Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Do all classes use Int for scrolls now?

Does everyone use Intelligence for scrolls now that 98% of all scrolls are Wizard spells now? What would a Barbarian use for instance? I've never understood how BG3 determines what stat is used for scrolls.

BG3 just has everyone use Intelligence for all scrolls - and it's very stupid.

Formally in 5e you should only be able to use a scroll if the spell it contains is on your class' spell list (wizards use wizard spell scrolls, clerics use cleric spell scrolls, etc.) - and it should use your casting ability for that class.

That is how I play it in BG3. Do not use unless it's within that character's spell list.

Me too, but I confess I hadn’t realised that BG3 was using INT for scrolls rather than the spellcasting ability for the character’s class where they have one, making scrolls less useful than they should be for non-wizards.

That makes me hope even more that the BG3 approach to scrolls will be changed for full release, to be restricted by class but to use the right ability modifier.

The liberal scroll use needs to stop and follow the rules.

There is absolutely no need to let every Barbarian cast Fireballs or Disintegrates from scrolls in a party based game. There are multi-classes, subclasses and feats already in place to include magic in any kind of character build.

But its so much FUN! If you don't want to use them, DON'T!
Larian argument 101 it seems.
My take on this, it 100% destroys the whole point of having classes.
At this point, how about getting rid of classes and making it flexible just like DOS2? Were its basically just <titles>.

Well, I was playing around and there are some weird things afoot:

Tav (Wizard): Always uses Intelligence, be they cleric or wizard scrolls.

Shadowheart: Always uses Wisdom, be they cleric scrolls or wizard scrolls.

Astarion: Always uses Intelligence, be they cleric or wizard scrolls.

Lae'zal: Doesn't use anything, since she has no bonuses, I guess.

So, maybe if you have a 'casting stat', like Shadowheart, it defaults to that, if not it uses Intelligence?

I have to honestly admit that when it comes to spell scrolls I don't like to stick with 5e. I'm also in favor of them being able to be used by any class. The obvious advantage for a caster is that they don't have to rely on spell scrolls, even if they can use them in addition. For others, there are those written spells that even a dumb orc can just read off.

Stealing scrolls with my thief but not being able to use them is absolutely lame. As a first compromise suggestion, you could, for example, halve the intensity i.e. duration for defensive spells and damage for offensive spells cast by scroll or by non-pure caster classes, respectively. Of course, if you want to go right back to the holy trinity, then lockpicking should also be reserved for a thief only....

Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on this either, since you only have a limited number of actions per round anyway and many things can't be used at all, even if you've hoarded tons of scrolls, vials or special ammo, for example.

With my Battlemaster, which will hopefully become an additional Battle Smith later on, I've only used maneuvers and standard or weapon skills so far. I have hardly used the special ammo so far, the same goes for combo attacks. Whereas combo attacks, e.g. with vials, would already waste the actions of two characters. The class will only be more flexible in the end, which possibilities it can use, but the application of these possibilities itself remains limited and I find that absolutely ok.

That's not 5E D&D, and BG3 is supposed to be 'the definitive 5E game'. If you want your thief to use magic routinely, then you can take the arcane trickster archetype, which I have used with Astarion on multiple playthroughs. Or multiclass with a magic using class when that becomes available - no need to overturn the existing rules/balance.

Also, lock-picking is not tied to the rogue class in 5E, so the current implementation is correct in that respect.

Sure, that's exactly why I meant it ironically, that you don't have to strictly adhere to 5E or, as you say, the final 5E game. Just because it's supposed to be 5E or the final 5E doesn't mean it's perfect. I know you didn't say that either, you just listed the fact of how it is originally intended and I still have a different opinion.

Oh, okay. And anyway, if Astarion were to have a casting stat, ie was made an AT, then it would be INT. If your hypothesis in your last sentence were correct then at least characters would be able to use scrolls correctly.

In this case, I’d still prefer Larian to limit scroll use to class-appropriate spells, especially as I don’t think there’s a quick and easy way to check in-game whether a scroll is for a spell on a character class’s list, but it would be slightly lower priority for me as at least I’d have the option to limit myself and get 5e-like behaviour.

I am in favor of sticking to the 5e rules when it comes to scrolls (ie. only stuff on your class list).

However, an "acceptable" modification IMO would be to add in a chance of miscast when you attempt to use a scroll not on your list. This seems that it would be right up Larian's alley... and it would be true to one of the original inspiration for rogues casting spells, "The Eyes of the Overworld".

This needs fixing. Change it to 5e rules

Barbarians routinely stocking up on Greater Invisibility scrolls at the magic shop in Baldur's Gate? Absolutely not.

I actually want 5e strictly to the letter on this one. No splashing 1 level into Wizard multiclass to cast those Greater Invisibility scrolls without a chance of failure, either.

I also don't want to see a Wand of Fireballs to be free for all. Requires attunement by a Spellcaster. Attunement needs to be a thing. This is not an ARPG where you are a magical christmas tree.

In that case, I'd like Extra Attacks, Action Surge, and Rage for my wimpy Sorcerer. I don't really care whether I get this by scrolls or magic items, I'm easy! The advantage is that Martial classes don't have to use scrolls or pick magic items with such properties. It's only fair!

Oh, we should absolutely "get hung up on this" as this kinda breaks the game in fundamental ways. D&D is built around class diversity/identity after all. If you honestly want a "flexible class" so much, you play a Bard which is a versatile jack of all trades, but master of none. Eldritch Knight, Paladin, or numerous multiclass builds can all become a magical fighter - but you always pay for your versatility with slower high level power progression or less specialization depth. It' s called balance and it's generally a good thing to strive for, cause when every class can do everything on top of the already too numerous and somewhat conflicting systems - you end up with a bland, complex mess of a game which can't even be saved by its obvious great roleplaying potential. This issue even extends to spellcasters getting a much too liberal amount of scrolls.

Don't worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of mods that will turn you into an overpowered demi-god. Please don't advocate for breaking the game for the rest of us.

Why?

//Edit:
No, seriously ... someone tell me ... what is so awesome about this?

I mean ...

> If you want to play caster, isnt it easier to simply create your Tav as a Wizard? O_o
At least you can upcast those spells ... with scrolls, you are restricted to your stock, you cant spend so much money on gear, bcs you spend it on scrolls, and no spell ever will get any stronger than its most basic damage outcome.
Is that anyhow superpowerfull?
I would say so, when compared to Wizard, who can have all of them, is able to upcast them, is able to restore all his spellslots after every fight, and is able to aply INT modifier to them no matter what spell he cast.
Wizard seems powerfull to me ... scrolls? Not so much.

> If you want to restrict your Rogue/Barbarian/Fighter ... to not be able to cast invisibility ...
Puting aside that easier way to achieve this is simply "not do it" ... but i know some people around here are unable to grasp the concept.
So lets say you cant cast Invisibility scroll anymore ... okey?
Now ... what exactly is holding you back from drinking invisibility potion and get EXACTLY THE SAME EFFECT? O_o

What else whas there ...
OH yes, haste potion ... i mean ... spores, potion, do i even need to list it?

So ... yes i stick to my original question:
Why?
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?

Doesn't the way haste is implemented already give everyone access to action surge?

Barrelmancy alone in early access makes spellcasters pretty obsolete. Until level 5! The largely meh scrolls are just the icing on this barrel cake.

You see, nerving scrolls will not restore balance to the classes. A sorcerer can cast 4 fireballs in one turn because spellcasters /do have action surge/ in practice. I won't be crying about Astarion using the situational thunderwave, while absolutely everyone can use magic cantrips and classes who should not be further named are forces of destruction.

The balance is so out of order, the spellcaster vs. melee issue is a joke. No use getting upset over that. Just give me a game where every class is functional and actually excels at their speciality.

Yes, this actually is true. I assume that "strictly 5e" also means that other spellcaster classes, instead of combat classes, cannot use or hoard Greater Invisibility scrolls without being penalized. Otherwise, a Bard would just hoard Greater Invisibility scrolls instead of a Barbarian and always just cast it on the Barbarian, which would then just be shifting the problem around...



Yes, the way you explained it, I agree with you. I really was thinking too short-sightet. I just need to be patient until Level 13 (Use Magic Device), if it even gets that far. Mods? Nah, just a party extender would be neat.... As long as Larian gets the pathing right for the elevators or the boat at the Underdark if they don't increase the party size themselve.