Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Would a higher Proficiency Bonus be a good house rule for BG3?

Spell Save DC doesn't benefit from a +2 to hit. That's why I'm leaning to Proficiency.

I don't think the goal is supposed to be just to "reduce misses" as much as to increase the impact of specialization on the reliability of your actions.
After all, from what I've heard the relatively light impact of proficiencies on the expertise of characters is a common complaint about the 5th edition.
Several weeks ago there was a thread about a bunch fo tweets Josh sawyer made on this very topic.

No increase at all until level 9? You gotta have some progress or it gets boring. I'd be more generous, like...

Level 1, +4
Level 4, +5
Level 8, +6
Level 12, +7
Level 16, +8
Level 20, +9

Moving the first increase from level 5 to 4 would ease the huge power spike on 5 a bit. And it feels right having a final increase on the maximum level. Maybe it would be horrible in the end.. but more progression and being better at trained skills feels like a good idea.

My opinion on it is mostly from my experience in tabletop 5e. Level 5-8 plays very well in a lot of environments/encounters, while levels 1-4 has always felt more underpowered than it should be. +3 proficiency makes a strong impact in 5e.

The classes have other ways to scale up, for example Fire Bolt gets and addition d10 damage & Fighter gets extra attack. Level 5 is a significant power bump for the party, without the proficiency change.

Also keep in mind I want to leave room for varying difficulties, so normal could be a static +1 to all proficiency, easy could be a static +3 to all proficiency levels. (Hard would be +0). If the game were to go one difficulty, I'd consider an expedited proficiency scaling, but I don't see a reason to go past +6. +6 makes a huge impact on the game.

Something like levels 1-5: +3, levels 6-10: +4, levels 11-XX: +5 could definitely work for the game. But as I've said before +3 proficiency feels really good at levels 5-8. It makes more sense to me to give levels 1-4 a bump, and keep levels 5-8 where they are in rules-as-written.

It takes away from the actual ranger class feature and gives it to everyone. This should sound familiar cause that's what they did for a Rogue class feature.

Ill reply later, breaks over.

All I can say is, we need more strict 5e, and things would work right. The more you homebrew, the worse things get.

Care to explain?

No, because realistically we are playing on easy right now with bloated health and lower armor for enemies. That would be just on top of the already edited material.


You are partially right, they are giving advantage out like candy right now. It guarantees you to have that bonus 100% of the time, which yes, makes any other feature that gives that advantage pointless. This is the part you are missing, because they are giving out advantage in such a way deters from any other ability that would stack on that as well. Advantage isn't just a +2 its equal to a +5, this by itself out shines bless and anything else ability wise (especially at level one). In a normal situation you wouldn't be getting that as often and as such could rely on other abilities to grand bonuses (bless).

There was a post a while back where they broke down the % to hit with a d20 along with advantage vs not having advantage. While also making it bluntly obvious there is no reason to use any other bonus to hit with how advantage is handed out.

The fact that the game is relatively easy right now isn't an argument against determining difficult level via proficiency bonus. That issue is addressed by subtracting X from my suggestions or rebalancing entire game to be harder.

Advantage is ofc a bigger bonus than Bless, so yes Bless is relatively less powerful if you already have advantage. But if concentration was easier to retain, to be honest I'd probably be using both Advantage and Bless. After all, Bless also adds a d4 to Saving Throws.

I do recognize that you run into diminishing returns when you have Bless + Advantage + higher proficiency bonus, but I'm not sure how you get around this. Lowering enemy AC will have the same effect.
I'm still curious what you meant here. What ranger features does it take away and give to everyone?

Seriously. Everyone just play Solasta. You'll see how 5e rules work well if they are just followed more strictly.

It was a jab at the already adjusted stats for creatures and people wanting more chance to hit. Btw the game isn't on easy, its set to normal by what the start up screen says.

Fair enough.

Doesn't take away since its already gone.

Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions.
Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark.
When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.

While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:

Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
d&d Beyond Ranger

I mentioned this earlier, ranger homebrew takes out unique features (what I mentioned above & favored enemy which gives advantage) for the class and replaces them with other class flare, additional skill proficiencies, spells, and others. A good comparison between classes would take a look at ranger new homebrew and rogue. Rogue currently is what ranger should look like.

If they actually came up with something different or original I'd give them a thumbs up. But right now about the only thing unique to that class is resistances (talking about level 1 at character creation).

In all honesty Ranger would probably be better off as a Rogue/Fighter subclass. (In 5e)

That's fair. I mean, resistance to fire is not too shabby especially considering fire arrows/grenades, but yeah a lot of what made ranger unique is not present in BG3. Favored enemy especially has almost nothing mechanically to do with a favored enemy.
"I'm an expert at hunting mages. This is why I...know the (useless) spell True Strike???"
C'mon. Creatures you hit having disadvantage on concentration checks would be so much better.

As to the natural explorer stuff, that's a whole box of worms where either it: a) is OP and invalidates any type of survival checks or b) is irrelevant because you never explore in that terrain. So I'm not unhappy with Larian for removing that aspect of the ranger. But giving expertise on all survival and/or nature checks might have been a better option than the BG3 ones.

I like this idea ...
It would be great, if we dont need to run around our enemies just to get decent chance to hit them.

But i would like to keep backstabing in game, since my rogue just loves to stab people in the back ... just a little alterned ...
Like add there a condition that you can backstab only enemies that are facing someone ... otherwise i would like enemies to turn around to face us. After all, they are dodging, blocking, and reacting allready ... so why not? :P

I believe that a character is supposed to get advantage when two or more of his allies are within melee range of a single opponent. So if Gobbo 1 has Lae'zel and Astarion in melee range, they are threatened, Lae'zel and Astarion are supposed to get advantage on attack rolls regardless of the goblin's facing. However, if only Lae'zel rushes up and comes behind the gobbo, she gets no advantage because the gobbo could easily spin around and face her because he is not threatened on any other side. If both are facing the gobbo, they get advantage because the gobbo is now having to divide his attention between two attackers.

Then, as Sneak Attack states, if a Rogue with Sneak Attack gains advantage on their dice roll, they can perform Sneak Attack against an enemy once per round. So only IF an enemy is unaware of a Rogue and/or the Rogue gains advantage on an attack roll are they able to use Sneak Attack. Thus, it would require either that the Rogue sneaks up behind the enemy and the enemy doesn't detect them or the Rogue attacks an enemy that is already in melee combat with one of the Rogue's allies.

This means that the player would need to strategically line up their forces so that maybe someone like Lae'zel is rushing forward to melee attack an enemy and THEN Astarion attacks that person. Thus, Astarion would get an advantage on his attack roll and Sneak Attack, making him strategically more valuable but also making Lae'zel more strategically valuable because you need both to rush up in order to acquire maximum efficiency. It isn't just Lae'zel rushing in and getting all the kills or Astarion, but both working in tandem. Thus, going with the spirit of the game, which is teamwork.

Nope, at least not according to base 5e rules. Flanking Advantage is an optional rule variant, and one widely considered to be OP.

Rogues get sneak attack damage if there is another ally within 5 feet of the enemy (and the rogue doesn't have disadvantage on the roll). Without that adjacent ally, the base rogue needs Advantage to get sneak attack.

But yes, your general point that working in tandem is encouraged in both 5e base rules (rogue gets sneak attack if an ally is adjacent to their enemy target) and 5e optional rules (Flanking Advantage) whereas in BG3 you get advantage (and thus sneak attack) for just walking behind or above an enemy. BG3 is using Flanking Advantage without the Flanking requirement.

But Advantage with flanking makes sense. If an enemy has two people fighting with them, their attention is divided. Thus, Flank Advantage is a variant rule that makes sense. So I'm fine with those kinds of variances. What doesn't make sense to me is getting advantage just because you run around behind an enemy. If you are the only one in melee range, that enemy isn't going to just stand still while you run around and hit them in the butt.

Heck, height advantage still kinda makes sense to me and I don't have that much of an issue with that house rules. A person on higher ground sees an enemy better and can thus take better aim. Those kinds of house rules that make sense aren't as big a deal to me.

Jumping 30 feet, throwing 30 pound barrels, running around behind enemies when you are the only combatant in range, Rogues having Sneak attack whenever they attack, those don't make sense to me. Sneak attack is called Sneak attack because the enemy is not aware the attack is coming. If I hit and enemy when they are staring right at me, should I got Sneak Attack?

I don't get the huge High Ground accuracy bonus.

The higher you go, the smaller your target becomes. You might see more targets and get a range increase and a line of sight that's harder to break. But accuracy?

And there's something wonky about range as well. From high ground, you can hit absurdly far without getting the "outside normal range" disadvantage. Far shots definitely should have that penalty with a bow.

Conversely, I don't see how hitting someone higher up would be any more difficult. Unless they have actual cover hiding behind a ledge or move back to break the line of sight.

And flanking/backstab needs to require 2 characters fighting the same opponent from different sides. +2 would be an appropriate bonus, so advantages from other sources like Faerie Fire still apply. If there's only one attacker, the defender should just turn to face them. Even the turn based D&D games in the 90's had this.

There is a difference between having an advantage (some kind of boost over your normal activity) and capital-A Advantage (a specific game mechanic from D&D). Larian seems to be throwing out Advantage in any case where a character could be seen to gain any advantage over their opponent, no matter how small, and it's problematic. Giving away Advantage too easily can impact other systems in the game in ways that both mess with balance and tend to reduce some of the interesting aspects in battle.

Giving away Advantage so easily steals the thunder away from existing spells and class features like Faerie Fire, Reckless Attack, and Guiding Bolt. This makes characters that thrive on supporting their allies with things like Advantage a lot less fun to play.

At the same time, it tends to funnel classes with features that benefit from Advantage into one or two strategies that they'll use in every fight. For example, rogues usually need to work a bit to earn their sneak attack. Either they need to coordinate with their allies to distract their enemies or they need to find a dark corner or some obstacle to hide behind. Sometimes it means you'll spend a turn or two just getting in position and waiting for your moment. This is part of the feel of playing a rogue that makes them different from other classes - you don't get many attacks, but if you're smart about choosing your moments, the ones you do get hit hard. They're high-risk, high-reward. In BG3, it's trivial to get your sneak attack every turn by climbing on top of a crate or by walking around behind an enemy. What's the point of having rogues if they're basically just fighters with slightly different numbers?

Most of the time that you're gaining Advantage, you're giving up something else in order to get it. It might take a spell slot or concentration or making yourself more vulnerable to attacks. This creates interesting decisions about whether or not that sacrifice is worth it. Some strategies for getting Advantage work better against different kinds of enemies. Faerie Fire, for example, isn't so useful against high-dex enemies that can make the save easily, but it's great against those lumbering ogres. This means that you have to adapt and change your strategy in each battle; for me, this makes the game much more interesting. Right now, BG3 basically has two strategies - one for ranged attackers (climb up high) and one for melee attackers (get behind them) - and it's really boring.

This leads to the question: if not Advantage, then what? The base rules for D&D 5e have no rules for flanking, backstabbing, or high ground; anything that exists is either a variant option or (usually) someone's homebrew. In my mind:
-Backstabbing should give no benefit at all; characters should be aware of what's going on around them and if they don't see you, you would get Advantage anyway because you are obviously hidden/sneaking.
-High ground should not give a benefit to attacks, save that weapons might have slightly longer range. I could see giving someone on high ground partial cover, depending on the circumstances, but that should be built into the terrain.
-Flanking should give some small bonus. In most of my tabletop games, we give either +1 or +2 to attack rolls with an ally flanking the target.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some other things that BG3 grants Advantage for, but probably shouldn't. Most of these should either be removed or converted into flat bonuses/penalties. If anyone is interested in looking at the math difference between Advantage/Disadvantage and a flat bonus/penalty, there's an interesting writeup about it here: https://critical-hits.com/blog/2012/06/11/dd-advantage-vs-flat-bonuses/

Flanking and advantage might be being confused with Rogue and them getting sneak attacks off. That and flanking used to be a basic rule in previous editions.

I had to look this up to see how sneak attacked worked for 5e. Just encase this helps anyone else:

Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and
exploit a foe’s distraction.

Once per turn, you can deal an
extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack
if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must
use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another
enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t
incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the
attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain
levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column
of the Rogue table.

Page 29 of the freebe 5e pdf

So flanking is built into the game to help with the sneak attack feature but it can or can't give advantage because flanking feature for advantage is a variant rule by itself.

I'm not saying I don't want more strict 5e rules. Im just saying I don't mind variants that make sense.

Ever fire a bow? Ever fire one in a mock combat? It is considerably easier to hit a target from above than on the same level. Why? You can see the target better, and you aren't as worried about getting hit back especially if they have no ranged weapon. So you aren't as frazzled and you can see them better. And height does give you increased range. And it is harder to hit someone who is on a higher level than you. So all that makes sense to me.

Arrows never fly straight at a target if you have any range. They arc. It is hard enough to gauge the right arc you need when shooting 20 ft away. Throw you into the midst of a battle with targets moving, trying to avoid hitting friends, etc. It becomes way harder. Imagine firing between trees to hit a particular tree only the trees all move. Give someone height and it makes a ton of difference. You can see who is who easier, see more of your targets, etc.

And as for as flanking goes, I do think advantage is appropriate. Go play nerf swords with a few people. Have two people attack you at once. It is SO much easier to land a hit against someone when 2 people are attacking that person. SO much easier. It is NOT easy to get behind them when soloing them.