Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback D&D 5e - In Depth Look At Classes

Well, at this point it isn't so brilliant with all the meta knowledge. Heck, even back in BG1 and 2 people got to the point that they would and could do a single character run without armor just for the challenge (including taking out Drizzt).

So, meh.

Joe

I don't lie. I might be mistaken sometimes and think I'm right, but I don't lie... Nor am I going to waste my time proving something to others especially who aren't making the decisions.

That said, I haven't done a complete run of EA without a cleric, but I have done a solo run with a barbarian up through the harpy fight without anything to heal me but potions AND only throwing and shoving. I HAVE done a run with a fighter as MC without any healer but potions. Granted, stopped at the Underdark because I got tired of it, but I did the surface. Can't recall if I did EVERY encounter, but I know I at least did most. Just my fighter, Lae'zel, Gale and Astarion. Stealth, janky homebrew mechanics, gimmicks... Yeah. It was actually a breeze.

Hah! One time I killed the Bulette by locking it into combat with everyone but Astarion - different run - and just had Astarion stealth and shoot from a distance. Killed it without a fight because it never detected him. Just spammed shooting it from afar.

Others have also solo'd this game using stealth and gimmicks. So why would I waste my time trying to prove anything? Certainly a healer makes the game easier, but are they necessary? Is anyone necessary? No. Not in current state. In my barbarian run, I even got close to dying at the grove gate, and Aradin and his party threw potions and healed me full up.

The point is that if you don't have a healer - not just cleric but a healer - you should feel it. You should have a greater challenge and have to buy more potions and use them more strategically to stay alive. Healers shouldn't be so devalued that you can easily live without them. I say SHOULD because I'm saying that if healers have real value, you should feel it if they are missing. Same with Rogue. It should be harder to open locks and such without them because it's important to have someone who is an expert at picking locks.

The point is that what I'm seeing is the devaluing of the classes overall, so everyone can do everything and no one is really needed. Classes have no real value.

But, if you do play with a Life Cleric - well, GG easy game everyone. And wait til after level 5 with wizards casting major damage AOE spells. They will overshadow the others. That is what I'm seeing. Could be wrong. Maybe I am. But it sure seems like it, especially since, while playing Solasta, I'm already seeing some of it. My Op sorcerer flies and rains fireballs almost every battle. Starts getting old after awhile.

@CMK

Did you read the scenarios? What about them is "wild"? Are they REALLY not reasonable scenarios? I literally rolled dice and played it out using the two different rule sets. They may not incorporate all possible scenarios, but they are legit scenarios.

Should I go into All the possible scenarios? Man, that would take forever.

Hmm.. what was so wild, that in BG3 at level 6 a wizard can both port using Misty Step AND blast 3 phase spiders with a fireball before they can even go? Is that not a possibility once they lift the level cap? Is that so wild?

Yay for team sorcerer!

One could argue that you felt it. O_o

Sure. One could argue that I was really feeling it while soloing as a barbarian while ONLY throwing and shoving. Yep. I was definitely running out of potions by the harpy fight while ONLY shoving and throwing with one character.

And, did you forget I said I did a fighter playthrough also, doing at least most of the surface, without a healer and just potions, with Gale, Lae'zel and Astarion? Didn't feel it there either. Lots of potions left.

Personally I have more of a problem with all classes having access to all scrolls and believe it to be the bigger contributor to over all watering down of class "distinctiveness". Bonus action potions in a normal D&D game is apparently a popular homebrew and doesn't seem to break the game by itself.

That said BG3 is NOT a normal D&D game on far to many levels. All of Larian's homebrew stacks creating something way out of proportion to the slight change it appears to be. Between potions becoming bonus actions, plus now being Healing Word for all classes, plus new magic items apparently giving extra bonus actions out like candy and full access to spell scrolls on top of all that it is just to much extra healing power imo. Not just does it lessen/eliminate to some extent the cleric class, but I believe in Larian's mind it justifies/encourages their other homebrew decisions like giving creatures aoe abilities they shouldn't have.

I do agree with GM4Him's fear the later game is potentially going to be problematic.

Thank you.

Look. It's all about extremes. A homebrew here and there that makes sense is fine. I'm just trying to show how all the homebrew is destroying classes.

Just look at Rogue. I'm trying to move on to Rogue. Look at what I pointed out for the Rogue. What, honestly, makes them special in BG3? Anyone can pick a lock or steal just as good as any rogue you create, or pretty darn close to it, and anyone can stealth as well as a Rogue. Totally unnecessary class.

What makes them special at all? I'll get into that more with Subclasses of Rogue.

Let's start with Arcane Trickster. Not bad implementation. Spellcasting Rogue, basically. Aside from the things missing which I mentioned previously, mainly Expertise, there's not much here that is really different...

Except for Mage Hand. It should be invisible, able to be moved via your Cunning Action Bonus Action, able to pick locks or disarm traps using your proficiency (so Expertise would really shine here), and able to essentially pick pockets with Sleight of Hand roll.

It is what really sets the Arcane Trickster apart at lower levels, and mage hand really doesn't function well. It is a lame spell that can't even pull levers. The whole point of it is to manipulate objects from 30 feet away, and I've only ever used it as a diversion for enemies who love to attack it. Not good, especially for the Arcane Trickster.

That said, not much else to say here. Rogue Mage cross class is essentially what this is. Is it special. Sure. It's fine. Other than Mage Hand and no Expertise, they've implemented it fairly well.

Thief.

Honestly, I usually make Astarion a thief because Arcane Trickster just isn't as good. The Thief is the subclass that kinda sorta makes up for the Rogue getting the shaft as a class.

But once again, they've gone to the other extreme. Fast Hands, according to 5e, should allow Rogues to pickpocket someone using Cunning Action, pick a lock or disarm a trap, or use an item (potion being one such item but it's not limited to just a potion). So it's meant to add to what you can do with the normal Rogue ability Cunning Action. You can Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action, and now you can pick pockets, pick locks and use items that are normally Actions to use - non-attack type things.

But, instead, BG3 gives Thieves an extra bonus action because when are you ever going to pick a lock, disarm a trap or use an item in BG3 during combat? Nowhere, at least in EA, would this apply ESPECIALLY because potion - the most usable item in combat - is already a Bonus.

So, what's the big issue?

You can do ALL of the following as a Thief:

1. Attack with Main hand and Attack twice with your off hand, potentially dealing more damage than a fighter or barbarian each round.
2. Dash not once or twice but 3 times, moving up to 180 feet in a single turn.
3. Attack and use 2 Potions for more healing potential than even a cleric if you have good potions. 2 Greater Potions is 8d4+8 healing in a single turn... And you can still attack too with Sneak Attack and deal hefty damage.
4. Cast a spell using a scroll, then another using a scroll as a Bonus, and a third as another Bonus. Misty Step 2 times of ya got the scrolls. That's more than an Arcane Trickster or any mage. Dang!
5. Hide, Shoot or Melee, skirt around behind an enemy and Hide again.

Or some mix of these. I'm sure there's more, but those are the main ones I've done.

So how has Larian made the Rogue stand out? Thief with more Bonus actions. They aren't standing out as lock pickers and pickpockets, or deceivers and tricksters. They're standing out as massive damage dealers and potion drinkers and super fast racing across the board runners, and scroll chainers and popping in and out of shadows assassins.

As for their other ability, Second Story Work, I'm not sure if that is implemented well. I haven't noticed if they can jump farther or climb faster than anyone else. That's all overshadowed by Fast Hands, the OP Rogue Thief ability that makes the Rogue REALLY incredible.

Man! If you gave Rogues Expertise so they were kings of Stealth, they'd be gaining advantage on every dang attack roll. Hide even in direct line of sight, sneak attack, hide. Sneak Attack and off hand, dance around behind, hide. Wash, rinse, repeat. By level 5, at least 5d6 damage each round, if not 6d6. 3d6 for Sneak Attack and 1d6 per 3 weapon attacks. What can Fighter do? Maybe 4d6 with Greatsword, and if uses Action Surge another 2d6 - IF uses action Surge. Add 1d8 for superiority dice if he uses it, and can only do that 4 times. Hmmm. Something seems off.

I dont see how ...
There is no way to upcast scrolls, and so far they are allways lowest possible level ... wich means (especialy for damaging, or healing spells) that their usefullness isnt so earthshaking. :-/

Sure, there are "some" spells that dont need upcasting anyway and can be usefull ... like Mage Armor, Protection from Good and Evil, Slow Fall, or so often mentioned Misty Stepp ...
But are they really so awesome? :-/
I mean who except Sorcerer, or Wizard would even use Mage Armor?
In how many occasions you will use Protection from Evil and Good, or Slow Fall?
True ... Misty Step can theoreticaly be quite usefull, but even if Larian would decided to limit scrolls (wich we all can do yourseself, if we mind it so much BTW) to casters only ... there is still several (yup 2 at least right now, and we dont even have whole Act 1) artefacts that will allow us to do exactly the same ... so what would be the point here?

I'd finally tried Trickery in this game and couldn't find where I could move the Invoke Duplicity as a bonus action like RAW. Did I just miss it?

Nope. It's just not there

The Fighter.

Actually, I think the fighter is done rather well in BG3. It's probably the best implemented class. It lines up with 5e pretty well. Battle master could use a few more maneuvers, but overall well done. Oh, and Eldritch Knight needs Weapon Bond. I don't think they included it, if I recall correctly. Now that you can be disarmed, that would be an important special ability so an Eldritch Knight can easily retrieve their weapon.

The only thing they did to kinda nerf the fighter is that they gave different weapons different special maneuvers, so the Battle master isn't AS special because he/she is no longer the only one who can do special melee or ranged attack maneuvers. Still, they only made them 1/day abilities, so they aren't that OP.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the fighter implementation. More subclasses would be all we need for this class - like Arcane Archer and Champion.

Is it still the case that when you do a Maneuver, you are made to consume a Superiority Dice before before knowing if the attack hits ?

If so, that's not a very good implementation to me. All the more so that the skeleton of the Fighter Class is overall pretty simple to implement (minimal use of Reaction). I'm not overly impressed by the facts that Second Wind and Action Surge are correctly implemented. The Maneuvers are the signature feature of the Battle Master Subclass. So if it's not done well, I wouldn't rate the Battle Master as done rather well.

I don't worry about the number of available Maneuvers. I'm sure more will come later. I'm worried about how the whole Maneuver system is implemented.

What is sad, if we sill lose Superiority Dice on missed attacks, is that it is not even necessary to have a proper reaction system (reaction with lower case r here, as I'm speaking about when the players' decisions are made, Maneuvers generally don't consume the 5E resource called Reaction). Indeed, with the current implementation, all the devs would have to do to get Maneuvers right is to consume a Superiority Dice when we select the Maneuver, and credit it back if the attack misses.

Of course, I'd be happy if Larian first implements a proper system for players to input last minute decisions, and then revises Maneuvers within that new framework.

They tweaked it. Yes. It used to consume a Superiority dice even if you missed. It doesn't now. You select the maneuver you want to do, and if you hit you use the die. Otherwise you don't. I've tested it out multiple times. It works pretty well.

And you do get them back with a short rest.

One thing BG3 does better than Solasta, in my opinion, is that Solasta does have too many pauses in combat to have popup windows ask you if you want to apply something. Examples: Barbarian Frenzy and Paladin Smite. If I hit, a popup asks me, "Do you want to apply XYZ special ability, and at what level?"

I do like how maneuvers work in BG3. I'd rather select the maneuver as if it's an attack, and if I hit the damage is automatically applies. Same with Sneak Attack and so forth. It's annoying after awhile in Solasta because EVERY time my paladin hits, I get the window asking if I want to apply smite damage. That gets REAL old. Is much rather have a separate button I click to activate the ability before attacking at what level I want and if it hits it applies. SO much less clunky.

That said, I think they could still make it better in BG3. Like they could be 1 button, not 1 for ranged and 1 for melee. Just one button that applies to whatever weapon you have in hand. That way, they wouldn't clutter up the hotbars. Want to do Disarm maneuver? If you have your sword in hand and hit the Disarm button, it automatically applies to your sword if you hit. We don't need so many dang buttons for every ability in the game.

Oh, and I might want to apply Sneak Attack to off hand, not main. I should be able to select Sneak Attack and then Off Hand Attack and have it apply. This could be done by having main hand vs. off hand be a toggle (replacing Single/ Duel toggle). So, it is set to Main by default. All Sneak Attacks, etc. Apply to main. However, of you want to switch Sneak Attack to off hand, flip the toggle.

When equipped with 2 weapons, game should default to attacking with main, and if you click on the enemy again you immediately attack with off hand so you don't have to hit an extra button to attack with off hand. Only if you hit the toggle and flip it to off hand would it attack with that hand first. Afterwards it would default back to main.

But anyway, the point is that I like BG3's implementation of maneuvers. I want more options now, and maybe have it cleaned up a bit without so many buttons.

Woohoo ! And also : finally !

Because let's be real, it was really cheap to edit the code make this right, and ... well I don't know if this had been requested from EA Day 1, but I started requested from just after Patch 3. Do you remember when the change occurred ?

In the grand scheme of things, it's a small step, but at least it's a step in the good direction.

I think Patch 4 or 5. It's been some time, I know that much.

Rangers.

Now, this could just be me, but I can't think of a time when my Ranger Beastmaster ever used Favored Enemy in BG3, and yet there were plenty of times, especially on the Nautiloid, when it would have come into play.

Now, that said, it's been awhile since I played that class, but I just don't remember getting any kind of Advantage on checks involving Aberrations, which is the Favored Enemy I chose. It could have been there, mind you, but I don't remember it.

For example, when making rolls on the Nautiloid to determine if he could understand the Mind Flayer scripts on the machines near Shadowheart, an Arcana roll is made. Well, since Mind Flayers are Aberrations, he should have gotten an advantage on the roll to determine if he could understand the language and know what the buttons mean. I don't think he did. Again, it's been awhile since I played him, and if they did give him advantage - or they've since fixed it - that's great. Still, that's one of the main bonuses right out the gate for a ranger. They are experts at tracking and hunting especially those who are their favored enemies. So, if it's not in the game, it needs to be.

Favored Terrain is another major main element of the ranger right from the beginning, and thus far I can't ever remember an incident in the game where it came into play. Did I even get to pick a Favored Terrain? If so, why? After all, there is hardly ever Difficult terrain - so that the rest of the party would be slowed but the ranger would not, when would the group ever "become lost" in BG3, so that the ranger would be able to prevent that from happening, there are no random encounters while traveling, so why would rangers being more alert make any difference, the game doesn't allow rangers to stealth at a normal pace in their favorite terrain, there is no foraging for food, and you can't track creatures. So, one of the most important, basic features of a ranger is completely pointless in BG3. It doesn't matter what your favorite terrain is because thus far in EA, none of the benefits of favored terrain applies.

So, right away, the ranger takes a pretty solid hit to its usefullness as a class. In order to fix this, Larian would need to implement advantage on rolls for Favored Enemy (if they haven't already), provide opportunities to find tracks and actually track Favored Enemies - so let's say your favorite enemy is oozes, they could have all traces of oozes at Grymforge be invisible to players and then you roll to see if you find tracks for the oozes and if you succeed you actually see them on the ground and then can follow them to their location and not be surprised when they attack (allowing the ranger with oozes favored enemy to get an advantage on the roll to see the tracks) - more opportunities to make Intelligence checks to recall information on said favored enemies, etc.

For Favored Terrain, they'd need to give you reasons why the favored terrain ability sets the ranger apart from every other class. If you pick forest, for example, the ranger can stealth by themselves faster than anyone else. They'd need to provide more difficult terrain that slows people down, like brambles and bushes and such in the forest, or mud or something, so that the ranger isn't slowed but everyone else is (just using Forest as an example). They'd need to have transition screens between areas, indicating that more than a few seconds went by between maybe places like the Nautiloid/Beach/Dank Crypt area and the Grove. You know, like they traveled for an hour or so through some rugged terrain to reach the Grove Gate, and then have it where a Survival check is necessary to keep from getting lost so the Ranger would automatically not get lost while everyone else could. What would it mean to get lost? You wind up back in the previous area and have to Long Rest before trying again, or maybe you lose a Short Rest as you try to rest from your weary traveling, or maybe you have to spend food, or some sort of consequence for getting lost - meanwhile, the ranger never gets lost in their favored terrain, so if you have a ranger with you, it's not an issue.

They'd also need to implement random encounters chance while traveling between map locations. So, maybe you might run into a group of goblins while traveling from the Nautiloid/Crypt/Beach area to the Grove area, and they might surprise you - unless you have a ranger with you and its the ranger's favored terrain.

And food. Food would need to be a LOT more scarce in the game so that they could implement a foraging system where you can forage for food, or hunt, and the ranger would get advantage on Survival checks to be able to find food easier than other classes.

All these things would then add value to the Ranger class right from the beginning. Meanwhile, as it stands, the Ranger is just kinda sorta meh right from the beginning. They are kinda a fighter, but not really, and later they get some spellcasting - which is implemented well, by the way. But the point is, overall, the Ranger has been stripped of a lot of their value in the beginning because there is very little to do with Favored Terrain in BG3, which is a huge part of what makes a Ranger a Ranger.

And it could mostly be fixed by implementing travel between map locations - which means they'd have to maybe create smaller maps instead of shoving them all together, and then actually have transitions between them indicating more lengthy travel - and random encounters - and if they added a hunting/foraging survival system with much less food handed out at every turn, that would also make a huge difference. In order to give Rangers value, food needs to be something a typical character has to worry about acquiring, while the Ranger has a much easier time of it because they're good at Survival especially in their terrain.

Oh, and I almost forgot, is there even a Primal Awareness ability for Rangers? I don't remember there being one, and I certainly never used it. However, that would be an awesome ability that would allow Rangers to be able to detect the presence of creatures within a certain game map (assuming game maps were smaller). So, you spend a spell slot and can tell that blighted village has undead in it somewhere, or at Grymforge you cast it and determine that there are fiends there along with elementals.

Anyway, the lack of all these things makes the Ranger so much less valuable right from the beginning.
I'll get into Ranger subclasses next.

Hunter subclass. This was implemented pretty well, from what I can see. I didn't test all the options, but based on the descriptions it looks like they implemented them right. You can either pick the Colossus Slayer and do 1d8 damage to creatures you hit when they don't have max HP, or you can pick Giant Killer and use your reaction to attack a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature. Or you can do Horde Breaker, which allows you to make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target that you attacked. I have tested both Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker, and both seem to work just fine, so I have no reason to believe that Giant Killer doesn't work as expected.

As for Beastmaster... Sigh. I've said it on another thread, but I'll repeat it here. Animal Companions are not the same as familiars, and we need to have a totally distinct separation between the two. Here are the main differences that we need implemented in the game:

1. Animal Companions are not summoned. You can have an initial spawning outside of combat, indicating that the ranger went out and found an animal and convinced it to be his/her animal companion, but it is not a magical beast that was summoned from another plane of existance. If it dies, that's a real life animal that has died. It isn't a magical animal that you can just unsummon and summon. It is like a comanion in your party. Therefore, if it dies, you should not be able to simply summon another animal right away. There should be some sort of consequence for allowing it to die - like you can't have another animal companion until after you've taken a long rest, no matter when you first spawned the animal. (5e calls for an 8 hour bonding with a friendly animal.) The point is to indicate that time has passed since the loss of a previous companion, and now you are finding a new one. Also, since they are not summoned, they should never be de-spawned. You can maybe dismiss them for good, but they should not de-spawn when you long or short rest. They should remain with you until you dismiss them and they run off into the wilderness.

2. Animal Companions can fight. Unlike Familiars that cannot actually Attack, Animal Companions can obey commands and can run up and attack enemies on their own turn. Now, typically in 5e Tabletop, this requires the Ranger to use an Action to give a command. If they have an appropriate special ability at later levels, this can be turned into a Bonus Action, showing a progressive familiarity with training and commanding beasts. But ultimately in TT it is an Action. However, in TT, the point is that the Ranger can use one Action and command the animal to "Attack that Goblin," and it will spend all of its turns attacking that goblin until it's dead. You don't need to command it each round. That, admittedly, might be difficult to do in a video game. The best way to handle it would be to have Animal Companions be AI controlled. On a Ranger's turn, they could use an Action to Command Animal Companion and then select a target to have it attack, or if the Ranger wants it to change its tactics, he/she could use an Action to do so (such as have the Animal Companion Disengage and retreat, Dodge, Dash, or even Help someone). If the animal's target is dead, it does nothing, waiting for its master to tell it what to do next, or maybe it returns to the master's side until given a new instruction. Each turn, as the TT rules state, it uses the Dodge action until given new orders. This would be a more accurate "benchmark" 5e implementation of Animal Companions.

3. Animal Companions should be able to be named, thus giving them more familiarity to the player. Anything you name creates a connection. Any kind of customization we can give to the animal makes it that much more special. So, I would like to suggest that we have the ability to name them and even change basic coloring or something - anything to make the animal more than just a magical construct that is a meat-shield minion we can throw at enemies and we don't care if it dies.

Right now, Animal Companions are made not as cool because Familiars can do pretty much everything an Animal Companion can do. Both can be spawned at any time, you can attack with either, and you can control either without expending Actions or Bonus Actions or anything. Basically, the main thing that makes the Beastmaster so cool is completely thrown out the window because all Animal Companions are - well, they are nothing but glorified Familiars in BG3. Some Familiars are even BETTER than Animal Companions. So, why even waste your time being a Beastmaster? Just make someone with a Find Familiar spell and you've got something WAY better - especially a Warlock Pact of the Chain familiar. I've played the Beastmaster multiple times, and each time I found myself trying to love it, because it's one of my favorite subclasses, but only feeling like it was pretty much worthless to take that path.