Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
be in the game? For example:

[Linked Image]

Will we only have Cleric domains from the Player's Handbook? I would really like a death domain for example but it is not in the PHB so any word on this?


Last edited by Hoarfrost; 14/10/20 11:23 AM.
Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Good lord I hope NOT.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Good lord I hope NOT.


I just heard that...hopefully it is not the case...




Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
While I hope that options for 5e supplements make their way in, I sincerely doubt (and hope) options from the Dungeon Master's Guide do not. The options in the DMG are there purely as example or for NPCs. An example is the anti-paladin in the DMG, which has an ability that buffs all undead and fiends around them. This would mean as a player, if you fight fiends and undead at all you are instantly buffing your enemy.

Instead of wanting the DMG death domain, you're better off looking at the Grave domain in Xanathar's guide to everything. However due to the sheer amount of cleric domains in the PHB, I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it were to make its way into BG3.


Anything you can do, a bard can do better.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
It would be somewhat hilarious if the content from the Swordcoast Adventurers Guide would not make it into a game set at the Swordcoast.

Joined: Oct 2020
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have already some content from non-PHB sources.
Some examples :
- Githyanki (MtoF)
- Flind, Spectator and other monsters (Volo's Guide to Monsters).

That's not a lot, but it shows, I think, that it is possible in the future to have more non-PHB content in the game.

But, first, Larian Studios must add what is already in the PHB (gnomes, dragonborn, barbarians, bards, monks, etc, etc, etc).


Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I'd fully expect Larian to handpick things from the PHB or other advanced material at their complete discretion and convenience on a case-by-case basis (i.e. PHB stuff but if they don't like how a class or function plays, they'll go fishing from the extras).


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I mean githyanki is from a non-PHB source, however that they implemented it as Githyanki, and not Gith with Githyanki and Githzerai subraces, lead me to think this was purely because there are githyanki themes in the story so its the exception. I'd like to think SCAG content is added for obvious reasons.

I imagine when it comes to monsters rather than player options, it'll be more of a whatever fits.

Last edited by Quent; 14/10/20 12:37 PM.

Anything you can do, a bard can do better.
Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Well, the only thing I want are the gish stuff from the splat books. I am looking at you Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide - I need my booming blade and green flame blade.

Joined: Oct 2020
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
Well, the only thing I want are the gish stuff from the splat books. I am looking at you Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide - I need my booming blade and green flame blade.


There's some things like the 2 blade cantrips you mentioned or the expanded Invocation list for Warlock that feel like a must. They allow for interesting different builds and more depths. Without the (persumable) hassle that implementing each and every subclass would be. That bieng said is till want each and every subclass, it's sjut a great thing for replayability to have as many options as possible. laugh
But I would understand it perfectly well if we don't get everything from the supplements with 1.0.

Just wait a few months down the line when I start pestering Larian for their Map editor so people can make fancy custom Adventures, some would be sure to even voice 'em if it happened for skyrim why not BG3. And don't get me started ont he possibilitie sif the yend up detachting char saves from Map saves. But that's for downt he line ^^

Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
Half-elf subraces (half-drow, etc.) are not in the PHB so that's already something.

I'm assuming they'll focus mainly on PHB things first though and will probably not implement UA-only content.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I'd fully expect Larian to handpick things from the PHB or other advanced material at their complete discretion and convenience on a case-by-case basis (i.e. PHB stuff but if they don't like how a class or function plays, they'll go fishing from the extras).


It would seem that's the case.

Quote
There have been hints of other 5e sources being implemented into the game. Are you going to include material from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and/or other player materials outside of the core material of the 5e Player's Handbook? Additionally, at full release, will all content of the PHB be represented (notably, (sub)classes and (sub)races)?

Swen: HB/MM/DMG are the base we are starting from but we are taking material from other books too.


From the AMA, so pretty old source, but it's probably still valid.

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by FireSnake

There's some things like the 2 blade cantrips you mentioned or the expanded Invocation list for Warlock that feel like a must. They allow for interesting different builds and more depths. Without the (persumable) hassle that implementing each and every subclass would be. That bieng said is till want each and every subclass, it's sjut a great thing for replayability to have as many options as possible. laugh
But I would understand it perfectly well if we don't get everything from the supplements with 1.0.



If I have to learn how to make a mod just for those god damn cantrips I certainly will.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Let's guess more, that'll figure it out laugh

I kid, I kid.

Or do I?

I don't know how many of you DM, but I usually start character creation off with "I prefer PHB. I want anything you are doing outside of that discussed with me prior to you spending your time making a character and realizing it was all for naught. No UA allowed as a pretty hard rule and if you find something you want from there expect that you can't have it."

It sets the tone off right; people do enjoy it because we usually a la carte their abilities as a collaborative thing with me instead of them getting told "no" on the homunculus min/maxed abomination im looking at.

If you play D&D, if you are on D&D forums, you will know there are a lot of things that are ridiculously broken and OP. If I were to create a game like this, it would be a curated set to play with. I can't balance a game for a green flame, booming blade, eladrin, divine soul, sorcadin and at the same time having a winnable encounter for an equivalent level ranger doing 1 shot a round for 7 damage. This will be wide boulevards and high guardrails, but the guardrails will be there.

Last edited by Orbax; 14/10/20 03:16 PM.

What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
The scope of the game has a major issue with a rather epic story-line (Illithid! Gith! Dragon! The Underdark, and more, oh my!), if they only stick to Player's Handbook content, so I'm hoping they'll at least consider adding a bit more. Honestly developing a character is pretty boring but that's more a flaw of the D&D system locking you into your class-path by level 2 or 3, so there's really not much room for customization after that. That works a lot better in pen & paper where you have dynamic roleplaying and a responsive DM to fall back on.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Issue is there so many subclasses. Officially it like 84 currently and they are adding another 23 in November. That just too much to have in for release, especially when we don't even have all the classes in yet. I expect it with be the PHB for release and I really hope they keep adding other subclasses every month or so as free DLCs.

Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Orbax
Let's guess more, that'll figure it out laugh

I kid, I kid.

Or do I?

I don't know how many of you DM, but I usually start character creation off with "I prefer PHB. I want anything you are doing outside of that discussed with me prior to you spending your time making a character and realizing it was all for naught. No UA allowed as a pretty hard rule and if you find something you want from there expect that you can't have it."

It sets the tone off right; people do enjoy it because we usually a la carte their abilities as a collaborative thing with me instead of them getting told "no" on the homunculus min/maxed abomination im looking at.

If you play D&D, if you are on D&D forums, you will know there are a lot of things that are ridiculously broken and OP. If I were to create a game like this, it would be a curated set to play with. I can't balance a game for a green flame, booming blade, eladrin, divine soul, sorcadin and at the same time having a winnable encounter for an equivalent level ranger doing 1 shot a round for 7 damage. This will be wide boulevards and high guardrails, but the guardrails will be there.


Hence, for a PC game since it's ... well single player, it'll be up to the modders. Hopefully it won't be too hard to code or hack in.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by Orbax
Let's guess more, that'll figure it out laugh

I kid, I kid.

Or do I?

I don't know how many of you DM, but I usually start character creation off with "I prefer PHB. I want anything you are doing outside of that discussed with me prior to you spending your time making a character and realizing it was all for naught. No UA allowed as a pretty hard rule and if you find something you want from there expect that you can't have it."

It sets the tone off right; people do enjoy it because we usually a la carte their abilities as a collaborative thing with me instead of them getting told "no" on the homunculus min/maxed abomination im looking at.

If you play D&D, if you are on D&D forums, you will know there are a lot of things that are ridiculously broken and OP. If I were to create a game like this, it would be a curated set to play with. I can't balance a game for a green flame, booming blade, eladrin, divine soul, sorcadin and at the same time having a winnable encounter for an equivalent level ranger doing 1 shot a round for 7 damage. This will be wide boulevards and high guardrails, but the guardrails will be there.


Hence, for a PC game since it's ... well single player, it'll be up to the modders. Hopefully it won't be too hard to code or hack in.



Yeah, I think theres gonna be some funnnn stuff and I can't wait. I just know when I make campaigns I tell people "yeah you probably wont want to do that" as much as I say "thats a good idea". Someone wanted to be a mind manipulator in descent into avernus and I said "Point of order - charm person and hold person work on humanoids...not a lot of them in the hells". Limited lists are also protect you from wasting your time haha.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Flashistatouille
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have already some content from non-PHB sources.
Some examples :
- Githyanki (MtoF)
- Flind, Spectator and other monsters (Volo's Guide to Monsters).

That's not a lot, but it shows, I think, that it is possible in the future to have more non-PHB content in the game.

But, first, Larian Studios must add what is already in the PHB (gnomes, dragonborn, barbarians, bards, monks, etc, etc, etc).



Isn't the Spectator found in the MM?

Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by Flashistatouille
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have already some content from non-PHB sources.
Some examples :
- Githyanki (MtoF)
- Flind, Spectator and other monsters (Volo's Guide to Monsters).

That's not a lot, but it shows, I think, that it is possible in the future to have more non-PHB content in the game.

But, first, Larian Studios must add what is already in the PHB (gnomes, dragonborn, barbarians, bards, monks, etc, etc, etc).



Isn't the Spectator found in the MM?


It is.


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