Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is Bless Scroll in Patch 7?

Since day 1 of early access, it's been pointed out that wizards can learn any spell. This thread contains a list of topics covering the subject. Consensus seems to be that the most egregious consequence of this homebrew is wizards casting Bless.

In my patch 7 runthrough, I hit the Arron scroll lottery pretty hard, refreshing his stock as often as possible to find a Bless scroll for Gale. I never found one, nor did I playing through the game. Admitedly, I made few stops on my way to Grimforge, but it was still a forty hour run. (I play slowly, I like to weigh my options.)

My guess is that Larian might have removed just the Bless scroll from the game as a nerf to wizards. But I'm not actually sure if the scroll was removed in the first place. So I'm asking the forum:

Has anyone seen a Bless scroll in Patch 7?

Yup

The fact that wizards can cast divine spells is a significant departure from the D&D rules, and has been a known problem since the beginning of Early access.

Is there an official stance from larian on this issue?

It's against the rules in DnD, sure.

But does it really make that big of a difference? If you play a Wizard, and I play a Sorcerer... I don't feel like you're overpowered. You're spending a lot of money on scrolls, most of which you'll never get around to memorizing because your active list is limited and tends to be filled up with favorites.

Meanwhile, I'm over here twinning and quickening spells and basically wrecking house.

Shrug. I guess it just doesn't bother me that Wizards can learn Cleric spells. In fact, I kind of think the Wizard needs it to compete with other classes.

Of course it is a problem.

What's the point of Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster if everyone can use scrolls ?
Why would you play a Cleric if your Wizard can learn/cast the exact same spell ?

The modifier used to determine the "power" of spells through scroll depend the character that cast them. Which mean that casting (in exemple) cure wounds with a wizard is as powerfull as if you cast it with a cleric (or use a cleric spellslot).
On top of that, there are litteraly scrolls EVERYWHERE in the game.

Scrolls for everyone tone down the uniqueness of classes / subclasses, it reduce the replayability and it reduce the importance of our choices (party member, tactical decisions in combats, character build,...) without adding any meaningfull appeal to the game.

Don't know what you mean "compete with other classes". Wizard are absolutely overpowered in BG3. Magic missile + Saphire Spark makes all other offensive spells useless and make this particular spell more powerfull than a sneak attack or a guiding bolt.
(with 100%to hit for the wizard whatever his modifier/the target's AC).

Did you ever play any other DnD games in which you access level 3 spells ? That's supposed to be a huge boost for wizards. A second one in BG3, I guess.

Well ... kinda ... people are complaining about this since day one and nothing changed so far ...
I would say their "stance" is in this particular case crystal clear.

Cause everything that has been adressed since day one and that hasn't change yet is now set in stone ?
You can't be right about that.

Well ...
I would say that with every next patch where those things remain the same ... the probability of them stay as they are is higher and higher ... and its quite high allready.

I'm inclined to agree.

Just because a wizard can theoretically duplicate the role of a cleric using learned spells doesn't mean it's exploitative to do so, or that anyone actually will. You sacrifice the wizard's other utilities to do so. Maybe the ramifications are more egregious later in the game when the wizard has more spell slots and active spells, but just looking at the first four levels, it's more of an expensive novelty that is contrary to lore than anything. That being said, I rather enjoy being a 'spellbook completionist' when I play a wizard, even if I don't use the spells.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The difference between arcane and divine spells is one of the main distinctions between classes like wizard and cleric (or druid). Keeping things as they are now would be a heavy violation of the D&D rules in my opinion.




I really hope you are wrong mate.

Letting Wizards learn any spell from any scroll is gamebreaking IMO.

Not just from a mechanical standpoint - by making D&D's strongest class even stronger, but it actively hurts the class fantasy of D&D. Not only does this invalidates every caster class by letting Wizard learn their best spells, it hurts the Sorcerer who sees the spells known gap wide. It especially hurts Paladin and Rangers (half casters) - because a Wizard can potentially learn and cast their best spells BEFORE they can. It's a direct attack on Bards and one of their class features - Magical Secrets

The Bard's Magical Secrets is a level 10 feature that lets them learn spells from every class (but limited to a very small amount, i.e. you get 2 by level 10, unless you're a Lore Bard). This is going to be a one of the "capstones" for a single class Bard in BG3... and we're basically going to let the Wizard have a version of that for free?

This is the same issue with Bonus Action Hide, or Free Advantage on Backstab/High Ground - it invalidates very specific class abilities. Can you imagine how silly Reckless Attack would look if we still had backstab?

Yes, in theory you can help limit this by limiting the scrolls available, but now other classes can't have scrolls to supplement their casting, because the Wizard needs to be better?

I see it as a part of Larian's grand strategy, which is to eliminate as much class difference as possible. DOS didn't have classes, so the concept is apparently too alien for Larian designers to fully comprehend.

When all that you get is a Larian, everything looks like a classless surface.

For the Wizard can learn topic ...
I gues nobody will be surprised when i say i take the "dont care" side.

Sure your Wizard can then completely take the role of Cleric ... but then you just lost a Wizard.
Sure your Wizard can have half something, half something else ... but you still have limited spellslots and your Wizeric or Clerard ( ) will NEVER EVER be as effective as full Wizard, nor as full Cleric if you do that ...

---

I dont use this feature myself tho.
It doesnt feels right to me ... i mean Clerics are something like prolonged hands of their deity, they dont "cast" themselves, the deity cast through them (or at least that is how i understand it, and i like that explanation so dont bother corect me here, since i shall stick with this no matter how wrong i am :P ) and as far as i know, Clerics have to stay on good side with their deity if they wish to keep Clericking (i know this isnt implemented ... and sadly i doubt it ever will) ...
While Wizards manipulate the magic energy to get the desired outcome, so all they need is knowledge and enough focus ...
There is clear difference.

But if someone want to spend tremendous amount of gold to create unarmored Cleric without a shield, nor with any decent chance to land a regular strike, and with shitty statistics (i believe and hope that Cleric spells still scale with Wisdom even when Wizard learns them) just to have option to spend their precious Spellslots for Fireballs and no longer being able to fulfill the role of Cleric ... or save those spellslots on some Cleric stuff and no longer being able to do Fireball ... i wish him luck and lots of fun.

In my eyes this is exactly the same as creating Dexterity focused Barbarian, or Strength focused Monk ... entirely possible, but also total bullshit.

Honestly ... me too ... but statistic is cruel bitch, and i dont dare to keep my expectations too high against her predictions. :-/

Nope
Wizards use their regular spellcasting ability which is intelligence. Also, patch 7 introduced the proficient scribe ability for wizards. Scrolls cost half off to scribe if they're part of your school of magic. An evocation wizard can learn Healing Word, Cure Wounds, Prayer of Healing and Guiding Bolt for 125 gold.

Keep in mind, you can prepare spells at leisure outside combat. Healing spells can be great in a bind, and having a backup healer never hurt. Or you can be proactive and have both wizard and cleric chaincast Healing Words on the barbarian while sipping martini in the rafters.

I'm not saying it's not fun. It makes wizards powerful in a unique way. Building up Gale's toolbox and figuring out how best to use it was part of what I enjoyed about my patch 7 run. I was also relieved not to come across a Bless scroll. I rate it so highly that it limits the decision space.

I've posted plenty on this topic, but I may be slowly changing my mind. At this point, I'd rather see something unique added to the cleric than see this ability removed from the wizard.

There is allways question if that is by design, bug or oversight.
But this question should be asked about EVERYTHING in Early Acess.

Now this seems quite clearly as a bug.

I do ...

But outside of combat you have potions (i hoarded 52 of them in my last playthrough ... i had even start sending them to camp, bcs they were simply too heavy to carry around. )
You have short rests ...
You have Prayer of Healing scrolls ...
And you still have some food that can be eaten and will heal you (im not telling you wich, search it youreself :P ) ...

And still, even if you decide to cast Prayer of Healing with your Wizard, you just spend 2nd level spellslot for that, wich certainly affects your effectivity in next fight.
I rather use Shatter, or Chromatic Orb than that.

You probably just missed it, im totally positive it is there since i used scroll on my Barbarian when she was going to drink potion from Omeluum.

I mean Clerics still have Chanel Divinity actions ...
True it isnt exactly awesome for Shadowheart and her Trickery Domain ... but for example Life Cleric have REALLY powerfull heal ... and if you support it with some artefacts ...
Well, lets just say that i hardly needed to heal with anything else during combat.

I just bought a Scroll of Bless from Arron in the Druid Grove.

Mages shouldnt be able to cast cleric spells. At all.

Mage spells draw their powers from different sources then cleric spells do. Clerics and paladin gain their spells from their deity. A wizard does not. He pulls them directly from the weave.

A shame this still isent completly fixed but I do think they intended to adress it. Maybe they accidentily skipped bless?

Agreed ...
But still dont see any reason to restrict that mechanicaly.

If you demand it ...
Please quote me any rule that strictly forbids any Wizard to be so faithfull and religious, so he manage to reach any deity that would be able to provide him such powers.

Self-moderation is the key here. :P

Please quote me a rule that enables any Wizard to cast Cleric spells (emphasis on "any", so not including multiclassing into Cleric or taking a specific feat). Wizards can be faithful and religious - sure - but that alone doesn't grant them access to Cleric spells.

The reason to restrict it mechanically is that mechanically Cleric spells are given to Clerics, not Wizards. The classes were designed with this lack of spell overlap to help balance them and make each class feel more distinct.

Well played ... but you forget something.

https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Rule_0

There. :P
Rule, that enables any Wizard to cast Cleric spells ... if GM (Larian) say so. :P

Just for the record i dont disagree with you ... i never use Cleric spells on my Wizard ... but still i dont see any reason for Larian to bother with this honestly.
People who wants that will mod it imediately ...
And people who dont, will never use it ...