Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Dear Larian, I see you are making changes to 5th edition Here are some suggestions from a 5e veteran

I'll preface this quickly by saying I've been playing D&D for well over 15 years on both sides of the screen. Fifth Edition is definitely one of the smoothest rulesets of Dungeons & Dragons, but it's not without its wrinkles. I can see that Larian wants to make some changes and bring some of the weaker classes up to parity with the stronger ones (what with the ranger changes) and so I figure now is as good a time as any to offer some of the minor (and major) changes I apply to my own games to make things seem more fair as well as more engaging.

This handful of custom rules are mostly implemented to balance the game out, as well as enrich the strategic depth of the game (especially for martial classes). The changes fall into 2 categories:

Global Changes (i.e. balance changes that apply to everyone)

Class Specific Changes.

Don't worry, it's actually a very small list.

Global Changes:
1. Bows are a finesse weapon - in terms of how real life bows actually operate and the levels of draw strength required to wield certain compound bows, it is not only more realistic that a bow be able to gain bonuses from strength (more draw strength means the arrow travels faster, farther, and penetrates armor better) it also gives strength characters better options for long range weaponry, as the current "free object interaction" rules for drawing weapons and the limited range of throwing weapons, makes them less than ideal. In a game that focuses so much on "verticality", opening up ranged options for all characters will be important. Dexterity is often considered a superior offensive stat in 5e, as it contributes to many great skills as well as initiative, AC (in some cases) and now melee and ranged weapon attack bonuses. Even with the utility we see being lumped onto shove as a bonus action, if only one change was to go through from all of this, this is the one. It makes sense for realism and it improves the balance of the game.

2. The Extra Attack class feature also opens up disarm, trip and pushing attack maneuvers as free additions to one melee weapon attack on the character's turn (without bonus damage dice) - I've played my fair share of martial characters and they really do struggle for tactical ways to contribute to a combat. This gives them neat ways to control the battlefield and I can see that Larian are already trying to do something close to this by making shove a bonus action. Casters already have cantrips that carry far stronger debuffs, so this does little to break the game, and again, brings melee characters a little bit more up to par.

3. Critical Strikes deal maximum damage instead of adding bonus dice. Features that add bonus dice to critical strikes (like a barbarian's brutal critical) are still rolled. - I mostly just see the concept of dishing out a critical strike that rolls badly and ends up dealing less damage than a normal hit as being both anticlimactic and not so great for emersion and imagery. "You critical strike the monster in the eye for....6 damage!" It should be noted that in cases of large dice rolls this will improve consistency of critical damage but actually REDUCE the average damage of critical strikes (especially those with many dice) -but!- also reduces the chances of players being crit to death with high damage rolls from monsters.

So yeah...3 global changes. If anything these are the ones I find to be most important.

Class changes:
The class specific changes are also something I see you've been embracing Larian (like thief rogues and rangers). I have my own set of changes that really smooth out some of the weaker classes.

Please note that the following classes received no changes: Artificers, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Wizards (they're good enough!)

Some of these changes aren’t relevant to the level ranges of Baldur’s Gate 3 but I am putting them down anyway so that Larian has some food for thought if Baldur's Gate 4 is going to be a thing (and maybe you 5e players out there can get some good ideas too!)

It should also be noted that I have play tested all of these changes with groups of live people and they all have enjoyed the changes.

Barbarians: Brutal Critical now improves critical strike range in higher levels. (This is one of those examples of a change that doesn't apply to current level ranges for Baldur’s Gate 3) at level 13 the Barbarian doesn't receive more bonus critical strike weapon damage but instead improves their critical strike range to rolls of 19-20 and at level 17 they gain an additional weapon dice and improved critical range of 18-20. Big crits are what barbarians are all about and this lets them get those moments more often as well as preventing their damage from falling behind in higher tiers of play.

Frenzied Berserker: The bonus action used to enter a frenzy can be used to make a melee weapon attack as well. As much as people hate the exhaustion, the deal breaker for me is that the first round you enter your rage you don't even get the extra attack from frenzy and still incur exhaustion. Most combats are over in 3-5 rounds so this is actually a big deal. (Some people want to do away with the exhaustion altogether but not me).

Fighters: Extra Attack (3) is gained at level 17 and their new capstone at level 20 is that they regain the use of all expended short rest features from the fighter class when initiative is rolled. I don't like how Warlocks are getting their 4th beam at 17 and Fighters are still waiting 3 more levels to get that extra attack. It's a minor change but an important one.

Arcane Archers: Get a number of special shots equal to their proficiency bonus that recharge on a short rest (instead of 2....)

Monks: (Probably the most extreme overhaul) Ki now regenerates fully at the end of the Monk's turn and they get 1 Ki per Tier. (meaning 1 Ki at levels 1-4, 2 Ki at levels 5-10 etc). Why? Because Short rests are very annoying and Monks have remarkably little longevity in long encounters especially in tiers 1 and 2. This also necessitates that Way of the Four Elements Monks have their costs be reduced to be equal to the level of the spell (or in the case of cone of cold reduced to 4).

At level 6 when a monks unarmed attacks count as magical for the sake of overcoming damage reduction they also gain a bonus to their hit and damage with unarmed attacks equivalent to any magical weapon they are wielding. Unarmed attacks are the bread and butter of monks and if you get magical gear, using your unarmed attacks shouldn't feel like a penalty.

At level 11 using flurry of blows no longer costs Ki.

At level 20 using flurry of blows no longer costs a bonus action. (meaning if can also be done as part of an opportunity attack :D)

Rangers: Larian clearly has their own ideas here. I've found that the Ranger functions best as a fighter subclass, much like the eldritch knight but with Druid spells (no school limitations) and instead of cantrips, gets expertise. Later they get bonus action stealth and enhanced senses and attacking from hidden. etc. If prompted to, I will leave details in the comments.

Rogues: At level 5 receive Crippling Strike: When the rogue lands a sneak attack from an attack made with advantage, the rogue chooses one of the following effects: The target has their movement speed reduced by half, disadvantage on their next attack, or disadvantage on their next saving throw against a spell unless they make a strength, dexterity or constitution saving throw, respectively. The DC is equal to 8 + proficiency bonus + dexterity modifier of the rogue. EDIT: This effect lasts until the start of the Rogue's next turn.

The idea is to give rogues options if they are able to get advantage on their attacks instead of just doing the same thing over and over they have a means to contribute tactically.

Assassin: No longer requires surprise to guarantee a critical strike (since they must also beat them in initiative to do so) but must be hidden from their target when combat begins and guarantee the critical for only the first attack they make in the combat if it hits. I just think that the current Assassin feature requires too many things to go right. They need to get surprise, they need to win initiative AND they need to land an attack. This removes -one- of those requirements.

Sorcerers: Receive +1 Spell known per tier of play (so 3 spells known at level 1, 7 spells known at level 5, 15 spells known at level 11 etc.) and can swap one spell known for another of the same level once per long rest. Being locked into a crappy spell list really hurts sorcerers as they rely so heavily on their spell list, and they frankly, have too few spells known.

Warlocks: At level 5 Warlocks receive +1 spell slots but still only recover the normal amount they would have recovered. Meaning a level 5 warlock would have 3 spell slots but would still only recover 2 from a short rest, a level 11 Warlock would have 4 spell slots but still only recovers 3 etc. 2 spell slots is ridiculously limiting. It should expand to 3 so that in big fights a Warlock can still step on the gas a bit, but still only recover what they normally would from a short rest. Considering 5e was balanced around 2 short rests a day and Larian has opted for 1 I think this change is ideal.

Anyway, as you can see -most- of the changes are quite minor. I’m sure many of you have lots to say about these changes, whether it be good or bad so have at it

(I will probably include some edits for formatting)

these are actually some of the best 5e homebrew changes i have ever seen on the internet. i personnaly have some differing solutions, but i would happily play at your table. good job.
normally whenever i see homebrew i am stunned how bad it is. like 99% of it.
you seem to be one of the few people who actually understand 5e.
larian on the other hand doesn't understand 5e at all, which is really not surprising considering my anecdotal fake statistics.
i hope that changes before the game comes out.

Larian has a hard time making 5e as it is. If they add on even more house rules then what's going to be left of 5e?

I practice archery IRL and one thing that has always bugged the crap out of me in RPGs is how you can be an archer and take strength as your dump stat. You need to be quite strong to use upper tier bows. Not just to draw it but also to hold the bow at full draw long enough to aim and loose. There's really not much dexterity involved at all.

That said bows being DEX is so core to the DnD experience that I don't know if it'd be appropriate to change it, even if I agree bows should be strength based. Plus it'd throw off a lot of iconic races and their bonuses. Wood elves wouldn't be as good at using longbows as dwarves or half-orcs, which would be a bit weird.



As someone who adores the ranger archetype I strongly, strongly disagree that it should be made a fighter sub-class, though. Ranger is absolutely a strong enough fantasy staple to warrant its own class with its own unique class mechanics. At the very least it is as deserving of beings its own class as barbarian (angry lightly armored fighter) or paladin (religious fighter with cleric spells).

That said while I do like the direction Larian went with the options some of them are... Thematically misplaced. Beast Tamer as a Natural Terrain is just weirdly phrased and so different from the other Natural Terrains that it feels like it doesn't belong. I also feel Sanctified Stalker needs to give you access to one or two Druid cantrips rather than giving Sacred Flame, which is honestly the worst damage cantrip I've used in BG3.

Granted, druid cantrips aren't in the game yet probably. Maybe they'll redo Sanctified Stalker once druid is released.

Over all though I really like how Favored Enemy seems to be about broad ranges of a type of enemy and gives you free skill proficiencies that make you better at tracking and dealing with those enemies but are also valuable in other situations as well. That is what a ranger should function like, in my opinion. Someone who is exceptionally good at bringing down a specific range of enemies and uses that experience and their knowledge of woodcraft to aid the party.

Actually in 2nd edition of DnD there were STR bows and even BG1/BG2 does require STR 18 to be able to draw a Composite Bow.

You are right to raise concern over Larian's balancing and much of your input looks sensible to me. I would however question how transferable the conventional tabletop wisdom of assuming casters being strongest classes is.

Shadowheart, the full-caster Cleric, is the weakest companion by far and statistics shows she dies the most as well, martials Lae'zel and Astarion both excel. The Ranger is the most overpowered class in early access out of the box. The Wizard is eventually even stronger, but only due to Larian's rather haphazard implementation of magic items, coupled with what is currently an extremely unrealistic/unbalanced resting mechanic. Magic items such as the 18 intelligence headband and the Sapphire Sparks amulet that doubles the number of magical missiles is massively overpowered/unbalancing. Especially in a setting where decent non-magical and heavy armor doesn't even exist currently and especially once Evocation Wizards gets to add their spellcasting ability modifier in damage to each missile...and then upcasts the spell.

They were both. Strength modifier dictated damage, whereas dexterity affected "missile attack adjustment" for accuracy/ToHit.

A "homebrew rule" I've seen a guy proposing about archery was to give long bows and similar a bonus to hit chance based on dexterity and to damage based on strength.
Not only it made sense in general, but it gave meaning to characters who had both stats high.

I did not know this! Good to know, but I still feel iffy about changing it. I am pretty lenient about adhering to 5e ruleset, but I also feel people should be able to port their DnD characters into BG3 without too much hassle.

I'll preface this by saying that Larian has to juggle three ideas - an adaptation of 5E mechanics, a continuation of Baldur's Gate 1&2, and the flavor of their own team akin to Divinity Original Sin 1&2. Inherently, they've chosen their own flavor of verticality and aesthetics, with much of 5Es mechanics, and a loose (if not largely absent) story of BG.

However, I'm not opposed to some sort of optional tuning pack (similar to how Xcom 1&2 offer variant rules at the start of the game) to change certain factors away from the base experience.

Anyhow, as for your suggestions;

1) I'm totally cool with warbows/oversized longbows, or basically any of the ranged options (I imagine Heavy Crossbows would require some strength to wind up in a short period of time) using Strength in some way.
2) I suspect this is the broad appeal of the Battlemaster Fighter, in which I think the Martial Adept feat is basically this.
3) This is how I've rolled it on the tabletop, so yep.

For many of the class decisions, Larian has said they were aiming for 10th level as the cap, but considered changing it to 12th level to fit more progression in, so many of the higher level balancing is unlikely to make it in game. As a discussion for the tabletop;

Barbarian: As far as increased critical range goes, I think that was the territory of the Champion Fighter subclass, and thus making it partially viable to multiclass between them (though, not really tbh, given redundant Extra Attack and proficiencies).
Berserker: Missing out on one weapon attack seems like a low priority to me (though doing damage earlier is technically better than doing it later, sure). If your average Ranger/Warlock has to burn a bonus action to cast or apply Hunter's Mark.Hex, then I think the bonus action defecit is okay.
Fighter: I do think Fighter get the short end of the stick as far as martials go. That said, getting back every use of Action Surge, Indomitable and Second Wind with each initiative roll is ... a bit much. Whether a classes capstone should be "you get back resources when you roll initiative" or the more unique ones like Cleric, Wizard, Barbarian, or ... *shudder* Druid, is probably a better consideration to have.
Arcane Archer: A decent buff, but one that probably incentivises small multiclass dips rather than a pure class. I'd probably have it scale off Intelligence, which is slightly palatable given Fighters get more ASIs (though it does compete with Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert and Dexterity).
Monks: This is a bit tricky, because constant Ki means constant Stunning Strike. The most I could grant is you can do a small meditation outside of combat (recenter your Chi, that sort of thing) similar to how they made Prayer of Healing an instant out of combat thing. You'd have a pool of this meditation Ki equal to your Wisdom. So you can easily start each fight with more Ki, you can burn through your per level reserve (which you'd probably have to halve to compensate) and still have room for the Way of the Four Elements to burn through Ki, value their Short rest, etc.
As for free Flurry of Blows at 20th level, I'd probably just double the damage die of unarmed attacks and leave it at that. Even allowing for 4 Ki when your per level Ki is below 4 is still decent.
Rangers: They're probably in a strong spot in this game, having great weapons, good armor, decent spells, good skills, and have what is essentially a subclass at 1st level before getting their actual subclass. I don't like it (even less so making them Fighters), but I can respect the viability at least.
Rogue: Crippling Strike feels like an entire subclass feature. Better yet, replace the Assassins lackluster Imposter and Infiltration features with this (though maybe replace one of them with at will Disguise Self).
Assassin: Depending on how its implemented, Assassin would be very powerful in this game, mostly because of how stealth works in this game. Going on a shove spree in this game is fairly easy, and I can only imagine a critical hit spree (plus if critical hits do one die of max damage) would be quite effective. Larian seems to have padded enemy HP to make one shot kills less likely, but given how accessible rests are, its mostly a setup to make us burn resources.
Sorcerers/Warlocks: I suspect this is an unpopular opinion, but I actually don't think either should get extra spells than what the PHB outline. I actually like the idea that Sorcerers have limited natural spells similar to Bards, and that inherently some classes should have less spell flexibility than others. Wizards should clearly not be able to copy any spell list via scroll, which should probably be a feature of the Bard (limited to Magical Secrets, if we ever get it).

Overall though, I'm okay with of these as tuning changes, just as long as they're all individual choices.

I see this point made a lot that this steps on the toes of the battlemaster, so I often reply that the battlemaster is not limited to once per turn, not limited to their own turn, and is not limited to a melee weapon in this regard and this free feature gains no additional damage. The intent is not to eclipse the battlemaster, but to give melee's a sensible choice of effects they can inflict that aren't backbreaking.

I just clash with the idea that "attempting to trip someone" is a limited resource...like why are we making martials like casters? If it's adding damage and being done with a ranged weapon fine, but currently being able to make an attempt to trip with your sword whilst slashing at the legs feels scummy to tie to a limited resource ESPECIALLY when casters have debilitating effects tied to ranged cantrips with no limited resource costs (I'm looking at you chill touch and ray of frost....)



I've seen too many monster crits turn a table sour. I'd rather it just be a fixed number that I know won't be lethal.



I have no qualms with stepping on the toes of Champion Fighters. Especially since Barbarians are pigeon holed into melee for a majority of their features. This limitation becomes especially apparent in tier 3 and 4 when ranged and flying enemies are a dime a dozen. Anyway, we can agree to disagree; I think Barbarians having more opportunities for their critical damage feature to shine is important for player morale. Like "cuss yeah this is why I rolled barbarian!"



I think that this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. When I look at and analyze the frenzied barbarian it is up against the other barbarian archetypes (not rangers and warlocks), with the primary contender being the totem barbarian.

Mechanically it has less to do with impact and more with player morale; you frenzy, and the benefits of that frenzy would now come online right away because you don't know how long you'll be able to keep the rage up (because you need to take damage or make attacks) and so you are immediately rewarded for the penalty you will be taking later. If the combat closes out early, or you get knocked out of rage you get at least -some- value.


Ehh, it's mostly just trying to play into the Fighter's strengths. They are about sustainability and "keep going" and most of the time, you can get that short rest you would need anyway, this just makes it more convenient for the player. The DM is largely responsible for how accessible short rests are in the first place, this just takes that lever of control away. Ultimately you can still have longer fights that tax that system.


Doesn't that incentivize multiclassing too? Like you have a stat that you can boost for another class and still get lots of magic shots? And it frontloads the feature moreso since you can get 20 int well before level 13. I suppose it has a bit more of a character build cost but I tend to deviate from MAD character design as much as possible.



I have grappled with the idea of a mixed system where you have a small per round ki pool and a reserve that draws from wisdom or proficiency bonus and it just lacked elegance overall. 5e seemed to strive for simplicity so I went with what I felt was both simple but effective (I have tested this change with many monk players and they all had the option of not going with it or going back at any time and they never looked back, what's more no other players at the table felt they were overshadowing the other players at the table; stunning strike? woopty doo, the wizard has been incapacitating 5+ opponents for a minute since level 5)
Monks in tier 3 are still making big choices; do I want to flurry, and smash out 3 stunning strikes every round, or am I going to spend my bonus action dodging, get only 2 stunning strike attempts. What's more, when you spend Ki as part of your reactions (like Deflect Missiles, or Diamond Soul) you now have to factor that into the way you spend ki on your next upcoming turn. Perhaps a mixed system would be better. I will do some more thinking.


Surprise mechanics are a bit weird. The changes to assassin were mostly a throwback to how shitty they are in tabletop.

As for crippling strike, it -was- originally a level 9 assassin feature I made that had only one negative side effect that could stack; you land a sneak attack from an attack made with advantage and the target loses half their maximum speed. If they are affected by the feature a second time and fail their save their speed is reduced to 0 and they drop prone. They can keep attempting the save at the end of their turn to regain their speed. It was a clutch homebrew that saved the subclass for me but I needed a tool to introduce decision making to rogue characters and unlocking the feature at level 5 in this way gave them just such a tool that lined up well with other martials getting extra attack. The intent is to give martial characters decisions to make. I wanted something that felt impactful and team oriented without being too strong. This seemed to tick off the right boxes.




Warlocks have many tools to supplement their lack of spells known which is why I don't bolster them. Sorcerers have only metamagic which is already a derivative of their spells known. I've played Sorcerers extensively. They require an abhorrent amount of min/maxing to play well and the gaps they have from lack of spells known make them wholly unattractive to the average player; I intend to alleviate that.

Thanks for the feedback, hopefully I changed your mind about maybe one or two stances you originally had.

I really like all of your Global changes! I am going to ask my roll20 DM if they will use any of them. I started playing in a level 12 campaign (Rise of Tiamat) and being a strength character feels so limiting. All of these changes would be more than welcome.

I am curious about the Monk rework. I didn't particularly enjoy playing a monk from levels 1-8 (Curse of Strahd) because Ki felt extremely restrictive for not that much effect (omg it feels like everything has high CON saves against stunning strike!) and I think this change would make them far more fun since they'd get to more freely use their abilities without needing to short rest every fight, especially in the lower levels.

Don't create alt accounts just to agree with yourself, please. Thanks.

lol

You call yourself a veteran of a 6 year old game and then list a bunch of completely overpowered changes. You do know the game isn't about auto succeeding at everything you do right?

Well now I feel really bad for asking to borrow my cousin's phone to make an account... We are two seperate people:

https://imgur.com/a/aBVt4E5

https://imgur.com/a/hWI3NV0

I've been staying with him while my gf quarantines and my cell died. I saw him posting on here and wanted to see what's what.

Guess I should've waited for it to get fixed or to get home before I expressed my opinions.

Cringe