Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Will Tasha's Cauldron of Everything be included?

For those who don't know, it is a new source book which looks very promising: https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything

And i believe it is a legitimate question. If not at launch, then as a patch?

I suspect Larian had advance knowledge of the content in TCoE. Most significant is that race selection will no longer shoe-horn you into specific classes to feel "optimized". This alone should make that book outstanding.

I severely doubt it or Xanathar's will be in at launch. They have so much to develop already. More subclasses wouldn't be hard to integrate into the game post-launch considering the story is most likely reacting to classes, not subclasses. So, adding subclasses would solely be affecting character specialization systems and not the story cohesion of the game world as it relates to the character. It seems a no-brainier from a development perspective to focus on core functionality, story, etc while supporting the vanilla PHB class mechanics for now, then providing more bells and whistles for character specialization in an update. That way, players can enjoy a complete experience for their first playthrough(s), then have more replayability options for future playthroughs.

At least, I feel like that's the smart approach. I think all the development resources that can be put on things that enrich and deepen the story and reactivity of the game to your character should be high priority, because it's harder to iterate on the story post-launch. Also, the combat needs to feel fun and representative of a true D&D 5e experience. Figuring out ways to ensure the 5e systems transition well to combat in the game are of paramount importance, because changing the combat systems and player abilities after launch is more jarring to players than adding more subclasses. For instance, right now it is probably still the case that the systems governing how Reactions work need heavy iteration.

Bottom line, I honestly feel like there are too many more important things to do and perfect to focus on a breadth of content from many supplemental books. Implementing the many features, spells, abilities, and rules of 5e into a video game is not a small task if you want it to be true to the tabletop experience. Few games even try. The 5e PHB, MM, and DMG kept players busy for a long time at the table, and I'm sure it will do the same in BG3.

That would make sense tbh - to integrate some of its "best" features at the get go.

I doubt it'll be in at final release because I feel they are too far along in development.

Whether it's added later as a patch, dlc or gift bag or not, I couldn't say.

There are things, like the "sidekick" mechanics or the "flexible race features" that I find challenging to adapt to a videogame already in the making, but they may include other things of the book, yeah. It would be great if they surprised us.

I know next to nothing about it except some enthusiastic previews

Do we know the game won't react to subclass, I mean they haven't mentioned it one way or the other yet as far as I know.

Not sure what you mean : some subclasses will be implemented in Early Access. Info up to now reveals about 2 subclasses per class (including at least 2 Wizard Schools and 2 Warlock choices).

They mean does the game world react to what subclass you are within the story and dialogue. It was a response to my post where I made the assumption that it will not. It is indeed an assumption, but I personally think the game will just react to your class and not your subclass. I could very well be wrong.

Powergamers will always feel shoehorned into optimization one way or another, the D&D racial bonuses/penalties reflect physical and cultural differences. Humans being the most flexible of the races is the human racial bonus.

Ah, thank you for clearing out my misunderstanding.

Considering that NPC reactions are all voice acted and the huge number of story permutations, reacting to all subclasses (at least 3+ per class) would be way too much. Some subclasses, though, are "special" like which god a character worships or which pact a Warlock has. It is already quite huge.

Hopefully not it seems to be complete nonsense, a panick reaction because 3 people on twitter who never played DnD cried wolf.

The writers of Tasha'a Cauldron of Everything



In answer to the OP's question, I don't know. I just hope not.

I really hope they eventually add Tasha's Cauldron of Everything because it contains my favorite Druid subclass, the Spore Druid. It also has a very popular new class, the Artificer. Both were previously printed in other sourcebooks, but they were in books set in different worlds (the spore druid was originally from a Magic: The Gathering book; while the artificer was from an Eberron book).

not gonna let an unearthed arcana subclass that existed forever be held hostage over a book which is written by people who aperently have no idea what the fantasy genre even means

This is a bit of a radical way to look at Tasha's. I don't see why any D&D fan would be anything short of excited for a new book full of new D&D stuff. Don't let all of that dramatic crap on social media taint you.

The book seems interesting, but maybe Sordak is also a DM who sees with caution some features of the new approach in the books about character creation. You do not need social media for that, just common sense.
With the "flexible races" thing I was already asked if they could pick half-orcs with githyanki armor proficiences, high-elf cantrips and halfling luck... soo, brace yourself, power players are coming...
The options to create the ultimate customizable RP characters sounds great in theory but could be easily used as an exploit to create powerplayer builds with little sense story-wise . It´s going to be a pain.

Myself already gave a no-no to that part of the book when asked. Character creation aside, the book seems to have some cool things to add to your campaigns and yeah, I possibly grab the book anyway.

I don't particularly like that part of the book, either, but I'm willing to hear them out on the matter. Still, no subclass is being 'held hostage'.

For one it opens the door to 3.5 style racial bullshit where youre a Half ogre half dragon half elf.

Also it goes against the very idea of fatnasy races and quite frankly the reason for doing it is insulting.

"This fantasy game has non human species that have different stats, this implies that different ethnicities of humans are .... "What now? different? Compareable to orcs? Yeah the twitter drama pisses me off.
And crawford pandering to those dinguses pisses me off too.

That realy quick knee jerk reaction because some chucklefucks decided "Orcs are always chaotic evil, thats racist against minorities" on twitter. Fuck man, thats embarassing.

From a gameplay perspective its a complete mess.

As for my table im not too concerned as i dont run 5e, but im used to running a very restricted set of races in my games (you get 5, no you dont get dwarves) and i arleady feel bad for any newbie 5e DM that gets a player that created some inhuman monstrosity with this thing and thinks this is fair and balanced.



But lets not kid ourselves. What this book realy does is making you be able to run Variant Human but on any race you want.
So basically any race now will be a skill for Vuman because theres no point in taking any other racial.

i dislike it. Its bad in Design, its bad in Philosophy and its lazy in content aswell from what ive seen.