View Full Version : Optimization Making 5e more like Baldur's Gate II
I've done a couple of threads on this topic in the past, but they are old, and I shall not engage in Thread Necromancy without sufficient motivation
I have a 2nd group pulled together IRL, and am 2 weeks out from Session 0. My goal is to go with a more prep-light alternative to the ~300 pages I have for my current high-level campaign. I have two campaign proposals to DM. One is a version of a psionics-ish focused game I ran here on the boards for close to 5 ears. The other is Baldur's Gate II as a 5e campaign.
BG2 was set in 2nd edition, and featured wizards/casters for many of the enemies. There was often a tactics puzzle aspect, in that a mage could be Protected from Magical Weapons (requires Breach) and have, say, Spell Turning up (blocking Breach), and have Stoneskin up (blocking non-elemental damage for a few hits), requiring a chain of magical protections to be bypassed before you could touch their puny 50 hit points.
The toughest optional boss monster in BG2 has a total of 44hp... he just has resistance to almost everything and casts a 9th-level spell every round.
I want to bring some of that caster threat in, versus the squishy blasters who go down easily in 5e because they can't stack protections... but I also want to not make the party's wizards untouchable.
I'm posting this stuff for help assessing two items:
1) Am I making the party's wizards overpowered at high levels?
2) Am I nerfing (relatively) martials?
I'll spoiler each segment for length.
Posting these for clarity. Numbering is off because I deleted some that aren't relative to the discussion; ie my standard list includes buffing Dragonborn breath weapons and there won't be any dragonborn in this game.
1) Hexblade medium armor proficiency, as well as CHA to-hit and damage with the Blade pact weapon, move from the Hexblade patron to the Blade pact boon.
Blade pact gains proficiency with ONE martial melee weapon only. This makes Blade boon viable for non-Hexblade patrons, and moves any CHA-dependent dips to requiring 3 levels instead of 1.
Hexblade is still the only Warlock with native access to martial weapons (versatility) or shields.
2) Sorcerers get 2 thematically appropriate spells known added to their list automatically, at spell levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as with Aberrant Mind and Clockwork subclasses.
3) Rangers get their Proficiency Bonus added to damage rolls against their favored enemies, starting at level 1. The level 20 capstone applies to all attack rolls against their favored enemies, not just once per turn.
7) If you go to 0 or get insta-killed (bypassing 0 hp) and raised, you gain 1 level of exhaustion.
8) Berserker barbarians get Frenzy once per day with no consequence; the exhaustion penalties only get added with a 2nd and beyond Frenzy.
9) Attacking while jumping/falling from height: Make an acrobatics check and an attack roll, both against the target's AC.
If both hit, the target takes damage from the attack, and half the falling damage.
If the acrobatics check hits but the attack roll doesn't, they split falling damage but the attack misses.
If the acrobatics check misses but the attack roll hits, the attacker takes the falling damage but manages to stab(slash/bludgeon) his opponent right before hitting the ground. I had to add this because I had a player in Castle Dracula who liked to do this
10) Tasha's rules for making all the races boring are out.
11) Eldritch Knights may change the Evocation school out for one other school of their choice. (Notable picks: Necromancy for debuffs, Illusion for miss chances, Transmutation for self-buffs)
12) Tasha's subclasses subject to approval. No Scribe school wizard, no Peace Cleric, no Twilight Cleric.
13) Using "An Updated View on Necromancy" (DM's guild/free/I paid) for Necromancer wizards.
14) No flanking. Big crits: Crits are max damage w/ modifiers + normal rolled damage.
The DMG items are mostly gone in favor of the Baldur's Gate II items, converted appropriately. These are mostly weapons, armors, belts, rings, etc. I will add some of the wondrous items back in for things that just flat out aren't supported in a computer game, like Spider Climb, Fly, etc... but Broomsticks of Flying will not be cheap "uncommons" like in the DMG.
X of Protection +1 AC bonuses do not stack with magical armor bonuses.
X of Protection +2 AC bonus stacks only as +1 with magical armor bonuses.
This is not impacted by things that adjust base armor such as Barkskin, Mage Armor, etc.
5e Pricing is gone in favor of BG2 base prices.
Item Conversion from BG2:
Check for 5e equivalent versions and decide (for example, Mace of Disruption)
Weapons:
+2 or lower -> +1
+3-+4 -> +2
+5-+6 -> +3
Armor:
+1/+2 ->+1
+3+ -> +2
+4/+5 -> +3
Shields:
+1-3 -> +1
+4 -> +2
+5 -> +3
Item Identification
You can pick up any magic item and wear it or wave it around without identifying it. If it's a weapon or something, remind me that you're using an unidentified one, and I'll add the appropriate bonuses to your rolls. You can use a short rest to play with the item and figure out some of its characteristics, but it would be a roll (usually but not always Arcana) to activate any active effects.
The identify spell is reliable, but consumes a 100gp pearl each time it's cast.
Level Drain
When a character is level-drained, it loses maximum HP equal to its average HP value (d6 = 4, d8 = 5, etc.). Spellcasters lose higher-level slots based on their drained level. For example, a 7th-level wizard drained to level 4 loses all of his 3rd & 4th level slots for the day. For every 3 levels drained, the character takes a -1 penalty to hit and saves.
Typically, monsters that inflict level drain also heal by the amount of HP damage dealt by this effect.
Lesser Restoration cures 1 level of Level Drain per casting. Greater Restoration (material component 100gp) completely cures the character. Spell slots lost to level drain return after a long rest.
Note: I have considered simply subbing in Exhaustion, but Exhaustion is actually less forgiving if someone gets hit multiple times, like when fighting a bunch of vampires.
Death
When a character dies or is petrified and is raised from the dead, the character’s Constitution is permanently reduced by 1.
Wands and staves
No longer recharge automatically. You can use a spell slot to cast a spell that's in a wand without expending a charge (ie, you have no Lightning Bolt prepared, but have the Wand of Lightning Bolts, so you use a 3rd level slot to cast it).
You can also recharge a wand or staff, but it takes 2 spell slots of the level spell being recharged, plus 1 hour, plus a 100gp pearl.
Concentration Changes
Concentration is now limited to PB/2 spells at a time. When a Concentration check is called for, one check is rolled for each spell being Concentrated on.
Magic Resistance
Magic Resistance is now a % chance, in 5% increments. It applies to all spell energies, and you can lower MR as a reaction to one spell being cast upon you as long as you are aware of it and not incapacitated. Some creatures have natural MR, and spells exist to lower MR. Spells which lower MR’s lowering component are not hindered by MR.
Definitional note: MR applies to spells effects and magical energies. Objects not created by a spell (ie, projectiles from Catapult) and attacks from magical summons are not affected by MR.
Extra Spell Slots for Full Casters
Level Spell Slot
13th 6
15th 7
17th 8
20th 9
Spell Additions & Changes
Changed Spells
1 Identify Consumes 100gp pearl
4 Stoneskin Grants resistance to magical damage as well.
7 Forcecage Doesn’t exist.
9 Time Stop Can cast spells affecting others. Each spell so cast during Time Stop requires Concentration. Max 3 due to Concentration limit; potentially very deadly but also expends a lot of high level slots and requires not having any Concentration-based protections
New Cleric & Druid Spells
5 Magic Resistance Touch, 1 hr, sets Magic Resistance to 5+(PB x 5),1 target, upcast 1 target/level
6 Physical Mirror Self, C up to 5 rounds; missiles are returned to sender.
8 Shield of the Archons Self, C up to 5 rounds; target/attack roll spells absorbed up to 3x PB
New Cleric Only Spells
9 Aura of Flaming Death Self, C up to 10 rds; immune to fire & non-magic weapons, partial cover (+2 AC), enemies who attack within 5’ take 3d10 fire damage
9 Globe of Blades Self, C up to 10 rds; creatures within 5’ of caster takes 10d10 magic slashing
damage, Dex save half; save/damage provoked on entering area for first time or starting turn there
New Wizard/Sorcerer Spells
4 Minor Globe of Invulnerability As Globe of Invulnerability, blocks 3rd level & below The low level No button against the party's casters
4 Minor Spell Trigger Pre-cast 2 spells of 2nd level or below & store; cast both as a Bonus Action @ same target. Consumes material component of powdered ruby, 300gp
5 Breach Target, 30’, auto-dispels protections against physical damage
5 Lower Resistance Touch, reduce target’s MR by 10+(PB x 5); upcast 10%/level
5 Spell Immunity Self, C up to 10 rds, blocks effects of 1 spell school selected at casting.
Pierce Magic negates
5 Protection From Normal Weapons Self, BA, C up to 3 rounds, blocks all non-magic B/P/S. Incompatible wtih PFMW
6 Pierce Magic Target, 30’, reduce MR by (PB x 5) + dispel protections against magic
6 Protection from Magic Weapons Self, BA, C up to 3 rounds, blocks all non-magic B/P/S. Incompatible with PFNW
7 Spell Turning Self, C, Causes 12 spell levels of spells cast directly at target to rebound. Re-use attack rolls. Caster targeted by rebound makes saves.
8 Spell Trigger Pre-cast 3 spells of 6th level or below & store; cast both as a Bonus Action @ same target. Consumes material component of Emerald, 1500gp.
9 Chain Contingency As Contingency, 3 spells of up to 7th level. Consumes material component of Rogue Stone, 5000 gp.
9 Spell Trap Self, C up to 5 rnds, absorbs 18 spell levels of spells cast directly at the target. When hit by a spell, its effect is negated and you regain a spell slot of that level. Can be removed by Pierce Magic. Consumes material component of Rogue Stone, 5000 gp.
The spell trigger and chain contingency type spells give me good mechanics for enemy casters popping multiple protections or chaining damage/debuff spells to make them more of a threat to the party. The PCs can do them to - but you'll note that there are fairly expensive material components attached. In the BG2 economy, 25,000gp is enough to buy the most expensive item in the game. A wizard who's using a lot of these is going to be a drain on the party's finances. My hope is that the cost will cause these to be used somewhat sparingly, and will cause the group to have to make decisions about how much the wizard is allowed to spend vs. buying other things.
The things that relatively nerf casters, in summary:
-Enemies more likely to have Globe of Invulnerability type effects
-Magic Resistance as a flat %: Sometimes spells just fail. Quite a few enemies will have at least some MR. A few (Golems) have 90-100% MR. This is a de-power vs the "Advantage on saves" that 5e has.
-Wands & staves don't auto recharge. Compare to "Wand of I have Lightning Bolt 6/day for the cost of 1 attunement slot" or "I have all these spells and 50 charges on a stick." This decreases versatility somewhat.
The other thing I've been thinking of doing is either saying "After 10th level, you get 3/2/1 HP per level based on class instead of full HD" or dropping caster HD by a dice size like they used to be.
I'm just not sure how far off the balance point I am right now...
Xervous
2021-07-12, 06:59 AM
More spells, more concentration, and nothing for Martials? Seems like you’re pushing Martials even deeper into the role of cleanup guy.
If you want it to be more like BG2 then spellcasting should provoke an OA and damage taken when spellcasting should force a concentration check to prevent the spell from fizzling.
I feel like I'd need to pair that with making it so that the Mage-Slayer provoked OA can also cause a fizzle.... which it probably should anyway.
If an OA can disrupt casting instead of simply causing damage, I'm also concerned about a scenario where a Fighter can just go "I ready my action (3 attacks) to fire arrows at the first enemy that starts to cast a spell." Forcing 3 DC 10 checks will cause many castings to flat out fail... and if I then do the same thing to the party, that's no fun for the party casters.
Casters are good at AOE damage, but martials are still the king of reliable single-target damage. A Paladin or Barbarian can burst down a dragon a lot faster than even a high level wizard can.
BoutsofInsanity
2021-07-12, 08:42 AM
Your initial houserules are fine and make sense. I don't see any issue there.
The items houserule also makes sense.
Given how prevalent death is within the game and how quick you get access to raise dead and revivify I would drop the constitution score penalty from permanent to a long rest. You already hit them with exhaustion which is appropriate. I think the constitution penalty is to much if death happens as often as it does in the game.
The Caster stuff
The Wand thing is fine.
I have concerns for the rest. By design, Baldur's Gate required caster's to enable martial characters to do anything. Martial characters could kill the enemies, but only with caster help because of how powerful the defensive spells were. This worked fine because the game was played by a Single Entity commanding a group of people. There wasn't a personal investment in the effectiveness of the main character because the entire party was controlled by an individual. It was a problem to be solved. Not an experience to be felt.
That won't be the case for the D&D game. The player's will be running a single character. They will be invested in the effectiveness of their character. Running into an enemy that is completely immune to my ability to defeat them because they can Fly/Greater Invisibility will be disheartening. Further, the incentive to play a non-caster drops off significantly with the buffs to their casting applied.
-------
I think this can be fixed a couple of ways.
The first is obviously to buff martial characters. Extra feats, automatic resiliency, extra attacks, automatic magic resistance, powerful magical items that only they can use because of their class that add things like fly and fireball. (Stonefire Ax for example could also cast scorching ray and fire shield once per day) Doing those things would make playing a non-caster worth it in my opinion.
The other would be to severely limit long resting. (This goes against the design of Baldur's Gate however.) If long rests are rare, then most of this goes away because caster's going nova with their multiple concentration spells will make them awesome for the first fight, but by the second they will be gassed out. This will hold true for the enemies, given that they can be showing up with limited spell slots as well. If that's the case than it should work out fine.
Lastly allowing skills to really shine. Dealing with the DeArnise Stronghold for example becomes more interesting with a Ranger in the party. Having the ability to grind down the Trolls because the Ranger specifically could engage in a guerrilla campaign in the woods, not having to deal with difficult terrain and using fire arrows to destroy the trolls numbers, essentially forcing them to starve inside once their meat runs out would be very cool. (They can't go outside because the Ranger has led the DeArnise forces into a siege. Using oil and arrows to harrass the trolls). Allowing more solutions that the Game limited because of programming will enable more strategy and engagement with the plot.
But limiting long rests takes a lot of in game work.
If you don't want to buff martial characters I would reconsider the buffs to magic users. As without proper long rest pacing they will outstrip the martial characters in effectiveness even worse then normal. (This goes away if there are less long rests.)
I have concerns for the rest. By design, Baldur's Gate required caster's to enable martial characters to do anything. Martial characters could kill the enemies, but only with caster help because of how powerful the defensive spells were.
Yes and no. I played through BG2 and ToB quite a bit. The easiest playthrough I ever had was the one where I went with no primary casters. I think I had a paladin, 2 rangers, a fighter, a barbarian or monk (PC) and I don't remember what the other one was... but the final boss of ToB did not last a full round of combat in ANY of her incarnations. Some of this is due to itemization, though; once you have the Holy Avenger sword, you can dispel any wizard's protections in a round or two. The high level ability for extra attacks helps a lot too.
What about bringing back differential leveling, where some classes level up faster than others?
This is part of where capping HP growth after a certain point becomes important... and classes that flat out get more levels (rogues, fighters) as a result would just end up with more epic boons or minor stat growth or something.
PhantomSoul
2021-07-12, 10:05 AM
I played other games -- does BG2 have Arcane Spell Failure? That could help somewhat offset buffs to Spellcasters, like Vancian casting also could help with. (I might have Sorcerers use Slots, though; I don't know how things works in BG2 so it might be that none of this duplicates the feel of the game.)
Arcturus
2021-07-12, 10:05 AM
If you are buffing casters this much, but also going for a puzzle like feeling, you might consider bringing back Vancian casting. This will require your casters to really plan out their spells and the reduced flexibility will help make up for the massive power increase from multiple concentrations and extra high level slots.
If an OA can disrupt casting instead of simply causing damage, I'm also concerned about a scenario where a Fighter can just go "I ready my action (3 attacks) to fire arrows at the first enemy that starts to cast a spell." Forcing 3 DC 10 checks will cause many castings to flat out fail... and if I then do the same thing to the party, that's no fun for the party casters.
Casters are good at AOE damage, but martials are still the king of reliable single-target damage. A Paladin or Barbarian can burst down a dragon a lot faster than even a high level wizard can.
OAs being dangerous to casters are imo a pretty central element of ADD and BG2. Of course they're easily countered by mirror image, contingencies, high lvl spells and resistances (but theres a counter to that counter, and so on which is why those magic systems were so much better than 5es).
So I do think you need to include that to recreate the BG2 vibe. Also magic items really need to be buffed. Martials at high lvls are essentially defined by their magic items in that game. You're reducing their effectiveness to match 5e, whereas I think you should do the opposite or at least meet halfway.
Amnestic
2021-07-12, 10:59 AM
I played other games -- does BG2 have Arcane Spell Failure?
It does, though iirc Bard gets to avoid it on light armour (but not shields) as baseline for their spells. I'd probably extend that to warlocks also for 5e.
It does, though iirc Bard gets to avoid it on light armour (but not shields) as baseline for their spells. I'd probably extend that to warlocks also for 5e.
If you say "No multiclassing," then the only time I think that becomes an issue is if someone invests feats in armor proficiency.
OAs being dangerous to casters are imo a pretty central element of ADD and BG2. Of course they're easily countered by mirror image, contingencies, high lvl spells and resistances (but theres a counter to that counter, and so on which is why those magic systems were so much better than 5es).
So I do think you need to include that to recreate the BG2 vibe. Also magic items really need to be buffed. Martials at high lvls are essentially defined by their magic items in that game. You're reducing their effectiveness to match 5e, whereas I think you should do the opposite or at least meet halfway.
Point. I will add OAs for spellcasting back in.
BG2/TOB has a lot of good magic items, more so for martials than for spellcasters (I will be nerfing the Staff of Power, which at base grants +2 to AC & saves, permanent invisibility, permanent protection from evil, and Spell Trap and other stuff). There's nothing that will grant + to hit or DC with spells in the game, although if we end up with a Warlock, I'll drop something in.
1) Flail of the Ages at maximum upgrade: +10 elemental damage (2 of each type), +5 (will become a +3), and a chance to Slow a target, no save; I'll probably swap that over to something like "If you roll a 5 or 6 on your d6 damage roll, the target loses the ability to take a bonus action and reaction on its next turn" to reduce bookkeeping.
2) Foebane, upgraded: Each hit does 1d4+1 bonus damage, and grants the wielder temporary HP for that amount (stacking absurdly high in game due to a bug); also it does bonus damage against evil outsiders and dragons and undead.
3) Carsomyr, Holy avenger, the Sword of "Buffs, what buffs?": Sets wielder's MR at 50% (not +50, set at). On hit, casts Dispel Magic on the target. Can cast Dispel Magic a couple of times per day. +5 damage vs chaotic evil.
4) Short Sword of Mask, chance to restrain the target on hit. When upgraded, also a chance to level drain the target on hit.
There are quite a few MR items floating around, so everyone should end up with at least 10-20% MR by endgame also.
Items available to a 3rd/4th level party IF they somehow get the gold include:
Stonefire, which would convert as a +2 with +2 fire damage
Mauler's Arm, +1 Mace that sets strength at 18.
Azuredge throwing axe, +4 damage vs undead (would probably make it +1d6), returning, acts as Mace of Disruption on hit.
Shortbow of Speed +1 (Tuigan Bow) - Loot from one of the first quests they're likely to take on
Firetooth, converts as a +3 crossbow firing bolts that deal +2 fire damage
Sleeper, +1 flail, target must make a save or fall asleep; probably will make this a DC 8 Con save because the condition inflicted is so brutal.
Longsword of flame, +1 fire damage [meh but it's cheap]
Daystar, +1d6 extra radiant damage vs evil; double damage vs undead, casts a high level sunburst type spell 1/day. This is free if you can run in and out without getting killed by a Lich. Consequences will ensue if they leave an angry lich roaming in the gates district, though. This could end up really fun as a result.
Etc.
BG2 is definitely a high magic setting when it comes to magic item frequency and availability.
BoutsofInsanity
2021-07-12, 02:48 PM
Yes and no. I played through BG2 and ToB quite a bit. The easiest playthrough I ever had was the one where I went with no primary casters. I think I had a paladin, 2 rangers, a fighter, a barbarian or monk (PC) and I don't remember what the other one was... but the final boss of ToB did not last a full round of combat in ANY of her incarnations. Some of this is due to itemization, though; once you have the Holy Avenger sword, you can dispel any wizard's protections in a round or two. The high level ability for extra attacks helps a lot too.
What about bringing back differential leveling, where some classes level up faster than others?
This is part of where capping HP growth after a certain point becomes important... and classes that flat out get more levels (rogues, fighters) as a result would just end up with more epic boons or minor stat growth or something.
Honestly? Don't confuse your game engine with your narrative.
Your game engine is D&D 5e. That is the mechanics to which you are playing.
Your narrative is Baldur's Gate 2. That's the story you are telling within the game engine of 5th edition.
Don't make the game engine be Baldur's Gate. If that's what you want, let everyone build a character for the game and play the video game. Don't houserule away all the things that make D&D work as a game engine in an attempt to emulate a video game.
You are searching for solutions to problems you are creating for yourself by house rules. Don't make your life more complicated by chasing a rule set that has had 30+ years of game design evolution that's discarded a lot of those bad ideas."
Play 5th edition or play 2nd edition. Don't try and do both.
Eldariel
2021-07-12, 02:54 PM
Honestly? Don't confuse your game engine with your narrative.
Your game engine is D&D 5e. That is the mechanics to which you are playing.
Your narrative is Baldur's Gate 2. That's the story you are telling within the game engine of 5th edition.
Don't make the game engine be Baldur's Gate. If that's what you want, let everyone build a character for the game and play the video game. Don't houserule away all the things that make D&D work as a game engine in an attempt to emulate a video game.
You are searching for solutions to problems you are creating for yourself by house rules. Don't make your life more complicated by chasing a rule set that has had 30+ years of game design evolution that's discarded a lot of those bad ideas."
Play 5th edition or play 2nd edition. Don't try and do both.
I couldn't disagree with this more. There are lots of good mechanics in 2e. Whether they're right for you depends from playgroup to playgroup but "evolution" doesn't mean "improvement". The system is a sidegrade to 2e in many senses. Its core is better but things like OA for casting, spell disruption, chain contingencies/spell matrices, etc. can add to the game for the right kind of group. There's nothing sacred about the system. Indeed, many of its aspects are fairly mediocre (because they try to appease every crowd simultaneously which obviously can never succeed) and it's pretty trivial to make them better for any given group as long as you have a general idea of what the group is like.
5.BG is better for BG than plain 5e, and has a lot of smoothness over plain AD&D2e too.
Morty
2021-07-12, 02:54 PM
I played other games -- does BG2 have Arcane Spell Failure? That could help somewhat offset buffs to Spellcasters, like Vancian casting also could help with. (I might have Sorcerers use Slots, though; I don't know how things works in BG2 so it might be that none of this duplicates the feel of the game.)
It has more than that; mages just plain cannot wear any armor. Bards and multiclass mages can, but they can't cast spells when they do. Elven chain bypasses that - since that era of D&D leaned on "elves do everything better" even more than it does now. Of course, by the time you find elven chain, armor class is increasingly less relevant and mages can render themselves nigh-untouchable with defensive spells anyway, so the point is moot.
The problem is that 5e as a game engine leaves high-level casters as extremely fragile creatures prone to being focused down before they do anything, unless I embrace HP bloat. I don't like HP bloat and want to curb it across the board.
Which change do you think is too egregious? Concentration, extra defensive spells, the presence of spell triggers, or extra spell slots?
GeneralVryth
2021-07-12, 03:57 PM
The "5e" solution for your issue is to make the monsters/NPCs behave in the puzzle manner you expect but leave the PC mechanics alone. This does result in enemy casters getting abilities PCs can never match. There is nothing stopping you from saying an NPC can concentrate on X spells at once, or use a legendary action to cast a spell or "chain" of spells.
In general your caster rules read like you want to introduce mechanics for NPCs to use, but are cumbersome for PCs (hence all of the material costs). You can just do that directly if you want. One of the core ideas of 5e is PCs and monsters/NPCs aren't built the same. Whether you like the idea or not is a different discussion.
Amnestic
2021-07-12, 04:04 PM
Also just re: the identify stuff, are you going to be giving characters a Lore skill and give items an appropriate lore level for auto-identification? Bards could auto-identify everything once they hit 10th level, since lore scores for items capped out at 100 and bards got 10 lore/level.
Mastikator
2021-07-12, 04:47 PM
My review:
1, 2: 3,: seems ok
4, 5, 6: where did these go?
7, 8: seems fine
9: how often does this happen? BG2 isn't even a 3d game. Seems overly complicated, just let the attack go normally and the fall happen normally too. Acrobatics DC half fall distance to land standing up.
10: this needs some elaboration for those of us out of the loop
11: cool
12: why no scribe school? It's worse than divination and that's in PHB
13: seems fine
14: not sure why this change is there but OK
Death effect: seems harsh and would encourage players to just make new characters even when raise dead is on the table. This is a permanent disability that increases the risk of death in the future, making a raised character less viable.
If getting a new character is also a bad option then IMO this is a bad effect. It may raise the stakes on surviving, but it will have the downside of making the game less fun if you actually do die.
Make it last until they gain a level instead, that would make it harsh but give the player a light at the end of the tunnel. DON'T make it go away with mere time as that would encourage them to wait it out.
Wands: Seems like an unnecessary nerf
Concentration: OH BOY this massively buffs casters, I honestly don't see why this change needs to happen. If a player chooses to make their caster squishy then that's on them. If I were in this campaign I'd exploit the hell out of it, probably breaking the game. IMO casters are already better than martial classes, they don't need this kind of help.
Magic Resistance: Why not just use the standard "I have advantage vs magical effects"?
Extra Spell Slots for Full Casters: I don't see why.
Identify consuming the pearl: Seems very expensive, are you going to dump a truckload of gold on the players or are magic items rare enough that this cost is small. Or is the intended effect that they can't use magic items that they find because it's too expensive to identify them?
Ionathus
2021-07-12, 04:58 PM
Disclaimer: I have played 1000s of hours of BG2, but never AD&D tabletop.
I would die of boredom playing a BG2 campaign with the mechanics of BG2 bolted onto 5e. Baldur's Gate is designed for you to be in control of 6 people at once, to sit by yourself at a computer and enjoy the tactics of a well-oiled machine as you pick apart a spellcaster's defenses. Having your fighter and barbarian wait a couple seconds of real time for the enemy wizard's defenses to come down? Not a problem, because you're controlling all 6 PCs and can move them all around at any moment, to have them act in whatever order you choose.
Don't get me wrong, I like having puzzles in combat. But "this monster is invulnerable unless you do X" feels okay for singleplayer RPGs, but not tabletops. Everyone needs several reasonable actions they can take every turn to feel like they're contributing. In the above example, if I was only playing that fighter, and had to wait for Jimmy McWizard across the table to pick out a proper Secret Word followed by a Breach, just so I can run up and hit the Lich with my sword, that means I'm twiddling my thumbs for 40ish minutes of real time waiting at the table. BG2 was created for one person pulling multiple strings. It will turn into a slog if you try to apply that level of puzzle-solving and dispelling to a 5e tabletop.
I'm echoing BoutsofInsanity here. The BG2 narrative and world is cool as hell. Take that and run with it. A party of 6 Bhaalspawn? Absolutely radical. Maybe adapt some key items and bosses into 5e's design philosophy. But attempting to translate its mechanics, its extreme specializations, and its boss fights into a tabletop game is not going to end well. You're going to end up with 6 players, all having 1/6th the enjoyment, all waiting for an absurd Rube Goldberg machine of dispelling and summoning and buffing and banishing and re-dispelling to line up perfectly so that one of them can run up and swing a sword three times.
They're not just different editions of D&D: they're different genres of media entirely. One is a tabletop game that has to engage 5+ people, and one is a (mostly) singleplayer videogame with extreme granularity.
5e and BG2 are incompatible from a game design perspective. Pick one and stick to it.
Death effect: seems harsh and would encourage players to just make new characters even when raise dead is on the table. This is a permanent disability that increases the risk of death in the future, making a raised character less viable.
If getting a new character is also a bad option then IMO this is a bad effect. It may raise the stakes on surviving, but it will have the downside of making the game less fun if you actually do die.
Make it last until they gain a level instead, that would make it harsh but give the player a light at the end of the tunnel. DON'T make it go away with mere time as that would encourage them to wait it out.
Death and resurrection currently has no consequence except GP loss. I'm not a fan of that.
Wands: Seems like an unnecessary nerf
It's a way to counterbalance some of the power I'm giving casters. The stock Wand of Lightning Bolts gives (effectively) 7 3rd level spell slots per day (+- a few for recharges), albeit for only one spell. Many of the magic staffs are the same way. BG2 has a good number of wands floating around, and I'd rather be able to leave loot mostly as-is.
Concentration: OH BOY this massively buffs casters, I honestly don't see why this change needs to happen. If a player chooses to make their caster squishy then that's on them. If I were in this campaign I'd exploit the hell out of it, probably breaking the game. IMO casters are already better than martial classes, they don't need this kind of help.
It does. It also buffs NPC casters with more defenses, or more chances to land debuffs on party members. It also gives me a lever to use with making Time Stop not stink for anything other than setting up walls.
Magic Resistance: Why not just use the standard "I have advantage vs magical effects"?
Because 5e MR does nothing against spells that don't require a save, and there's no granularity. A low-level golem with Magic Resistance has the same defense against magic that a high-level lich does. % MR also gives another lever for making casters less powerful in some situations, and a way for martials to have more defenses against magic.
Extra Spell Slots for Full Casters: I don't see why.
I've run a number of high-level caster NPCs as a DM, and I find most 7th and 8th level spells extremely unimpressive compared to prior editions. The lack of slots also means a lot of them go unused.
Identify consuming the pearl: Seems very expensive, are you going to dump a truckload of gold on the players or are magic items rare enough that this cost is small. Or is the intended effect that they can't use magic items that they find because it's too expensive to identify them?[/quote]
Yeah, as I mentioned, I'm throwing out the 5e economy and using BG2 prices. There's going to be a good amount of gold, but not so much that they won't notice if they're spending a lot on spell material components.... and material components have to be purchased in advance (no GP = component conversion).
GeneralVryth
2021-07-12, 05:19 PM
It does. It also buffs NPC casters with more defenses, or more chances to land debuffs on party members. It also gives me a lever to use with making Time Stop not stink for anything other than setting up walls.
I've run a number of high-level caster NPCs as a DM, and I find most 7th and 8th level spells extremely unimpressive compared to prior editions. The lack of slots also means a lot of them go unused.
These are your real problem. You are trying to change the rules for PCs to make NPCs stronger. Just give the NPCs the powers you want without touching the PC rules. This means you aren't buffing PCs so you don't need the subsequent nerfs either.
Mastikator
2021-07-12, 05:44 PM
Death and resurrection currently has no consequence except GP loss. I'm not a fan of that.
I agree with the intent, but not the implementation. The consequence shouldn't be "okay I want to make a new character, oh that one is going to suck too? Ok guys I'm out". You need GOOD consequences that make the game better. A permanent disability just sucks. Make it non-permanent or you'll find yourself with new PCs after every death. (which would circumvent your intent).
Also I agree with @GeneralVryth. Don't change PCs for the sake of NPCs.
I'd pull back on the concentration, wand and magic resistance.
If you want a monster to have advantage vs spells that don't require a save then also give them "Magic Shielding: spell attack rolls against this creature always has disadvantage". Very few offensive spells require neither saves or attack rolls.
Edit- the lack of granularity is a feature IMO. The cool thing about bounded accuracy is that you don't actually need a lot of granularity and small guys can still threaten big guys. That is one of the major strengths of 5th edition.
ATHATH
2021-07-12, 06:30 PM
Uhhhh, why not just run this game in 2e instead? Wouldn't that match BG2's mechanics much more closely than trying to ram 5e into a 2e-shaped hole would?
Also, why exactly do you need to emulate BG2's mechanics? Can't you just use BG2's plot and environments and just adjust the encounters to better fit 5e?
Like, I know that BG2's fights mostly being "which side can out-bull**** the other" contests are a memorable part of the game, but they're not ESSENTIAL to it.
Disclaimer: I have played 1000s of hours of BG2, but never AD&D tabletop.
I would die of boredom playing a BG2 campaign with the mechanics of BG2 bolted onto 5e. Baldur's Gate is designed for you to be in control of 6 people at once, to sit by yourself at a computer and enjoy the tactics of a well-oiled machine as you pick apart a spellcaster's defenses. Having your fighter and barbarian wait a couple seconds of real time for the enemy wizard's defenses to come down? Not a problem, because you're controlling all 6 PCs and can move them all around at any moment, to have them act in whatever order you choose.
Don't get me wrong, I like having puzzles in combat. But "this monster is invulnerable unless you do X" feels okay for singleplayer RPGs, but not tabletops. Everyone needs several reasonable actions they can take every turn to feel like they're contributing. In the above example, if I was only playing that fighter, and had to wait for Jimmy McWizard across the table to pick out a proper Secret Word followed by a Breach, just so I can run up and hit the Lich with my sword, that means I'm twiddling my thumbs for 40ish minutes of real time waiting at the table. BG2 was created for one person pulling multiple strings. It will turn into a slog if you try to apply that level of puzzle-solving and dispelling to a 5e tabletop.
Nothing makes the wizards fully invulnerable - note I didn't bring back BG2 Stoneskin. A wizard may have Mirror Image and PFMW, but that's still bypassed by just pulling out a non-magical sword. There's still the 9th-level Invulnerability spell I suppose, but that's still there in 5e.
These are your real problem. You are trying to change the rules for PCs to make NPCs stronger. Just give the NPCs the powers you want without touching the PC rules. This means you aren't buffing PCs so you don't need the subsequent nerfs either.
But, but consistency!
Yeah, you guys are right about this. When it's something closer to what PCs can do (spellcasting) it's harder for me to accept the inconsistency versus when it's a 2-headed Mind Flayer Troll or whatever.
I agree with the intent, but not the implementation. The consequence shouldn't be "okay I want to make a new character, oh that one is going to suck too? Ok guys I'm out". You need GOOD consequences that make the game better. A permanent disability just sucks. Make it non-permanent or you'll find yourself with new PCs after every death. (which would circumvent your intent).
I'm not expecting a ton of death/resurrections for any given PC. My current party in my other game has made it to level 15 with Revivify or Raise Dead having been cast... I don't know... 3, 4 times?
=> Okay, so if it's not happening a lot, why am I adding a new complexity to it?
Point!
I'd pull back on the concentration, wand and magic resistance.
If you want a monster to have advantage vs spells that don't require a save then also give them "Magic Shielding: spell attack rolls against this creature always has disadvantage". Very few offensive spells require neither saves or attack rolls.
Edit- the lack of granularity is a feature IMO. The cool thing about bounded accuracy is that you don't actually need a lot of granularity and small guys can still threaten big guys. That is one of the major strengths of 5th edition.
So, BG2 has a bunch of items that give +5% or +10% magic resistance. Those are pretty nice. How would you suggest converting those into 5e rules? +1 to saves vs magic per 5%?
Also, why exactly do you need to emulate BG2's mechanics? Can't you just use BG2's plot and environments and just adjust the encounters to better fit 5e?
I'm trying to do it where I don't have to re-plan all of the encounters heavily.
So, revisions:
Death
When a character dies or is petrified and is raised from the dead, the character’s Constitution is permanently reduced by 1.
Wands & staves leave as is for now. I'm comfortable with this one.
Concentration Changes
Concentration is now limited to PB/2 spells at a time. When a Concentration check is called for, one check is rolled for each spell being Concentrated on.
NPCs may be able to concentrate on multiple spells at once. I'll try it out.
Double concentration may get added as an Epic Boon.
Not sure what I'll do with Time Stop. I'd like to see it used for more than dropping Walls of Force/Stone/etc or drinking potions without interruption.
Magic Resistance
Magic Resistance is now a % chance, in 5% increments. It applies to all spell energies, and you can lower MR as a reaction to one spell being cast upon you as long as you are aware of it and not incapacitated. Some creatures have natural MR, and spells exist to lower MR. Spells which lower MR’s lowering component are not hindered by MR.
Definitional note: MR applies to spells effects and magical energies. Objects not created by a spell (ie, projectiles from Catapult) and attacks from magical summons are not affected by MR.
Under discussion, may simply use "resistant to damage directly caused by spells, + advantage on saves".
Player-facing items that grant MR TBD
Does this seem better?
ATHATH
2021-07-12, 06:49 PM
Also, be 100% prepared for your players to somehow accidentally break the plot of BG2 like a twig. "We need to find out where Spellhold is? Don't worry, guys, we can just ask one of these high-level caster shopkeepers to divine that information for us, then have them cast Teleport to take us there!", "We've received an offer from the Thieves' Guild? We reject it, we don't negotiate with evil organizations. In fact, we should wipe them out!", "Let's use Sending to call for some aid from Baldur's Gate!", "I Counterspell Irenicus's Dimension Door spell!", "WTF, this is bull****, you can't just insta-kill me with no saving throw for trying to smuggle this super strong rod out of the sewers!", "Let's just sneak our way out of the Underdark!", "I cast Dispel Magic on this Geas'd guy!", etc.
ATHATH
2021-07-12, 06:52 PM
I'm trying to do it where I don't have to re-plan all of the encounters heavily.
I hate to break it to ya, but no matter how many houserules you add, you're still going to have to re-plan the encounters (or at least put in a lot of work converting them).
... Also, isn't that just another point in favor running this in 2e, since you wouldn't have to convert all of the monsters to 5e (or their 5e equivalents)?
Also, be 100% prepared for your players to somehow accidentally break the plot of BG2 like a twig. "We need to find out where Spellhold is? Don't worry, guys, we can just ask one of these high-level caster shopkeepers to divine that information for us, then have them cast Teleport to take us there!", "We've received an offer from the Thieves' Guild? We reject it, we don't negotiate with evil organizations. In fact, we should wipe them out!", "Let's use Sending to call for some aid from Baldur's Gate!", "I Counterspell Irenicus's Dimension Door spell!", "WTF, this is bull****, you can't just insta-kill me with no saving throw for trying to smuggle this super strong rod out of the sewers!", "Let's just sneak our way out of the Underdark!", "I cast Dispel Magic on this Geas'd guy!", etc.
Yeah, I know :) I've been thinking about how they may break things. The Cowled Wizards will get more fleshed out as an organization, and the Order of the Radiant Heart probably will too.
Luckily, I used to read a lot of BG2 fan fiction, so I've seen ideas for some variances and how things might get handled. I can have Brynnlaw/Spellhold warded against teleportation, unless you go through the Cowled Wizard teleport circle. Irenicus will probably be immune to Scrying because he's soulless, but there are ways around it.
I coul see building CW goodwill (turn in Edwin, help put down rogue spellcasters, bribes, planar sphere, etc.) enough to get access this way. That means no Saemon, no poison en route, and so it becomes a bloody, violent fight instead of just passing out before Irenicus does the soul-sucking thing. The Sahuagin city and the Underdark are the two areas most likely to be skipped. A lot of that's on me to make sure they hate Irenicus enough to want to chase him down.
Anyway, discussing this is a long rabbit hole because there are a lot of places to go off-plot. It could get interesting.
I hate to break it to ya, but no matter how many houserules you add, you're still going to have to re-plan the encounters (or at least put in a lot of work converting them).
... Also, isn't that just another point in favor running this in 2e, since you wouldn't have to convert all of the monsters to 5e (or their 5e equivalents)?
I don't have the 2e ruleset and neither do my players, so not really.
GeneralVryth
2021-07-12, 08:28 PM
But, but consistency!
Yeah, you guys are right about this. When it's something closer to what PCs can do (spellcasting) it's harder for me to accept the inconsistency versus when it's a 2-headed Mind Flayer Troll or whatever.
This is actually something I understand, I am someone who loves internal consistency and elegance. So the grand PC versus NPC divide bothered me originally as well. The way I would likely attack this is come up with in game justifications for the extra concentration power. Players have already come up with lots of tricks (like familiars using rings of spell storing etc...), and for NPCs that are meant to be encountered in a home or lair (or even just have one they have easy access to) you could probably come up with some mumbo like special items that can hold the concentration that are linked to them, stored in the lair and hard to recreate. Lair actions that handle concentration and have a couple extra magical tricks feel very apt. Obviously you need to be careful about how this introduced to avoid it falling into a players hands. Though at very high levels for a particularly rare item maybe it's a signature reward or something. The epic boon idea is also a good one. Especially if there is a good in world justification for the casters to have it while the PCs don't (that all also works for spell slots as well).
So, BG2 has a bunch of items that give +5% or +10% magic resistance. Those are pretty nice. How would you suggest converting those into 5e rules? +1 to saves vs magic per 5%?
That would work. You need to be careful about someone collecting too many of those items/the items stacking, as it doesn't take too many bonuses before the math starts getting thrown off (it won't flat break but you will notice the difference).
So, revisions:
Wands & staves leave as is for now. I'm comfortable with this one.
Concentration Changes
NPCs may be able to concentrate on multiple spells at once. I'll try it out.
Double concentration may get added as an Epic Boon.
Not sure what I'll do with Time Stop. I'd like to see it used for more than dropping Walls of Force/Stone/etc or drinking potions without interruption.
Under discussion, may simply use "resistant to damage directly caused by spells, + advantage on saves".
Player-facing items that grant MR TBD
Does this seem better?
Those all seem fine. Time Stop in particular has always struck me as an underwhelming spell in 5e, I would be tempted to change it to give more oomph, but it's a balancing act of course.
Mastikator
2021-07-12, 08:48 PM
So, BG2 has a bunch of items that give +5% or +10% magic resistance. Those are pretty nice. How would you suggest converting those into 5e rules? +1 to saves vs magic per 5%?
Personally I'd turn it into an activated ability that the player can use.
5% -> Amulet of spell shielding (requires attunement). When affected by a spell or magic effect that forces you to make a saving throw, or if you are targeted by a spell attack roll you may use your reaction to either give yourself advantage on the save or the caster disadvantage on the attack roll. Once this is done you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.
10% -> Amulet of spell blocking (requires attunement). When affected by a spell or magic effect that forces you to make a saving throw, or if you are targeted by a spell attack roll you may use your reaction to either automatically save or the make the caster automatically miss. Once this is done you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.
If you think these are too powerful make it long rest only. It gives the player the option to nope on a magic effect which is more fun than a 5% or 10% passive chance. It also doesn't require you to add a whole new game mechanic.
LordShade
2021-07-12, 11:59 PM
For starters, I like your class balance house rules a lot.
In terms of balancing martials against casters in 2nd edition... as a long time 2e player, I have never felt that fighters were underpowered. 2e featured saving throws greatly outscaling spell DCs (in fact there weren't many boosts to spell DCs at all) as well as monster magic resistance functioning as a flat percentage chance to ignore any spell, which stacked with saving throws. Strong saves + MR made offensive magic of any kind very unreliable in high-level play. Summons mostly sucked in 2e, so mages were left with battlefield control spells and buffs. Making good use of battlefield control (who actually benefits from you splitting the monsters with your Wall of Force? certainly not your mage with a terrible hit chance and a dagger) and buffs (are you buffing your awful dagger damage to be slightly less awful?) required fighters in the party to actually go in there and do the damage.
If you are buffing 5e casters to create a BG2 feel, you need to do the same on the monster side by boosting saving throws relative to spell DCs as well as adding stronger resistance mechanics.
If you are giving that many buffs to casters, don’t forget that martials get their power boost in BG2 through specialization (giving boosts to hit, damage and # of attacks) and especially the high level abilities like whirlwind (10 attacks per round), on demand damage resistance, etc. Seems like those could be added as feats and/or class features. Those make martials way more valuable relative to casters at both low and high levels (casters are still better but it closes the gap). The other key element is the magic items which it sounds like you are accounting for already.
The problem is that 5e as a game engine leaves high-level casters as extremely fragile creatures prone to being focused down before they do anything, unless I embrace HP bloat. I don't like HP bloat and want to curb it across the board.
Which change do you think is too egregious? Concentration, extra defensive spells, the presence of spell triggers, or extra spell slots?
Your stated goal is to make caster NPCs more interesting/effective without overpowering PC casters, but I don't fully follow all of your reasoning along the way.
What's the point of the extra spell slots? Can't you just give the NPCs high-level scrolls to use? This seems like a pure buff to PCs that doesn't really serve your stated goals.
Multi-concentration is a huge buff as well, and I'm not sure you're fully accounting for that. Imagine a twin-casting sorcerer stacking the three most powerful concentration buffs on two allies at once, and then tell me how e.g. enemies having spell resistance mitigates that balance change.
I think the most basic question to address is, are the spellcaster players excited about playing radically changed versions of their classes? Like, do they want to have to chain together a bunch of contingencies to survive tough battles? Because if not, you can always (as someone else here says) buff NPCs without changing PC mechanics. BG2 even makes it narratively justifiable with the Baalspawn plot point - maybe Baalspawn can multi-concentrate!
Ionathus
2021-07-13, 12:57 PM
Nothing makes the wizards fully invulnerable - note I didn't bring back BG2 Stoneskin. A wizard may have Mirror Image and PFMW, but that's still bypassed by just pulling out a non-magical sword. There's still the 9th-level Invulnerability spell I suppose, but that's still there in 5e.
As long as everybody has something interesting to do every turn, that should work. I'm still leery of PFMW, because I feel like it stops the martials from doing any of their cool stuff or using their cool weapons while the adults (read: magic users) talk things through (read: dispel 2-4 layers of spells from each other).
Things like Concentration and nerfs to Magic Resistance were introduced to 5e to simplify magic in combat. If you remove those simplifications, especially going all the way back to 2e, I still worry that your game will turn into a slog, no matter how many adjustments you make. But only you can know your table well enough to make that call.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.