, EACH hostile creature within 30 feet of you has to make a Con save or take 2d10 + Cleric Level Radiant Damage (half for successful roll). Only creatures with total cover are unaffected by this. Besides being tanks (Note: they aren't the best tanks, mind you, but they are pretty darn good ones partially BECAUSE of Warding Flare), they also deal some decent magical damage, being able to cast Burning Hands and Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray. They are also REALLY powerful against creatures of the night at Level 5 with Daylight - and unlike most clerics, they can actually cast Fireball. So, they are like cleric/mages, as if multiclassed with wizard or sorcerer.

What limits them? Medium Armor instead of heavy, thus making them not as effective as Life Clerics in terms of being a Tank with really high AC's. Their healing abilities aren't AS potent as Life Clerics, and so they aren't much better than potions in that regard.

Here's the problem in BG3: Much the same as Life Domain. Imagine a Light Cleric at Level 5. Let's say equipped with Half Plate and Dex +2. So, 17 AC. Add shield to reach 19 AC. Wins initiative. Casts Shield of Faith. Now 21 AC. Ah, but can also cast Fireball. Same turn. In Tabletop, they'd have to choose: Attack with Fireball and hit hard OR increase defense. Not both in one round. Thus, limiting to one or the other. Thus, not as OP as a cleric who can do both in one turn. Then, to add to this, unlimited Warding Flare makes it so that even if you do win initiative against them, they'll just impose a Disadvantage on your attack roll, making even 19 or higher rather difficult. Also, imagine instead that you do actually take off like 10 damage on the Light Cleric. On their turn, they cast Healing Word with Level 2 Spell Slot. 2d4+5ish HP healed. Virtually everything you did to them, they've now healed. Then they Fireball you. Or imagine lower level. You deal 10 damage, they heal 5 and Burning Hands you and everyone near you, or they win initiative, cast Shield of Faith, run up to you, and Burning Hands your entire party before you can even act once. Because they have 21 AC, your entire party tries to hit them but has a really hard time doing so because they have 21 AC. First person to try gets Disadvantage. Yeah... That's not an enemy I'd like to face, and if it's you who are the Light Cleric, you'll be the one dealing the punishment like an OP boss.

My suggestions: Limit Warding Flare (if it isn't already) per Tabletop rules, only allowing once per Wisdom Modifier (minimum 1) per long rest, and again limit to 5e rules for Bonus + Cantrip Action only, not Bonus + Action Spell of any kind.

You won't love it later when an evil lich or higher level cleric turns the tables on you. Well, at least I imagine you won't. It's all fun and games when YOU are the one with the OP abilities. It's not so fun when it's your enemy turning it against you. High volatility is what causes combat encounters to become quickly VERY unfun.

Imagine a boss like the Hag only with the ability to cast Fireball or Lightning Bolt, or both. Wins initiative. Casts Fireball at your mage and entire party. Your spellcaster at Level 5 will likely only have about 30ish HP. One Fireball is 8d6 damage. Average Damage is 24. In one round, your mage is almost dead, as is half your party.

But then, just to be a butt, she casts Misty Step to teleport 30 feet away and then runs 30 feet to position herself behind total cover. Thus, you aren't able to even hit her on your turn because she was able to Fireball you and teleport and run around a corner so you don't have line of sight. You try your best to move into position. Round 2, comes out of hiding and Fireballs you again. Then teleports and runs around a corner again into hiding. THESE are the kinds of things I'm afraid of happening in later game. You can't give spellcasters such free reign or they will obliterate you later.

At low levels, 4 and under, spellcasters are weaker on purpose. It is to set the ground work for later levels. The issue, Icelyn, is that when you leave spellcasters less limited at lower levels, when they reach higher levels, those lack of restrictions suddenly turn into REALLY OP abilities. I'm telling you, wizards and other spellcasters are going to become insanely terrible at higher levels, turning all other classes into obsolete nobodies. Either that, or they're going to have to REALLY create a ton of MORE insane homebrew for the other classes to offset the spellcasters' insane spellcasting abilities.

Trickery Domain - Again, mostly implemented per 5e Tabletop rules. Exception is Blessing of the Trickster lasts for 1 hour or until used again in Tabletop. BG3 requires Concentration, or it is cancelled when used again. Also, Invoke Duplicity still isn't implemented well. It is like Minor Illusion, which also doesn't work well. I still struggle to get Minor Illusion to distract enemies.

Anyway, Trickery Clerics are the stealthy, deceptive clerics. They CAN be tanks as well, but typically they focus on Dexterity, wear Leather armor (or other uninhibiting armor) so Stealth isn't inhibited, and they tend to be more ranged; hopping in and out of shadows like a rogue.

For the most part, this is done okay in BG3, but actually BG3 makes them less effective than Tabletop. Blessing of the Trickster being a Concentration ability means that Trickery Clerics can't use Shield of Faith in conjunction with Blessing of the Trickster. Also, BG3's janky bad stealth system makes Stealth checks virtually pointless anyway. If you're in the sight cone, you're pretty much spotted. It's really hard to stealth when in the sight cone. Period. But, that's kinda normal for Tabletop as well. If in line of sight, it's hard to stealth. However, the problem is that when NOT in line of sight, no roll is really necessary. So, if no roll is necessary, the need for Stealth Advantage is pretty much negated. Essentially, what I'm saying is, Blessing of the Trickster is practically useless in BG3. It is ONLY useful if you are going to stealth right into an enemy's sight cone, and even then you'd better get really lucky because chances are it'll do a Stealth check two or three times before you even get back to your turn. Then, to make it even more useless, you can't use Bless or Shield of Faith or ANY other concentration spell as long as you are using Blessing of the Trickster. Thus, one of the MAIN special abilities of the Trickster Cleric is severely hacked at the knees - partially because there is no time in the game, and partially because they've made it so it's Concentration to keep it up, and finally partially because Stealth in BG3 REALLY needs an overhaul so that it actually creates value for abilities like Blessing of the Trickster.

Then there's Invoke Duplicity. Essentially, this spell should create a little Familiar-like Minion for you to control. It is a PERFECT illusion of the caster, and it lasts for 10 rounds or until you lose your Concentration. Again, Concentration is required for Invoke Duplicity, not Blessing of the Trickster. This is important. Why? Because you can use Channel Divinity three times per short or long rest. This is a MAJOR Trickster Cleric mechanic. The Trickster Cleric should be able to cast Blessing of the Trickster, dash into hiding and then Invoke Duplicity on the next turn. What this does is essentially causes every enemy to think that her duplicate IS her. As a bonus action, she can then move her duplicate up to 30 feet to a space she can see, but it must remain within 120 feet of her. Then, as if that wasn't awesome enough, she can cast spells as though she WERE in the illusion's space, again, as long as she has line of sight (I think the rules state that she must use her own senses). And then, as if all that wasn't enough, when both her and her illusion are within 5 feet of a creature that can see the illusion, the Trickery Cleric has advantage on attack rolls against that creature, given how distracting the illusion is to the target.

My suggestion: First, gotta fix stealth mechanics in BG3. Period. There needs to be NON-sight-cone Stealth checks, and extended sight cones. I suggest Hearing Rings based on an enemy's Passive Perception, and Sight Cones need to extend to a range equal to that of the Hearing Rings. If sneaking beyond 10 times Passive Perception, no roll necessary - so Sight Cones also extend only up to 10 times Passive Perception. Stealth is automatic if beyond this range. So, if enemy has Passive Perception of 11, you can sneak up to 110 feet away without a roll even if the enemy is facing you. Some conditions apply. For example, in dark areas, light source would limit Sight Cones even for those with Dark Vision. Why? Because the light messes with Dark Vision. If enemies are using a Light Source, then they should only be able to see up to the edge of the Light Source. Thus, easier to sneak in the Underdark and so forth where enemies are using torches and jazz.

If within 10 times Passive Perception, a single Stealth check per round/every 6 seconds, is necessary. If Sneaking character is outside Sight Cone, DC is Passive Perception. If inside Sight Cone, DC is Passive Perception but the Sneaking character has Disadvantage.

This makes Blessing of the Trickster WAY more valuable. Now, even to get close to an enemy who has their back to you, you have to make Stealth checks every 6 seconds or round (if in Turn-based mode). Having Advantage, therefore, becomes SO much more valuable. Even IF you are in a Sight Cone, Blessing of the Trickster becomes quite important, for you would negate the Disadvantage on each roll. Also, if you wear armor that penalizes you with Stealth Disadvantage, this power negates that disadvantage, which is really important if you now have Hearing Rings to contend with.

My second suggestion is that Invoke Duplicity needs to be made like a Familiar that you can control. Of course, this requires them to implement some sort of control over a minion via Bonus action, which they need to do anyway for other minions in 5e. But I'll get into that when I go over other classes. The point is, we NEED this kind of functionality in the game. Invoke Duplicity is very similar to how Familiars are supposed to be with wizards, and it is so important that they implement this right. It REALLY makes a world of difference when a spellcaster, like a Trickster Cleric, can cast spells through their minion.

Remember, one of the main points of the Trickster is diversion and avoidance. So, Shadowheart should be a ranged person using her Invoke Duplicity and Blessing of the Trickster in tandem to stay hidden and wail on enemies or distract them from a distance while her companions do a lot of the dirty work. Without Stealth being fixed and done properly, and without these two abilities working in tandem, the Trickster Cleric is severely hindered. In a word, the Trickster becomes quite lame without these two Channel Divinity abilities working powerfully in her favor.

Yeah, I gotta say I too enjoy the ability to Cast an action spell and a bonus action spell in the same round and not be limited to choosing to either Casting a cantrip then bonus action healing word or shield of faith OR choosing Cure wounds and wasting my bonus action doing nothing because clerics have exactly 0 cantrips that are bonus actions. The ONLY thing that clerics have at early level that allows them to have a full action and bonus action every turn Larian hasn't added yet and that is spiritual weapon. because then at least you can enter battle round one you shouldn't need to heal at all so yo can Example: Action> Sacred Flame, Bonus Action> Spiritual Weapon from there as the fight progresses whether you Heal or Bless or w/e you can always use your spiritual weapon to bonus action attack the enemy.

So, I guess what I am getting at is this. In BG3 I am fine with the fact that they have removed the one spell/ one cantrip limitation to spell casting, BUT if Larian wants to give Clerics back their spiritual weapon I'd be fine with the classic 5e rules.

That said... in later levels (whether Larian decides to keep it the way they have it or to implement the 5e RAW on this matter) the big bosses tend to be kinda bullshit with action economy anyway, because not only do they have whatever "normal" abilities their cast of creature/ class of character would have they also get legendary abilities. (though I suppose depending on how much you use your tadpole, you and your companions might end up with some pretty bullshit abilities too)

Just so this indepth look is acurate, i feel like we should mention also buffs this class get, and not just tweaks ...
Specificaly im talking about Preserve Life ... Channel Divinity spell.

In tabletop rules your Cleric gets amount of HP equal 5 times his level that he can divide between his alies in range of 30f ... while this heal can restore a creature to no more than half of its hit point maximum.
Meaning at level 4 ... its 20HP total if i count right.

In Baldur's Gate III rules, your Cleric heals 3 times his level with no futher restriction to maximum healed amount EVERY friendly target around ...
I used this in Goblin siege, and healed my whole party and few Tieflings, all for 12.
So ... basicaly no total cap. But if we count only party of 4, it would at level 4 heal for 48 if i count right.

In both cases this heal have no effect for Undead or Constructs.
(At least acording to tooltip ... this we cant quite test right now, since even Astarion is curently concidered alive. :-/ )

I believe that class list (Wizard and Cleric only) is pure oversight, but i still feel the urge to mention that Druids and Rangers can heal like that aswell.
Same as Warlock and Sorcerers can benefit from option to cast two leveled spells per turn ... especialy Sorcerer.

Honestly, as a player, absolutely. I like no limitation on casting, especially at lower levels. And, I'm actually fine with Larian NOT implementing the limit as long as enemies aren't utilizing it like I described. THAT'S where the problem will come in. The last thing I want is for Larian to have some crazy high level wizard or cleric running up to your party to get at point blank range to the closest and then casting Spirit Shroud as a Bonus Action and then Fireball as an Action at 10 feet away from everyone in the party. 8d6 damage for Fireball plus 1d8 extra damage for Spirit Shroud plus nobody in your party can heal for one whole turn.

The main purpose of a lot of limits in D&D is because it is multi-player. You want everyone in the party to feel important. When you are doing single player, it isn't as imperative to have everyone balanced out. For example, who cares if Lae'zel is as tough as your custom MC? Lae'zel isn't someone you made, and she doesn't represent YOU - at least unless you're playing her after full release. But the point is, if YOU are unbalanced and super OP, that's not as big of a deal in a video game that is only single player because you are the star. No one else is.

The moment you make it multiplayer, though, that's when it becomes an issue, and BG3 is a multiplayer game. The last thing you want is to be a cleric who feels like the wizard is super OP and killing everything, and you're just barely killing one or two bad guys to the wizard's 10-15 per battle. Suddenly, nobody wants to be anything but a wizard because they can long rest between battles and regain all their super powerful spells, and they can hurl high damage area of effect spells that can reduce enemies in mass quantities to cinders. Meanwhile, you're playing the pathetic cleric who can only hurl a single spell per round or take a single swing per round and maybe hopefully hurt a bad guy a little. Oh sure, you can heal pretty effectively, but Joe Wizard has lots of potions and can use them as Bonus Actions, so he can cast Fireball and Heal with a Superior Potion every round if he needs to. He doesn't need you.

THAT'S the kind of stuff I'm trying to point out here. Right now, Wizards are lame and limited because they're at level 1-4. So, we aren't seeing much firepower from them. Lift the cap, and watch the magic start to take over.

Yeah... that would be bullshit. So, we are kind of relying on Larian to be fair as DM and set up encounters that are beatable in some way, but that is true with or with out the 5e rule. Especially in the case of homebrew special NPCs it is on the DM to make them tough, but not total bullshit.

Agree. I am not too worried about encounters being too difficult. There will be difficulty settings in the final game, which I can adjust as needed. 😊

I will say this. Playing Solasta just now, and some of the spell limitations are too much, in my opinion. As much as I like the fact that they are more true to 5e, the "No Free Spell Hand" rule they have implemented drives me a bit crazy. I definitely like that I don't have to worry about freeing up a hand in BG3.

As far as the Level 1 or higher Spell + Bonus Action Spell vs. Cantrip + Bonus Action Spell, I'm still on the fence. If it was just single player and Larian made sure enemies didn't abuse this, I'd maybe not worry about it so much. However, this is multiplayer also, and the way Larian has done encounters so far, with duergar shoving characters into lava and phase spiders teleporting around and spitting at people all in the same turn, I have serious doubts that they'll make sure that a wizard or Light Cleric won't hurl a Fireball and do something like buff their AC or Misty Step (or later Far Step) away from you so you can't even touch them.

What I mean is, imagine you're playing multiplayer with 3 other people. One guy is a wizard, level 5. You're a barbarian. Then there's a Light Cleric and rogue. You trigger battle against Nere, Thrinn and the duergar. Wizard wins initiative. When battle started, Thrinn, Mind Master Whatever, and Nere are all in a line. Wizard couldn't normally get into position to cast Lightning Bolt on them because to do that would cost a Dash Action. However, player Misty Steps using bonus action so that she is able to move 30 and line up perfectly to cast Lightning Bolt. 8d6 damage off of Thrinn, Nere and Mind Master whoever. Cleric wins next initiative. Casts Shield of Faith and Fireball, catching Thrinn and Nere in the blast. Another 8d6 damage off of both. Cleric then runs up next to Nere. If he even tries to escape, the cleric gets opportunity attack. Rogue goes next, fires Sneak Attack against Nere because cleric is right next to him. Hits. Nere dies. Main boss enemy taken out by two powerful spellcasters and a rogue. Poor you, the barbarian. You're just left with cleanup duty.

Flip the script. Nere goes first. Teleports to high ground and hurls Fireball down on you and your companions. Morghal, the Duergar Cleric, casts Silence on your group and then casts Shield of Faith on herself. Runs up to your wizard so if your wizard tries to flee, she'll get opportunity attack. You, the barbarian, tries to attack Morghal, but misses because she got to not only cast Silence, she also cast Shield of Faith, so she has higher AC. Rogue tries to hit Nere, but can't because he's on high ground with +2 AC, and even if he did, he wouldn't get Sneak Attack.

Do you see how it can be, and is, all about initiative in BG3 when it comes to spellcasters? If you win initiative, you can easily teleport to an advantageous position AND dish out a high powered spell.

Now, same scenarios. Wizard is limited. Can EITHER cast Lightning Bolt OR Misty Step. Not both. Well, she could Misty Step and move into position, but she wouldn't be able to Lightning Bolt right away. So, fat lot of good that would do to Misty Step into position for a Lightning Bolt when all your enemies will likely move before your next turn. Cleric can EITHER cast Fireball or Shield of Faith. If Fireball, they won't gain the +2 AC bonus for Shield of Faith, thus easier for enemies to hit. If Shield of Faith, no high powered damage spell against the enemies, but better chance of defending against enemy attacks.

Nere's turn. He can EITHER Misty Step away from you to escape OR he can Fireball you but be at a much closer range. So, if he Fireballs, you, the barbarian, will be more likely to get into range to deal some hefty damage off the baby AC mage. If he Misty Steps, no Fireball, giving you and your party at least a round to stop him; cast Silence, get to him, scatter so you're not all within a Fireball radius... something to avoid everyone in your party being blasted by Fireball.

Yeah the no free spell hand rule is going a bit far. That and restrictions around drawing weapons are probably the most hand-waved rules in 5E. No one wants to manage that crap. It’s not OP just to let that go. Dungeon Dudes did a good video about it recently, worth a watch.

You are right, I did forget to mention the Preserve Life Channel Divinity. That is true. That does make a Life Cleric more effective and special. I will grant you that. Healing every ally within 30 foot radius for 3 times your cleric level ... that's a substantially powerful healer.

So here's the difference between 5e rules and BG3 in terms of Life Cleric Healing:

5e rules. Life Cleric can either use Cure Wounds or Healing Word or Preserve Life in a single turn. If Cure Wounds, can heal maybe 7-14 HP on a single character. Extra if using higher spell slot. If Healing Word, 7-10 HP on a single character. Extra if using higher spell slot. If Preserve Life, 5 times cleric level on any allies within a 30 foot range up to half health, but you select who gets the healing. So, at level 4, cleric heals 20 HP total to a group of people, maybe healing 2 people 10 HP each or 4 people 5 HP each.

BG3. Life Cleric can use Cure Wounds and Healing Word or Preserve Life and Healing Word in a single turn. If Cure Wounds and Healing Word, 14-24 HP on a single character. Extra if using higher spell slots for each. If Preserve Life and Healing Word, cures entire party by 12 HP AND could still cast Healing Word to add an additional 7-10 HP healing to a single character with extra HP if using a Higher spell slot.

Do you see how extreme BG3 is? Because they are trying to make the healer somehow valuable, they've made it so that their healing is super powerful. Wait until you get to higher levels and they have more spell slots and such. Level 8 cleric heals everyone in the party for 24 HP and then uses Level 3 spell slot to cast Healing Word on someone for an additional 3d4+5ish HP. Yeah. That's some serious healing, to be sure.

I really hope that some of this over the top behaviour is just for EA, to make the game seem more playable and exciting because we're limited to tier 1 and there aren't any difficulty levels implemented. Once more high-level stuff is added there will hopefully be less reason to make the first act so high-powered. But how slowly things are changing in EA does worry me, feels like the release version won't be too different to what we have now (hope I'm wrong!).

It is worth noting though, that in Solasta you can manually tweak that specific rule off without changing anything else, if you want. You can go through the vast majority of rules that are commonly hand-waved or adjusted at player tables, and set them up for the way that you feel they should work.

I think I see now why Bonus action potions and potion throwing became a thing. I get it. Maybr. The method to Larian's Madness.

Important NPC's (as in NPC's that Larian wants to survive because it will provide more satisfaction for players) have a much better chance of surviving in combat if they can use potions as Bonus and throw potions.

Example: Recent initial grove gate fight with Aradin and two companions. RNG went poorly for Aradin. He was getting his butt handed to him. Even with Wyll's temp HP addition, 5 HP left at one point. Aradin was close to death. His turn, he heals himself with a potion. Then his partner throws a potion and heals him further. Then Zevlor threw a potion and healed him yet more.

Conclusion: The way Larian had built the game, they want to make it appear as realistic as possible from an ALL characters can die standpoint, even Aradin and Zevlor. There are even dialogue sequences for if Zevlor dies and another is leading. But, they know a majority of fans will get more out of the game if most of the time certain characters don't die. To ensure those characters have a better chance of survival, they made it so potion as Bonus and potion throwing is a thing.

To offset, they made cleric Preserve Life power more OP, along with the cleric ability to Cure Wounds AND Healing Word in a single turn, so clerics aren't totally worthless.

Maybe... ???

That is some sound reasoning there

That said I think it's funny that you intended to do an indepth look of each class and you didn't even get through Cleric before this thread exploded in to a debate.

Side note I still want Larian to add Spiritual weapon

You may be onto something but I would much prefer if Aradin was just knocked out if he reaches 0 HP – like any DM would do if they were running the game. Then after the battle someone can revive him with a potion the normal way. They don't need him to make death saving throws... I'm fine with certain NPCs having some plot armor.

Very good thoughts and discussion. To OP, I hope you keep on with your comments to the classes.

I do still think it messes up the balance. I'd rather have Aradin just die than to have the game unbalanced with all of its extremes.

One thing leads to another. Allow potions as Bonus instead of Action, and allow throwing potions, and you have to tweak clerics to make them better healers so they're worth something, which then allows wizards to cast two spells in a single turn which makes them more powerful at higher levels. Also, potions as Bonus negates Rogue Fast Hands special ability's most potent mechanic, allowing Rogues to use potions as a Bonus. So, then to make Fast Hands better, you have to add homebrew to it, or it becomes almost worthless, so they make it so you can do a Second Bonus action, which means Rogue can do 3 attacks in a round with two weapons. This then makes Rogues more effective melee fighters than fighters, so you need to add more fighter attack options to make them more versatile close rangers, thus weapons receive more melee options, and since fighters can use all weapons they now have more options in melee to try to offset the fact that other classes are now pretty much just as good as they are at fighting.

It's a chain reaction that could go on and on and on and on.

Honestly, even with the mechanic of drinking a potion being a bonus action (which isn't that unusual to me as the DMs I interact with rule it as a BA) and the ability to throw potions as such (which I agree is weird mechanic in table top sessions I have played you can certainly throw a potion to some one but that requires a DEX check both for the person to throw and for it to be caught thus eating a BA for the thrower and reaction for the catcher and then the catcher has to wait till their turn and use a BA to drink it), I don't think the change to casting was needed to make healers relevant and I am not 100% sure that is why Larian made it (Sorry not a mind reader :P ). Fact is as far as we know there are only the two types of healing potions the common variety (which you do admittedly get access to way more than I am used to seeing in a campaign) and greater (which ironically doesn't seem to be in the 5e books or at least is missing from D&D Beyond) which combined with the game mechanics certainly renders healing word and cure wounds far less useful in early game play... but the healing you get from spells eventually starts to out pace the healing you get from potions, obviously Cure Wounds out paces the healing from potions a lot faster than healing word, but unless you are a Life Cleric healing word really doesn't improve much at higher levels.

Just an example at lvl 4

the potential healing from a healing potion (2d4+2) has a range of 4-10 hp

However a second level healing word (2d4+spell casting mod) CAN be (if you took the ASI and dependent on race) 2d4+4 which means your healing range is 6-12 ...not much of an improvement but some... then of course if you are playing the best healer (IMHO) a Life Cleric it then becomes 2d4+SCM+2+Spell Level (in this case 2d4+4+2+2) which makes the range of your healing 10-16 which puts it just slightly behind a potion of greater healing (4d4+4) with a range of 8-20.

However casting a second level Cure Wounds -which should should be done instead of healing word whenever possible- (2d8+SCM) will typically out pace potions... using the example above it would be 2d8+4 which means the healing range would be 6-20 which puts it pretty much on pace with a potion of greater healing, but wait there is still more... lets bring back our friend the Life Cleric this increases the healing potential by a much wider margin (2d8+4+2+2) healing range of 10-24 which is better than a Potion of Greater healing... maybe not by much... but still better...

So then we get in to as you reach higher levels (once we are no longer capped at lvl 4) as you progress and you SCM potential gets higher (maxing out at +5) and your ability to cast healing spells at higher levels comes in to play you find that using a healing spell will give you more bang than a potion, once again this is particularly true with Life Clerics and tbh when it comes to party healing potions aside IMHO you have two choices multiple characters (at least 2) who have some moderate-decent ability to heal others such as a Cleric of any domain other than Life and a Druid or Bard (I didn't add Paladin because In My experience it has been that Paladin focuses their healing on themselves so as to give the healer one less person to worry about) or a dedicated healer like a Life Domain Cleric (I am not super familiar with Bards and Druids... so if there is a subclass of either that similarly has extra healing BS that puts them on par with a Life Cleric feel free to let me know)

TLDR; healing at higher levels will start to out pace potions, particularly in the case of the Life Domain Cleric- Life Cleric=Best Healer

I have a little problem to fit those two sentences into single mindset ...
Can you choose, please?

Either potions are striping Life Clerics of their purpose, or LIfe Clerics are ridiculously powerfull healers ... both is litteraly impossible.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/potion-of-healing

Healing potions get bigger and better also.

Still, this is always true in D&D, and in video games, potions are always handed out more than in TT. I expect that to a certain degree.

That said, balance is what I'm suggesting in terms of potions. Too many handed out like candy negates the need of a healer, and the ability to throw just adds to that, as does the ability to use a potion as a Bonus.

I do hear that many DMs allow Bonus potions, which boggles my mind. Whipping out and drinking a potion in like 2-3 seconds is insane to me. It would require someone to have potions on a bandolier or belt clip, snap it out, pop the cork and chug fast. I require an Action not just because it gives more value to Rogue Fast Hands and Healers but also because it makes sense from a realism standpoint.

You have a pouch with healing potions in them. You dodge an enemy, slip the pouch open, grab a potion, pop the cork and gulp it down. Can you really do more than that in a 6 second window? Maybe, if you're fast, but not many could do it.

That aside, I still think potions should be handed out sparingly after the grove,. Prior to, fine, hand them out because no shop. After... They should be more of a purchase item rather than loot.

I like drinking potions being a bonus action as well.

Actually, at first glance, I'd agree with you. It seems that both are untrue. But, if you dig deep enough, you can see how both actually are possibilities that do, in fact, exist.

We're talking two very interesting extremes. On the one hand, Bonus action potions and throwing potions make any healer class no longer necessary. This is the reason I am pushing for Action potions, not Bonus action potions, and to remove throwing potions.

See, in Tabletop 5e RAW rules, the cleric is valuable as a healer BECAUSE the other characters can't fight and heal at the same time. They can't throw a potion from a distance to heal an ally. Only the cleric can cast Healing Word to heal from a distance. They can't use a potion AND attack in the same round. They can EITHER heal or attack. If they attack, they then trust that their healer will heal them. It requires more strategy and teamwork because they need to rely on their healer to heal them while they focus on dealing damage - or they need to drink a potion and sacrifice attacking, if they are in desperate need of healing. If you know the healer is healing someone else, then you have to sacrifice dealing damage so you can heal yourself. Then, to boot, the healer can revive a fallen comrade by casting a spell. Ah, the 0 HP companion now is on their feet again, but they have at least 5-12 HP, or something like that. That's better than using a Medicine check to revive them with only 1 HP. Cleric is much more valuable and necessary to the team because they alone can revive a fallen companion and give them hopefully enough HP that they'll be able to either withdraw to a safe distance and use a potion to recover more completely, OR use a potion right there, OR hope they don't get hit for an entire round until the healer can heal them even more.

In BG3, the clerics are stripped of this very important role because, well, anyone can heal themselves and still keep fighting, both in the same turn. Aradin and his two friends don't need a cleric in their party. Aradin is low on health, so he uses his Bonus action to drink a potion for 8 HP healing. Then he bashes the goblin captain. Then he uses Action Surge and bashes him again. Then, because Aradin's still low on health, his buddy throws a potion and heals him another 7 HP. Ah, but his buddy is low on health too, so he drinks a potion as well, healing himself and Aradin in the same turn.

Thus, a healer is no longer ESSENTIAL to the party at all. Party members just need enough potions to heal themselves constantly. Besides this, ANYONE can literally click a button and revive a fallen comrade. No Medicine check at all. Help instantly brings them back to 1 HP so they can get back up and continue. Not only that, but they can get back up, drink a potion as a Bonus action, and viola. Back in action. Then their buddies can throw potions and heal them even more. So, we have that extreme which makes it so healers aren't NECESSARY at all in the party. Then, to boot, they made it so revivify can be cast by anyone, so even moreso, even if a person dies completely, ANYONE can bring them back to life. And, as if that wasn't enough, they give you Withers as a total safety net. Pay him 200 gp and you're good. As long as you've got 1 companion left alive in a battle, everyone can be brought back.

So, one of the main points I'm trying to make is that clerics, and other healers, aren't necessary. Their value is stripped by all of these homebrew mechanics.

But then, the second point ALSO applies. To compensate for the fact that clerics, and other healers, aren't necessary, they've BUFFED cleric abilities so that they can cast both Cure Wounds AND Healing Word in the same round. So, though not necessary, they still have value because they are much more effective healers than people with just potions. Instead of healing only 7-14 HP using Cure Wounds, and that's all the healing you get in one round unless you sacrifice your action to drink a potion, now you can have a cleric heal you 7-14 HP using Cure wounds and 7-10 more using Healing Word, AND then they can use a potion to heal another 4-10 HP, AND they can still take a swing at an enemy. Well, hot dang! A character can have 1 HP left and have a cleric heal them up to 24 HP in a single turn, and if that's not enough for the character they can still heal up to another 10 HP. They can literally go from 1 HP to 35 HP in a single turn AND still attack.

So, to summarize, tabletop would only allow someone to go from like 1 HP to maybe 15 via a cleric's healing in a single turn, and if they drank a potion, they'd heal maybe another 10 at the most to a max healing of 25. This would be at the sacrifice of BOTH not being able to attack. BG3 makes it so the cleric can heal someone up to 10 HP using Healing Word, and they could still cast Guiding Bolt to deal 4d6 damage to an enemy. Then the character being healed could drink a potion and heal another 10 HP (using maximums for comparison purposes) for a total of 20 HP healed and then still fight. So, in BG3, they can heal almost the same as in tabletop but they don't even need to sacrifice attacking at all.

Now, add to this that at level 5 some classes get extra attacks whenever they use an Action to attack. So, what this looks like is the Cleric heals and attacks, and the Fighter uses a potion for extra healing and attacks twice - as opposed to in tabletop how the Cleric would heal and sacrifice their attack to do so, and the Fighter would drink a potion, and sacrifice doing 2 attacks to do so. Suddenly, the Cleric being the healer in tabletop has WAY more value because if he can keep the Fighter from having to use her action to drink a potion, the Fighter gets to make 2 attacks, dealing potentially WAY more damage.

The main point is this: By allowing Potions as a Bonus action, and by allowing Throwing potions, the Life Cleric is no longer NECESSARY. Therefore, to compensate, they've buffed Life Clerics so they can do LOTS of extra healing, especially when one considers the Preserve Life power. So, are they needed? No. Do they have value? Yes... well... sort of. They certain are now more OP when it comes to healing.

But what does that mean in the game? It means that in order to make encounters more challenging, they now must extremely buff the amount of damage an enemy can do. THIS, I think, is why we have Phase Spider Mama teleporting around the map and spitting globs of poison onto party members instead of having phase spiders being up close and person melee fighters. It's a chain reaction. Because Life Clerics and other healers are now able to cast both Cure Wounds and Healing Word in a single round, and because potions are Bonus actions and can be thrown for additional healing, parties can heal for gobs and gobs of HP each round. So, in order for enemies to be challenging, they have to homebrew them and make them heavy damage dealers as well. So, I think this is why the Phase Spider Matriarch was able to reduce my Level 4 Battlemaster from her max health of 40-something to 0 HP in a single round. In order to make her tough, she needed to be able to deal 40+ points of damage to a character in one round (and this was without doing a critical hit).

What is the end result? If you don't win initiative, you're screwed. It all hinges are the RNG of initiative order rather than on strategy.

So, I'm once again suggesting more true to the 5e rules classes and action allowances and such. Why? Because the unbalance leaves too much to chance. Why are people so upset by the RNG in BG3? Because RNG plays a MUCH bigger role now. That's how it goes when you start pushing things to the extreme.

Take Shove. (Please!) Larian determined that 5 feet is lame. So they went to the extreme and made it a much bigger push; 15=30+ feet you can now shove people. The end result? You lose initiative, and you lose the contested Athletics roll, they can shove you 30+ feet off a cliff for a 1-Hit KO. All RNG. You got unlucky, so it doesn't matter where you position yourself on the map, you die because you were unlucky. 5e limits the distance to 5 feet (1 meter), so that doesn't happen as often. Unless you're standing on the very edge of a cliff or wall, you can't get 1-Hit KO'd by RNG at level 4+.

It's the same thing here. Because they lifted the restrictions of one rule, and then compensated, and then compensated again, and then compensated again, you can now lose 40+ HP in a single round before you even get to go - unless you're lucky. THIS is the whole reason I'm pointing all this out. I've had it happen too many times in BG3. The luck of the dice kills me before I even get to go.

And THAT is the whole reason for the limits and restrictions of 5e. It's to balance it all and tame it down. An enemy deals maybe 15 damage in a round, 30 if Critical was done - not 30 in a round and 60 if a Critical was done like in BG3. Healers heal for maybe 5-10 HP in a single round - not 15-20 HP in a single round like in BG3.

The more extreme, the more volatile and the more RNG matters. Lock down the limits and achieve more of a balance, and RNG isn't as important as it is currently in BG3.

Note: I think that JUST having the ability to drink a potion as a Bonus action doesn't offset the balance that much. It's when you allow this AND Throwing Potions AND Clerics using Cure Wounds and Healing Word in a single round (or using Preserve Life to heal everyone 12 HP). It's the combination of ALL the homebrew that really throws a huge kink into the mechanics of the game.

Likewise, if they JUST allowed clerics to cast Cure Wounds AND Healing Word in a single round, but they restricted spellcasters from using bonus + Level 3 or higher spells, that would also work and not be a big deal. At least then we wouldn't have wizards flying around the board casting Fireballs from advantageous positions every time, or Lightning Bolts or whatever. And again, it's this homebrew + using potions as a Bonus + Throwing Potions that makes healing ridiculous (not to mention the Help button auto curing 1 HP every time and revivify being able to be cast by everyone).

Again, I'm not pushing for an absolute RAW 5e experience. I'm pushing for a CLOSER to 5e experience to tame down ALL of the homebrew that makes everything extreme. It's all the homebrew together that is making the game so RNG based and volatile. Tame things down. Reduce the extremes. THAT is more of what I'm looking for.

And I'm hoping that all the homebrew is just because it's EA. Hopefully at Full Release they WILL have options to decide for ourselves: Do we want potions as Bonus or Action? Do we want spellcasters to be able to cast both Action and Bonus for any spell?, etc.

It also creates opourtunity for great gaming experience:

*hit*
potion
*hit*
potion
*hit*
potion
*hit*
potion
*hit*
potion
*hit*
potion
*hit*
potion
...

Allready feeling the fun! ^_^

THAT is why you have other members in a party. It's TEAM-based. Your fighter is up close and personal, with high AC of 17 or 18. So, they're dealing damage here and there and getting hit here and there. Their HP gets reduced to 10 or less. Cleric casts Healing Word and heals them 8 HP. Back up to 18 so the fighter keeps going. That's RAW 5e. The team works together. The fighter isn't solo-ing the enemies. He's playing a role in a team working together to defeat them. The cleric's role is to do some damage, buff allies and heal them (speaking in generalities for clerics). Clerics make it so that fighters and other classes can keep attacking regularly, so they don't have to hit, potion, hit, potion. That's the point.

BG3. Fighter is up close and personal with high AC of 17 or 18. Gets hit. Second Wind. Attacks in return. Gets hit twice. Fighter needs some health. Potion and attacks. Fighter takes two more hits. Hmmm. HP is now roughly around 10. Superior Healing Potion and heals up to 20 HP and Attacks again. Gets hit 3 more times. Down to 5 HP. Superior Healing Potion back up to 15 and Attacks again. No cleric necessary. Just keep stocked on potions and Fighter wins without needing your healer.

So, is that somehow MORE fun? There's no strategy or thinking involved. Wash, rinse and repeat. Just run up as a fighter or barbarian and bash the crap out of your opponents without fear of getting hurt because you can Bonus action a Potion every round if you need to.

Again, that by itself, however, isn't that broken. It's adding that to everything else that's homebrewed that makes it extreme. I'm not opposed to something like Bonus Action Potions if that's the homebrew they decide makes the most sense for the game. It's the Bonus Action Potions + Cure Wounds from clerics + Healing Word as well from clerics + allies being able to throw potions all in the same round.

Whenever you make a homebrew, you have to be so careful. There are reasons for every rule. If you allow Bonus Action Potions, then fine. Fast Hands isn't great for rogues. They can live with that. Don't suddenly give rogues another Bonus Action so they can Dash as an Action, Dash as a Bonus action and Dash a third time as another Bonus action - or allow them to Attack once with Sneak Attack as a primary attack, Attack again with the off hand as a Bonus Action and then attack a third time as a Bonus Action, so that the Rogue is dealing 2d6+2 (shortsword) damage for their main attack, 1d6 for second attack (shortsword), and another 1d6 for a third attack for a potential total of 4d6+2 in a single round - while the fighter attacks once per turn with 2d6+3 damage only. Fighter doing half damage that a rogue can do? What? Come on now.

Now, now ... i never said that is single character, that is once again your own interpretation. :P
The situation could be just the same if you fight at least semi-inteligent creatures, who understands that keep attacking that armored dude in front, while the second dude keeps healing him will probably not work well ... and some of them, who posses the ranged attacks starts to attack rest of your "team". :P


The only difference i see is that in your model it works for Clerics like they have static role that dont change much ...

While in Larian version they have choices, you can use your cleric as a healer, buffer and tank (if he wants to) ... but you also can use your potions from time to time and unless its cruicial your Cleric can do that one sweet thing that usualy players enjoys the most: Massacring hordes of enemies.


Yup, he "can" thats the point.
Options ... so 1/4 of your party isnt necesarily reserved for dedicated healer ... yet he is usefull, since if that Fighter gets not "two hits" but "seven hits" potion is no longer enough.


Yes.

You want wait and heal > you can.
You want go and fight > you can.
You want support peoples effort > you can.
You want screw your party and go do something entirely different > you can.

That is charm of possibilibites.


Dont make me laugh.
(Oh, too late.)

Or you know what?
Please do ...
Tell me how "strategical" and "full of thinking" is your precious example ... where your Fighter or Barbarian runs up and bash the crap out of your oponents without fear of getting hurt ... because instead of lame, stupid, boring and nontactical possibility to sip single potion ... they have pro, brilliant, entertaining and totally tactical Cleric, that will heal them even better (bcs he have more spells, bcs some of those spells can on the contrary of the potion target them both, bcs those spells can heal them during the time between their turns when they are helpess)?

I litteraly beg you, elighten me ... what deep tactics are you talking about?


Have you even tryed it in practice?
At least once?

Yes, your character becomed imortal for litteraly single round ... and you also just wasted 3 potions and 2 spellslots to ensure you dont change anything.
What is the point of that?
What would be the outcome of such behaviour?
After the round is finished ... your enemies end up just as healthy as they were previous round and gues what? They WILL attack you again.
Will you just spend yout turns healing each other eternaly until you run out of potions and inevidibly die?

Then you can save some time and reload it right now.

See thats the reason some of us concider this argument to be so false ...
Honestly:
- i would welcome if throwed potions healing would be split in half, since half of the healing liquid has ben spiled instead of digested ... but lets say nat 20 would avoid this, so there is some fun ...
- i would welcome if throwed potions would also give their target damage, bcs the vial dont dissapear, it still throwed projectile ... i would not even mind if there would me small (nat 1 for example) chance to cause 1 turn long bleeding effect, for the obvious reasons ...
- i would totally welcome if "missed" potion would be just wasted without ANY healing effect ... leaving only small amount of damage ... so there is some risk involved
- and finaly i would totally welcome if our target would have to spend his reaction to catch the potion and drink it ... and if this would be allowed only after everything abowe would go well ...

But claiming that "throwing potions is incredibly OP and effective tactics that reduce meaning of any other healing class to zero"? Please ... even you cant believe that ... -_-

Agreed >> https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=809477#Post809477

Yes, come on now GM4Him. The actual combat cycle for a party in BG3 is:

Fighter attacks and drinks a potion
Enemy attacks the fighter
Druid throws a potion at the fighter then attempts to shove an enemy away from them
Barbarian automatically throws an enemy into another enemy
Cleric throws a potion at the fighter then attempts to shove an enemy off a cliff
Repeat

LMFAO that is so relatable mrfuji3... having said that, I did have a lot of fun last night killing the queen spider by throwing her babies at her

You are acting like AC doesn't exist. Attacks aren't automatic hits.

5e. Fighter and cleric, level 1, facing 4 goblins. Fighter has choice. Rush and attack at close range or attack at long. What is cleric's options? Rush and attack at close range or attack at long or buff them both with Bless. Hmmm. Cleric actually has more than I'm just a healer option.

Both rush forward. Both have AC 17. Fighter moves and attacks. Deals 1d8+2 damage. Goblin 1 has 3 HP left. Cleric moves and attacks Goblin 2. Misses. Goblins attack. Wow!. Let's say lucky round for goblins. 2 hit the fighter. They do 8 damage. DANG! Level 1 fighter is hurting. 2 HP left.

Round 2. Fighter has a choice. Potion or fight. He's got a good chance of not being hit again. 17 or higher is actually hard to do. He chances it. Fighter swings and hits, risking it. Goblin 1 dies. Cleric's turn. Should he use Cure Wounds or Healing Word to help the fighter. If Cure Wounds, more effective but no attack then. Uses Healing Word so he can still attack. Heals 6 HP. Ah. Now he has 8 HP. He swings and hits. 4 damage. Goblins attack, teaming up on fighter. They all miss.

Round 3. Both fighter and cleric attack. Miss. Goblins attack. Fighter is down. Cleric remains.

Round 4. Cleric uses Healing Word and heals 9 HP. Fighter has lost his turn. Goblins attack and miss.

Round 5. Fighter hits. Cleric swings and misses. Goblins attack and miss.

Round 6. Fighter hits. Goblin dies. Cleric hits. Goblin dies. Goblin hits cleric. Cleric has 1 HP.

Round 7. Fighter attacks. Misses. Cleric drinks potion. Heals 5 HP. Dang, that was close. No attack because potion is Action. Goblin swings and hits. Cleric down to 1 HP.

Round 8. Fighter hits. Cleric has choice. Heal or attack. Should he risk it? What strategy should he use? How many potions does he have? He goes for it and finishes off the goblin. Dang! That was close.

Excitement. Risk. Strategy. Near death.

Now. BG3 version.

Round 1. Same as above. Round 2. Fighter uses potion to heal as Bonus. 5 HP restored. Attacks. Hits. Kills Goblin 1. No brainer. Got like 6 potions. Why not? Cleric doesn't need to heal. Well, guess he'll attack. Bonus is free. Why not Shield of Faith it. He sees goblins are attacking fighter, so he casts in on Fighter. AC is now 19. He swings and hits goblin. 4 damage. Goblins attack, teaming up on fighter. They all miss.

Round 3. Both fighter and cleric attack. Miss. Goblins attack. Cleric is down. Fighter remains.

Round 4. Fighter throws potion and heals cleric 4 HP. He then uses his sword's pommel attack, which is a Bonus. Cleric uses potion as Bonus and is full health and then attacks. Goblin dies.

Round 5. Fighter hits. Cleric uses Bless. Goblins attack and miss.

Round 6. Fighter hits. Goblin dies. Cleric hits. Goblin dies. Thanks cleric for the buff. Battle ends.

In 5e, both cleric and the fighter had some rough choices at various times.

BG3, hardly a concerning fight. Not much risk involved.

I wonder why BG-3 Cleric is the only one who even tho its in "no brainer" group can use buff spell to incerase AC of his fighter, to ensure his survival. O_o

But no matter, you described us one possible scenario ...
We can continue in the topic, after you finish all those billions possible permutations.

Let's do another scenario to illustrate the difference between Level 1 and Level 6:

5e. Life Cleric, Fighter, Mage, Rogue versus 4 phase spiders.

Round 1 - Phase spider wins initiative. Ethereal Jaunt. Unseen in Ethereal Plane - Like invisible only more effective - it moves closer to party using Dash so it can go 60 feet. Mage is next. Geez. Phase spiders are 180 feet away. Out of range. Still, he casts Misty Step, moving 30 feet closer, and moves 30 more feet so he can get closer so next round he can cast Fireball - hopefully. Fighter is next. She moves 30 and uses longbow... because it has range of 150. She shoots and hits Phase Spider 2. Uses Menacing Attack. Does 8 damage (1d8 for longbow and 1d8 for Menacing Attack +2). Phase spider resists fear. Fires again and misses (gets 2nd attack because at level 5 fighters get another attack). Rogue is next. Moves 30 and drops into hiding behind a rock. Can't hit with shortbow (assuming since it's a video game that we'll stick with main ranged weapon ranges as opposed to extended Disadvantage applies ranges). He readies a Ranged Attack (hoping they add Readying actions like Solasta has so that if an enemy moves within range he gets to use his reaction to attack automatically. This isn't hard, guys. Xcom has Overwatch. It'd be not much different). Phase Spider 2 goes. Ethereal Jaunt. Phase 3 goes. Ethereal Jaunt. Cleric goes. Moves 30 and casts Bless on himself, Fighter and Rogue. Phase 4 Ethereal Jaunt. So, after 1 round, very minor damage done to spiders. No damage to party. Let's just stop combat there and compare to BG3.

BG3.
Round 1 - Phase spider wins initiative. Ethereal Jaunt across board to be right on top of characters. Spits on everyone in the party with poison and does 6 to Fighter, 10 to Cleric, 12 to Rogue and 11 to Mage. Mage is next. Misty Step 30 feet and moves another 30 to get into range. Casts Fireball on 3 remaining phase spiders. Ew. Only rolls 16. Kinda low damage for Fireball. Two phase spiders, however, fail the save. So 16 off each. Half dead in one hit. One succeeds and only loses 8. Quarter dead. Fighter is next. She just uses her Everburn Blade at close range with Phase spider 1 and Menacing Attack. First attack hits. Second misses. Deals 21 damage (2d6+1d4 fire+1d8 Menacing Attack). Reduces Phase 1 to 11 HP. Rogue is next. Moves up to Phase 1 and attacks with main hand. Misses. Attacks with off hand with Sneak Attack and hits with shortsword. 4d6+4 damage (he has 18 dex). 19 damage. Phase 1 is dead. Has Fast Hands. Moves into hiding because has another Bonus action. Phase Spider 2 goes. Ethereal Jaunt across board onto Mage. Attacks. Hits. 1d10+2+4d8 damage (resist with DC 11 Con). Rolls 8+17 poison. Mage resists and takes half, so 16 HP lost. Mage has 23 remaining. Phase 3 goes. Ethereal Jaunt onto Mage. Attacks. Hits. Mage fails to resist. 24 damage. Mage is down. ("Well, THAT sucks," says the Mage player. "I was 120 feet away and they ported right on me and took me down. At least I got a Fireball in.") Cleric goes. ("Don't worry, Mage. I'll get you back up.") Moves 30 feet. Throws Superior Potion. Heals 14 HP. Mage is back up. Casts Healing Word at Level 3. 3d4+5 healing. 11 more HP. Mage is back up to 25 HP. ("Kiss my butt, phase spiders.") Well, no Bless for you, Fighter and Rogue, Mr. Cleric. You spent your round boosting Mage's health to 25 HP. Phase 4 Ethereal Jaunt right on top of Mage. Hits. 12 HP off. Pshew. Mage got lucky. Phase 4 rolled low and he resisted the poison. 13 HP remaining.

So, after 1 round, major damage done to both sides. Very volatile. Mage was taken down and brought back up (which, by the way, negates one of the phase spiders' poison traits which states that once you reach 0 HP, you are poisoned but stable for 1 hour, even after regaining hit points, and would therefore be paralyzed while poisoned in this way. Meaning, the Cleric would not only have to run up and heal the Mage, but he'd also have to use Lesser Restoration to get him back into the action. Ah! What? A use for Lesser Restoration? No! Say it ain't so. Well, that would certainly make the cleric that much more vital, wouldn't it?) Anyway. All 4 phase spiders are more than half dead in a single round, and one IS dead. And what, exactly, were the strats used? Fighter. Move and attack twice with Menacing Attack. OK. Not exactly big strats, but neither is moving and shooting a bow twice. So, not much different. Rogue. Move and attack twice with melee. So, pretty much the same as fighter. No drop into hiding. No readying an attack in case a phase spider appears. Just move and attack twice. I suppose he could have done something different, but why would he? Phase Spider is right there. Run up and hit twice, at least hitting once with Sneak Attack. Mage. Misty Step and Fireball. Well, now that's major. Talk about an OP strat. Now 3 out of the 4 spiders are half dead. Cleric? Poor Cleric. The super volatile nature of the game allowed 2 phase spiders to pounce on the mage and take him down. Time to bring him back online. Hurl a potion and cast a spell and he's gone from 0 to 25 HP. This prevents him from being dropped when the 3rd phase spider pounces on him.

Now let's see how round 2 goes:

5e. Phase 1 is still alive in the Ethereal Plane. He moves another 60 feet towards party. Mage gets nervous. He knows that they are likely moving at 60 feet per round. So, he can calculate that Phase 1 has likely moved 120 feet. That means that he's still in an okay position for one more round, but the spiders will likely pounce on him next turn. No matter. Let them come. This gives him a round to cast Mirror Image. Now they'll have a MUCH harder time to hit him with DC 12. According to 5e rules, even if they hit, he gets to roll a d20. With 3 duplicates, he only needs a 6 or higher to transfer the attack onto one of his duplicates. That's a pretty significant chance. With 2 Duplicates, if he rolls an 8 or higher, the attack strikes a duplicate. With 1, the attack strikes a duplicate at 11 or higher. So, it's like he has minions that he can transfer the attack to, and each minion gets an AC of their own (10+Dex, so in this case 12). But even, let's say, we use Larian's simplified version. Each enemy gets a Disadvantage to hit him until all three of the duplicates are destroyed. Still a rather good chance that he will avoid getting hit. Mage is basically using himself as bait to lure out the spiders and buffing his defenses while doing so. ("Come to me, my pretties.") Fighter is next. Moves 30 feet and readies a ranged attack with the longbow. Rogue remains in hiding. Readies an attack with shortbow. Phase spiders move. Cleric moves 30 feet towards mage. Casts Spiritual Weapon and places it near the Mage. Makes it look like a hammer. Last phase spider moves. Quick round, actually. Most didn't do much, but they were preparing, strategically, for when the phase spiders will appear.

Round 3 - Phase 1 runs 60 feet up and is now in range. Waits. Mage casts Mage Armor, adding 3 to his AC, going from 12 to 15. Ah! Much harder to hit. Again, "Let them come." Fighter is next. Moves up to Mage. Switches to sword. Readies an attack. Rogue again readies an attack. Rest of the spiders move. Cleric joins Fighter and Mage. Readies an attack. Last phase spider moves.

Round 4 - Phase 1 Ethereal Jaunts and returns to the material plane. Fighter, Rogue and Cleric readied action triggered. Whoa! I just rolled it. 2 Nat 20s and a 19 total. 3 hits. Fighter deals 15 damage (2d8+2 with Crit). Rogue deals 13 (2d6+4 with Crit). Cleric deals 4 (1d6+2 without Crit). Total damage done to phase spider is 32. Killed Phase 1. Why? Strats. Reaction expended for all 3. Mage's turn. Hmmm. That was pretty effective. Should he change strat? Chances are, the spiders will come up to the Cleric and Fighter now if he falls back. However, he just buffed his defense pretty good. What if, instead of using Fireball, like he was planning, he uses Thunderwave Not as much damage, but the last 3 spiders would likely pop up on them right next to one another another, lining up with the Cleric, Fighter and Mage who are in a line. He could hit them all with one spell. Ah, but if he readies the Thunderwave, the first phase spider that appears will be the one to trigger it, so he would not hit them all, just the one who appeared. He might want to use a spell that would be more solo-enemy based. Well, he considers Fire Bolt because at level 6 it deals 2d10 damage. So, why not? Oh. Wait. When it appears, it will be in melee range. He'll get Disadvantage to hit because it's on top of him. Shocking Grasp it is. That's fine. It does 2d8 at level 6. That's pretty good. So, he is about to ready Shocking Grasp. Fighter readies attack. Rogue hides again with Expertise and succeeds. Readies an attack. (But, you might say, how can they do that? They already used their Reaction, right? Nope. They used LAST round's Reaction. As long as they use their Readied Action before their next turn, it is the previous round's Reaction that is used, not the current round's. Phase Spider 2 appears. Wizard uses Shocking Grasp, Fighter attacks with sword. Rogue fires bow. Mage hits with a 20 total. Fighter misses with a 9 total. Rogue hits with a 22 total. Mage does 8 damage. Rogue does 7. Good strats, but definitely not as lucky this time. Only 15 off because no one got a crit while previously 2 people got crits. So, phase spider is down to 17 HP. Phase 2 now attacks Mage. Rolls 15 total and hits. BUT, Mage rolls a 14 and transfers the attack onto one of his duplicates. Duplicate disappears. Phase 3 appears. All readied actions are finished. Phase 3 attacks mage. Hits. Mage rolls an 8 and transfers the attack to a second duplicate. Duplicate disappears. Cleric's turn. Hmmm. His most powerful attack is Guiding Bolt, but now he's at melee range. The most he can do with his mace is 1d6+2. He DOES have an area effect spell - Word of Radiance. Yes! That'll work. He casts Word of Radiance (a cantrip spell I'm hoping they add soon). Deals 2d6 damage to each creature of his choice that he can see within 5 feet. So before casting it, he dances around one of the spiders and lines himself up so both spiders are next to him. If they fail a Con roll, they receive damage. If they succeed, they don't get hurt at all. Dang! Both succeed. No damage. No matter, Spiritual Weapon can be moved and attack as a Bonus action. It swings and hits. 1d8+5 damage for a total of 7. Not bad. Now it's lost 22 HP in a single round thanks to what? STRATS! Phase 2 only has 10 HP left. Phase 4 finally gets to go. Rushes around and attacks Cleric because he's closest. Critical Miss. Better luck next time.

So, after 3 more rounds, 1 Phase Spider is dead. 1 is down to 10 HP, but the rest are full health. Various party members used various strats to get to this point, and not a single party member is hurt. Will they need a Long Rest after this fight? Probably not. They've used some spell slots, but nothing major. Short rest would probably do it. Shoot! The cleric probably didn't even need to use any. He just chose to because that was the strat he was using.

Let's see how BG3 would do.

Round 2. Phase 1 is dead. Mage Misty Step away from the 3 Phase Spiders. Fireball... because, why not? You can long rest after and get all your spell slots back. Rolls 30 damage from 8d6. DC is 14 for this wizard. Rolls are 14, 20 and 3. So, half damage to Phase 2 and 3, but 4 takes full. Half damage is 15. Full is 31. Wait. How many did they all have to begin with? 32 HP. So, Phase 2 and 3 only have 1 HP. Phase 4 is dead. Fighter's turn. Fires longbow. Hits. Phase 2 is dead. Fires using 2nd attack. Hits. Phase 3 is dead.

Great fight! [sarcasm] Lots of fun. Mage did most of the work, and all it took was Cleric to expend a single potion by throwing it. Then he used a single spell slot to cast Healing Word spell. Yeah sure. Mage expended a bunch of spell slots, but is that really a big deal with long rest spamability? No. Just long rest after the fight - wash, rinse and repeat.

Tell me that BG3 won't get boring once you get to level 5 and beyond.

Dunno ... didnt read it ...
I told you allready and in several occasions that i dont care about your fabricated scenarios. :-/

How should i say it ...
The problem that your scenarios create is that there is MANY (and i mean REALLY MANY) possible actions in every step ...
But since you are playing all characters, you are allways picking those that exactly suits your desired outcome ... you even get one step futher, since you are deciding who will hit, who will miss, how many damage they do ... everything.

What im trying to say is that everyone can be chessmaster who is giving Checkmate with 3rd move ... when playing against himself. :-/
But the value of such game is none.

First, how else shall I give you solid examples but to pull out some dice, and play out scenarios that, by the way, are similar to BG3 scenarios? I don't decide who hits. I roll for everything using the scenarios, and you'd know that if you read them. I try to be legit fair as much as possible because being not fair helps no one. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

And the scenarios are, naturally me deciding who will do what. How else should I do it? Are we going to get a D&D session going? I try to legit make the scenarios as intelligent as possible, making decisions that would make sense and be solid strategic decisions based on the different versions of D&D being used. I even tried to keep the scenarios as legit similar as possible, so it would be as unbiased as possible.

Interesting that you asked for an example, I gave you 2, and you didn't read them. Hmmm. Then you just write them off as me creating my own biased scenarios.

Let's talk Rogue next. I was going to discuss more of the cleric classes, but since they're not in the game presently, and since I really don't have the time, I've decided to move on to another class.

Rogues are one of the most destroyed classes in the game. For starters, there is no Expertise or Thieves' Tools Proficiency. This is huge because it sets them apart from other classes. Though anyone can pick a lock, not everyone is proficient with lockpicks. On top of that, rogues can take expertise with Thieves' Tools for an even bigger buff to picking locks.

Expertise allows a rogue to choose either two skills or one skill and Tool Proficiency to receive double proficiency. This is at level 1. At level 6, you're supposed to get two more.

What does that look like? Cleric has Dex +2 and no proficiency with Thieves'Tools. +2 to pick a lock. Ranger has +2 Dex and proficiency with Thieves'Tools, so +4. Rogue has +2 Dex and expertise with Thieves' Tools, so +6. Considerably better than everyone else and much better at picking locks. So, if I give my thief expertise in Stealth and Tools, with Dex +2, both of those abilities should be at +6. This makes for a more classic Rogue and gives the Rogue extra value on the team.

So, this means that a DC 15 lock, which is supposed to be a rather difficult lock, is only a 9 or higher for the Rogue, but a 11 or higher for the proficient Ranger, and 13 or higher for the unproficient Cleric. Even though they can all pick a lock, it is much easier for the Rogue with expertise.

Sneak attack. This is broken currently in the game. It is really not that hard. If I hit an enemy, I can increase the damage using sneak attack once per turn as long as either my character has advantage or there is an ally in melee range with the target. So, if I put Lae'zel up next to a goblin, Astarion should be able to use sneak attack. If the enemy does not know he is there because he is sneaking, he should get sneak attack. If he has advantage of any kind he should get sneak attack. It can be either for primary weapon attack or secondary, depending on what the Rogue decides.

Currently, I still can't get sneak attack on a lot of different attacks that I attempt to make with a rogue. I'm not sure what they did to it, but they have definitely messed it up.

One thing I will say though that I do like is that if you fail to pick a lock you can try again. I do not like how in Solasta, for example, if I fail the roll, that's it. You get one attempt per character, and if you fail you're done. There is no way to get it open after that unless you use the Knock spell. That said, I do wish they would give you less thieves tools, because it is too easy to just keep working at a lock until you succeed. There's hardly any consequence for failure, so why even bother?

My suggestion for picking locks would actually be that if you fail by five or more, then your lock pick breaks and you have to use a different thieves tools. If you fail by 1-4, you can try again with the same kit. Then don't allow players to find 10 plus Thieves'Tools lying around all over the place or have the ability to buy them like candy.

I also suggest that sneak attack must be fixed and made like the 5erules call for. And, for the love of God, give them expertise.

I don't even mind that there is no tool proficiencies. Using the sleight of hand skill is okay, as it combines two thief abilities into one. That does simplify it a little bit more and I don't think it is overly unbalancing.

I'll talk more about the two subclasses later.

Potions as an action make them useless.
What is the point of using the potion in combat in a situation where the next enemy blow will take more life than you managed to heal.
It is one of the most popular homebrews for a reason.
Healing in 5e was weakened to the ground then it is no longer 3e times where cleric was essential.
Cleric shouldn't be a mandatory character. I would not like to have one slot in the team permanently blocked.

Why do a lot of people forget Armor Class? The point is that unless you're really unlucky, your characters shouldn't be getting hit every round... Or unless you're a squishy mage who fails to cast defense spells to increase your survival chances. But, aside from that, I get that many people do Potion Bonus as opposed to Action. That one homebrew isn't breaking things. As I said, it's ALL the homebrew combined.

I do sometimes wonder just how many DM's ACTUALLY allow Bonus Potions. Maybe I should look it up since everyone is saying it.

I'll start adding links here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/k3vxw8/should_drinking_a_potion_require_an_action_or_a/
https://dmdavid.com/tag/rethinking-potions-as-a-bonus-action/
https://blackcitadelrpg.com/drinking-potion-5e/
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/du...only/76374-using-potions-while-in-battle

I remember the AC, but it doesn't make the potions better, but rather it makes them worse.
As a rule, it is better to try to kill the opponent to finish the fight faster and thus take less damage than to try to heal yourself, because if you take damage you will lose more than you gained.

Am I the only DM who gives players better than basic potions as they level up?

Potions of Healing

Potion of … Rarity HP Regained
Healing Common 2d4 + 2
Greater healing Uncommon 4d4 + 4
Superior healing Rare 8d4 + 8
Supreme healing Very rare 10d4 + 20

Basic are for level 1-3ish, Greater for 4-5ish, Superior for 6-8ish, Supreme for everyone higher. Something like that.

Generally speaking, standard healing potions are NOT intended to be a combat healing option. They can get someone on their feet again, and serve that end for non-healers and those without other magical or race/class related means of restoring hit points, but outside of that they are weak enough that in most situations, yes, they are a very inefficient action that is not supposed to be appealing or long-term viable.

Standard healing potions are intended to be emergency items for those without other means, and for topping up out of combat when you cannot afford the time to take an hour's rest.

For the record, in 5e, clerics are in no way essential; most classes have a small reserve of self-maintenance options that can help tide them over, and many classes have access to viable healing besides (At this stage, in fact, I believe that all caster classes have a means of accessing the healing sub set, with the possible exception of wizard, because theurgist wizard never passed the UA testing... which was a pity, because it was neat). Between what each class and character brings to the group, any class combination can fare well against challenges of appropriate magnitude regardless of their class make-up, as long as they play too their strengths (there are exceptions of course - you would not pit your all-caster group of level 11s against a rakshasa, for example)

Interesting. You know, it seems based on my research that there is a common misconception that DMs, in general, allow potions to be used as Bonus action. Sounds like the idea became popular largely because in Critical Role, they used this homebrew. The reasoning was that they had 7+ party members, and combat would take a long time. Having to wait 30 minutes to act only to drink a potion was not fun. So they adopted the bonus rule so people could at least do SOMETHING else on their turn.

Ultimately, however, seems there are MANY who use the true rules. That said, from what I've been seeing, it's really probably about even as far as how many allow Bonus versus how many do not. Many do not allow it because Jeremy Crawford said using a potion is like casting a healing spell. It's a spell in a bottle. Others agree it makes no sense to be fighting a monster, "Wait. Hold up. Gotta pause a sec to drink a potion. Thanks.". Battle resumes.

That said, many do find that players don't use potions much at all if it is an action. So they allow it as bonus. I must say, I don't use them hardly at all in Solasta, but that's because I have a Paladin and Druid who can heal. In a previous Solasta, I totally used them, even though they were actions. Hey, when your only healer is a Paladin, you buy and use potions, Action or Bonus. That's just the way it goes.

GM4Him

Okay, because you seem to be pretty much the only one that thinks the system that Larian set up with potion use renders healers unnecessary and like throwing out wild scenarios I want to issue you a challenge:

I want you to do a complete run of the Early Access content, but with a few rules:

1) The Character you create cannot have healing magic (So IF you make a Druid or Cleric you must prepare your spell list without the healing spells available)

2) You can choose any party make up you like, but if you keep Shadowheart in the party you must like wise prepare her spell list to exclude healing magics and cannot have Gayle learn healing magic. (You may however use the fighters second wind ability and the warlocks ability to regain health on a kill)

3) You MUST do ALL the fights... no using dialog to talk your way out of them or avoid any of the fights. Yes, you can use the dialog to turn the Gnoll against her own pack and you can recruit Gutt to help you kill the Duergar (if you are playing the "good" route) and recruit Brithvar to fight Nere, but when it comes to the oath breakers in the toll house you MUST side with Karlach (since slaying her would mean you are avoiding a fight... unless you choose the slay her and the Paladins...)

4) You may take as many long or short rests as you like.

5) you must record it.

The goal here is that you do all of the hardest fights available with only potions of healing, potions of greater healing and any scrolls of healing you find/buy and PROVE that the potions system implemented have rendered healers as useless as you say.

IF you can get through it all of that with just potions and scrolls, then you have proven your point and are absolutely right, BUT if I am correct... by the time you reach Nere you will be nearly out if not completely out of healing potions making that fight damn near impossible to do even with Brithvar's help. Honestly, I am guessing even with a good stock of healing potions and scrolls available to you even the Githyanki fight will prove to be a hell of a lot harder if not neigh impossible.

Honestly I don't really expect you to take this challenge, but I kind of want you to put your money where your mouth is...

I literally always need healing potions and a healer otherwise we all die because if they healer is hurt I need to heal them and also be aware of spell slots :P

Brilliant idea!

Well, at this point it isn't so brilliant with all the meta knowledge. Heck, even back in BG1 and 2 people got to the point that they would and could do a single character run without armor just for the challenge (including taking out Drizzt).

So, meh.

Joe

I don't lie. I might be mistaken sometimes and think I'm right, but I don't lie... Nor am I going to waste my time proving something to others especially who aren't making the decisions.

That said, I haven't done a complete run of EA without a cleric, but I have done a solo run with a barbarian up through the harpy fight without anything to heal me but potions AND only throwing and shoving. I HAVE done a run with a fighter as MC without any healer but potions. Granted, stopped at the Underdark because I got tired of it, but I did the surface. Can't recall if I did EVERY encounter, but I know I at least did most. Just my fighter, Lae'zel, Gale and Astarion. Stealth, janky homebrew mechanics, gimmicks... Yeah. It was actually a breeze.

Hah! One time I killed the Bulette by locking it into combat with everyone but Astarion - different run - and just had Astarion stealth and shoot from a distance. Killed it without a fight because it never detected him. Just spammed shooting it from afar.

Others have also solo'd this game using stealth and gimmicks. So why would I waste my time trying to prove anything? Certainly a healer makes the game easier, but are they necessary? Is anyone necessary? No. Not in current state. In my barbarian run, I even got close to dying at the grove gate, and Aradin and his party threw potions and healed me full up.

The point is that if you don't have a healer - not just cleric but a healer - you should feel it. You should have a greater challenge and have to buy more potions and use them more strategically to stay alive. Healers shouldn't be so devalued that you can easily live without them. I say SHOULD because I'm saying that if healers have real value, you should feel it if they are missing. Same with Rogue. It should be harder to open locks and such without them because it's important to have someone who is an expert at picking locks.

The point is that what I'm seeing is the devaluing of the classes overall, so everyone can do everything and no one is really needed. Classes have no real value.

But, if you do play with a Life Cleric - well, GG easy game everyone. And wait til after level 5 with wizards casting major damage AOE spells. They will overshadow the others. That is what I'm seeing. Could be wrong. Maybe I am. But it sure seems like it, especially since, while playing Solasta, I'm already seeing some of it. My Op sorcerer flies and rains fireballs almost every battle. Starts getting old after awhile.

@CMK

Did you read the scenarios? What about them is "wild"? Are they REALLY not reasonable scenarios? I literally rolled dice and played it out using the two different rule sets. They may not incorporate all possible scenarios, but they are legit scenarios.

Should I go into All the possible scenarios? Man, that would take forever.

Hmm.. what was so wild, that in BG3 at level 6 a wizard can both port using Misty Step AND blast 3 phase spiders with a fireball before they can even go? Is that not a possibility once they lift the level cap? Is that so wild?

Yay for team sorcerer!

One could argue that you felt it. O_o

Sure. One could argue that I was really feeling it while soloing as a barbarian while ONLY throwing and shoving. Yep. I was definitely running out of potions by the harpy fight while ONLY shoving and throwing with one character.

And, did you forget I said I did a fighter playthrough also, doing at least most of the surface, without a healer and just potions, with Gale, Lae'zel and Astarion? Didn't feel it there either. Lots of potions left.

Personally I have more of a problem with all classes having access to all scrolls and believe it to be the bigger contributor to over all watering down of class "distinctiveness". Bonus action potions in a normal D&D game is apparently a popular homebrew and doesn't seem to break the game by itself.

That said BG3 is NOT a normal D&D game on far to many levels. All of Larian's homebrew stacks creating something way out of proportion to the slight change it appears to be. Between potions becoming bonus actions, plus now being Healing Word for all classes, plus new magic items apparently giving extra bonus actions out like candy and full access to spell scrolls on top of all that it is just to much extra healing power imo. Not just does it lessen/eliminate to some extent the cleric class, but I believe in Larian's mind it justifies/encourages their other homebrew decisions like giving creatures aoe abilities they shouldn't have.

I do agree with GM4Him's fear the later game is potentially going to be problematic.

Thank you.

Look. It's all about extremes. A homebrew here and there that makes sense is fine. I'm just trying to show how all the homebrew is destroying classes.

Just look at Rogue. I'm trying to move on to Rogue. Look at what I pointed out for the Rogue. What, honestly, makes them special in BG3? Anyone can pick a lock or steal just as good as any rogue you create, or pretty darn close to it, and anyone can stealth as well as a Rogue. Totally unnecessary class.

What makes them special at all? I'll get into that more with Subclasses of Rogue.

Let's start with Arcane Trickster. Not bad implementation. Spellcasting Rogue, basically. Aside from the things missing which I mentioned previously, mainly Expertise, there's not much here that is really different...

Except for Mage Hand. It should be invisible, able to be moved via your Cunning Action Bonus Action, able to pick locks or disarm traps using your proficiency (so Expertise would really shine here), and able to essentially pick pockets with Sleight of Hand roll.

It is what really sets the Arcane Trickster apart at lower levels, and mage hand really doesn't function well. It is a lame spell that can't even pull levers. The whole point of it is to manipulate objects from 30 feet away, and I've only ever used it as a diversion for enemies who love to attack it. Not good, especially for the Arcane Trickster.

That said, not much else to say here. Rogue Mage cross class is essentially what this is. Is it special. Sure. It's fine. Other than Mage Hand and no Expertise, they've implemented it fairly well.

Thief.

Honestly, I usually make Astarion a thief because Arcane Trickster just isn't as good. The Thief is the subclass that kinda sorta makes up for the Rogue getting the shaft as a class.

But once again, they've gone to the other extreme. Fast Hands, according to 5e, should allow Rogues to pickpocket someone using Cunning Action, pick a lock or disarm a trap, or use an item (potion being one such item but it's not limited to just a potion). So it's meant to add to what you can do with the normal Rogue ability Cunning Action. You can Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action, and now you can pick pockets, pick locks and use items that are normally Actions to use - non-attack type things.

But, instead, BG3 gives Thieves an extra bonus action because when are you ever going to pick a lock, disarm a trap or use an item in BG3 during combat? Nowhere, at least in EA, would this apply ESPECIALLY because potion - the most usable item in combat - is already a Bonus.

So, what's the big issue?

You can do ALL of the following as a Thief:

1. Attack with Main hand and Attack twice with your off hand, potentially dealing more damage than a fighter or barbarian each round.
2. Dash not once or twice but 3 times, moving up to 180 feet in a single turn.
3. Attack and use 2 Potions for more healing potential than even a cleric if you have good potions. 2 Greater Potions is 8d4+8 healing in a single turn... And you can still attack too with Sneak Attack and deal hefty damage.
4. Cast a spell using a scroll, then another using a scroll as a Bonus, and a third as another Bonus. Misty Step 2 times of ya got the scrolls. That's more than an Arcane Trickster or any mage. Dang!
5. Hide, Shoot or Melee, skirt around behind an enemy and Hide again.

Or some mix of these. I'm sure there's more, but those are the main ones I've done.

So how has Larian made the Rogue stand out? Thief with more Bonus actions. They aren't standing out as lock pickers and pickpockets, or deceivers and tricksters. They're standing out as massive damage dealers and potion drinkers and super fast racing across the board runners, and scroll chainers and popping in and out of shadows assassins.

As for their other ability, Second Story Work, I'm not sure if that is implemented well. I haven't noticed if they can jump farther or climb faster than anyone else. That's all overshadowed by Fast Hands, the OP Rogue Thief ability that makes the Rogue REALLY incredible.

Man! If you gave Rogues Expertise so they were kings of Stealth, they'd be gaining advantage on every dang attack roll. Hide even in direct line of sight, sneak attack, hide. Sneak Attack and off hand, dance around behind, hide. Wash, rinse, repeat. By level 5, at least 5d6 damage each round, if not 6d6. 3d6 for Sneak Attack and 1d6 per 3 weapon attacks. What can Fighter do? Maybe 4d6 with Greatsword, and if uses Action Surge another 2d6 - IF uses action Surge. Add 1d8 for superiority dice if he uses it, and can only do that 4 times. Hmmm. Something seems off.

I dont see how ...
There is no way to upcast scrolls, and so far they are allways lowest possible level ... wich means (especialy for damaging, or healing spells) that their usefullness isnt so earthshaking. :-/

Sure, there are "some" spells that dont need upcasting anyway and can be usefull ... like Mage Armor, Protection from Good and Evil, Slow Fall, or so often mentioned Misty Stepp ...
But are they really so awesome? :-/
I mean who except Sorcerer, or Wizard would even use Mage Armor?
In how many occasions you will use Protection from Evil and Good, or Slow Fall?
True ... Misty Step can theoreticaly be quite usefull, but even if Larian would decided to limit scrolls (wich we all can do yourseself, if we mind it so much BTW) to casters only ... there is still several (yup 2 at least right now, and we dont even have whole Act 1) artefacts that will allow us to do exactly the same ... so what would be the point here?

I'd finally tried Trickery in this game and couldn't find where I could move the Invoke Duplicity as a bonus action like RAW. Did I just miss it?

Nope. It's just not there

The Fighter.

Actually, I think the fighter is done rather well in BG3. It's probably the best implemented class. It lines up with 5e pretty well. Battle master could use a few more maneuvers, but overall well done. Oh, and Eldritch Knight needs Weapon Bond. I don't think they included it, if I recall correctly. Now that you can be disarmed, that would be an important special ability so an Eldritch Knight can easily retrieve their weapon.

The only thing they did to kinda nerf the fighter is that they gave different weapons different special maneuvers, so the Battle master isn't AS special because he/she is no longer the only one who can do special melee or ranged attack maneuvers. Still, they only made them 1/day abilities, so they aren't that OP.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the fighter implementation. More subclasses would be all we need for this class - like Arcane Archer and Champion.

Is it still the case that when you do a Maneuver, you are made to consume a Superiority Dice before before knowing if the attack hits ?

If so, that's not a very good implementation to me. All the more so that the skeleton of the Fighter Class is overall pretty simple to implement (minimal use of Reaction). I'm not overly impressed by the facts that Second Wind and Action Surge are correctly implemented. The Maneuvers are the signature feature of the Battle Master Subclass. So if it's not done well, I wouldn't rate the Battle Master as done rather well.

I don't worry about the number of available Maneuvers. I'm sure more will come later. I'm worried about how the whole Maneuver system is implemented.

What is sad, if we sill lose Superiority Dice on missed attacks, is that it is not even necessary to have a proper reaction system (reaction with lower case r here, as I'm speaking about when the players' decisions are made, Maneuvers generally don't consume the 5E resource called Reaction). Indeed, with the current implementation, all the devs would have to do to get Maneuvers right is to consume a Superiority Dice when we select the Maneuver, and credit it back if the attack misses.

Of course, I'd be happy if Larian first implements a proper system for players to input last minute decisions, and then revises Maneuvers within that new framework.

They tweaked it. Yes. It used to consume a Superiority dice even if you missed. It doesn't now. You select the maneuver you want to do, and if you hit you use the die. Otherwise you don't. I've tested it out multiple times. It works pretty well.

And you do get them back with a short rest.

One thing BG3 does better than Solasta, in my opinion, is that Solasta does have too many pauses in combat to have popup windows ask you if you want to apply something. Examples: Barbarian Frenzy and Paladin Smite. If I hit, a popup asks me, "Do you want to apply XYZ special ability, and at what level?"

I do like how maneuvers work in BG3. I'd rather select the maneuver as if it's an attack, and if I hit the damage is automatically applies. Same with Sneak Attack and so forth. It's annoying after awhile in Solasta because EVERY time my paladin hits, I get the window asking if I want to apply smite damage. That gets REAL old. Is much rather have a separate button I click to activate the ability before attacking at what level I want and if it hits it applies. SO much less clunky.

That said, I think they could still make it better in BG3. Like they could be 1 button, not 1 for ranged and 1 for melee. Just one button that applies to whatever weapon you have in hand. That way, they wouldn't clutter up the hotbars. Want to do Disarm maneuver? If you have your sword in hand and hit the Disarm button, it automatically applies to your sword if you hit. We don't need so many dang buttons for every ability in the game.

Oh, and I might want to apply Sneak Attack to off hand, not main. I should be able to select Sneak Attack and then Off Hand Attack and have it apply. This could be done by having main hand vs. off hand be a toggle (replacing Single/ Duel toggle). So, it is set to Main by default. All Sneak Attacks, etc. Apply to main. However, of you want to switch Sneak Attack to off hand, flip the toggle.

When equipped with 2 weapons, game should default to attacking with main, and if you click on the enemy again you immediately attack with off hand so you don't have to hit an extra button to attack with off hand. Only if you hit the toggle and flip it to off hand would it attack with that hand first. Afterwards it would default back to main.

But anyway, the point is that I like BG3's implementation of maneuvers. I want more options now, and maybe have it cleaned up a bit without so many buttons.

Woohoo ! And also : finally !

Because let's be real, it was really cheap to edit the code make this right, and ... well I don't know if this had been requested from EA Day 1, but I started requested from just after Patch 3. Do you remember when the change occurred ?

In the grand scheme of things, it's a small step, but at least it's a step in the good direction.

I think Patch 4 or 5. It's been some time, I know that much.

Rangers.

Now, this could just be me, but I can't think of a time when my Ranger Beastmaster ever used Favored Enemy in BG3, and yet there were plenty of times, especially on the Nautiloid, when it would have come into play.

Now, that said, it's been awhile since I played that class, but I just don't remember getting any kind of Advantage on checks involving Aberrations, which is the Favored Enemy I chose. It could have been there, mind you, but I don't remember it.

For example, when making rolls on the Nautiloid to determine if he could understand the Mind Flayer scripts on the machines near Shadowheart, an Arcana roll is made. Well, since Mind Flayers are Aberrations, he should have gotten an advantage on the roll to determine if he could understand the language and know what the buttons mean. I don't think he did. Again, it's been awhile since I played him, and if they did give him advantage - or they've since fixed it - that's great. Still, that's one of the main bonuses right out the gate for a ranger. They are experts at tracking and hunting especially those who are their favored enemies. So, if it's not in the game, it needs to be.

Favored Terrain is another major main element of the ranger right from the beginning, and thus far I can't ever remember an incident in the game where it came into play. Did I even get to pick a Favored Terrain? If so, why? After all, there is hardly ever Difficult terrain - so that the rest of the party would be slowed but the ranger would not, when would the group ever "become lost" in BG3, so that the ranger would be able to prevent that from happening, there are no random encounters while traveling, so why would rangers being more alert make any difference, the game doesn't allow rangers to stealth at a normal pace in their favorite terrain, there is no foraging for food, and you can't track creatures. So, one of the most important, basic features of a ranger is completely pointless in BG3. It doesn't matter what your favorite terrain is because thus far in EA, none of the benefits of favored terrain applies.

So, right away, the ranger takes a pretty solid hit to its usefullness as a class. In order to fix this, Larian would need to implement advantage on rolls for Favored Enemy (if they haven't already), provide opportunities to find tracks and actually track Favored Enemies - so let's say your favorite enemy is oozes, they could have all traces of oozes at Grymforge be invisible to players and then you roll to see if you find tracks for the oozes and if you succeed you actually see them on the ground and then can follow them to their location and not be surprised when they attack (allowing the ranger with oozes favored enemy to get an advantage on the roll to see the tracks) - more opportunities to make Intelligence checks to recall information on said favored enemies, etc.

For Favored Terrain, they'd need to give you reasons why the favored terrain ability sets the ranger apart from every other class. If you pick forest, for example, the ranger can stealth by themselves faster than anyone else. They'd need to provide more difficult terrain that slows people down, like brambles and bushes and such in the forest, or mud or something, so that the ranger isn't slowed but everyone else is (just using Forest as an example). They'd need to have transition screens between areas, indicating that more than a few seconds went by between maybe places like the Nautiloid/Beach/Dank Crypt area and the Grove. You know, like they traveled for an hour or so through some rugged terrain to reach the Grove Gate, and then have it where a Survival check is necessary to keep from getting lost so the Ranger would automatically not get lost while everyone else could. What would it mean to get lost? You wind up back in the previous area and have to Long Rest before trying again, or maybe you lose a Short Rest as you try to rest from your weary traveling, or maybe you have to spend food, or some sort of consequence for getting lost - meanwhile, the ranger never gets lost in their favored terrain, so if you have a ranger with you, it's not an issue.

They'd also need to implement random encounters chance while traveling between map locations. So, maybe you might run into a group of goblins while traveling from the Nautiloid/Crypt/Beach area to the Grove area, and they might surprise you - unless you have a ranger with you and its the ranger's favored terrain.

And food. Food would need to be a LOT more scarce in the game so that they could implement a foraging system where you can forage for food, or hunt, and the ranger would get advantage on Survival checks to be able to find food easier than other classes.

All these things would then add value to the Ranger class right from the beginning. Meanwhile, as it stands, the Ranger is just kinda sorta meh right from the beginning. They are kinda a fighter, but not really, and later they get some spellcasting - which is implemented well, by the way. But the point is, overall, the Ranger has been stripped of a lot of their value in the beginning because there is very little to do with Favored Terrain in BG3, which is a huge part of what makes a Ranger a Ranger.

And it could mostly be fixed by implementing travel between map locations - which means they'd have to maybe create smaller maps instead of shoving them all together, and then actually have transitions between them indicating more lengthy travel - and random encounters - and if they added a hunting/foraging survival system with much less food handed out at every turn, that would also make a huge difference. In order to give Rangers value, food needs to be something a typical character has to worry about acquiring, while the Ranger has a much easier time of it because they're good at Survival especially in their terrain.

Oh, and I almost forgot, is there even a Primal Awareness ability for Rangers? I don't remember there being one, and I certainly never used it. However, that would be an awesome ability that would allow Rangers to be able to detect the presence of creatures within a certain game map (assuming game maps were smaller). So, you spend a spell slot and can tell that blighted village has undead in it somewhere, or at Grymforge you cast it and determine that there are fiends there along with elementals.

Anyway, the lack of all these things makes the Ranger so much less valuable right from the beginning.
I'll get into Ranger subclasses next.

Hunter subclass. This was implemented pretty well, from what I can see. I didn't test all the options, but based on the descriptions it looks like they implemented them right. You can either pick the Colossus Slayer and do 1d8 damage to creatures you hit when they don't have max HP, or you can pick Giant Killer and use your reaction to attack a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature. Or you can do Horde Breaker, which allows you to make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target that you attacked. I have tested both Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker, and both seem to work just fine, so I have no reason to believe that Giant Killer doesn't work as expected.

As for Beastmaster... Sigh. I've said it on another thread, but I'll repeat it here. Animal Companions are not the same as familiars, and we need to have a totally distinct separation between the two. Here are the main differences that we need implemented in the game:

1. Animal Companions are not summoned. You can have an initial spawning outside of combat, indicating that the ranger went out and found an animal and convinced it to be his/her animal companion, but it is not a magical beast that was summoned from another plane of existance. If it dies, that's a real life animal that has died. It isn't a magical animal that you can just unsummon and summon. It is like a comanion in your party. Therefore, if it dies, you should not be able to simply summon another animal right away. There should be some sort of consequence for allowing it to die - like you can't have another animal companion until after you've taken a long rest, no matter when you first spawned the animal. (5e calls for an 8 hour bonding with a friendly animal.) The point is to indicate that time has passed since the loss of a previous companion, and now you are finding a new one. Also, since they are not summoned, they should never be de-spawned. You can maybe dismiss them for good, but they should not de-spawn when you long or short rest. They should remain with you until you dismiss them and they run off into the wilderness.

2. Animal Companions can fight. Unlike Familiars that cannot actually Attack, Animal Companions can obey commands and can run up and attack enemies on their own turn. Now, typically in 5e Tabletop, this requires the Ranger to use an Action to give a command. If they have an appropriate special ability at later levels, this can be turned into a Bonus Action, showing a progressive familiarity with training and commanding beasts. But ultimately in TT it is an Action. However, in TT, the point is that the Ranger can use one Action and command the animal to "Attack that Goblin," and it will spend all of its turns attacking that goblin until it's dead. You don't need to command it each round. That, admittedly, might be difficult to do in a video game. The best way to handle it would be to have Animal Companions be AI controlled. On a Ranger's turn, they could use an Action to Command Animal Companion and then select a target to have it attack, or if the Ranger wants it to change its tactics, he/she could use an Action to do so (such as have the Animal Companion Disengage and retreat, Dodge, Dash, or even Help someone). If the animal's target is dead, it does nothing, waiting for its master to tell it what to do next, or maybe it returns to the master's side until given a new instruction. Each turn, as the TT rules state, it uses the Dodge action until given new orders. This would be a more accurate "benchmark" 5e implementation of Animal Companions.

3. Animal Companions should be able to be named, thus giving them more familiarity to the player. Anything you name creates a connection. Any kind of customization we can give to the animal makes it that much more special. So, I would like to suggest that we have the ability to name them and even change basic coloring or something - anything to make the animal more than just a magical construct that is a meat-shield minion we can throw at enemies and we don't care if it dies.

Right now, Animal Companions are made not as cool because Familiars can do pretty much everything an Animal Companion can do. Both can be spawned at any time, you can attack with either, and you can control either without expending Actions or Bonus Actions or anything. Basically, the main thing that makes the Beastmaster so cool is completely thrown out the window because all Animal Companions are - well, they are nothing but glorified Familiars in BG3. Some Familiars are even BETTER than Animal Companions. So, why even waste your time being a Beastmaster? Just make someone with a Find Familiar spell and you've got something WAY better - especially a Warlock Pact of the Chain familiar. I've played the Beastmaster multiple times, and each time I found myself trying to love it, because it's one of my favorite subclasses, but only feeling like it was pretty much worthless to take that path.

Only the Ranger in BG3 has been completely overhauled so that its functions would not be useless as is sometimes the case in 5e (and be even more in BG3).
Just to remind you that the natural explorer and the favored enemy have nothing to do (except the name) with how they work in 5e).

The favored enemy instead of focusing on a specific type of enemy and not doing the rest, instead gives your character some profiniency and (sometimes) a spell.
They are: Bounty Hunter, Keeper of the Veil, Mage Breaker, Ranger Knight and Sanctified Stalker.
The most interesting of all this is definitely the Ranger Knight with heavy armor.
Natural explorer also got a lot of changes, you can choose free find familiar (worst option), sleight of hand or resistance to cold, fire or ice.

Overall, Ranger in BG3 looks much better than in 5e because it is not good in a few situations and useless for the rest of the time, unless DM adjusts campaigns to a given character.

Wow. You really think 5e rangers suck? I have yet to have a bad, useless ranger in a 5e session, and usually someone is a ranger. I suppose it might depend on the campaign, but then I've got a Descent into Avernus going on with a Drow Ranger/ Hunter, and so far she's been quite the MVP. Granted, admittedly, she hasn't used Favored Terrain, but they just left Baldur's Gate. So, we'll see.

I don't know if I care for the overhauled BG3 subclasses, but thank you for bringing them up. I didn't have them in front of me and couldn't remember them. If someone does know what they all do, it would be good to have details so anyone reading this can see the overall differences.

I disagree. I personally prefer the popups for Maneuvers and Smites due to the versatility of choice I have. Its different from initiating it yourself ala a button because when it comes to smites, what if I crit? You are damn right I want to smite then and there with my highest level smite slot! If I don't crit, well, unless the enemy is low on HP, I'm gonna save my spell slots.

When it comes to Maneuvers its almost the same thing. When it comes to Precision attack, maybe I have Great Weapon Master with that -5, and I'll wait to use it after I rolled my attack to see what I rolled to hit. If its low, I'd rather not waste it. If its middling, I might choose to use it to get that hit. If I crit, well I'll use that dice for damage.

Having the Smites, Maneuvers and Sneak attack being a button I have to press feels wrong. Especially Sneak attack. Just have it be automatic!

I hadn't thought about crits. That is true. If you crit and THEN pick Smite Level 3, that makes a huge difference as opposed to picking Smite Level 1 and then getting a crit and wishing you HAD picked Level 3.

Maneuvers aren't wasted if you miss, so picking them beforehand isn't that big of a deal except, again, with crits. So I do see your point there.

However, it is very annoying to constantly get a popup with my paladin every single time he strikes an enemy - especially after getting 2 attacks per turn.

As for Sneak Attack, I'd like a toggle, tbh. Pick which attack you want to apply it to, and it just auto-applies it every time to that attack. Toggle to Off Hand and it'll apply to Off Hand. Toggle to Main and it will apply to Main - whenever conditions apply that is.

I'm not sure what the best solution is for Smite and/or Maneuvers, but I do see your point about Crits. Also, if an enemy's health is relatively low, and you think you can kill them without Smite, you may want to just NOT Smite if you rolled a Crit. So like, if the mama spider has 15 HP left, and you roll a crit with a greatsword, you have a good chance of dealing more than 15 damage with 4d6 (let's say strength 16)+3. So why would you want to waste something like Smite when you'll probably kill her with 4d6. However, you might want to use smite if you did a regular hit and only get 2d6+3.

3-stage toggle. "Off" / "Ask me" / "On"

This would be perfect. Ask me for Maneuvers, Smites, On for Sneak attack, Ask me for AOO, etc etc.

Suggested that 7 months ago.

Somebody get this person a gold star! He thought of it first.

Like everything else that is good, it bears repeating so maybe Larian will do it.[

I also think some others suggested this months ago.

Ultimately, let's get rid of excess action buttons.

Toggle for Main Hand - switch to Off Hand. This designates which hand you default to when you hover over an enemy and the Attack icon appears. Click on enemy, attack with default hand first. Click again, attack with off hand (if 2 weapons equipped).

Special Attack Toggle - On/Ask/Off. Defaults to On so you usually use it on your first attack. Switch to Off so you can use it on whatever attack you want or Ask to interrupt attack as system asks if you want to use it on the attack and at what level. Works for ALL special attacks such as Sneak Attack, Maneuvers, Smites, etc.

Each character has their own toggles so you can handle each differently.

Get rid of Single Duel Toggle. You don't need it if all you have to do to attack with the off hand is just click on the enemy a second time. It takes literally a split second longer, but it gives the player full control over both attacks.