Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2017
N
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
N
Joined: Sep 2017
If Larian only has resources to implement some additional subclasses and races (e.g. from XGTE) OR a few additional levels which would you choose?

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
I would pick subclasses and races. Every time.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
More subraces, classes, backgrounds and more unique dialogs for all of them, any day of the week; twice on sundays.

Last edited by _Vic_; 13/07/20 03:22 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Actually gonna go with levels, provided they aren't artificially inflated.

I believe it was stated that level cap will depend on how much content they have, so higher level cap also means more story, more quests, more dungeons, more loot, etc.

Joined: Jan 2018
W
old hand
Offline
old hand
W
Joined: Jan 2018
More levels. We already have plenty of choices with just PHB+ (plus because we have at least Githyanki from outside PHB), so I want at least level 12 as a cap. That means 6th level spells and more multi class options.

Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
I hope this guy is not an actual Larian dev conducting some sort of poll.
I'd prefer both.

Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Subclasses and races definitely. Even just subclasses would be fine.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
more options over more padding.


Joined: May 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: May 2020
More classes and sub classes.

Joined: Jun 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2020
Subclasses and subraces, if they can be implemented in a way that makes sense and is realistic for the game.
Artificer is an interesting class but stick with the default 12 for now.


Read the fine print.
Joined: Sep 2017
N
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
N
Joined: Sep 2017
Additional levels would only be available near the end of the game whereas subclasses and races could be enjoyed through the entire game.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Celestia
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Celestia
Originally Posted by NinthPlane
Additional levels would only be available near the end of the game whereas subclasses and races could be enjoyed through the entire game.

Probably the strongest argument for supporting these additional options, tempted as I am by the prospect of higher levels smile

Related topic, I hope the rumored higher ceiling than lvl 10 is true, and that BGIII is only a prelude to expansions and a follow-on game where we can get our characters into epic territory...


The greatest of evils we face may lie within
Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Races and subclasses because higher levels can be done via sequel or expansion or DLC (actually even more races and subclasses and artificer can be done this way too)

Joined: Aug 2018
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Aug 2018
My take is once the campaign is completely developed, the level cap will be set in stone. It's really hard and takes a lot of work to come back to a completed thing and add more to it, thus increasing the level cap after release would be a more difficult endeavor than adding subclasses and races after release. So I'd say the level cap would be my priority, since it wouldn't be as much to add the subclasses/races later. I am completely ignoring the possibility of expansions, of course, but I'm generally not a fan of expansions since they are usually quite underwhelming compared to the main game, depending on the studio. Plus Larian seems like they prefer to improve upon their base game after release, rather than go the expansion route.

Granted adding subclasses/races would have implications throughout the story, such as unique dialogue options or racial abilities that could circumvent encounters in different ways. But I think this would overall be a smaller effort.

Joined: Jul 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jul 2019
How balanced are levels in 5e? I noticed a Fighter gains an extra attack at level 11, which to me sounds huge. Would a fighter therefore be underpowered at level 10 compared to other classes, or would it be overpowered at level 11?

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
fighter is only strong at very early levels in 5e, where his relativeley (which isnt saying much) high AC and big bonk damage means someting

also theres no balance in 5e, they bareley try to balance classes and there very much are tier lists of what classes are good (paladin, sorc, wizard) and which are horrible (ranger)

Joined: Sep 2017
N
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
N
Joined: Sep 2017
Balance is overrated. As long as each class is fun I'm okay with it. I do agree that the Ranger is horrible in the PHB.

Last edited by NinthPlane; 20/07/20 08:51 PM. Reason: spelling
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Levels. More levels = more content. Additional races are just resource sucking padding.

Joined: Jul 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Levels. More levels = more content. Additional races are just resource sucking padding.

Tell that to my 7'6" Goliath Rogue

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by NinthPlane
Balance is overrated. As long as each class is fun I'm okay with it. I do agree that the Ranger is horrible in the PHB.


I agree that balance is overrated HOWEVER, think on someone who loves the class fantasy of a ranger, loves longbows, loves survivalism, loves the nature hunter archetype and wanna play 5e as one. Seeing wizards shaping the reality and stopping the time while he is completely useless is not fun or engaging. That would be very frustrating to him. Rangers could get some cool stuff, like the ability to imbue his arrows with nasty poisons, prepare deadly traps, TAME animals, i don't know, probably look to Dragon's Dogma skills which has the best ranger gameplay imo and translate then to 5e?

And yes, Sodark is right. You have tiers on 5e. The Godlike(Wizard/Druid), the Decent(Barbarian/Warlock) and the AWFUL (monk/ranger). I had a "5e doesn't need balance" mindset because all examples of games that tried to balance casters and martials based on D&D by nerfing casters made casters useless but now i understand that you can make Rangers better instead than the rest worse... On DDO, they even have a "solo friendly" thing on class creation, where classes with access to divine magic and martial powers are the most solo friendly, pure divine casters considered the second best, martial classes with no divine spells average and arcane classes the most hard to solo. The unique exception is warlock which is behind a paywall and nobody would pay real money to play with a ultra nerfed class. DDO doesn't follow much the P&P rules, On nwn2, is clear that martial > divine > arcane. With spell fixes mod, arcane casters become extremely stronger BTW.

Other problem that 5e has is that combats mostly on high levels are too tedious and is hard for a DM to challenge the player. Is not like on 2e, where a lv 1 necro can OHK another lv 1 necro and a lv 20 necro can OHK another lv 20 necro. In fact, everything has much more hp and everything deals much less damage than high level on previous editions.

Most campaigns on D&D rarely go above lv 10 and most modules only go above lv 10 when you leave Sword Coast. Eg - Descend to Arvenus which caps at lv 13.

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 20/07/20 10:19 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

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