Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
I have to say that I don't really see why people being less likely to take a feat at level 4 is a problem in itself? It seems like the real problem is that there aren't enough good feats to entice players. I'm mostly neutral to the subject, leaning towards being in favor of it, but to me if giving a free feat at level one means there aren't attractive feats down the line, then the problem is with feats, not when you get them.

I don't think I've ever taken a feat in the game, mostly because I don't think I understand the game well enough to know the value of feats. It never seems worth it in exchange for the stat increases. If I got a free one at level one, then I'd at least take one feat, as opposed to none like I usually do.

Like I said, a minor feat that maybe provides a slight situational bonus or even a bonus and a flaw at the same time is fine. However, what I don't want to see is a free feat like Weapon Master. It completely offsets the balance, allowing classes that are not martial classes to start with martial weapons. You could have a druid with Greatswords and Longswords and such, making them much tougher than they should be at lower levels. You could have a wizard able to use a shield.

Feats you can get at level 4 are supposed to show character growth and maturity. It shows that after a bit of experience and training, your character was able to train themselves how to use 4 new weapons (Weapon Mastery) or a shield, or better armor, or whatever. Provide characters with a starter feat, if not limiting to very minor feats, would again leave characters with even less room to grow than the game already has. All you have left is ASI because the maybe 1 feat you might consider taking at level 4 you can get at level 1.

Yes. New feats and better feats are MUCH needed in BG3. They should really entice players to take them as opposed to an ASI.

Okay, I get what you mean now. I think choosing from a set list of more situational feats(I don't know what feats are really out there to begin with honestly) would be best, yeah. Rather than access to every feat available.

I definitely also like that list of custom feats. Those are all fun and flavorful.

Joined: Apr 2022
Location: Germany
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2022
Location: Germany
The really good feats like sharpshooter, expert crossbow etc. don't exist yet, nor should they be available as a LVL 1 feat as others have pointed out. Magic Innates are great for spellcasters, there's a little more cantrip/spell variety + an extra spell, although you're not limited to your own caster class. An additional spell in the low-level area is always a nice-to-have and don't forget that even with several cantrips you can only use one per turn anyway. So it shouldn't be a big problem.

LVL 1 feats for non spellcasters could be Mobile, Alert (or maybe its to strong with +5 initiative at low level), Chef (nice RP flavor and depending on the effectiveness of the feat a little bit more heal support), Lucky and maybe Dual Wielder (mainly to wear your favorite weapons from the very beginning).

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
minor feats - something like, "Honest Looking" adds +2 to Persuasion/Deception checks but -2 to Intimidation. People tend to trust you because you just look trustworthy, but this also means they don't feel threatened by you."

Given that they'd be basically background freebies specifically for character creation and available only at that time, and also within the scope of 5e's bounded accuracy, I would keep those benefits to +1/-1, but in general, yeah; I like these as minor perks that are a springboard for character flavour, directed by the player ands told to the game, for it to then use. (Tie this in to my other suggestion for an in-universes character defining progression as part of the tutorial that helps you tell the game who you are and where you're from, and you've got something beautiful, in terms of ability to characterise yourself to the game)

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by GM4Him
minor feats - something like, "Honest Looking" adds +2 to Persuasion/Deception checks but -2 to Intimidation. People tend to trust you because you just look trustworthy, but this also means they don't feel threatened by you."

Given that they'd be basically background freebies specifically for character creation and available only at that time, and also within the scope of 5e's bounded accuracy, I would keep those benefits to +1/-1, but in general, yeah; I like these as minor perks that are a springboard for character flavour, directed by the player ands told to the game, for it to then use. (Tie this in to my other suggestion for an in-universes character defining progression as part of the tutorial that helps you tell the game who you are and where you're from, and you've got something beautiful, in terms of ability to characterise yourself to the game)

Nice. I like it.

Joined: Aug 2022
7
7d7 Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
7
Joined: Aug 2022
Respectfully OP, BG3 is trying to port 5e to the video game format.

Feat aren't given at level 1 (first is level 4). Only exception, which I hope would be implemented, being the variant human.

While ideas and feedbacks are great, it would be good to channel them on missing features rather than new, non-core, features. It is only my opinion of course.

7d7 #826607 13/08/22 08:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by 7d7
Respectfully OP, BG3 is trying to port 5e to the video game format.

Feat aren't given at level 1 (first is level 4). Only exception, which I hope would be implemented, being the variant human.

While ideas and feedbacks are great, it would be good to channel them on missing features rather than new, non-core, features. It is only my opinion of course.
Coming from 3.x, 5e feels really bland being so stingy with feats. I think coupling feats with ability score increases was a really bad design choice. Having to choose between feat or ASI is not a fun choice and feats are great at making PC's feel unique, also mechanically.

I'm fully expecting WotC to fix this mistake in the next edition of D&D. And in the meantime, BG3 could have it's own house rule. The level-ups where you don't get to make any choices and just wait for "accept" to become active are really meh in BG3. So perhaps even ASI's should be spread out more to +1 every two levels. That would already give you a choice on level 2 which is now really lackluster for many classes. Then a feat at level 3 like in previous editions... at least one choice per level up.

Last edited by 1varangian; 13/08/22 08:06 AM.
Joined: Aug 2022
7
7d7 Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
7
Joined: Aug 2022
Perhaps BG4 would port 6e. Until then it makes little sense to not stick to source material for the base game. Then nothing prevent you from going homebrew in a mod but deviating too much in the base game makes little sense beside minor arrangement to fit to the video game format.

So clearly +1 on having the variant human.
But for custom, fitting your own preferences, rules go mod. It is meant for this.

7d7 #826612 13/08/22 08:22 AM
Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by 7d7
Perhaps BG4 would port 6e. Until then it makes little sense to not stick to source material for the base game. Then nothing prevent you from going homebrew in a mod but deviating too much in the base game makes little sense beside minor arrangement to fit to the video game format.

So clearly +1 on having the variant human.
But for custom, fitting your own preferences, rules go mod. It is meant for this.
By this logic you would also want the completely lackluster Ranger class no one likes instead of the altered Ranger we have now? I'm just saying 5e is not perfect and since some things were changed, others can as well.

Joined: Aug 2022
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Aug 2022
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by 7d7
Respectfully OP, BG3 is trying to port 5e to the video game format.

Feat aren't given at level 1 (first is level 4). Only exception, which I hope would be implemented, being the variant human.

While ideas and feedbacks are great, it would be good to channel them on missing features rather than new, non-core, features. It is only my opinion of course.
Coming from 3.x, 5e feels really bland being so stingy with feats. I think coupling feats with ability score increases was a really bad design choice. Having to choose between feat or ASI is not a fun choice and feats are great at making PC's feel unique, also mechanically.

I'm fully expecting WotC to fix this mistake in the next edition of D&D. And in the meantime, BG3 could have it's own house rule. The level-ups where you don't get to make any choices and just wait for "accept" to become active are really meh in BG3. So perhaps even ASI's should be spread out more to +1 every two levels. That would already give you a choice on level 2 which is now really lackluster for many classes. Then a feat at level 3 like in previous editions... at least one choice per level up.

IMO it's ok to have low customization in tabletop version, where you can focus on roleplay more. But in cRPG we want to have options. That's why I like weapon abilities or changes in ranger class.
I was thinking about second specialization for each class. This specialization should have it's own pool of professions.

Joined: Aug 2022
7
7d7 Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
7
Joined: Aug 2022
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by 7d7
Perhaps BG4 would port 6e. Until then it makes little sense to not stick to source material for the base game. Then nothing prevent you from going homebrew in a mod but deviating too much in the base game makes little sense beside minor arrangement to fit to the video game format.

So clearly +1 on having the variant human.
But for custom, fitting your own preferences, rules go mod. It is meant for this.
By this logic you would also want the completely lackluster Ranger class no one likes instead of the altered Ranger we have now? I'm just saying 5e is not perfect and since some things were changed, others can as well.

Exactly: I want the core to be implemented and then DL a ranger mod if wanted. I don't want to have to DL a 5e mod because the 5e BG3 porting is drastically altered by non 5e querries. And adding another feat IS a drastic change. I am not saying it is bad and I might even play it if modded. I am merely pointing to the fact having first a stable and efficient 5e porting is what matters.

7d7 #826629 13/08/22 09:47 AM
Joined: Jul 2022
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2022
I get your point, but consider this:

Compare the level of credibility of a well-known and respected game developer and a modder/group of modders, but imaging making the comparison as an average player (not the one that knows that modding can do thing even better, sometimes).

People pay Larian to get the enjoyable final product, betting on the high level of credibility of a game developing studio. Imaging the player then getting all hyped to play a ranger and having a completely shallow experience playing it, because Larian decided that balance and all around rewarding experience is not a priority against copying 5e raw.

7d7 #826630 13/08/22 09:47 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 7d7
Exactly: I want the core to be implemented and then DL a ranger mod if wanted. I don't want to have to DL a 5e mod because the 5e BG3 porting is drastically altered by non 5e querries. And adding another feat IS a drastic change. I am not saying it is bad and I might even play it if modded. I am merely pointing to the fact having first a stable and efficient 5e porting is what matters.

Agreed, the base game should stick with 5e rules as much as possible. Stuff like more feats or ASIs should be left to mods, since those will drastically change the balance and core mechanics of 5e.

Regarding the ranger stuff... I'd have prefered it if they at least had kept the favored enemy feature as per PHB. The changes to favored terrain are good, though.

Joined: Aug 2022
7
7d7 Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
7
Joined: Aug 2022
Originally Posted by neprostoman
I get your point, but consider this:

Compare the level of credibility of a well-known and respected game developer and a modder/group of modders, but imaging making the comparison as an average player (not the one that knows that modding can do thing even better, sometimes).

People pay Larian to get the enjoyable final product, betting on the high level of credibility of a game developing studio. Imaging the player then getting all hyped to play a ranger and having a completely shallow experience playing it, because Larian decided that balance and all around rewarding experience is not a priority against copying 5e raw.
I can assure you playing a 5e ranger with a good party and DM isn't a shallow experience. Your build isn't everything. I often go dual welding as a (drow) ranger despite it being clearly suboptimal.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
@7d7 ...
Question: Presuming this suggestion would be implemented ... what exactly would be stoping you from taking none and play exactly as you want? O_o


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Aug 2022
7
7d7 Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
7
Joined: Aug 2022
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
@7d7 ...
Question: Presuming this suggestion would be implemented ... what exactly would be stoping you from taking none and play exactly as you want? O_o

Not sure what your point is. I would like to play as a giant death robot (aka GDR) with 20 in all stats and heavy Armor proficiency. I really have this fantasy of steamrolling content, something missing in the boring and 5e.

If giant death robots are in game what would prevent you from not using them?

=> Some people are asking for additions (and that's okay), however it is legitimate to question the necessity of such request when core 5e content precisely mirroring that request (variant human) have yet to be implemented.

I think it is fair to have GDR/variant everything as suggestion once we are 90% there is core content. Which we are not.

Last edited by 7d7; 13/08/22 03:04 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
@7d7 ...
Question: Presuming this suggestion would be implemented ... what exactly would be stoping you from taking none and play exactly as you want? O_o

The obvious answer to this is that the companions would probably be statted to have them, and so not taking one (assuming this were implemented as an actual option and not as a required part of character creation, which I feel like it would be) would put you at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the party.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by 7d7
Not sure what your point is.
No point, just a question ...
Im in general curious about things that dont make sense to me.

And denying people something they want based on my not wanting it, while i can easily avoid it and act as if it never existed ... yeah, i have hard time understanding that.

Originally Posted by 7d7
I would like to play as a giant death robot (aka GDR) with 20 in all stats and heavy Armor proficiency. I really have this fantasy of steamrolling content, something missing in the boring and 5e.
I see no conection to the topic ...
Wouldnt it be better example, if you would NOT wish to play as this? O_o

Originally Posted by 7d7
If giant death robots are in game what would prevent you from not using them?
Nothing, that is my point. smile
You would be perfectly free to take one, if that is what you wish ... you would be perfectly free to take something else, if that is what you wish.

Everyone happy.

Originally Posted by 7d7
=> Some people are asking for additions (and that's okay), however it is legitimate to question the necessity of such request when core 5e content precisely mirroring that request (variant human) have yet to be implemented.
2 things:

1) If it is legitimate to question necessity of requests ... then it should be perfectly legitimate to question necessity of denying those requests, based on exactly same precedent.

2) It dont "precisely mirroring existing content" ...
Bcs Variant Human get reduced Ability Scores improvement, and (more importantly) its for single race only (Or at least i never heared anyone around here talking about Variant Tiefling, Half-Orc, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Githyanki, etc.) ... it dont even exclude that missing content, bcs as it was said, Variant Humans would simply get two feats instead of one > Ballance restored. wink

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
The obvious answer to this is that the companions would probably be statted to have them, and so not taking one (assuming this were implemented as an actual option and not as a required part of character creation, which I feel like it would be) would put you at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the party.
You are adding more asumptions ...

I could aswell argue that they would not, to make your character even more special, compared to companions. smile


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
@7d7 ...
Question: Presuming this suggestion would be implemented ... what exactly would be stoping you from taking none and play exactly as you want? O_o
Presumably the game. I don't think you can just not select features (feats or class abilities or ASIs) when you level up in BG3, unless I'm mistaken(?). I suppose you could take a useless feat, but that's definitely not the same.

Originally Posted by 1varangian
Coming from 3.x, 5e feels really bland being so stingy with feats. I think coupling feats with ability score increases was a really bad design choice. Having to choose between feat or ASI is not a fun choice and feats are great at making PC's feel unique, also mechanically.

I'm fully expecting WotC to fix this mistake in the next edition of D&D. And in the meantime, BG3 could have it's own house rule. The level-ups where you don't get to make any choices and just wait for "accept" to become active are really meh in BG3. So perhaps even ASI's should be spread out more to +1 every two levels. That would already give you a choice on level 2 which is now really lackluster for many classes. Then a feat at level 3 like in previous editions... at least one choice per level up.
+1

I like the idea of getting a +1 every 2 levels instead of +2 every 4 levels, although that's a very minor improvement.
A feat at level 3 isn't necessary imo, as that's a big level for practically all classes. You choose your subclass and/or get 2nd level spells (along with a doubling of spell slots). Especially in a system where we get +1 ASI every 2 levels, I'd put a feat choice at levels 1, 4, and 8 (the current ASI levels).

Joined: Feb 2022
Location: UK
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by 7d7
Respectfully OP, BG3 is trying to port 5e to the video game format.

Feat aren't given at level 1 (first is level 4). Only exception, which I hope would be implemented, being the variant human.

While ideas and feedbacks are great, it would be good to channel them on missing features rather than new, non-core, features. It is only my opinion of course.
Coming from 3.x, 5e feels really bland being so stingy with feats. I think coupling feats with ability score increases was a really bad design choice. Having to choose between feat or ASI is not a fun choice and feats are great at making PC's feel unique, also mechanically. I'm fully expecting WotC to fix this mistake in the next edition of D&D.

That’s great point! It would be so much better if we didn’t have to make a choice between ASIs, which usually are going to be the more generally useful picks, and more flavourful but situationally limited feats.

I don’t want Larian to go totally off-piste with the rules either, though, so wouldn’t want them to just change this unilaterally. But if in conversation with WoTC it is indeed confirmed that the direction of travel is for ASIs and feats to be separately picked, and they agree an implementation that is likely to be reflected in future changes to 5e rules, then I’d be all for implementing this into BG3. I believe that something like this was what happened with the ranger?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
@7d7 ...
Question: Presuming this suggestion would be implemented ... what exactly would be stoping you from taking none and play exactly as you want? O_o
Presumably the game. I don't think you can just not select features (feats or class abilities or ASIs) when you level up in BG3, unless I'm mistaken(?). I suppose you could take a useless feat, but that's definitely not the same.
No, you cant ...

But the suggestion was:
Originally Posted by JandK
I really think the game should offer a free feat to all characters at level one.
Feel free to corect me in my english, but as far as i ... "know" (for the lack of better word) offerings are usualy refuseable. smile

So ... logicaly, there should be option "no thank you".


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Nicou 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5