What are some lessons 5e could take from Baldur's Gate 3's rule changes?

[LudicSavant]

I've just begun playing Baldur's Gate 3 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657972-Baldur-s-Gate-3-What-does-fried-Nautiloid-taste-like/page13&p=25844929#post25844929), and there are some smart changes to the D&D 5e system in it. For example, Warlocks with Pact of the Blade can use Charisma for their attacks.

What are some other lessons WotC could stand to learn from Larian?

[Psyren]

I've just begun playing Baldur's Gate 3, and there are some smart changes to the D&D 5e system in it. For example, Warlocks with Pact of the Blade can use Charisma for their attacks.

What are some other lessons WotC could stand to learn from Larian?

Larian seems to be incorporating some of the mods being tested in the OneD&D playtest. You listed one (Blade Pact getting the mental-stat-to-attack benefit built in regardless of subclass), and familiars being able to attack is another.

A few more of their modifications that I wouldn't mind seeing in the tabletop game:

1) Special weapon attacks for all martials, tied to weapon (e.g. Cleave, Lacerate, Brace, Pommel Strike etc.)
2) Being able to use Inspiration to reroll a failure
3) Being able to store excess Inspiration on whoever doesn't have it (if someone gets it twice.)
4) Reactive Bardic Performance/Guidance.
5) Bonus Action potions.

I haven't dug into their moon druid scaling but I have a feeling it's better than the printed version as well.

[LudicSavant]

Some others I've noticed:

- There's actually a reason to pick different kinds of familiars. Also, they can attack!
- Shillelagh just lets you add any mental stat you want to your attack rolls, it's not limited to Wisdom.
- 10 minute and 1 hour durations are removed, and instead are "until next rest."
- Light Clerics can use their reaction *after* seeing the roll.

While I mostly want to focus on the positive stuff, there's also some negative changes. For example, Battle Masters have to declare their superiority dice *before* their attack, which feels gross. Another is that conversations won't let you switch up who's the face once they've started.

[elyktsorb]

I don't like that Symbiotic Entity doesn't work with unarmed strikes.

I do like that Symbiotic Entity works with ranged weapon attacks.

[Snowbluff]

As Psyren points out, some of these things have been implemented in the ODD/5.5e playtests. Bardic Inspiration is used to a failing roll, at the moment, which I quite like. I'm pretty fond of weapon masteries, which function like the weapon abilities in BG3 but are at-will. Bonus action potions are cool, however. Potions are very DnD to me so having an another option for how to use them to make them fit into people's combat openers would be nice.

Some of the other things are designed with the gamification of running, well, on a video game. This applies to the spell durations in particular. Spells don't run out when you're at a table discussing something with your buddies, but BG3 is played with a running time unless you operate in turn based mode all of the time.It would be pretty terribly for a spell to run out because you needed to remind someone of a game plan etc, but I don't think this would be needed in a TTRPG setting.

However, I will note one that change that did get implemented that infuriates me is the jumping action. It's terrible, and would be terrible implementation in 3.5, PF1, 4e... I'm actually amazed it made it to publication in this state. One of the best things about 5e is the movement system, but they managed to screw it up somehow. Taking the bonus action really does mess up a lot of classes that use it normally.

There are some other just weird changes. Clerics can use their reactive domain abilities without limitation (at least with Warding Flare), which is quite strange. There's no dodge action. I also have to say that not being able to choose who speaks in a conversation is very troubling. For some reason I can't put my rat familiar into places where a druid in wildshape can go, or so I hear. Also, can we not shove people prone?

[Dienekes]

Somewhat amusingly going after Snowbluff's post. I'm kinda loving the Jump action, specifically for the part where it scales off of Strength and Athletics.

It legitimately does improve Strength characters in a fantastic way. Since jumping in this game doesn't stop when your run out of movement, Strength build characters essentially all get Bonus Action Dash which just feels great and becomes a legitimate reason not to dump Strength.

Now, implementing it into 5e or another TTRPG I probably would rework it into something more simple like "Burst of Speed" or "Athletic Rush" or something using your Bonus Action to go further, and have that based on Strength and Athletics, with Rogues getting it maxed out automatically as part of their Cunning Action.

But yeah, the mobility feels great.

[Snowbluff]

Somewhat amusingly going after Snowbluff's post. I'm kinda loving the Jump action, specifically for the part where it scales off of Strength and Athletics.


I'm not sure if this is something you were aware, but this is how it has been for decades of DnD. 3.5 and 4e have jump/athletics tables, which are strength skills in their respective editions. 5e doesn't usually have you roll, but your jumping distance and height is based on your strength score.

Furthermore, there's no limit to how often you can jump aside from your normal speed, which a lot of classes get bonuses to like monk or barbarian. If you need to clear multiple gaps, each one doesn't need its own bonus action to do so. Baldur's Gate 3 is a nerf in this sense. Also, as you said you just described a bonus action dash in effect, and I will question if handing out rogue's features is prudent.

[Quietus]

- Shillelagh just lets you add any mental stat you want to your attack rolls, it's not limited to Wisdom

What, not just based on the source (pact of the tome warlocks getting charisma-Shillelagh, for example), but just as a basic function of the spell? I'm okay with that, I think.

[Dienekes]

I'm not sure if this is something you were aware, but this is how it has been for decades of DnD. 3.5 and 4e have jump/athletics tables, which are strength skills in their respective editions. 5e doesn't usually have you roll, but your jumping distance and height is based on your strength score.

Furthermore, there's no limit to how often you can jump aside from your normal speed, which a lot of classes get bonuses to like monk or barbarian. If you need to clear multiple gaps, each one doesn't need its own bonus action to do so. Baldur's Gate 3 is a nerf in this sense. Also, as you said you just described a bonus action dash in effect, and I will question if handing out rogue's features is prudent.

No that's not how it works in 5e.

I mean, yes, your Strength determines how far you jump. But jumping does not allow you to move beyond your Movement Speed.


Either way, each foot you clear on your jump costs a foot of movement.

Currently in 5e, yeah you can theoretically jump 100 times, so long as you don't move more than 30 feet (unless you dash).

In BG3 you can jump 1 time. It costs a Bonus Action and 10 feet of movement. But your jump can go past your initial 30 feet. The calculations appear to be roughly long jump distance with always having run up and Athletics increasing the distance by 50%.

Which for the record at Strength 20 with Athletics that's 30 feet.

So Strength characters get 30 feet (normal movement) -10 cost for using Jump + 30 Jump for a speed of 50 if you're not using your Bonus Action for anything else.

And since I have never in my life needed to make multiple jumps per round, only rarely ever fought in a chasm or something where jumping around is in any way a part of the regular combat encounters. But I do like getting the increase to your Speed for essentially doing what the Strength character was doing anyway. I quite like it.

[Arkhios]

Larian seems to be incorporating some of the mods being tested in the OneD&D playtest. You listed one (Blade Pact getting the mental-stat-to-attack benefit built in regardless of subclass), and familiars being able to attack is another.

A few more of their modifications that I wouldn't mind seeing in the tabletop game:

1) Special weapon attacks for all martials, tied to weapon (e.g. Cleave, Lacerate, Brace, Pommel Strike etc.)
2) Being able to use Inspiration to reroll a failure
3) Being able to store excess Inspiration on whoever doesn't have it (if someone gets it twice.)
4) Reactive Bardic Performance/Guidance.
5) Bonus Action potions.

I haven't dug into their moon druid scaling but I have a feeling it's better than the printed version as well.

1) It's not far from the Weapon Mastery which they're trying to implement in the upcoming update, so I guess we'll get something of the sort. The ones in BG3 are certainly much more interesting than the ones we have seen in OneD&D playtests, and I'd definitely want to see WotC use those instead.
2) ...I thought that was already possible? :smallconfused:
3) ...this too, kind of. It's RAW that even though a player/PC receives Inspiration from DM, that player/PC can give their Inspiration to another player/PC, essentially reaching to same results that your group might have a pool of Inspiration they can all use when needed, rather than limiting everyone to only one of their own at all times.
4) That would great. For example Cutting Words is already a Reaction rather than Bonus Action for the bard themselves, but I agree more of them should be made into Reactions that the Bard can take, rather than or in addition to the Bardic Inspiration's target.
5) Definitely yes!

[Corran]

In BG3 you can jump 1 time. It costs a Bonus Action and 10 feet of movement. But your jump can go past your initial 30 feet. The calculations appear to be roughly long jump distance with always having run up and Athletics increasing the distance by 50%.
So it's an unconditional movement buff? Or did I get something wrong? I like the logic but not the style of that. I'd prefer something like charging to jumping. Too much jumping around makes the combat a bit too cartoony for my taste.

Haven't played the game but I did watch a little bit of people on the internet playing it. One thing I noticed and I liked is how they let elevation affect your hit chances (I assume it's advantage/disadvantage built in?). Also, nice graphics and cool maps/areas. The idea of weapon properties/special attacks I am reading upthread does sound very good too.

[Arkhios]

So it's an unconditional movement buff? Or did I get something wrong? I like the logic but not the style of that. I'd prefer something like charging to jumping. Too much jumping around makes the combat a bit too cartoony for my taste.

Haven't played the game but I did watch a little bit of people on the internet playing it. One thing I noticed and I liked is how they let elevation affect your hit chances (I assume it's advantage/disadvantage built in?). Also, nice graphics and cool maps/areas. The idea of weapon properties/special attacks I am reading upthread does sound very good too.

Kind of unconditional. The character's strength still limits the range one can jump, but otherwise it is in addition to their movement speed. Then again, it's a Bonus Action, rather than part of your movement as a whole so it kind of makes sense, for a video game. Not so much in tabletop where you can make decisions about your movement modes more easily on the fly.

So, it's not necessarily one that I'd like to see in Tabletop because it's kind of redundant.

[Kane0]

The BG3 version of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer?

[Arkhios]

The BG3 version of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer?

OH, yes! Those are amazing!

[Mastikator]

A thing to keep in mind is that BG3 does all the bookkeeping for you, so adding extra once per short/long rest abilities is not a problem. In table top you gotta do it yourself. Another thing that's worth keeping in mind is that tabletop is a 5x5 foot grid, and in BG3 the creatures move freely, you can pack more tightly and move dynamically. There's no such thing as moving 1 foot closer in tabletop but it's very much a thing. These tabletop limitations prevent you from getting the full benefit of the rules changes in BG3.

However I do like the idea of skipping the whole "running jump vs standing jump" rules, and instead just use 10 feet of movement and a bonus action to jump, and allowing this bonus action jump to exceed normal movement speed. I think the bonus action is fair since it actually is a mini-dash, and I'm really only using it once or twice per combat, mainly to close the distance on a far away enemy, or to jump over obstacles. I mean yeah I can't jump + hex + potion + attack on the same turn but so what? I think it's fair and good that you have to make tactical choices and can't just do everything.

I also kinda like the changes to spell casting, where you CAN cast whatever as long as you have the action economy to do it. You can fireball + quickened fireball if you want. A thing I've seen is that it eats a lot of resources, in BG3 it is a bit overpowered since you can generally long rest after every fight if you want to but that's rarely the case in tabletop IMX. I also like the changes to some spells, like haste, you get an extra normal action, but it lasts 3 rounds, not 10, so in a long combat it may well become a liability and once again you have to make a strategic choice.
I also really like the bonus action potion.

I like that anyone can use scrolls. Fighters can instantly identify a scroll of misty step and use it without making annoying skill checks.

I also like the economic aspect of simple consumables, basic poison is no longer costing 50gp, and grease bottles, acid vials, etc all are MUCH cheaper and often create a hazardous region. I can't for the life of me remember ever seeing goblins throw down grease and alchemy flasks on the party in tabletop, it's just not good, and if they leave any behind it's too valuable loot for what it is. Alchemy bottle, oil bottles, acid vials, ball bearings, caltrops should all cost 5gp at most, maybe even 1-3gp. THEN you can put these in the monsters hands and use them against the players, and for the players to find some after they win. And since they're not so pricey the party feel like they should USE them rather than just SELL them.
I like how acid applies -2 AC to anyone standing in acid.
I like how ray of frost creates a icy surface on a couple of rounds.

I really like the diversity of magic items, especially the weaker ones. D&D 5e has a big hole where common magic items that aren't just fluff items should be, something like "if you cast a concentration spell in melee you gain 5 THP" is a cool magic item, the conditions to it make it significantly weaker than a +1 longsword, but more useful than a staff of flowers.

[LudicSavant]

Another positive change I've encountered:

Ice Knife now creates an icy surface, which has led to me gasp actually using the spell a couple times!

I think that Ice Knife should just do this in real 5e.

[Mastikator]

One of the things BG3 has taught me as a DM is to put down more hazards in the environment, both interactive and non-interactive. Anything that is both a problem for the players and something the players can use against their enemies, or just ignore, adds TONS of immersion and tactical depth to combat.

[Kane0]

Reminds me of the halfling gang my DM used against us at level 1. Their shtick was all the goons going high in initiative and throwing flasks of oil at people, then the head guy deliberately going last with burning hands or firebolt. Thank god it was well telegraphed or we would have lost half the party turn 1.

[animorte]

One of the things BG3 has taught me as a DM is to put down more hazards in the environment, both interactive and non-interactive. Anything that is both a problem for the players and something the players can use against their enemies, or just ignore, adds TONS of immersion and tactical depth to combat.
Been preaching things of that nature ever sense I started playing D&D. There's a lot more to combat than a race to zero hp. Throw in some objectives (for either or both sides) and some neutral hazards.

[LudicSavant]

Been preaching things of that nature ever sense I started playing D&D. There's a lot more to combat than a race to zero hp. Throw in some objectives (for either or both sides) and some neutral hazards.

Same here. Interesting, interactive battlefields and dramatic questions (https://theangrygm.com/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/)!

[LudicSavant]

Another one: Thieves Tools is now an extension of Sleight of Hand, thus making that skill more worthwhile to invest in. Also means a Rogue only needs 1 Expertise to cover Sleight of Hand and Thieves' Tools.

[Snowbluff]

However I do like the idea of skipping the whole "running jump vs standing jump" rules, and instead just use 10 feet of movement and a bonus action to jump, and allowing this bonus action jump to exceed normal movement speed. I think the bonus action is fair since it actually is a mini-dash, and I'm really only using it once or twice per combat, mainly to close the distance on a far away enemy, or to jump over obstacles. I mean yeah I can't jump + hex + potion + attack on the same turn but so what? I think it's fair and good that you have to make tactical choices and can't just do everything. The lack of running jump is a limitation of it being a video game I think. They didn't program a check for the run up and since it's a video game where you take your movements one at a time there's no way to show some one doing a running jump.



No that's not how it works in 5e.

I mean, yes, your Strength determines how far you jump. But jumping does not allow you to move beyond your Movement Speed.


Good, I did say this if you look back at my post. If you want more mobility, just add more speed to classes that you want to have more mobility, as I pointed out earlier. Don't screw up the jump rules to do it.


I like how ray of frost creates a icy surface on a couple of rounds.
I think the game actually creates too many surfaces some times. I remember stabbing a spider and getting poisoned or acid damage. I like some surface creations, like burning materials or freezing water, but at a certain point it gets excessive. Using 5e's potential for tactical combat is something my tables like to do a lot, though. We usually avoid the flat white room some people seem to play in.



Ice Knife now creates an icy surface, which has led to me gasp actually using the spell a couple times!

I think that Ice Knife should just do this in real 5e.
This is good though, I hate Ice Knife in table top.

[Mastikator]

The lack of running jump is a limitation of it being a video game I think. They didn't program a check for the run up and since it's a video game where you take your movements one at a time there's no way to show some one doing a running jump.

That's probably true, I still think it's an improvement over the PHB jumping rules. I honestly wish the BG3 jump rules were the default rules in D&D5e.

[solidork]

The magic items are really scratching an itch that isn't met by 5e. I've got a magic missile build going on with Gale right now where my level 1 MM does 4d4+1d8+5 - its a modest improvement really, but having combined a couple of items to make this work makes me feel clever. Some of the designs only work because the game is tracking things like how many Lightning Charges you've got, but there are other interesting items that give modest combat bonuses that feel like they're lacking in 5e.

I really like all the items that let you cast a spell once, and the weapons that have a unique active ability. I think I've advocated on this board multiple times for items that give you cantrips and its gratifying to see them here. Yeah, its a shame that spells are the main way to add interesting combat options, but it's better than not having those options.

I like how jump works in the game, but I'm not sure its something I'd want ported over. I'm playing a human version of the harengon paladin I'm playing in one of my 5e games so its kind of appropriate that he's still jumping around all over the place.

[Psyren]

1) It's not far from the Weapon Mastery which they're trying to implement in the upcoming update, so I guess we'll get something of the sort. The ones in BG3 are certainly much more interesting than the ones we have seen in OneD&D playtests, and I'd definitely want to see WotC use those instead.
2) ...I thought that was already possible? :smallconfused:
3) ...this too, kind of. It's RAW that even though a player/PC receives Inspiration from DM, that player/PC can give their Inspiration to another player/PC, essentially reaching to same results that your group might have a pool of Inspiration they can all use when needed, rather than limiting everyone to only one of their own at all times.

1) I believe the BG3 ones are stronger because they are 1/SR instead of at-will. Personally I would prefer a mix of both, or picking one approach and rebalancing around it (needing an hour break after you trip someone is kind of silly, though of course SRs don't actually take that long in BG3, so this would mean either more uses or a stronger effect, as an exampe.)

2) As written in 5e they can only be cashed in for advantage when you make the check, not afterward like they can in BG3. What this means in BG3 is that they're much harder to waste - if you succeed on a check, you'll never need to inspire it after all, but you might end up inspiring something you'd have succeeded on anyway in 5e. Lots of groups let you use them for rerolls too though, which I suspect is where BG3 got the idea.

3) In 5e, you can give up your inspiration to someone else if you think they did something to earn it, i.e. you give yours away even if the DM doesn't award that person. In BG3, you can reallocate a second instance you would have received, leading to both of you having it even if the second player did nothing.

[Snowbluff]

The magic items are really scratching an itch that isn't met by 5e. I've got a magic missile build going on with Gale right now where my level 1 MM does 4d4+1d8+5 - its a modest improvement really, but having combined a couple of items to make this work makes me feel clever. Some of the designs only work because the game is tracking things like how many Lightning Charges you've got, but there are other interesting items that give modest combat bonuses that feel like they're lacking in 5e.

I really like all the items that let you cast a spell once, and the weapons that have a unique active ability. I think I've advocated on this board multiple times for items that give you cantrips and its gratifying to see them here. Yeah, its a shame that spells are the main way to add interesting combat options, but it's better than not having those options.


Something I like about the lightning charge items is that they express the bonus damage as a die roll. I think that 5e does this a lot with bonuses to make them more TTRPG friendly. Instead of memorizing a bonus you have a physical object you toss instead. Bardic Inspiration, Bless, Guidance, Divine Favor etc all do bonus dice. I think the individual +1s the lightning charge system, as well as the stacks the systems asks for, are probably less suit for 5e tabletop, but if you were to implement a spindown die it would make tracking it in person easier.

Again, there is some videogaminess to this. Having more magic items can be a very good reward to enable exploration. Remnant 2 is a great game for an example of this as well, with extra items being hidden behind esoteric puzzles that sometimes span worlds. Your mileage may vary, since players might not always engage with a puzzle or recognize it as option. Of course, you can always exercise the gold rule of DM planning and reuse the puzzle elsewhere if it is skipped. :smalltongue:

[Theodoxus]

Song of Rest is just another short rest. 4 Bard parties... yes please.

Speaking of Bards, make a nice quartet with each character having a different instrument. I've grooved to hours of playing The Bard's Dance while working on my TT campaign.

100 gold to change any party members' class is a godsend. While the stereotypical build of Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard is right there (especially if you're playing as one of the companions as your main - going with Astarion this weekend). I've found the super cheesy build of 4 Warlocks with AB and Devil's Sight and throwing down darkness gets you though all of Act 1 and most of Act 2 with minimal pain (a playstyle I perfected in Solasta). Now, adding a couple of Bard levels for Song of Rest, and I get 6 short rests before having to go back to camp...

Speaking of short rests, no more bothersome HD to track, just heal up to half your HP (and apparently there's no time dilation that I've discovered).

The only thing I find annoying (that I can think of here at work) is lack of the ready action. Someone on Reddit mentioned it, thinking it was too hard for Larian to implement, but Solasta's ready works just fine (if limited) but I'd love to be able to set up a ranged attack, spell attack or even melee when the enemy comes around the corner... setting up ambushes is a little more difficult since surprise is kinda meh...

Oh, another thing I might incorporate in my TT is save scumming. Not as often, but maybe give each player the option to "save" the game once per session... I haven't really thought about it beyond that - so not any potential issues with doing that (or resetting a fight if someone goes down to an unlucky hit and a player asks to reload the game...) so, maybe not - but it's an intriguing idea...

[LudicSavant]

Oh, another thing I might incorporate in my TT is save scumming. Not as often, but maybe give each player the option to "save" the game once per session... I haven't really thought about it beyond that - so not any potential issues with doing that (or resetting a fight if someone goes down to an unlucky hit and a player asks to reload the game...) so, maybe not - but it's an intriguing idea...

I put my players in a Groundhog's Day situation once, right before the world was about to end, and they didn't even know it until several sessions later when they got TPKed.

Then the party GOOlock wakes up... at the scene several sessions ago where they met their terrifying cosmic patron in person, and got a 10th level divination spell of unknown purpose. Several sessions ago they cast that spell, passed out, then woke up moments later as if nothing happened, and just went "that's weird."

Only now did they realize what that spell had actually done, all those sessions ago.

Every time they failed, it was just the next step of the GOOlock's divination spell, exploring every possible future for ways to beat a Thanos-tier threat. The reveal of that fact completely blew the players minds. Good times. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Part of the problem with BG3 which pushes people to save-scum is that it doesn't have nearly as many autosuccess checks as it should. BG3 forces checks even in cases when it should be mathematically or narratively impossible for a character to fail, and worse still, it forces a nat 1 to fail anyway. This is one of my biggest concerns with new players coming to 5e from BG3, as it'll reinforce the habit of calling for unnecessary rolls and 5% chance of slapstick results.

Keep in mind failing some of these checks can outright get your party killed (e.g. there's a funny example very early in the game with a wounded mindflayer), or lock them into a very difficult or even hopeless fight (such as aggroing an entire base of [redacted] against you while you happen to be in the inner-most room simply because you failed at one lie.

[Miek]

I like that if i throw a healing potion at someone, or hit them with it, it’ll heal them

[animorte]

I like that if i throw a healing potion at someone, or hit them with it, it’ll heal them
Topical ointments. Wonder how that would function mechanically? Would it be an attack roll vs their full AC because they're likely still in combat, armored up, and wiggling about to apply their AC vs enemy attacks as well. Or just static DC vs 10 as long as they're within range (30ft-ish)?

[Khosan]

No one's mentioned this yet, but Shove being a bonus action instead of replacing an attack has been very handy. Maybe more of a sidegrade than a strict upgrade, but it's been extremely helpful at low levels, letting me still get some damage in while still providing a fairly reliable form of battlefield control. You do lose the ability to shove multiple times later on, but I think I like it better as bonus action instead anyway.

I like the weapon skills too. I think if I were to incorporate the idea into a home game, I wouldn't have it based on what weapon the player has equipped and instead have them choose which attacks they want from a list. Like spells, basically.

[Nagog]

One of the things BG3 has taught me as a DM is to put down more hazards in the environment, both interactive and non-interactive. Anything that is both a problem for the players and something the players can use against their enemies, or just ignore, adds TONS of immersion and tactical depth to combat.


Been preaching things of that nature ever sense I started playing D&D. There's a lot more to combat than a race to zero hp. Throw in some objectives (for either or both sides) and some neutral hazards.

This type of DMing is where Monks really shine. High movement, great control, and out-of-the-box capabilities for a variety of weird stuff makes Monks great for complicated battlemaps.

Increasing immersion is another great incentive for it: As much as I love Theater of the Mind, I've been investing some serious cash into being able to have a complex battlemap for major encounters for exactly this kind of immersion.

[animorte]

This type of DMing is where Monks really shine. High movement, great control, and out-of-the-box capabilities for a variety of weird stuff makes Monks great for complicated battlemaps.

Increasing immersion is another great incentive for it: As much as I love Theater of the Mind, I've been investing some serious cash into being able to have a complex battlemap for major encounters for exactly this kind of immersion.
I'd wager the people who think Monks and various other alternate features are weak and underpowered are also those that merely have "race to zero" fights. Either that or 5mwd, or some combination there-of.

[Sorinth]

I'm a big fan of the tactical options they've added from weapon abilities, to BA shove/jump, to the High/low Ground attack modifier, to picking up and throwing smaller enemies. Their interaction with the battle maps that have opportunities to be creative with that stuff works very well together and can create some epic moments. In fact one of my favourite so far was when I backed 10ft away from a ledge at the end of my turn to break line of sight with some enemies, only to have one of them climb a ladder and Sparta kick my poor gnome bard right off the other side of the ledge into a bottomless pit insta killing me. It was an epic NPC moment.

I like the way they handled stealth but that's obviously something that would be difficult to bring back since vision cones are difficult to do. For stuff they can do I've quite enjoyed the changes to things like Song of Rest, Frenzy, and the "reactive" nature of spells like Guidance, Charm Person, Enhance Ability, Reckless Attack, etc... the low level Ranger options for Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, And on the flip side some of the dislikes are Mage Hand being 1/SR, Dissonant Whispers not forcing the enemy to run away, and Precision Attack.

[Snowbluff]

Topical ointments. Wonder how that would function mechanically? Would it be an attack roll vs their full AC because they're likely still in combat, armored up, and wiggling about to apply their AC vs enemy attacks as well. Or just static DC vs 10 as long as they're within range (30ft-ish)?

We could bring back bloodspikes (needles) and touch AC from 3rd edition. I dunno if it would fit well in 5e, however. :smallconfused:

[animorte]

We could bring back bloodspikes (needles) and touch AC from 3rd edition. I dunno if it would fit well in 5e, however. :smallconfused:
That was one of the few things I actually missed when I moved from 3.5 to 5e. Touch AC and such was pretty cool.

[Amnestic]

While I mostly want to focus on the positive stuff, there's also some negative changes. For example, Battle Masters have to declare their superiority dice *before* their attack, which feels gross.

I would note that the superiority dice is not expended if you miss the attack with it, so it's mostly the same as deciding to use it after you confirm the hit - it means you don't get to definitely decide to use it on a crit, sure, but that's generally not what you're using your SD on anyway.

[LudicSavant]

I would note that the superiority dice is not expended if you miss the attack with it, so it's mostly the same as deciding to use it after you confirm the hit - it means you don't get to definitely decide to use it on a crit, sure, but that's generally not what you're using your SD on anyway.

In addition to not being able to use it on crits, you also can more easily waste it on overkill (or choose not to use it, then wish you could when you roll low unusually on damage). It's just a less reliable and flexible feature overall.

Also, you don't get to use any judgment with regards to Precision Attack as you normally would after seeing the roll. It just gets expended.

[Amnestic]

A very minor change for monks is they get 1 extra one extra kit point, and they get ki at 1st level with Flurry of Blows only - PD+SotW still come in at 2nd level.

I didn't play Four Elements, but they did get an extra feature at 3rd level that let them regain half their max ki points as an action 1/LR.

Open Hand also traded out their "no reactions" FoB move for Stagger, which turns off the enemy Action next turn. Far more powerful. FoB does have to be used on only one target though, you can't attack two different enemies with each hit.

Open Hand also got a new feature at 6th level - Manifestation of Body/Mind/Soul. Adds 1d4 necrotic/psychic/radiant (your choice) to all unarmed strikes on top of Wholeness of Body.

They also got a 9th level feature which is kind of baby Quivering Palm. Hit/punch an enemy, set them Resonating. No apparent cap on resonating creatures. Use 1 ki point (no action cost listed? I didn't play it to find out) to detonate all Resonating creatures for 3d6 force damage, dex save for half. Helps to play into the monk skirmishing hitting a lot of different guys to maximise its effectiveness, but I dunno how well it works in practice.

I only experienced shadow monk in full, but they also saw some minor changes. Cloak of Shadows (their original 11th level feature) was moved to 5th level. In its place, they got Shadow Strike at 11th. While invisible or sneaking, can teleport to an enemy within 30ft and attack them for standard damage (weapon or unarmed) + 3d8 psychic. Costs 3 ki points and an action. I don't think I ever used it, honestly. 3 ki points was generally better spent on other stuff.

Pass Without Trace lasting "until long rest" was very nice though.

Stillness of Mind is kind of a sidegrade and occasionally a downgrade. It was changed to auto-use your action to end Charmed/Frightened on you if you had the condition. I know this is a semi-common houserule already with some people, but it did mean that there were times I was Frightened and wanted to use my action for something else, only to be forced to use it on SoM.

[GloatingSwine]

No one's mentioned this yet, but Shove being a bonus action instead of replacing an attack has been very handy. Maybe more of a sidegrade than a strict upgrade, but it's been extremely helpful at low levels, letting me still get some damage in while still providing a fairly reliable form of battlefield control.

Yeah, though combine that with the actual 5e shove where you can choose to shove the enemy prone, no consequences for failure other than not doing some other bonus action, and Advantage on attacks vs prone targets, and you would make Shove a mandatory action for all melee attackers at all times. There would be no such thing as a melee attack without first attempting to shove the enemy prone.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, though combine that with the actual 5e shove where you can choose to shove the enemy prone, no consequences for failure other than not doing some other bonus action, and Advantage on attacks vs prone targets, and you would make Shove a mandatory action for all melee attackers at all times. There would be no such thing as a melee attack without first attempting to shove the enemy prone.

That's already kinda the case now if advantage isn't already online.
I like the simplicity of advantage and disadvantage but this is one of its major flaws.

[Rukelnikov]

Lukewarm take, BG3's ruleset feels more like a proper .5 edition changes-wise than the UAs.

Overall I'm loving the game, just level 4 and still in act 1, so there's a lot idk yet, but still here are some more of my takes.

The extra actions available from weapons are cool, I spent many of the early combats switching between weapons on Lae'zel to keep using the BA attacks, actual incentive to be a master of all weapons and not stick to a single one. Of course it eventually stopped once I got a cool weapon to build around, and building around is doable given that if I replace this weapon I can replace my choices for just 100 gp.

However, respeccing is not, per se, part of the "BG3's DnD implementation ruleset", technically, its an ability of a certain character whose identity the game highly hints at from the very beginning (I haven't confirmed my suspicions to be true yet, but I'd be surprised if they are not). So basically its a plot/game device, and I think that's for the best, if PCs could change that easily without such a plot device, disbelief would get shattered.

Items in general are MUCH better, simple things like "medium armor" helmets/gauntlets that give +1 to Con/Str saves allows for rewards that are available early on, aren't op, but still "feel" nice to have, even if they may not ever influence the end result of a check. More interesting though are the supporting abilities from items, I have Astarion with a ring that gives bless for 2 rounds when you heal a creature, and boots that give 3 temp hp when you heal a creature, took a level of fighter with him for dual wielding style and got Second Wind as an extra, but now that extra is an enabler, it also works with potions, bonus action for 3 temp hp + 2 rounds of non concentration bless is working wonders.

There are many things I struggled with for the first few hours, like Sneak Attack being its own button, would've much preferred it to be a toggle, "If requirements are met and toggle is on, apply SA", and the dual wielding toggle wastes your BA attack if the first attack kills the target, but those are not ruleset issues, but rather UI issues.


Oh, another thing I might incorporate in my TT is save scumming. Not as often, but maybe give each player the option to "save" the game once per session... I haven't really thought about it beyond that - so not any potential issues with doing that (or resetting a fight if someone goes down to an unlucky hit and a player asks to reload the game...) so, maybe not - but it's an intriguing idea...

We attempted to implement this in 3e, it didn't work, we were 2 hours into a really big fight, one of the PCs went down, and when he said "I wanna load" we all looked at him like "really?" and we never tried to implement it again.

[Amnestic]

There are many things I struggled with for the first few hours, like Sneak Attack being its own button, would've much preferred it to be a toggle, "If requirements are met and toggle is on, apply SA",

It does actually work like this. If you qualify for SA, it applies it automatically when you attack a creature. It being a separate button does help you to check that you qualify for it though, and it also means that if you're dual wielding it doesn't



wastes your BA attack

Speaking of Rogue, Thief Rogue saw some notable changes.

Fast Hands now just gives them a second bonus action, rather than the expansion of what they can currently do with a BA. Can be used for anything a bonus action can be used for - shoving, being cunning, dual wield attacks, etc. etc.

Because there isn't really 'climbing' in BG3, Second Story Work was changed to resistance to falling damage instead. Probably a downgrade overall, but it works out fine.

Supreme Sneak at 9th was also changed to just be "use your action to gain invisibility for 1 minute", once per short rest.

[Rukelnikov]

It does actually work like this. If you qualify for SA, it applies it automatically when you attack a creature. It being a separate button does help you to check that you qualify for it though, and it also means that if you're dual wielding it doesn't

Are you sure? I think that works for your main action attack, but I think when I use my BA attack as my first action on a turn it doesn't trigger SA damage, will have to check a couple more times.

Overall I don't like how the game presents information to the player in many fronts, I think Solasta is far superior in that regard. For starter, I can't see what higher levels get, yes, that has the extra spice of "finding out", and you'll never cripple yourself out of cool options since respeccing is dirt cheap, but it does mean I need to save, respec, and go over the different classes in order to see what they get, sure a decent wikia will eventually come up and thus I can look for it online, but on a game of this scale (and overall so good), I think that's not a design decision I like. Similar with the combat log, not only Solasta, but the recent Owlcat games also present information better, it is there, but so far has felt unfriendly to parse, and not verbatim enough, I'd have liked better feedback customization options from the game.


Speaking of Rogue, Thief Rogue saw some notable changes.

Fast Hands now just gives them a second bonus action, rather than the expansion of what they can currently do with a BA. Can be used for anything a bonus action can be used for - shoving, being cunning, dual wield attacks, etc. etc.

Because there isn't really 'climbing' in BG3, Second Story Work was changed to resistance to falling damage instead. Probably a downgrade overall, but it works out fine.

Supreme Sneak at 9th was also changed to just be "use your action to gain invisibility for 1 minute", once per short rest.

IDK, my Astarion is a Thief3/Fighter 1, and is already doing 3 attacks per turn for 1d6+3, next level gonna go to 1d6 +4, I'm pretty happy with how he's working out. The chang to second story work for the falling damage resistance feels much less impactful than having pseudo climbing speed, I haven't got much use out of it yet, my Astarion doesn't have that much of a jumping distance, OTOH HAM applies its damage reduction to fall damage, and it's saved me some hp during exploration with Lae'zel since she can jump farther which means higher chance to be able to land on lower altitude surfaces, and I think she takes more falling damge than Asta because his prof acrobatics is higher.

[LudicSavant]

The Four Elements Monk in BG3 apparently gets significantly more spells known, an auto-upcast, more ki, and buffed versions of some of their spells (like Fangs of the Fire Snake).

[Amnestic]

Are you sure? I think that works for your main action attack, but I think when I use my BA attack as my first action on a turn it doesn't trigger SA damage, will have to check a couple more times.

It might just be auto-trigger on your main attack rather than any BA stabs, I'd have to check. I know it doesn't activate on vamp-bite but that's an auto-hit so not too surprising there.



IDK, my Astarion is a Thief3/Fighter 1, and is already doing 3 attacks per turn for 1d6+3, next level gonna go to 1d6 +4, I'm pretty happy with how he's working out.

Sorry, I meant the Second Story work change would be a hypothetical downgrade in a tabletop game vs. its standard version, rather than Thief 3 in general. I could've been clearer. Getting an extra BA flat out is definitely a big boost over its original form, and if you offered me to choose either I'd take the BG3 version every time, I think (especially since drinking any and every potion is a bonus action as default).

Another change I noticed: Opportunity Attacks for dual wielders use both weapons, not just one.

[Dalinar]

As a clarifying point for the below, I mostly optimized my play around taking as few rests as possible, and I didn't particularly mind save scumming for certain things (mostly because playing in this fashion made certain encounters much deadlier if I screwed up, or because the party members would step on traps I was trying to avoid or disarm and I'd take a bunch of easily avoidable damage). In fact, for my second playthrough, I got to level 5 and left the starting area without taking a single short or long rest up until that point--whereupon the game crashed on leaving camp the next morning, and I was forced to reload and manually long rest so certain cutscenes could play out. Standard difficulty btw. First playthrough was Monk, second playthrough I'm about 2/3rds through on a Barbarogue. (I've had too much free time lately.)

With respect to the core rules, I am very much enjoying their changes to how the action economy works--BA shove and jump make positional play way more dynamic and are much-needed buffs to the Strength stat, while in the case of casters BA shove can also act as a sort of hail-mary disengage option. Help action is completely reworked--it brings downed party members up to 1hp, and can remove certain status effects like Restrained. Notably a character that is revived from being downed loses their action for the turn but still has a bonus action, so you have to be careful about yo-yo healing. Bonus action spell clause is also not present, which is good because that rule has always been really clunky. Dodge action is gone entirely, which is interesting for reasons I'll get into later. Flight is weaker (it's more like a bigger, more versatile, actionless jump), which is probably good for "lock and key design" reasons, but admittedly it's kind of frustrating that if you have a flying character or familiar, you can't necessarily use that to interact with objects that have been raised high in the air.

With respect to the specifics of the BG3 campaign, the loot design is fantastic. I particularly appreciate that the game goes out of its way to include several magic items for unarmored characters. The encounter/map design is really cool, too--lots of spots where I would take a fight, then explore the surrounding map after the danger passed and been like "oh, I could have approached this in a bunch of other ways." Chasms are a fun mechanic provided you're willing to reload or Revivify if it happens to a party member (think "instakill fall damage, but you don't get to loot the body").

With respect to class balance and similar topics, in general a lot of the broken caster-related stuff is gone in BG3--partially because the level cap is 12, partially because certain individual problem children weren't implemented or were nerfed (either directly or through some other context--Spirit Guardians in particular seems to make you a target for ranged attackers, while both it and Hypnotic Pattern have eaten duration nerfs), partially because of an abundance of scrolls and other consumables that can fill the gap in a pinch, and partially due to some of the later-released 5e feats like Fey-touched not being in the game. A lot of their power plays are of course on a per-long-rest basis, so my playstyle only lent itself to occasional spellcasting.

Additionally, a lot of player power in BG3 comes from things external to class: loot, both permanent and consumable, as well as certain other rewards and effects that don't really fall into "loot" in the sense of item rewards (but I'm trying not to spoil what I mean by that, here--BG3 is a very long game that not everyone's had as much time to play as I have). Insofar as class balance could theoretically be a design problem for this sort of game, this fact puts a bit of a soft cap on how bad that problem could become.

Here are the particular options I found to be really strong:

The -5/+10 feats are perhaps better than ever, with GWM Barbarian and Sharpshooter Thief/Gloomstalker with dual hand crossbows being the two builds that have carried my parties the most (I actually think there may be a bug preventing offhand ranged attacks from having an accuracy penalty from Sharpshooter, but unclear to me if that's display-only or actual). In particular there are some very strong poisons in the game (going from poisoned status and/or minor damage all the way up to sleep and paralytic effects), so popping those with a dual hand crossbow build can make it even more devastating when a hard fight comes up (one poison application covers both weapons--just make sure your character is holding the ranged weapons, since it doesn't prompt you to pick a weapon to put poison on). Meanwhile stuff like Elixir of Hill Giant Strength lasts until long rest, and you can get your hands on enough of those that supporting a GWM Barbarian and just having over 20 Strength for most of the game is quite possible. One thing to note is that GWM's bonus action attack cannot be used multiple times (unless maybe you proc it twice?) if you have a Barb/Thief, which is sad but reasonable.

Repelling Blast is arguably even more important than Agonizing Blast in this game (you should still take both if you've got a Warlock in the party). Chasms can render Repelling Blast an instant kill effect in certain circumstances (just be careful to turn it off when appropriate to do so--I actually softlocked myself by chasming a boss so that I couldn't loot a plot-relevant item from their corpse at one point), but beyond that it can also force dash actions from melee enemies, cause hefty fall damage, or act as peel for your warlock or other ranged party members who might be endangered. Chainlock is super useful for scouting reasons on a first playthrough, though I wonder if Tome might not be better on subsequent playthroughs (as for Blade pact, attacking with your spellcasting mod is a fantastic change--Repelling Blast is just way too useful, though. Then again, certain loot in the game does lend itself to switch hitting between EB and pact weapons).

The removal of Dodge action is a buff to Monk (because now Patient Defense is the only pseudo-at-will source of that effect), a buff to other defensive actions like casting Blade Ward, and a nerf to powerful concentration spells--now you have to rely on careful positioning using Dash/Hide/Disengage if you want to minimize incoming damage using your action (which I guess is another factor favoring Rogue). Speaking of Monk, I played 4E on my first run and my subclass features rarely came up, so I'd recommend a different subclass, but very few enemies in this game pack Legendary Resistance--usually it's Magic Resistance instead, which means Stunning Strike is a great way to surgically remove actions from individual dangerous enemies while your party cleans up other targets--this proved to be a critical action economy swing in more than a few places throughout that run. However, you can only Stunning Strike on action attacks, not BA attacks like Flurry, so the potential to blow all your ki on it in an emergency is limited, and the stun effect wears off on their turn if you were planning on taking advantage of the, well, advantage. Still good though. Also, while Rogues can Cunning Action Dash with abandon, for some reason Step of the Wind doesn't stack with Dash, which has proven to be an issue for me sometimes.

As for spellcasting, I found most of the best spells are either buffs to the -5/+10 characters (cough cough Haste, which is no longer limited to just one additional attack), or are area denial spells. Chromatic Orb (and the 4E Monk ability that emulates it) is one effect that gained a lot in BG3, since it can be used to create surfaces like ice. Grease spell is good for a lot of the same reasons it's good in 5e, but there are both consumables that can apply the same effect and other area control spells, so its overall niche is a bit tighter.

As you get into higher levels, the difficult terrain spells like Hunger of Hadar can force dash actions out of enemies and outright kill small ones, or you can just go raw damage with something like Wall of Fire. (Enemies have no qualms about running through a Wall of Fire to get to you.)

There are also times when hard crowd-control spells like Polymorph are pretty useful, but honestly enough things either get deleted in one round by the -5/+10 characters or have Magic Resistance that single-target CC isn't a big deal (especially when Stunning Strike does it for less of a resource cost). Mainly Dominate Person is the best from that category, because action economy and all that. There's also Command, which is a relatively slot-cheap way to deny actions to big enemies in a similar fashion to Stunning Strike. Counterspell is also pretty huge for some bosses.

Prayer of Healing between combats is probably the best use of spell slots for HP recovery--if you need a combat heal bigger than Healing Word or a healing potion, something has gone terribly wrong.

Longstrider is actually incredibly good in this game, compared to 5e where it's often not worthwhile. They made it a ritual that lasts until next long rest, so there's basically no reason not to pop it on the whole party at the start of the day, and now everyone runs noticeably faster. If you've got a Ranger in the party, it's a great choice for them, since most of their other spells aren't super incredible. Jump is also good for similar reasons, but it only lasts 10 rounds, so more of a hassle to work with (IMO you cast that on a Spirit Guardians cleric when combat starts).

I didn't get to play much Druid or Bard, but I've at least heard good things about the latter. Will try them out more in the future!

Aside from those two classes that I'm not well informed on, I'd argue that, given the goal I outlined in the beginning (which is that I am trying to avoid resting), the best party composition is some Sharpshooter build (right now I'm thinking Thief/Gloomstalker is the best way to go about this, though I'm not sold on any particular order of progression), a GWM Barbarian to attract incoming fire for encounters not trivialized by the Sharpshooter (save your Rage uses for specific fights that can't be easily picked apart by your absurd ranged damage dealers), a Repelling Blast Warlock to provide all the fun things Repelling Blast does (save the spell slots for Counterspell or big AOE spells when those options come up), and a flex pick--either a Wizard/Sorc for more Counterspell and area denial, or a Monk for its utility and CC. Cleric doesn't fit the playstyle well since it's reliant on its long rest resources and those are not as good as what the other casters can bring to the table, though the ability to swap one in, spam Prayer of Healing a couple times, then swap them back out can be nice. Paladin and Fighter are just worse Barbarian when played this way, as you want Reckless Attack as a resourceless consistency option to go with GWM (though perhaps DEX Fighter as a secondary Sharpshooter character can work, given the existence of good ranged weapons that aren't hand crossbows).

Mostly you don't want to have a bunch of characters that all want the same loot, because there's a lot of powerful loot in this game that tends to be tailored towards different classes. In particular I've found few hand crossbows, so a second Thief/Gloomstalker wouldn't be nearly as effective as the first, but just in general having characters that can make use of different weapon and armor types is more efficient than not.

As for the actual topic of this thread... the biggest improvements BG3 make to 5e, aside from things that can't easily be imported to a tabletop setting where stuff has to be tracked by hand, IMO are mostly around positional manipulation. Jump is great, shove is great, encounter design is great (and DMG guidance on how to make interesting encounters would be great, if it's not already in there--been a while since I took a gander).

[Amnestic]

Just to briefly comment on Druid, all druid subclasses now get 2 and 3 attacks in Wild Shape (but no native multiattack, if that form had it originally). Moon Druids additionally get "elemental myrmidon" forms specifically at 10th level, instead of "any elemental" that they usually get.


Badger, Giant Spider, Wolf, Cat, Deep Rothe (charge ability), Panther, Owlbear, and Dilophosaurus.

Moon Druid Only:
Bear, Sabre-Toothed Tiger, Dire Raven, Elemental Myrmidons.


The Air Myrmidon is particularly potent, with a bonus action 60ft teleport, flight speed, and being able to attack 2-3 times a turn with a stunning-strike equivalent (stuns for *2* turns) that has no limitation. It can also create a persistent area of bludgeoning damage+silence.

[solidork]

Abjuration Wizard seems to have been hugely buffed if the description of the ability is anything to go by. Instead of having a pool of hit points equal to 2x Level + Int, your shield has a strength equal to twice your level and when you take damage you reduce the damage by the strength and reduce the strength by 1. So at level 5 your ward will prevent a total of 55 damage even if you don't cast any abjuration spells to increase the ward's strength.

[Dualight]

Just to briefly comment on Druid, all druid subclasses now get 2 and 3 attacks in Wild Shape (but no native multiattack, if that form had it originally). Moon Druids additionally get "elemental myrmidon" forms specifically at 10th level, instead of "any elemental" that they usually get.


Badger, Giant Spider, Wolf, Cat, Deep Rothe (charge ability), Panther, Owlbear, and Dilophosaurus.

Moon Druid Only:
Bear, Sabre-Toothed Tiger, Dire Raven, Elemental Myrmidons.


The Air Myrmidon is particularly potent, with a bonus action 60ft teleport, flight speed, and being able to attack 2-3 times a turn with a stunning-strike equivalent (stuns for *2* turns) that has no limitation. It can also create a persistent area of bludgeoning damage+silence.

So Wild Shape is buffed (outside of those forms that natively have a multiattack for more attacks than the Wild Shape feature allows). Likewise, the elemental myrmidons (which seem buffed compared to their Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes incarnations) are a buff compared to what PHB Moon druids get, which is explicitly the closed list of "an air elemental, an earth elemental, a fire elemental, or a water elemental."(PHB page 69), not "any creature with the elemental type". Sounds like Wild Shape received buffs, and substantial ones at that.

[JackPhoenix]

We attempted to implement this in 3e, it didn't work, we were 2 hours into a really big fight, one of the PCs went down, and when he said "I wanna load" we all looked at him like "really?" and we never tried to implement it again.

I don't see that as a viable option outside text based/PbP games, where you can simply scroll the text to see the exact situation at any given previous moment.

[Rukelnikov]

I don't see that as a viable option outside text based/PbP games, where you can simply scroll the text to see the exact situation at any given previous moment.

We had "saved" not too long before the fight, the boardstate wouldn't have been the problem, but no one else at the table wanted to have to redo the fight.

[Zetakya]

Not a rule thing, but a DM thing.

Lots of DMs could stand to learn from the intro scenario on the ship. Play through it a dozen times. Take all the different options. It's a very well crafted example of a linear scenario that nonetheless gives the players some freedom of choice in what they do, what they interact with, and changes some things later in the game based on what choices you made.

[Mastikator]

So Wild Shape is buffed (outside of those forms that natively have a multiattack for more attacks than the Wild Shape feature allows). Likewise, the elemental myrmidons (which seem buffed compared to their Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes incarnations) are a buff compared to what PHB Moon druids get, which is explicitly the closed list of "an air elemental, an earth elemental, a fire elemental, or a water elemental."(PHB page 69), not "any creature with the elemental type". Sounds like Wild Shape received buffs, and substantial ones at that.

Yes and no. Magic items are extremely prevalent in BG3 and there's no attunement, a paladin can easily deal 1d8+4d4+10 per attack by stacking magic items that increase damage while also sporting 24 AC and +6 aura of protection (that's not even getting into some of the off-class spoilery buffs you can receive). Wildshaped druids lose the effects of magic items so they need to be buffed to be at all balanced.
I'd argue that a level 12 BG3 character is stronger than a typical tabletop level 20 character. So I'd say wildshaping into an elemental myrmadon is pretty fair.

[Angelalex242]

I'm a PS5 guy, so I will be looking forward to that Paladin, even if I usually build my Paladins for defense (Oath of Ancients, Heavy Armor Master, etc.)

I am still feeling the lack of Variant Human, though.

[Witty Username]

I'd wager the people who think Monks and various other alternate features are weak and underpowered are also those that merely have "race to zero" fights. Either that or 5mwd, or some combination there-of.

Monks are stronger in those conditions, 5mwd means you aren't stressed on ki and generally in race to 0, things like stunning strike actually perform to expectations.

Multiple encounters per rest to stretch out ki, and fights with more complicated conditions tend to make monk less effective, not more

[Psyren]

I am still feeling the lack of Variant Human, though.

1st level feats HAVE to be a major mod request in that game.


We had "saved" not too long before the fight, the boardstate wouldn't have been the problem, but no one else at the table wanted to have to redo the fight.

Yeah, reloading in a single player RPG where one person can strive for their optimal worldstate is one thing, trying to do the same in a multiplayer setting sounds like it would be annoying at best.

[Kane0]

1st level feats HAVE to be a major mod request in that game.

Yeah, and rolled stats

[animorte]

Monks are stronger in those conditions, 5mwd means you aren't stressed on ki and generally in race to 0, things like stunning strike actually perform to expectations.

Multiple encounters per rest to stretch out ki, and fights with more complicated conditions tend to make monk less effective, not more
While this is entirely true and I agree with you, it speaks the same for all other classes. That means they can blow all of their powerful resources without worry as well, so the Monk's features (even expending Ki freely) still pale in comparison, generally speaking.

[Dalinar]

Updated commentary as I pulled a Moon Druid into my lategame party. What I did not realize is that the druid spell list is absolutely stacked with regards to area denial. Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Sleet Storm, several Walls of Whatever... putting hazards on the ground has been my go-to in situations where Ranger/Rogue and GWM Barb can't just burst down everything in sight, and Druid has that in spades. Thinking it'll be a mainstay in future runs, though I suspect Land is a better subclass for this playstyle than Moon is (even though Moon is great for other reasons--hats off to Amnestic for pointing out air myrmidon form, though the other ones also seem potent). Less sold on Spore Druid, though that's in part because my 5e table has one that seems to be particularly exasperated by the weakness of its early game features.

[Hael]

As far as I can see, the really broken stuff is caster multiclass shenaningans (mostly cha based) that rely on certain very powerful item combinations.

For instance there is an item that adds +cha to spell attack rolls, and another that converts things into thunder damage (which can then be boosted in another way). This allows sorlock eldritch blasters to hit absurd values of dpr that far exceed the damage of any other class in the game.

Then there is a bug? that allows any caster to take wizard spells with scrolls (so 1 lvl in wizard is the best dip in the game for a full caster). And sorcerers with twinned haste basically breaks the action economy of the game.

Also ‘hexadins’ (even though there is no hexblade) are probably the best martial in the game, as 5 lvls of pact of the blade gives an extra attack that stacks with the other extra attack as well as cha sadness.

Im sorta waiting for a mod that gives more 5e fidelity. I do like the buffs to rogue and monk though!

[Theodoxus]

I've not run or DM'd a spore druid, so haven't read up on the 5E version - but I do not like the BG3 version. The spore aura thing is concentration based, and even with a decent Con, I've failed the conc check every time the druid was hit, burning the WS for little effect. I found running around as a spider was more interesting on that particular character.

I respec'd to Land and haven't looked back (though TBH, I built it to test out druid capabilities, so it's like 10 toons down from my 'main'.

Still grooving on the 4 party WarBards. Dang near infinite short rests means all the spells, all the time, and the cover of darkness is my shield.

About the only thing I don't like about Warlocks is the Hex interaction... since it lets you pick what attribute to Hex each time, I constantly forget to pick one, and end up running in and bashing an enemy instead of Hexing and EBing them... If the Hex menu locked your character in place, that would be a massive QoL feature for me.

[Oramac]

1st level feats HAVE to be a major mod request in that game.

I'm still barely into Act 1, but I definitely feel like 1st level feats was a miss on the devs part. It's one of very few criticisms I have for the game (so far, anyway).

That said, it only goes to 12th level. I predict that 13-16 and 17-20 expansion packs will be made, so they could pretty easily add 1st level feats in one of those.

[Amechra]

Given their stated reason for why the level cap's lower, I kinda doubt that they're planning higher level DLCs.

[Oramac]

Given their stated reason for why the level cap's lower

I guess I missed that they commented on it. What was the reason?

[Amechra]

I guess I missed that they commented on it. What was the reason?

I can't remember the exact reasoning given, but it had a lot to do with how a lot of higher-level spells don't play well as player options in a video game.

[Dienekes]

I guess I missed that they commented on it. What was the reason?

There was two reasons given the more relevant one was, 7th level spells warp encounter and game world design in a way they didn't believe they could adequately work toward within the game's encounter structure. And fair play to them, they've been trying to keep all the most memorable spells for each spell level to the best of their ability. But the most recognized 7th level spells are things like Plane Shift, Teleport, Reverse Gravity, Conjure Celestial, Simulacrum. Things that would by necessity open up gameplay beyond what they thought they could do justice to without having that be a baseline that they can focus on and expand from there.

The second was actually more of a caveat to the first really. Having this sort of power available would also mean making the villain work on a scale beyond what they wanted to focus on in the game.

[Theodoxus]

I could see an expansion that dealt with specific threats from outside the material plane, but it would probably take as long, or longer to develop than the base game, and Larian has already stated they're no where near even thinking about working on an expansion... so, probably the soonest we'd see one (if at all) would be sometime in the next decade. At that point, it would be far better expenditure of their resources to either work on BG4, another of their IP, or something new.

Yes, it'd be nifty to be able to play in their gorgeous world with 7th+ spells and capstone abilities (even more fun to see what their 5E adjacent ideas are for the same), but I'm not overly hopeful.

[Kane0]

Im fine with level cap of 12, the original BG had an XP ceiling too, which BG II raised. It likely could be modded in though

[Oramac]

There was two reasons given the more relevant one was, 7th level spells warp encounter and game world design in a way they didn't believe they could adequately work toward within the game's encounter structure. And fair play to them, they've been trying to keep all the most memorable spells for each spell level to the best of their ability. But the most recognized 7th level spells are things like Plane Shift, Teleport, Reverse Gravity, Conjure Celestial, Simulacrum. Things that would by necessity open up gameplay beyond what they thought they could do justice to without having that be a baseline that they can focus on and expand from there.

Hmm. I suppose that's fair. Makes me kinda sad, but fair.

I guess I can still hope for a smaller xpac that introduces new subclasses. I'd love to see Swashbuckler and Soulknife rogues, Beast Barbs, Stars Druids, and several others.

[Theodoxus]

Hmm. I suppose that's fair. Makes me kinda sad, but fair.

I guess I can still hope for a smaller xpac that introduces new subclasses. I'd love to see Swashbuckler and Soulknife rogues, Beast Barbs, Stars Druids, and several others.

That's what I'm hoping for - either officially, or from the modding community. When it was reported that Spores was in, I was really hoping to see other popular non-PHB subclasses... so yes, bring them on!

[Sorinth]

Hmm. I suppose that's fair. Makes me kinda sad, but fair.

I guess I can still hope for a smaller xpac that introduces new subclasses. I'd love to see Swashbuckler and Soulknife rogues, Beast Barbs, Stars Druids, and several others.

I would imagine the modding community will add things like that long before the studio would get around to doing an expansion and I think they have philosophical issues with DLC type stuff. Now what's interesting to me is that they wanted to create a DM mode where people could build their own campaigns but didn't have time.

[Khosan]

If there's one thing that's missing from BG3 that's featured heavily in tabletop, it's rope. You can certainly find rope everywhere, but so far (I'm in early act 2) the only use I've found is trading it to merchants.

I'm not saying I need every conceivable use for a length of rope added to the game, but if I could just lasso Astarion or Shadowheart across a chasm, or tie someone up as part of a dialogue prompt, that'd be super.

[Witty Username]

There was two reasons given the more relevant one was, 7th level spells warp encounter and game world design in a way they didn't believe they could adequately work toward within the game's encounter structure. And fair play to them, they've been trying to keep all the most memorable spells for each spell level to the best of their ability. But the most recognized 7th level spells are things like Plane Shift, Teleport, Reverse Gravity, Conjure Celestial, Simulacrum. Things that would by necessity open up gameplay beyond what they thought they could do justice to without having that be a baseline that they can focus on and expand from there.

The second was actually more of a caveat to the first really. Having this sort of power available would also mean making the villain work on a scale beyond what they wanted to focus on in the game.

Alot of that could be solved with BG2 methodology, where a bulk of the travel spells don't exist. but level cap is fine, BG1 capped at about 8th-9th level as I recall, at least around 7th was where I remember it giving you warnings about dual-classing potentially locking you out of finishing because you would not be able to get enough XP to finish the second class and unlock your first classes abilities.

[LudicSavant]

BG3 makes it so that Goodberries disappear when you rest. 5e really should have this.

[Rukelnikov]

BG3 makes it so that Goodberries disappear when you rest. 5e really should have this.

I think rest based duration is ok for spells on a creature, but for external things I struggle to make sense of what is the link between between someone resting and the berries disappearing? Is the magic energy being reclaimed? I'd just give it a fixed duration of 24 hs, and if you wanna prevent players from saving slots to next day make it 1 hour.

[Amnestic]

BG3 makes it so that Goodberries disappear when you rest. 5e really should have this.

I agree. Personally I made it so that they lose their magic either after 24 hours or when you cast the spell again, preventing a stockpile of more than 10 at a time, but having them expire on a long rest also works okay.

What's everyone's opinions on some spell durations getting dropped down? I noticed it most with Banishment and Hypnotic Pattern which were changed from 1 minute to (I believe) 3 turns? Spirit Guardians also went down to only 1 minute instead of 10.

[LudicSavant]

I think rest based duration is ok for spells on a creature, but for external things I struggle to make sense of what is the link between between someone resting and the berries disappearing? Is the magic energy being reclaimed? I'd just give it a fixed duration of 24 hs, and if you wanna prevent players from saving slots to next day make it 1 hour.

The way I've flavored it for my own houserule that prevents goodberry hedging is that if you reclaim the spell slot, the goodberries become nonmagical (because the magic in them returns to you).

[Rukelnikov]

The way I've flavored it for my own houserule that prevents goodberry hedging is that if you reclaim the spell slot, the goodberries become nonmagical (because the magic in them returns to you).

Yeah, it's what I thought, but if I did that as a DM (or I was a player), that would mean lots of experiments to be made about it, like does it nourish people if I'm sleeping when they eat? Can I determine the exact moment it stops being magical? Can I thus determine the exact moment I reclaimed said spell slot? It seems like a headache wanting to happen, unless that's one of the points of the adventures.

[ZRN]

As far as I can see, the really broken stuff is caster multiclass shenaningans (mostly cha based) that rely on certain very powerful item combinations.

Haven't played myself, but it sounds like you can also multiclass dip to get extra bonus actions - like thief just straight up gets a second bonus action at level 3, and apparently open hand monk gets one too, so a monk/rogue can FOB three times a round (eight attacks total).

[LudicSavant]

Can I thus determine the exact moment I reclaimed said spell slot? It seems like a headache wanting to happen
That's just how restoring spell slots already works. Magic item charges too.

[Oramac]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is Inspiration. BG3 did it much better than 5e, imo.

First, you gain it from your companions by doing things they like. This would be a bit harder to implement in 5e, but still doable. Basically, other players can grant Inspiration to someone else for doing things their character agrees with.

Second, you can have up to 4 Inspiration at a time, rather than one. Enough that you don't mind using it, but not so much that it gets silly.

Third, you can use it to reroll after you roll the d20, instead of just granting advantage before the roll. In game it's basically impossible to forget, but at the table this would help people remember it, and since you can have 4 "charges" people are less likely to hoard it.

Overall, I like it much better than 5e.

[Rukelnikov]

That's just how restoring spell slots already works. Magic item charges too.
Yeah, but I don't know, somehow I think Goodberry being directly tied to its caster makes it a bit different. My magic item doesn't necesarillly recharge at the same moment I do, anyway it doesn't really matter, there's probably some different fluff that could be worked into it.

[LudicSavant]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is Inspiration. BG3 did it much better than 5e, imo.

First, you gain it from your companions by doing things they like. This would be a bit harder to implement in 5e, but still doable.

It's actually even smarter than that, as it's not specifically related to your companions, but to BG3's Background system.

Your party (not any specific individual in it, another smart thing) earns Inspiration when your party engages with any task that's related to any character in the party's Background -- for example, if your main character has the Entertainer background, helping the forlorn bard finish her song or playing on the goblin's drums gives you inspiration. Learning about stuff gives you inspiration if you're a Scholar, engaging with religious stuff gives inspiration to an Acolyte, playing a trick on someone inspires a Charlatan, etc. It doesn't even have to be the person with the background who does it, it encourages players to commit to the goals of other players' backgrounds just as much as their own.

It's far, far better than the cursed One D&D mechanic for generating inspiration, and converts to tabletop so nicely it frankly just should have been the original mechanic.


Third, you can use it to reroll after you roll the d20, instead of just granting advantage before the roll. This. This right here makes it feel way better. As does the way it's generated, and the fact that it stacks to a group pool of 4.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, but I don't know, somehow I think Goodberry being directly tied to its caster makes it a bit different. My magic item doesn't necesarillly recharge at the same moment I do, anyway it doesn't really matter, there's probably some different fluff that could be worked into it.

But good berry isn't a magic item with it's own access to the greater magic field for recharge. It's a berry infused with your personal magic.

I like the idea of "investing" spell slots into things and either the effect ends when you get the slot back or you don't get the slot back until you have stopped the effect. Would need more proper implementation though.

[LudicSavant]

Another thing would be nice to see? Guidelines for things like surfaces and other basic environmental interactions. Lightning in water and all that. Not a fixed list or anything, just examples to make it clearer to new players that they can interact with the environment and give DMs a more concrete idea of what sort of things they can be permitting and what the system is cool with.

Speaking of surfaces, some of the weaker spells have been buffed via the Surface system. Chromatic Orb no longer has a costly component and makes just about any kind of elemental surface you want on a target you hit, for example. Ice Knife makes a slippery ice surface. I've heard that Melf's Acid Arrow makes acid surface (and thus debuffs AC). And stuff like Create Water can really ruin an enemy's day in such a hilariously catastrophic fashion that it might be a bit much :smalltongue:

[Hael]

Another thing would be nice to see? Guidelines for things like surfaces and other basic environmental interactions.

Fundamentally there is a lot more that DnD could do with environmental interactions, spell interactions, status interactions and combos of the above (for instance the effect of a spell interacting nontrivially with the environment, or a status effect on a pc). Other more involved combat simulators have no problem adding these elements, but for whatever reason the dev team and sections of the community seem very averse to complication, even when it would lead to a great deal of interesting combos.

I;ve longed for an ‘advanced’ version of 5e for many years, where the mechanics isn’t made for the base player, but rather was tailored for veterans.

[Oramac]

Speaking of surfaces, some of the weaker spells have been buffed via the Surface system. Chromatic Orb no longer has a costly component and makes just about any kind of elemental surface you want on a target you hit, for example. Ice Knife makes a slippery ice surface. I've heard that Melf's Acid Arrow makes acid surface (and thus debuffs AC). And stuff like Create Water can really ruin an enemy's day in such a hilariously catastrophic fashion that it might be a bit much :smalltongue:

Hmm. I knew about ice knife, but didn't realize so many other spells had that interaction. I'll definitely be using them more often in BG3!

And, of course, I agree that I'd like to see more of that in the table top 5e as well.

[Zetakya]

Hmm. I knew about ice knife, but didn't realize so many other spells had that interaction. I'll definitely be using them more often in BG3!

And, of course, I agree that I'd like to see more of that in the table top 5e as well.

Making stuff Wet and then throwing Lightning Spells at them is incredible. Fire spells into Grease, Webs or flammable environmental hazards is excellently implemented as well (although it can lead to cheese). I killed a very unpleasant spider by burning away the webs it was standing on, causing it to fall onto the floor below. All of the snare effects are great as well.

[Theodoxus]

I killed a very unpleasant spider by burning away the webs it was standing on, causing it to fall onto the floor below. Same - lol

It's also nice that most environmental effects are replicated via potions. Don't have Grease on a spell list? There's a grease bottle for that. Acid vials, Molotov cocktails, firewater casks, oil barrels.. lots of incendiary devices for your inner pyro. Water barrels for you lightning fiends. A lot of thought was put into the environmental side of the game that 5E could easily yoink.

My favorite thing still, non-combat-wise is a four bard party all playing different instruments.

For combat, I love the 'on the fly' difficulty options. A fight too tough? Swap to Exploration mode for boosted HP and hit chance. (Just note you can't actively mutliclass while in Exploration mode, so switch to Balanced if you're wanting to take a new class - if you've already MC'd, you can pick which class to promote in Exploration, just can't pick a new class). Want an extra challenge? Go tactical and feel awesome when all your cheese foo is the only way to win.

NPCs in fights are also different depending on difficulty. As a DM, I run my encounters basically the same as in Exploration mode. The monsters are dumb, I tend to forget special abilities until it's too late to take good advantage of them, and they tend to die quickly. But I'm learning from the Balanced and Tactical fights. I think the next time I DM, my players are gonna be shocked at the tactical adroitness of my monsters... it's like taking a master's class in how to run a combat (at the expense of my poor PC, companions, and most importantly my reloading times...)

[Amnestic]

A few other things I noted:-
Being knocked prone also seems to immediately end Concentration from what I can tell (which includes slipping over on ice, making it a more potent environmental hazard!). This makes (5e) shoving prone obviously a lot better on spellcasters, since you don't need to worry about Conc saves. Just trip up the idiot wizard in his idiot robe! Warcaster? Who cares! Resilient: Con? Try taking Athletics Expertise next time dummy. When in doubt, just sweep the leg.

Blinding an enemy (such as with a fog cloud/darkness) also hinders them more - it seems you can't target anything beyond melee range, with weapons or spells, regardless of Hide status or lackthereof. The ever-reliable Magic Missile finds itself unable to penetrate beyond the limits of their hindered vision. Line/cones still work, mind you, but anything that targets an individual or a point in space is cut short. Blanketing a battlefield with a fog cloud would definitely mess with standard tactics if you ported this across.

Sanctuary is also buffed, quite significantly imo. Instead of forcing a save to attack, you simply...can't attack them at all, while Sanctuary is up, until they do something to bring it down. Also I never experimented with it but it seemed like it might come back if you waited a turn without making an attack? Never cropped up in my two runs, but either way I think I'd prefer to stick to the 5e version; it's already pretty okay at a 1st level spell as it is, doesn't really need the buff.

[LudicSavant]

I noticed those changes too. Sanctuary is completely broken and extremely abuseable in BG3.

However I want to focus on the positive stuff, the improvements that 5e could stand to learn from.

Though I suppose it does at least add a cautionary lesson. If anyone ever asks if Sanctuary really needs to offer a save, the answer is "oh my yes."

[Kane0]

I like the idea of "investing" spell slots into things and either the effect ends when you get the slot back or you don't get the slot back until you have stopped the effect. Would need more proper implementation though.

I think that investing idea would work well in tandem with the longer 'until rest' spell durations

[Oramac]

My favorite thing still, non-combat-wise is a four bard party all playing different instruments.

My only gripe about this is that (so far, at least) there are no weapon/instrument combinations. I don't mean "attack + play a song". I mean literally an instrument that's also a weapon. A greataxe that is also a guitar; a lute that is also a mace. That sort of thing. I've got more than a few bards in 5e that use this sort of thing, but that don't replicate very well into BG3.

[skaddix]

What do people think about the stacking of different sources of Extra Attack?

[Theodoxus]

A few other things I noted:-
Being knocked prone also seems to immediately end Concentration from what I can tell (which includes slipping over on ice, making it a more potent environmental hazard!). This makes (5e) shoving prone obviously a lot better on spellcasters, since you don't need to worry about Conc saves. Just trip up the idiot wizard in his idiot robe! Warcaster? Who cares! Resilient: Con? Try taking Athletics Expertise next time dummy. When in doubt, just sweep the leg.

Blinding an enemy (such as with a fog cloud/darkness) also hinders them more - it seems you can't target anything beyond melee range, with weapons or spells, regardless of Hide status or lackthereof. The ever-reliable Magic Missile finds itself unable to penetrate beyond the limits of their hindered vision. Line/cones still work, mind you, but anything that targets an individual or a point in space is cut short. Blanketing a battlefield with a fog cloud would definitely mess with standard tactics if you ported this across.

Sanctuary is also buffed, quite significantly imo. Instead of forcing a save to attack, you simply...can't attack them at all, while Sanctuary is up, until they do something to bring it down. Also I never experimented with it but it seemed like it might come back if you waited a turn without making an attack? Never cropped up in my two runs, but either way I think I'd prefer to stick to the 5e version; it's already pretty okay at a 1st level spell as it is, doesn't really need the buff.

I think that works in Balanced+, but I play (mostly) in Explorer and things attack my party of warlocks hiding in darkness all. the. time. with ranged attacks. Fortunately, they don't hit often given disadvantage (but given my light armor and mediocre Dex (thanks point buy), I'm definitely hit often enough).

I fixed Sanctuary by downloading a 5E spells mod (it's the only mod I currently use, but it added a ton of spells left out, like SCAGtrips.) But also 'fixed' the duration and saves, so Sanctuary now has the standard 5E save... but before I did that, I'd just hit the mobs with burning hands. 'oops, sorry Mr. Cleric, I didn't realize you were in the way of my flaming fist..'

@Oramac, definitely could use some martial instruments! I haven't tried using them with improvised fighting... I wonder if that would work.

@Skaddix, when 5E first came out and people who were used to 3.X's BAB system kinda scratched their heads at EA not stacking. IIRC, at the time, the prevailing theory was it would make a Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Ranger get more attacks a level sooner than a straight melee class (shock!) so obviously that was badwrongfun to emulate.

BG3 is showing that it's not as OP as some folks feared. Primarily because while you're getting an extra attack a level sooner, you're missing out on tier 2 abilities (feats, auras, etc) in exchange. Personally, I think it's a wash, and see no reason not to implement it in 5E+. I'm curious how much cross talk is happening between Larian and WotC, and if WotC is paying any attention to player choices, and what we're enjoying with the differences between the two rulesets.

[OvisCaedo]

A lot of the environmental surfaces stuff is just brought over right from the Original Sin games. Knockdown is also a hard stun in those games, which is probably responsible for some of prone's potency in BG3.

[Mastikator]

What do people think about the stacking of different sources of Extra Attack?

Can't do that in BG3. Only fighters get a third attack. Or a thief rogue with two light weapons (double bonus action).

Funnily though a thief monk can double flurry of blows, throw in action surge and extra attack they can do a total of 8 attacks on one turn. But that's level 10.

[Zetakya]

Can't do that in BG3. Only fighters get a third attack. Or a thief rogue with two light weapons (double bonus action).

Funnily though a thief monk can double flurry of blows, throw in action surge and extra attack they can do a total of 8 attacks on one turn. But that's level 10.

The Warlock second attack is bugged and does stack. It's known that it's not intended though.

[Oramac]

@Oramac, definitely could use some martial instruments! I haven't tried using them with improvised fighting... I wonder if that would work.

Hmm. I've not tried it either, but I think I shall! That might work.


I'm curious how much cross talk is happening between Larian and WotC, and if WotC is paying any attention to player choices, and what we're enjoying with the differences between the two rulesets.

I'd venture to guess that they're talking at least a little bit. Assuming Bob World Builder's video (https://youtu.be/hhzdlLuS0oA?si=w303xBGRT4dWiwhT) is any indication, at the very least they're looking at the cross play between the two, since they very specifically ask if the survey taker has purchased BG3.

[Kane0]

Makes sense. If a significantly larger number of people have played BG3 compared to your UA material and potentially the PHB then moving some of those BG3isms into the game would make for a smoother transition for anyone picking up the game coming from BG3. And its a notably sized audience.

[LudicSavant]

Here's another smart one for Goodberry: Goodberry creates 4 berries that heal for 1d4 (2.5 average), instead of 10 berries. This somewhat limits the might of the Lifeberry interaction without nerfing regular Life Cleric (as WotC does in their Unearthed Arcana writeup for 2024). It also means that they are a little bit better healing in-combat, except when it comes to the endless yo-yo strategy. It also makes them a little more prone to 'waste' out of combat (since you are rolling d4s instead of applying the exact amount of hit points you need).

This is in addition to the fact that Goodberries now disappear on long rest, so you can't hedge your resources that way.

It also still provides food, but not so much food that it makes foraging obsolete.

So yeah. Larian fixed Goodberry. Feels useful but fair.

[Khosan]

How do people feel about first level Paladin oaths and the associated abilities that come along with them?

I like the idea, but the execution/balance of the new abilities feels off. Having the oath as a narrative constraint from the jump I like, it feels kind of natural. I also like having a little something extra to play with at 1st level, core paladin not having anything more than Divine Sense and Lay on Hands isn't all that interesting. Each one uses up Channel Oath charges which recharge on short rest.

Oath of the Ancients gets Healing Radiance. As a bonus action, you heal yourself and all allies within ~10' for some amount (I think it's Paladin level + PB + Cha mod?), repeats on your next turn. At first level (with 15 Cha) it was healing for 5 HP per pulse. I'm now Paladin 2/Bard 4 with 16 Cha and I believe it heals for 8 HP per pulse which isn't as significant, but it's more than comparable to Prayer of Healing and doesn't cost me anything.

Oath of Devotion gets Holy Rebuke. As an action, whenever you or a selected ally are hit in melee, the attached takes 1d4 radiant damage. As far as I'm aware, it does not scale in any fashion.

Oath of Vengeance gets Inquisitor's Might. Bonus action you (or an ally) get your Cha mod added as radiant damage to weapon damage rolls, and attacks can daze enemies. Again, this lasts 2 rounds.

Finally, Oathbreakers get Spiteful Suffering. As an action, target has to make a Cha save or take 1d4 necrotic damage per round (and maybe +Cha?) for 3 rounds and attacks against them have advantage.

Healing Radiance way overshoots what feels appropriate. It's far more healing than Lay on Hands, consistently more healing than Prayer of Healing, while still usable (though not ideal due to its limited range) in combat, and it doesn't even cost me a precious spell slot.

Holy Rebuke, meanwhile, is just about the opposite. The damage is insignificant and you have to give up your attack(s) to do it. Unless you (or an ally) are standing naked in the middle of a swarm of bees, you're not getting any mileage out of it.

Inquisitor's Might and Spiteful Suffering are both solid abilities though. They're strong, fun, and could pretty comfortably make their way to tabletop.

[Mastikator]

I've personally found healing radiance to be incredibly powerful. A bonus action AOE heal that triggers twice. At level 1 with 16 charisma it heals 6 hp per person, twice. It's 48 total HP healed from a short rest resource on level 1. On level 5 with 16 charisma it's up to 11, or 88 total hp. By level 12 (8paladin/4warlock) with 22 charisma I'm getting 18 per tick, 144 hp total. It almost double's my party's durability. That's very good. Too good for tabletop IMO.

Sure the range is short and the game heavily disfavors the party sticking close to each other, but while you're getting the healing radiance you're also getting the benefit of the auras.

[Oramac]

How do people feel about first level Paladin oaths and the associated abilities that come along with them?

snip

Oath of Vengeance gets Inquisitor's Might. Bonus action you (or an ally) get your Cha mod added as radiant damage to weapon damage rolls, and attacks can daze enemies. Again, this lasts 2 rounds

I'm playing Vengeance now, and I find myself using Inquisitor's Might quite often. It's just kind of a no brainer. Free damage for a bonus action that I'm (usually) not using much anyway.

The real trick with porting them over to tabletop is the 2 round limit. AFAIK 5e has nothing that is based on rounds of combat (maybe one thing? the name escapes me). So adding things that require counting rounds is extra bookkeeping for the player/DM, and would likely be overlooked as much as it's used.

That said, I'm certainly not opposed to it.

[Kane0]

The real trick with porting them over to tabletop is the 2 round limit. AFAIK 5e has nothing that is based on rounds of combat (maybe one thing? the name escapes me).

'Until the end of your next turn you can use your bonus action to...'

Three turns would be the tough one. Maybe 'for a number of turns equal to your proficiency bonus' ?

[LudicSavant]

There's also a bunch of really broken stuff in BG3 (maybe it'll get patched, who knows). Hand Crossbows are utterly bonkers (since you can dual wield them and get a bonus action shot with them that adds your ability modifier *even if your hands are full,* shield and all). Fall damage added to certain attacks is insane. Sanctuary has no saving throw and enemies will just ignore you as you pile explosives around them. Darkness got a nerf (it can't be moved) but it now does far more than just obscure you, and is pretty abuseable as a result. Tavern Brawler applies its bonus as a *second instance of damage* that can like, apply all your buffs a second time. A 1 level Wizard dip is now sufficient to get you the entire Wizard spell list through scroll learning. A 1 level Light dip gives you post-roll Disadvantage on enemy attack, at will.

There are definitely some things that shouldn't be coming over from BG3. But I wanna focus on the things that should!

[Sigreid]

I would not object to anyone who can read the language a scroll is written in being able to use it. Let the Fighter carry a stack of utility scrolls if he wants to.

[Oramac]

'Until the end of your next turn you can use your bonus action to...'

Three turns would be the tough one. Maybe 'for a number of turns equal to your proficiency bonus' ?

Yea. End of next turn works, and is easy enough to remember. Past that, it's definitely more complicated. PB would be good from about 5th to maybe 12th level or so. Once you get to the +5/+6 PB, I think it would get a little out of hand. Outside of MAJOR battles, at that point it's effectively just "for the entire fight".

[Oramac]

Hand Crossbows are utterly bonkers (since you can dual wield them and get a bonus action shot with them that adds your ability modifier *even if your hands are full,* shield and all).

I noticed this too, but in a different way. I have Gale carrying a shield and quarterstaff, and yet he can still cast spells that (in 5e) have a somatic component. I'd say the entire "Equipped Weapon" system needs a good bit of polish.

That said...


Fall damage added to certain attacks is insane.

I think this is a good thing. If I can position myself to knock someone off a cliff, they should take fall damage. I would (and have) allowed exactly this to happen at the table several times, and it's always met with appreciation and an eye to better using the environment in the future.


I would not object to anyone who can read the language a scroll is written in being able to use it. Let the Fighter carry a stack of utility scrolls if he wants to.

Definitely. I always thought this should be how it works too. Maybe you have to make an Int check to cast a higher level spell or something, but you should be able to. For some reason I always thought this was already a part of 5e, but a quick perusal of the PHB seems to indicate otherwise (please correct me if I'm wrong).

[LudicSavant]

I think this is a good thing. If I can position myself to knock someone off a cliff, they should take fall damage. You misunderstand what I'm referring to. It has nothing to do with knocking people off cliffs, or using the environment in any way whatsoever.

[Oramac]

You misunderstand what I'm referring to. It has nothing to do with knocking people off cliffs, or using the environment in any way whatsoever.

Oh. So you're saying that if I hit a guy with a pommel strike, for example, he might also take fall damage for no apparent reason? If so, that sounds like a bug. I know they just released patch 1.0 this morning that supposedly fixes over 1000 bugs, so perhaps that's in there (assuming that's what you're talking about).

[LudicSavant]

Oh. So you're saying that if I hit a guy with a pommel strike, for example, he might also take fall damage for no apparent reason? If so, that sounds like a bug. I know they just released patch 1.0 this morning that supposedly fixes over 1000 bugs, so perhaps that's in there (assuming that's what you're talking about).

Something like that, yeah. For example, if you throw a javelin, enemies can take damage from the javelin falling on them in addition to the attack's damage.

[Oramac]

Something like that, yeah. For example, if you throw a javelin, enemies can take damage from the javelin falling on them in addition to the attack's damage.

Ahh, I see. On the one hand, that sounds like a pretty normal "high ground" kind of mechanic. Loads of games use something similar. I'd call it the Obi-Wan Rule. :smallbiggrin: OTOH, I can see how it could very quickly get out of hand.

[Amnestic]

I'd like to see the hitting-enemies-with-each-other and throwing-enemies-around stuff brought into 5e. I know the second one is kinda being added with giants barb but it'd be nice to see it baseline for anyone. Being able to just pick up someone and lob them at someone else is a great tactical option for strength-focused characters.

[Kane0]

I'd say the entire "Equipped Weapon" system needs a good bit of polish.


Tell you what though, I'm really enjoying my warriors being able to swap from their ranged and melee sets and back again without any fiddling around or action costs.

[LudicSavant]

Ahh, I see. On the one hand, that sounds like a pretty normal "high ground" kind of mechanic. Loads of games use something similar. I'd call it the Obi-Wan Rule. :smallbiggrin: OTOH, I can see how it could very quickly get out of hand.

BG3 already has a very powerful high ground rule that would make Obi-Wan proud! This is bigger, and in addition to it. It's so big in fact that it makes things like GWM look like useless joke feats.

[OvisCaedo]

Regarding falling damage, I've seen clips of people dealing hundreds of damage in one hit with falling damage-enhanced attacks. It seems to generally not be capped. And while gravity exists, structural balance doesn't, so I've seen some instances of people stacking crates up into the heavens for lethal high ground.

It IS hilarious to see the owlbear from the top rope for 800+ damage, though.

[Oramac]

BG3 already has a very powerful high ground rule that would make Obi-Wan proud! This is bigger, and in addition to it. It's so big in fact that it makes things like GWM look like useless joke feats.


Regarding falling damage, I've seen clips of people dealing hundreds of damage in one hit with falling damage-enhanced attacks. It seems to generally not be capped. And while gravity exists, structural balance doesn't, so I've seen some instances of people stacking crates up into the heavens for lethal high ground.

It IS hilarious to see the owlbear from the top rope for 800+ damage, though.

Ahh. Now those I haven't yet seen. Yea, that's obviously broken and needs to be reigned in. But still hilarious to watch and do, I bet!


Tell you what though, I'm really enjoying my warriors being able to swap from their ranged and melee sets and back again without any fiddling around or action costs.

I, too, am enjoying that!!

[verbatim]

Going over some things I've seen or heard that are noticeably better in game than on tabletop and if moving them would be good or feasible.


items --> Bonus Action and Thief getting 2 bonus actions: based


several spells that normally only damage enemies when they start their turn in the AoE now also do damage on cast. This makes Cloud of Daggers and especially Hunger of Hadar much better than normal: This one take it or leave it. If nothing else you could argue it's simpler for the DM


Throwing things and Tavern Brawler being good: yes please!


significant verticality (and mechanics for how this effects projectiles) and 3 dimensional shoving: very cool but a huge pain to do irl or even on roll20 it's still annoying. Maybe a future VTT would have the ability to do this.


The game never explicitly exposes this, but they (presumably?) use an algorithmic system behind the scenes to determine who the enemies decide to attack. I imagine that a future VTT could provide the ability to easily have aggro as relations that exist as many separate numerical values between every player character and every enemy. A future edition could even bake this into class features such that a Barbarian could use an ability to raise their aggro with every hostile in an area centered on them, or perhaps a rogue could lower theirs. Personally I think this would be bad since it comes with the disadvantage that it is certainly too cumbersome to run on pen and paper and also takes agency away from the DM, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this in 6e or 7e, given the assumption that WotC is presumably very interested in the idea of a system that heavily encourages paying for a subscription service.




Updated commentary as I pulled a Moon Druid into my lategame party. What I did not realize is that the druid spell list is absolutely stacked with regards to area denial. Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Sleet Storm, several Walls of Whatever... putting hazards on the ground has been my go-to in situations where Ranger/Rogue and GWM Barb can't just burst down everything in sight, and Druid has that in spades. Thinking it'll be a mainstay in future runs, though I suspect Land is a better subclass for this playstyle than Moon is (even though Moon is great for other reasons--hats off to Amnestic for pointing out air myrmidon form, though the other ones also seem potent). Less sold on Spore Druid, though that's in part because my 5e table has one that seems to be particularly exasperated by the weakness of its early game features.

I reclassed Shadowheart into a Nature Druid (which BG3 swapped Wind Wall out from the Domain spells in exchange for Sleet Storm, major upgrade) and have been shoving + EBARBing (Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Bast, and Repelling Blast) most of the Act 1 enemies on Hard back into her Spike Growth.

[Oramac]

Barbarian could use an ability to raise their aggro with every hostile in an area centered on them

Technically, they already do. The 14th level bear totem forces DA on melee enemies when attacking a creature other than the Barb. Other classes have similar features as well. It's not nearly as sticky as a true aggro tracker, but much simpler to keep track of at the table.

[Sigreid]

Technically, they already do. The 14th level bear totem forces DA on melee enemies when attacking a creature other than the Barb. Other classes have similar features as well. It's not nearly as sticky as a true aggro tracker, but much simpler to keep track of at the table.

I personally prefer that DMs just play reasonably than have mechanics. But I don't think it's reasonable that someone is going to run past the iron clad murder machine bearing down on him because the guy in the bath robe might be more dangerous in the long run. But that's kind of a consequence of the hp system. At some point you can run past the murder machine because you know he cannot kill you in less than a dozen hits.

[LudicSavant]

Another nice change I've noticed: Reckless Attack can be used off-turn in BG3.


I personally prefer that DMs just play reasonably than have mechanics. But I don't think it's reasonable that someone is going to run past the iron clad murder machine bearing down on him because the guy in the bath robe might be more dangerous in the long run. But that's kind of a consequence of the hp system. At some point you can run past the murder machine because you know he cannot kill you in less than a dozen hits.

IMHO, if you skipped out on investing in the "murder" bit of "iron clad murder machine," it is entirely reasonable that the dragon will scoff at the tiny warrior whose axe can hardly scratch its scales, knock them down with a single mighty beat of its wings (e.g. Wing Attack) as it takes to the air, and head right for the guy whose voice is resonant with words of power who is rather obviously aiming a magical railgun at it.

If anything, the notion that the "guy in a bathrobe" should be disregarded as a threat suggests to me a perspective divorced from the fantasy world, one that considers what a human warrior in medieval earth would consider a priority threat, rather than what a mind flayer in Eberron (or wherever) would consider a priority threat.

The D&D world is one where the danger of magic is well known and has shaped military history since before people were writing stuff down. Cultures that do not develop a healthy respect for supernatural threats would swiftly find themselves extinct in such a world. To someone from such a world, that's not "a scrawny guy with a book" that's an artillery crew aiming heavy ordinance at you. Sometimes worse.

Characters don't know the mechanics of the game, but they do know what those mechanics represent in the game world. A man who does no damage with their axe swings and one who can split open an adamantine vault with theirs should not be reacted to identically.

That said...

A future edition could even bake this into class features such that a Barbarian could use an ability to raise their aggro with every hostile in an area centered on them
I am far more in favor of the kinds of mechanics used for tanks to control space in PvP games than I am in seeing PvE-style "aggro" systems.

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).

[Justin Sane]

I am far more in favor of the kinds of mechanics used for tanks to control space in PvP games than I am in seeing PvE-style "aggro" systems.

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).Agreed. Tanks in the MMO genre don't fit neatly in D&D, tanks in the MOBA genre do.

[stoutstien]

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).

I've been really looking at OA/AOO as a whole and I wonder if they are more trouble than they are worth. They are meant to add complexity and add variety to combat but it usually has the opposite effect at the cost of slowing everything down. That and the fact they always tend to favor certain classes and it's never the class you'd assume would be really good at them.

I know they were heavily influenced by wargame mechanics regarding pressing a retreating force but I'd think there are better ways if doing it at the individual level.

[Zetakya]

How do people feel about first level Paladin oaths and the associated abilities that come along with them?

I like the idea, but the execution/balance of the new abilities feels off. Having the oath as a narrative constraint from the jump I like, it feels kind of natural. I also like having a little something extra to play with at 1st level, core paladin not having anything more than Divine Sense and Lay on Hands isn't all that interesting. Each one uses up Channel Oath charges which recharge on short rest.

Oath of the Ancients gets Healing Radiance. As a bonus action, you heal yourself and all allies within ~10' for some amount (I think it's Paladin level + PB + Cha mod?), repeats on your next turn. At first level (with 15 Cha) it was healing for 5 HP per pulse. I'm now Paladin 2/Bard 4 with 16 Cha and I believe it heals for 8 HP per pulse which isn't as significant, but it's more than comparable to Prayer of Healing and doesn't cost me anything.

<snips>

Healing Radiance way overshoots what feels appropriate. It's far more healing than Lay on Hands, consistently more healing than Prayer of Healing, while still usable (though not ideal due to its limited range) in combat, and it doesn't even cost me a precious spell slot.


In my opinion, Oath of the Ancients is only really any good if you're full class Paladin; because Healing Radiance is based on Paladin level, not character level, its power really forces you to single class. It makes for an excellent Healer with Full CHA progression and good CON for Concentration checks. At most, Ancients can work with one or two levels of another CHA-primary class (I prefer Storm Sorc, if you're going that route then the ability to Fly is kinda useful).

[Sorinth]

I am far more in favor of the kinds of mechanics used for tanks to control space in PvP games than I am in seeing PvE-style "aggro" systems.

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).

You gave me an idea, perhaps if there was some sort of bonus to a creature that was left alone ie not taken damage, been attacked, or made a saving throw since it's last turn. So if you ignore a creature it will become more dangerous. If it's a strong enough bonus it could break up focus fire from being the prime strategy and give a much needed boost to the skirmisher classes like Monk & Rogue. It would make swarms of enemies even more dangerous which is also good, but would make PCs against a single deadly monster even easier for the PCs which isn't great, though of course the big creatures probably should have ways of hitting multiple enemies with attacks or AoE effects.

[Angelalex242]

Well, in a game, you need to convince AI to attack you, which is different from a living DM.

[Kane0]

Well we had this thread not long ago

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657194-Choosing-which-PC-to-attack-as-DM

[Person_Man]

Technically, they already do. The 14th level bear totem forces DA on melee enemies when attacking a creature other than the Barb. Other classes have similar features as well. It's not nearly as sticky as a true aggro tracker, but much simpler to keep track of at the table.

Just wondering, as someone who doesn’t have BG3 yet but will once I feel confident the bugs have been worked out and there are mods to tweak the rules I don’t like (food, encumbrance, point buy), if you have two Barbarians with this ability, are all enemy attacks made with Disadvantage? Or are all enemy attacks made normally as long as you attack one of the Barbarians? Because I could see it coded either way, even though RAW would imply the former.

[OvisCaedo]

Just wondering, as someone who doesn’t have BG3 yet but will once I feel confident the bugs have been worked out and there are mods to tweak the rules I don’t like (food, encumbrance, point buy), if you have two Barbarians with this ability, are all enemy attacks made with Disadvantage? Or are all enemy attacks made normally as long as you attack one of the Barbarians? Because I could see it coded either way, even though RAW would imply the former.

It's actually not in BG3 at all; the game level caps out at 12. That's a regular PHB feature, and was written to not work for two barbarians with it standing next to each other.

[LudicSavant]

Just wondering, as someone who doesn’t have BG3 yet but will once I feel confident the bugs have been worked out and there are mods to tweak the rules I don’t like (food, encumbrance, point buy), if you have two Barbarians with this ability, are all enemy attacks made with Disadvantage? Or are all enemy attacks made normally as long as you attack one of the Barbarians? Because I could see it coded either way, even though RAW would imply the former.

That feature isn't even in BG3, because the game ends at level 12.

[Infernally Clay]

That feature isn't even in BG3, because the game ends at level 12.

So Fighter 12 is probably one of, if not the highest damage builds in the game? Three attacks per action, action surge, four feats, maybe even 6d10 superiority dice…

[OvisCaedo]

Er... That is hard to say. BG3 has a LOT of new unique magic items boosting all sorts of things, and gear slots instead of any kind of attunement limit. There are a lot of different boosts and builds that can result in pretty absurd reliable damage output compared to normal tabletop characters. And Haste gives a full action, not limited to a single attack (or even barring spells)

There's also things like Rogue Thief in BG3 just giving a second bonus action (and some ways to sometimes get a third) each turn, which can be pretty huge for classes that can heavily use it (like monk). I saw a thread about a Monk build the other day that did 1d8+1d4+1d10+18 damage per punch.

[Kane0]

Yeah with the right party you can have one character doing action + action + action + bonus action + bonus action

[verbatim]

I am far more in favor of the kinds of mechanics used for tanks to control space in PvP games than I am in seeing PvE-style "aggro" systems.

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).

Agreed. Would like to see more of this going forward for barbarians.

[LudicSavant]

Er... That is hard to say. BG3 has a LOT of new unique magic items boosting all sorts of things, and gear slots instead of any kind of attunement limit. There are a lot of different boosts and builds that can result in pretty absurd reliable damage output compared to normal tabletop characters. And Haste gives a full action, not limited to a single attack (or even barring spells)

There's also things like Rogue Thief in BG3 just giving a second bonus action (and some ways to sometimes get a third) each turn, which can be pretty huge for classes that can heavily use it (like monk). I saw a thread about a Monk build the other day that did 1d8+1d4+1d10+18 damage per punch.

Tavern Brawler is extraordinarily strong in BG3. So strong, in fact, that it makes GWM look like a trap option by comparison.

Tavern Brawler gives you +5/+5, on a half-feat, to better weapons than greatswords (especially since in BG3, two-handed melee weapons are the ONLY weapons you can't use with a shield. You can dual-wield hand-crossbows and still wield a shield. You can throw 80 pound barrels of explosives and still wield a shield. And so forth).

[GloatingSwine]

That said...

I am far more in favor of the kinds of mechanics used for tanks to control space in PvP games than I am in seeing PvE-style "aggro" systems.

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).

Though I think it's worth noting that if OAs by themselves felt good as a means of battlefield control for melee characters even against other melee threats, PAM + Sentinel wouldn't be the iconic combination that it is.

[stoutstien]

Though I think it's worth noting that if OAs by themselves felt good as a means of battlefield control for melee characters even against other melee threats, PAM + Sentinel wouldn't be the iconic combination that it is.

Heck PaM + sentinel isn't even that great of a pressure mechanic for the investment. Single priority target encounters are the easiest to manage so while you are better at it "win more" when the win was all but guaranteed.

[Sigreid]

Another nice change I've noticed: Reckless Attack can be used off-turn in BG3.



IMHO, if you skipped out on investing in the "murder" bit of "iron clad murder machine," it is entirely reasonable that the dragon will scoff at the tiny warrior whose axe can hardly scratch its scales, knock them down with a single mighty beat of its wings (e.g. Wing Attack) as it takes to the air, and head right for the guy whose voice is resonant with words of power who is rather obviously aiming a magical railgun at it.

If anything, the notion that the "guy in a bathrobe" should be disregarded as a threat suggests to me a perspective divorced from the fantasy world, one that considers what a human warrior in medieval earth would consider a priority threat, rather than what a mind flayer in Eberron (or wherever) would consider a priority threat.

The D&D world is one where the danger of magic is well known and has shaped military history since before people were writing stuff down. Cultures that do not develop a healthy respect for supernatural threats would swiftly find themselves extinct in such a world. To someone from such a world, that's not "a scrawny guy with a book" that's an artillery crew aiming heavy ordinance at you. Sometimes worse.

Characters don't know the mechanics of the game, but they do know what those mechanics represent in the game world. A man who does no damage with their axe swings and one who can split open an adamantine vault with theirs should not be reacted to identically.

That said...

I am far more in favor of the kinds of mechanics used for tanks to control space in PvP games than I am in seeing PvE-style "aggro" systems.

You don't need to force people to attack you. It is sufficient to make it dangerous or costly not to. Heck, this is one of the reasons why OAs exist (it's just that a lot of Barbarians are not actually good at OAs).

Sure, a dragon is not necessarily intimidated by the guy in armor with a sword or an axe until he's taken a good chunk of the dragons HP. But at least most D&D combats I've been in aren't with dragons. For the majority of opponents for whom the armored guy with the sword is a serious threat, the immediate threat would take precedence for most beings.

[Aquillion]

Part of the problem with BG3 which pushes people to save-scum is that it doesn't have nearly as many autosuccess checks as it should. BG3 forces checks even in cases when it should be mathematically or narratively impossible for a character to fail, and worse still, it forces a nat 1 to fail anyway. This is one of my biggest concerns with new players coming to 5e from BG3, as it'll reinforce the habit of calling for unnecessary rolls and 5% chance of slapstick results.I don't get why they included the "automatic fail on a 1 for skillchecks" houserule. It's common (common enough to be an actual rules misunderstanding) but it's specifically not in the books. It makes the game more swingy and that's particularly bad in a computer game, which can't adapt the plot to account for it.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm pretty sure they did it because they knew that players would quickload unless it was funny.

(It's not a good rule, because you're most likely to attempt things you're good at it means you're actually going to embarrass yourself more often with things you're good at than things you're bad at).

[Dienekes]

I don't get why they included the "automatic fail on a 1 for skillchecks" houserule. It's common (common enough to be an actual rules misunderstanding) but it's specifically not in the books. It makes the game more swingy and that's particularly bad in a computer game, which can't adapt the plot to account for it.

Wouldn't the computer game have to code for success or failure regardless if the roll is asked for anyway?

I don't particularly see how it is particularly bad for a computer game considering it already has to cover rolling -for example- stealth for my high Dex rogue and my 8 Dex Paladin.

[LudicSavant]

Sure, a dragon is not necessarily intimidated by the guy in armor with a sword or an axe until he's taken a good chunk of the dragons HP. But at least most D&D combats I've been in aren't with dragons.

I could say much the same thing for an animated armor (CR1), or an ogre (CR2), or for a skilled knight in full plate armor with leadership (CR 3), or a chuul (CR 4), or a brontosaurus (CR 5), or... etc.

[GloatingSwine]

Wouldn't the computer game have to code for success or failure regardless if the roll is asked for anyway?

I don't particularly see how it is particularly bad for a computer game considering it already has to cover rolling -for example- stealth for my high Dex rogue and my 8 Dex Paladin.

The game would have to have consequences prepared for both success or failure, but that doesn't mean it would have to make sure every character can encounter both.

It would be easily possible for the game to detect when you can't possibly fail and skip the roll. Larian decided to include critical fails on skill checks presumably so they could engage in hijinks.

[Sigreid]

I could say much the same thing for an animated armor (CR1), or an ogre (CR2), or for a skilled knight in full plate armor with leadership (CR 3), or a chuul (CR 4), or a brontosaurus (CR 5), or... etc.
Only because the hit point mechanic makes that OA not actually life threatening after a few levels/cr.

[LudicSavant]

Only because the hit point mechanic makes that OA not actually life threatening after a few levels/cr.

Not even close. I would say that about those creatures even if there was no hit point mechanic at all.

The notion that it's unreasonable for someone to care about the magnitude of a threat, and instead only care about how close said threat is to them, does not hold up to even real humans, let alone heroic fantasy characters that can take a lava bath and get back out and magically remove their wounds to a point they're good as new, or monsters who are tougher than elephants. They can and should care if what's being aimed at them is a derringer or an elephant gun.

If you want to stop a bull (let alone some much more capable than that... or a herd of them), you need to be more than a warm body with a pointy stick, you need to actually be good with the stick.

[Person_Man]

Part of the problem with BG3 which pushes people to save-scum is that it doesn't have nearly as many autosuccess checks as it should. BG3 forces checks even in cases when it should be mathematically or narratively impossible for a character to fail, and worse still, it forces a nat 1 to fail anyway. This is one of my biggest concerns with new players coming to 5e from BG3, as it'll reinforce the habit of calling for unnecessary rolls and 5% chance of slapstick results.

Keep in mind failing some of these checks can outright get your party killed (e.g. there's a funny example very early in the game with a wounded mindflayer), or lock them into a very difficult or even hopeless fight (such as aggroing an entire base of [redacted] against you while you happen to be in the inner-most room simply because you failed at one lie.

I think CRPG in general have a lot to learn from Disco Elysium here. Since there isn’t a human DM who can modify the plot as needed, failure needs to be written to be as entertaining as success, in a way that does not prevent them from winning the game, or players will just save scum or mod the game to give themselves automatic success.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think CRPG in general have a lot to learn from Disco Elysium here. Since there isn’t a human DM who can modify the plot as needed, failure needs to be written to be as entertaining as success, in a way that does not prevent them from winning the game, or players will just save scum or mod the game to give themselves automatic success.

I'd say that even in a TTRPG, failure should generally be entertaining and meaningful. If failure doesn't have meaningful consequences that are acceptable to everyone and at least not boring to play out...don't use a check there.

[LudicSavant]

I think CRPG in general have a lot to learn from Disco Elysium here. Since there isn’t a human DM who can modify the plot as needed, failure needs to be written to be as entertaining as success, in a way that does not prevent them from winning the game, or players will just save scum or mod the game to give themselves automatic success.

I'll note that Baldur's Gate 3 is designed for the game to keep going with failure. At one point in my playthrough, I purposely failed a check that seemed to have death as a consequence (it did) just to see what would happen. You know what happened? The PC died, I resurrected them with a Revivify scroll, and the story went on with them dying being an interesting plot point. It was cool. And also clearly involved someone doing a lot of work. If you save scum, you'd miss all of that.

Also, you can win skill checks consistently. I'm playing on Tactician + No Karmic Dice and my Inspiration has been topped off at 4 pretty much my entire playthrough. Why? Because I've got Guidance, a headband of intellect (there's one near the start of the game), a high wisdom, a 14 Cha and Dex, and Enhance Ability (and other more situational but cheaper sources of Advantage, like Thaumaturgy). And that's just what my Tav had at level 3 when reaching the first shop.

Sure, a nat 1 may fail, but to get a nat 1 with Advantage is a 1/400 chance. Not to mention that Inspiration falls like rain as long as you're roleplaying your background.

So yeah... you don't have to save scum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNYguSrqC90&lc=Ugz8oBxMBy2RS_M-gX54AaABAg.9tOYJppRTg89tjM9GhKSFG). You can relax, roll with the punches, enjoy yourself.

[Sigreid]

Not even close. I would say that about those creatures even if there was no hit point mechanic at all.

The notion that it's unreasonable for someone to care about the magnitude of a threat, and instead only care about how close said threat is to them, does not hold up to even real humans, let alone heroic fantasy characters that can take a lava bath and get back out and magically remove their wounds to a point they're good as new, or monsters who are tougher than elephants. They can and should care if what's being aimed at them is a derringer or an elephant gun.

If you want to stop a bull (let alone some much more capable than that... or a herd of them), you need to be more than a warm body with a pointy stick, you need to actually be good with the stick.

You and I aren't ever going to agree. That's fine, we aren't playing at the same table. Me? I'd not tempt a skilled combatant to slip 3 feet of steel between my ribs because another guy may have a grenade. Now if someone can keep the guy with the sword away from my tender ribs, or I can shield bash him and run off while he's off balance, that's different.

[OvisCaedo]

Yes, the threat and risk assessment are certainly very different if you pretend it isn't D&D.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, the threat and risk assessment are certainly very different if you pretend it isn't D&D.

Indeed.


Me? I'd not tempt a skilled combatant to slip 3 feet of steel between my ribs because another guy may have a grenade.

Nor would I, but we weren't talking about a skilled combatant menacing Sigreid the Commoner because someone might have a grenade.

We were talking about things like ogres, chuuls, and dragons, facing off against a guy who demonstrably lacks the ability to do any real harm to them, and a guy who very clearly possesses said ability.

[JackPhoenix]

You and I aren't ever going to agree. That's fine, we aren't playing at the same table. Me? I'd not tempt a skilled combatant to slip 3 feet of steel between my ribs because another guy may have a grenade. Now if someone can keep the guy with the sword away from my tender ribs, or I can shield bash him and run off while he's off balance, that's different.

But you ARE already tempting a skilled combatant to slip 3 feet of steel between your ribs simply by being in his reach. What do you think he's trying to do the entire time you're in melee?

[Theodoxus]

Sure, a nat 1 may fail, but to get a nat 1 with Advantage is a 1/400 chance. Not to mention that Inspiration falls like rain as long as you're roleplaying your background.

Is there a way to pull up the actual rolls? Because my reckless attacking Barbarian, and my EB shooting warlock hiding in Darkness where the 'advantage' tag is showing on enemies, sure do roll a LOT of 'Critical Miss!' shoutouts... like, WAY more than a potential 1 in 400 attempts a 1/400 chance would indicate.

[LudicSavant]

Is there a way to pull up the actual rolls? Yes! Open up the "combat log" tab, there's a button on the right side of the screen that does it. Then highlight whatever event you want to see the rolls / mechanics for.

Also, make sure to turn off Karmic Dice if you want to play with real dice probabilities.

[Sigreid]

But you ARE already tempting a skilled combatant to slip 3 feet of steel between your ribs simply by being in his reach. What do you think he's trying to do the entire time you're in melee?

Sure, but I'm keeping my eyes on him and his sharpened steek and not running past like he's not a threat.

[stoutstien]

Sure, but I'm keeping my eyes on him and his sharpened steek and not running past like he's not a threat.

Ironically it's actually the safest place to be when you're dealing with somebody with a sharp and instrument trying to hit you with it.

Standing in the blood circle is the dumbest place to be because it's the only time you're actually in danger from that weapon. OA are not a realistic representation of anything besides d&d combat simulation.

[Aquillion]

Part of the problem is that D&D, and the way we think of tabletop game combat in general, is ultimately derived from wargames.

In wargames positioning mattered because you were zoomed out and had a huge number of people on each side. This made formations matter.

When the system was scaled down to just a few people, positioning started to matter a lot less; any combatant could reasonably rush any other combatant and attack them, most of the time. And the system was never adjusted to fix this. The lack of "tanking" is just a symptom of this broader problem.

[Kane0]

So what would you do to correct the weak OAs?

[JackPhoenix]

Sure, but I'm keeping my eyes on him and his sharpened steek and not running past like he's not a threat.

Which doesn't make any difference, because his chance to hit you with regular attack is exactly the same as his chance to hit you with an OA. He's a threat either way, except there's also another, possibly more dangerous, threat, that can do its thing unopposed.


So what would you do to correct the weak OAs?

The same thing you do to fix the entire 5e combat: Drastically reduce the HP across the board.

[Amnestic]

So what would you do to correct the weak OAs?

One option could be to give an OA a rider, perhaps even the option of three riders.
Hamstrung - Speed set to 0, so you can't move away that turn.
Staggered - You lose your next Action (but not BA). If you already used your action this turn, you lose your next one instead.
Winded - You fall prone and lose your BA. Basically the middleground of the other two. You can still stand up and move away, but not nearly as far.

Just implementing the top one might be enough, but more options is always nice. Provoking multiple OAs from multiple creatures could stack up to all three at once, seriously locking you down.

[Aquillion]

So what would you do to correct the weak OAs?
Give everyone the first benefit of the Sentinel feat: When you're hit by an opportunity attack, your speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn (ie, you stop.)

Of course, then add a few abilities to bypass this, especially for mobility-oriented classes like Monks and Rogues and perhaps some Barbarians while raging.

[Angelalex242]

Alternatively, maybe all melee classes and a couple subclasses like War cleric and Valor Bard gets Sentinel free, and all that goes with it.

[LudicSavant]

There's a lot of different ways to make a character sticky or otherwise create anti-wolfpacking mechanics, there shouldn't be any single solution IMHO. For inspiration, I suggest looking at games with tanking roles that are designed for human vs human play (e.g. PvP) instead of human vs AI play. Games whose tank players discuss concepts like 'pressure' and 'peel' and 'punishes' and 'controlling space' are more appropriate than games that talk about 'aggro.'

We may not conventionally think of D&D as a PvP game, but the opponent is still a human, and thus all the principles that make tanking work in human vs human games still apply. As do all the reasons that aggro mechanics are generally avoided in human vs human games.

I'll also note that there's already a fair amount of these mechanics in the game. Ya just gotta invest in 'em.

[stoutstien]

So what would you do to correct the weak OAs?

I wouldn't. leave OAs for those that already have the means to make them worth considering as a meaningful threat (rogue and paladin mostly) and take a page out of the playbook on whoever lead development for the rune knight.

[Person_Man]

I'll note that Baldur's Gate 3 is designed for the game to keep going with failure. At one point in my playthrough, I purposely failed a check that seemed to have death as a consequence (it did) just to see what would happen. You know what happened? The PC died, I resurrected them with a Revivify scroll, and the story went on with them dying being an interesting plot point. It was cool. And also clearly involved someone doing a lot of work. If you save scum, you'd miss all of that.

Also, you can win skill checks consistently. I'm playing on Tactician + No Karmic Dice and my Inspiration has been topped off at 4 pretty much my entire playthrough. Why? Because I've got Guidance, a headband of intellect (there's one near the start of the game), a high wisdom, a 14 Cha and Dex, and Enhance Ability (and other more situational but cheaper sources of Advantage, like Thaumaturgy). And that's just what my Tav had at level 3 when reaching the first shop.

Sure, a nat 1 may fail, but to get a nat 1 with Advantage is a 1/400 chance. Not to mention that Inspiration falls like rain as long as you're roleplaying your background.

So yeah... you don't have to save scum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNYguSrqC90&lc=Ugz8oBxMBy2RS_M-gX54AaABAg.9tOYJppRTg89tjM9GhKSFG). You can relax, roll with the punches, enjoy yourself.

Great advice here, and great video. Thanks for posting.

Its good to know that the BG3 writers took the time to write interesting outcomes for failures. When I know a game is well written, I generally play it at least twice. Once “honestly” just playing through the game and seeing what happens, and then a second time with save scumming, heavy mods, guides, etc, so that I get to “see everything.”

But the number of games that are actually written well enough for me to do that are few and far between. In most cases, failure just stops the game, gives you less treasure, or makes things take longer. I have job and small kids etc, and maybe get to play games for a few hours a week. So there is no point for me personally in playing such games “honestly” - particularly when its is just more grinding/padding. That’s a huge part of why tabletop RPG can be qualitatively better for me.

So yeah, thanks again for the heads up. I’ll probably buy BG3 sooner rather than later, and spend months enjoying it.

[Psyren]

I'll note that Baldur's Gate 3 is designed for the game to keep going with failure. At one point in my playthrough, I purposely failed a check that seemed to have death as a consequence (it did) just to see what would happen. You know what happened? The PC died, I resurrected them with a Revivify scroll, and the story went on with them dying being an interesting plot point. It was cool. And also clearly involved someone doing a lot of work. If you save scum, you'd miss all of that.

Also, you can win skill checks consistently. I'm playing on Tactician + No Karmic Dice and my Inspiration has been topped off at 4 pretty much my entire playthrough. Why? Because I've got Guidance, a headband of intellect (there's one near the start of the game), a high wisdom, a 14 Cha and Dex, and Enhance Ability (and other more situational but cheaper sources of Advantage, like Thaumaturgy). And that's just what my Tav had at level 3 when reaching the first shop.

Sure, a nat 1 may fail, but to get a nat 1 with Advantage is a 1/400 chance. Not to mention that Inspiration falls like rain as long as you're roleplaying your background.

So yeah... you don't have to save scum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNYguSrqC90&lc=Ugz8oBxMBy2RS_M-gX54AaABAg.9tOYJppRTg89tjM9GhKSFG). You can relax, roll with the punches, enjoy yourself.

While I agree with your overall point, do note that there are dialogue choices that can wipe your entire party / nonstandard game over. Not every dialogue option has a way forward or is intended to be a viable option. For example: repeatedly taunting Vlaakith/questioning her "godhood" has her extinguish your group, seemingly with a Wish spell - even if you ungroup some of them and leave them far away.

[Sigreid]

Which doesn't make any difference, because his chance to hit you with regular attack is exactly the same as his chance to hit you with an OA. He's a threat either way, except there's also another, possibly more dangerous, threat, that can do its thing unopposed.



The same thing you do to fix the entire 5e combat: Drastically reduce the HP across the board.

1. yes, I've been presenting a non-gamest view to agro control.
2. Yes, it's HP bloat that enables the gamest tactics like ignoring a threat to get somewhere else. You don't have the same issue in games where HP either never or rarely goes up so a dagger in a bar fight, just as an extreme example, never becomes something you don't have to take seriously.

[Theodoxus]

I absolutely hate HP bloat. Trying to deal with combat basically past 3rd level ends up being a slog...

But one thing that would both make OAs more interesting and tactical without having to change a bunch of rules or rebalance combat around smaller HP pools, would simply have OAs deal a LOT more damage.

If you knew that running away from the sword guy would leave you open to a gaping back wound, you probably won't do it. If you knew that forcing someone to run from you would likewise open up the potential of a gaping back wound, you'd look for ways to force them to move away from you.

So, if OAs did 4x weapon damage, or more... that would make it more interesting. Then have some creatures get natural resistance to the damage, so Mr. OneTrickPony can't Dissonant Whispers into all the free XP all the time... Others should be down right immune to the extra damage (things that don't naturally have backs, like oozes and slimes...)

Though I'd be perfectly happy with toning everything down to a 3rd level damage scale... 30ish HP max, and then let armor and shields and such take the brunt of what HP was for characters... harder to fix armor than sleeping for 8 hours. Just sayin'.

[Kane0]

Multiply OA damage by prof bonus? Might be a tad punishing for PCs.

[GloatingSwine]

There's a lot of different ways to make a character sticky or otherwise create anti-wolfpacking mechanics, there shouldn't be any single solution IMHO. For inspiration, I suggest looking at games with tanking roles that are designed for human vs human play (e.g. PvP) instead of human vs AI play. Games whose tank players discuss concepts like 'pressure' and 'peel' and 'punishes' and 'controlling space' are more appropriate than games that talk about 'aggro.'

Thing is, OA is supposed to actually be a lot of that. It's supposed to be your space control and punish.

It's just bad at being that, because of the way melee scaling works by increasing number of attacks, whilst OA doesn't scale past a single Reaction. It's simply not a sufficient cost to disengage from the melee guy to go and stab up something squishier even if you have to take the hit to do it. And if there's more than one of you then it's absolutely always the best thing to do, you just all run past and one of you takes a hit, acceptable price to mob the squishy with the big spells first.

The other thing with space control is that, well, D&D doesn't have a good relationship with space in combat.

D&D says that one medium entity fits in a 5' bubble of space and just can't get any closer than that without penalties. A Phalanx would have had like six guys in that bubble (two ranks of three, but they can all stick you with their spears*). Close order heavy infantry ruled the battlefield for millenia for a reason...

That means that it's hard to give martial characters abilities that affect multiple targets because, frankly, everyone's a pretty damn silly distance apart. But they need those multiple target attacks because there are always more things to be tanked than there are tanks (see previous weakness of OA).

The difference between what you have and what you need can, I think, be exemplified by comparing the Caltrops item in D&D to the Razor Caltrops ability in ESO.

Caltrops is a 5' area (one square so one entity affected) and you only take the effect on moving into that area, with a fixed DC to avoid it so higher level enemies are likely to be affected less. So you can't use it on enemies, you can only hope they go there (and if they watched you use it they won't) and it can only affect one.

Razor Caltrops isn't a much bigger area, but enemies pack in closer so it can affect quite a lot at once (4-5 is generally reasonable), it affects them immediately and if they were in the AoE when the ability went off, and they lose half their movement not a fixed 10' and some armour (probably equivalent to like 3-4AC). And it's not an item, you can do it as often as you like.

So to replicate that sort of PvP tank ability (it's even on the PvP skill line) you would need to have a "Caltrops" equivalent class feature which has a 15' radius, 70' range, isn't a consumable, takes effect immediately, and reduces move by 50% and AC by 3, with a DC that scales with the level of the individual using it so it is as useful at level 20 as it was when it became available. (Basically, martials get Grease* as a class feature)

You probably need some kind of snare move as well, over and above Sentinel's mutator on OA. An action, possibly taken as your bonus action, that sets the movement of everything next to you to 0, again with some kind of scaling DC to avoid not a flat one.

That's the level of ability you need to start thinking about to match PvP game tanks.

Or let's take a group shield ability like Rheinhardt in Overwatch. You could add, for instance, an ability to Shield Master which means that if a ranged attack is made at a target which passes through the shield player's zone of control it has to use their AC to hit instead of the target's.

You'll never get a real peel ability, because those are usually based on a yank. Like Unrelenting Grip, 70' range and if you're the same size as the tank or smaller you are standing next to the tank now, you don't get a choice in the matter, and that also probably means you're getting hit with a snare or bashed prone.

Also some kind of charging attack, not like the old Charge because that still took away all your other attacks (which, remember, is how you scale) but something which means that it is more dangerous to let the martial get a run up on you than standing next to them.

* This is the other thing, all the features martials need in order to replicate this sort of PvP tank exist, they're just spells and so the people you're supposed to use them to protect are just using them to protect themselves and you're standing there maybe poking with your OA if you're lucky.

* Which for some dimwit reason are not reach weapons, probably because the people who wrote the weapon list don't know how big a pike really is so they make pikes the reach version of spears...

[Mastikator]

How did "What are some lessons 5e could take from Baldur's Gate 3's rule change?" turn into "How do we prevent creatures from moving around and using tactics and targeted violence?". One lesson I learned from BG3 is that PCS and NPCS alike being able to move, use positioning and tactics are good things. The fact that OA whittle you down a bit is a fine middle ground between "don't move" and "move around too much".

The question of "how do you prevent the barbarian from hyperfocusing the casters in the back?" is a bit backwards to me, it's not the game mechanic's responsibility to prevent glass cannons from being targeted, it's the glass cannon's responsibility to position itself such that it is either too costly to attack or too far away, and if it fails to do that then using tactics to bring it down is a valid outcome. The players (or NPCs for that matter) should not be punished for using good tactics. The answer to tactics is to counter them with tactics, not changing the rules.

The DM should put down obstacles, elevations and hazardous terrain to enable positioning. Places to hide behind, places to shove others into, places to benefit from climb speeds.

[GloatingSwine]

The question of "how do you prevent the barbarian from hyperfocusing the casters in the back?" is a bit backwards to me, it's not the game mechanic's responsibility to prevent glass cannons from being targeted, it's the glass cannon's responsibility to position itself such that it is either too costly to attack or too far away, and if it fails to do that then using tactics to bring it down is a valid outcome. The players (or NPCs for that matter) should not be punished for using good tactics. The answer to tactics is to counter them with tactics, not changing the rules.


Because that's not the question.

The question is "how do you use character features and abilities of a martial character to prevent the barbarian from focusing the characters in the back".

The question is happening because the available tactics for certain character classes (the ones who are supposed to be doing it) do not feel sufficient to that task.

There is no "too costly to attack" the backline, because there is no way for the frontliners to impose such a cost.

[Mastikator]

Because that's not the question.

The question is "how do you use character features and abilities of a martial character to prevent the barbarian from focusing the characters in the back".

The question is happening because the available tactics for certain character classes (the ones who are supposed to be doing it) do not feel sufficient to that task.

There is no "too costly to attack" the backline, because there is no way for the frontliners to impose such a cost.

Spells like Hunger of Hadar, Darkness, Spike Growth, Wall of X are all available to glass cannons.

Other things that are available: elevation, cover, hazardous terrain, distance.

In fact you can have multiple of these and let the glass cannon be a teleporter, capable of teleporting from one hard and costly to reach position to another.

If you put the glass cannon 60 feet back, up on elevation, behind a wall, with spike growth between them and the front line then the party will need to expend resources to get to the glass cannon. I can even put a second such location that the glass cannon can go to using misty step, and give another glass cannon a fireball (or hunger of hadar, or stormsphere, etc) spell if the players try to gang up on one creature in particular. Players will be forced to expend spell slots and hit points to focus down the glass cannon.

I can also put down secondary objectives, like if the room is slowly filling with water unless the players interact with levers and wheels, or if there are NPCs in cages that will die in a matter of X turns if the players don't free them.

[stoutstien]

Spells like Hunger of Hadar, Darkness, Spike Growth, Wall of X are all available to glass cannons.

Other things that are available: elevation, cover, hazardous terrain, distance.

In fact you can have multiple of these and let the glass cannon be a teleporter, capable of teleporting from one hard and costly to reach position to another.

If you put the glass cannon 60 feet back, up on elevation, behind a wall, with spike growth between them and the front line then the party will need to expend resources to get to the glass cannon. I can even put a second such location that the glass cannon can go to using misty step, and give another glass cannon a fireball (or hunger of hadar, or stormsphere, etc) spell if the players try to gang up on one creature in particular. Players will be forced to expend spell slots and hit points to focus down the glass cannon.

I can also put down secondary objectives, like if the room is slowly filling with water unless the players interact with levers and wheels, or if there are NPCs in cages that will die in a matter of X turns if the players don't free them.

Your missing an important part of the puzzle. It's not that Frontline bruisers need to have the options for the more "wide impact" options to be successful on the tactical level that it's the problem. It's the fact that the iconic and popular role of being the tough guy that protects the party isn't supported well at the thematic level. If anything the system actively discourages it.

[GloatingSwine]

Spells like Hunger of Hadar, Darkness, Spike Growth, Wall of X are all available to glass cannons.

Other things that are available: elevation, cover, hazardous terrain, distance.

In fact you can have multiple of these and let the glass cannon be a teleporter, capable of teleporting from one hard and costly to reach position to another.

You're still misunderstanding the problem other people are trying to solve.

The problem other people are trying to solve is how do we let the Fighter do all that stuff, and always do that stuff even if the DM set the encounter on a football field with no features for 40 yards in any direction. To protect the other characters in the party with the class features of a martial character.

Because, and this is the point, that would make those characters more fun to play because they would feel like they had more options in combat.

[Mastikator]

Your missing an important part of the puzzle. It's not that Frontline bruisers need to have the options for the more "wide impact" options to be successful on the tactical level that it's the problem. It's the fact that the iconic and popular role of being the tough guy that protects the party isn't supported well at the thematic level. If anything the system actively discourages it.

Agree to disagree then. I think martials have plenty of options for protecting their allies and punishing their enemies for attacking their allies. I think you're asking for that role to exist as an overpowered version of itself, I'm glad it doesn't and I don't think it should. Glass cannons should need to think about their own safety.

[GloatingSwine]

I think martials have plenty of options for protecting their allies and punishing their enemies for attacking their allies.

What options?

[Mastikator]

What options?
Let's see...

Ancestral guardian
paladin aura
interception
cloud rune
storm rune
armorer
spirit guardians
spike growth
shield of faith
sanctuary
compelled duel
protection from good and evil
ensnaring strike
entangle
bait and switch
menacing attack
grappling strike
trip attack
goading attack
grappler
sentinel


Just a couple of options, most available from level 1 or 2.

[stoutstien]

Let's see...

Ancestral guardian
paladin aura
interception
cloud rune
storm rune
armorer
spirit guardians
spike growth
shield of faith
sanctuary
compelled duel
protection from good and evil
ensnaring strike
entangle
bait and switch
menacing attack
grappling strike
trip attack
goading attack
grappler
sentinel


Just a couple of options, most available from level 1 or 2.

AG features actually work better from range. Same for the armor besides you want to use reach.

A good quarter of these are magical spells which is defeating the purpose

Another portion of these are isolated onto a single subclass and are redundant because they have practically the same outcome. They also generally work better from range.

Rune knight is amazing no argument there. They are arguably the standard in which all other martial classes should be judged. Nothing else on this list comes close to what this subclass can do as a package it's far as mitigation goes. Kind of the issue when you have one subclass that does the bare minimum and it's considered amazing.

Why would you put grappler on the list? It makes mage slayer look useful.

Interception is a nice feature we should scale a little better and had a little bit more freedom of positioning but those are minor quibbles.

[Mastikator]

AG features actually work better from range. Same for the armor besides you want to use reach.

A good quarter of these are magical spells which is defeating the purpose

Another portion of these are isolated onto a single subclass and are redundant because they have practically the same outcome. They also generally work better from range.

Rune knight is amazing no argument there. They are arguably the standard in which all other martial classes should be judged. Nothing else on this list comes close to what this subclass can do as a package it's far as mitigation goes. Kind of the issue when you have one subclass that does the bare minimum and it's considered amazing.

Why would you put grappler on the list? It makes mage slayer look useful.

Interception is a nice feature we should scale a little better and had a little bit more freedom of positioning but those are minor quibbles.

I disagree on the "they're spells so they don't count" point. They're ranger and paladin spells. Paladins are the protector archetype, whether they use spells or a fighting style or a feat to protect their allies doesn't matter. Paladins, barbarians and fighters are the primary "big stronk dude who protects frends" contenders, they can choose class features that allow them to fulfill that theme.

Should they be allowed to fulfill that theme at no opportunity or resource cost?

[GloatingSwine]

Let's see...

Ancestral guardian
paladin aura
interception
cloud rune
storm rune
armorer
spirit guardians
spike growth
shield of faith
sanctuary
compelled duel
protection from good and evil
ensnaring strike
entangle
bait and switch
menacing attack
grappling strike
trip attack
goading attack
grappler
sentinel


Just a couple of options, most available from level 1 or 2.


Thing is most of these are spread across different classes or subclasses, and most of them are single target.

A character who wanted to protect their party by controlling the battlefield would need most or all of these effects or abilities, and would need to be able to spread many of them to multiple targets in a turn because great, you disabled one guy, what are you going to do about the other three who can just run past you and stab the squishy?

[stoutstien]

I disagree on the "they're spells so they don't count" point. They're ranger and paladin spells. Paladins are the protector archetype, whether they use spells or a fighting style or a feat to protect their allies doesn't matter. Paladins, barbarians and fighters are the primary "big stronk dude who protects frends" contenders, they can choose class features that allow them to fulfill that theme.

Should they be allowed to fulfill that theme at no opportunity or resource cost?

The issue is spells are fluid features. Unless you completely block a spell from moving off the original class then eventually it will filter back to the least common denominator. In this case it's classes that get faster and deeper spell progression. Take those spells and make them <magic> class features and sure they work fine just like the auras or CDs.

There really isn't a conceptual divide between options that makes one squishier than the other. Defense is too cheap for that to be the case so it's more of an issue that *if* an ally gets in trouble some of the iconic methods of addressing it aren't there.

**Not to mention they can snipe the Fighting style or maneuver options at a bargain compared to none caster picking up spells.**

[Mastikator]

The issue is spells are fluid features. Unless you completely block a spell from moving off the original class then eventually it will filter back to the least common denominator. In this case it's classes that get faster and deeper spell progression. Take those spells and make them <magic> class features and sure they work fine just like the auras or CDs.

**Not to mention they can snipe the Fighting style or maneuver options at a bargain compared to none caster picking up spells.

Ok and? Are we arguing that paladins can't adequately fulfill protector archetype or what? If we can build a paladin or barbarian or fighter that can adequately protect their allies and punish enemies for targeting them, then we're done. We can do the thing you wanted to do.

[LudicSavant]

How did "What are some lessons 5e could take from Baldur's Gate 3's rule change?" turn into "How do we prevent creatures from moving around and using tactics and targeted violence?" I do wish we'd get back on the original topic yes.

[stoutstien]

Ok and? Are we arguing that paladins can't adequately fulfill protector archetype or what? If we can build a paladin or barbarian or fighter that can adequately protect their allies and punish enemies for targeting them, then we're done. We can do the thing you wanted to do.

They can't. At most they can address 1 or 2 types of potential issues tops. This means they can adequately protect their allies only if the enemy does those things. Someone mentioned peeling and punishment earlier and those are probably a better framing. We need to look at the outcome not the action. BG has a lot more outcomes from actions available but it's also a lot easier to program them then try to port that to a TTRPG format.

Things that run up and *stab* *stab* aren't an issue to begin so being slightly better at dealing with them is a false niche. It's hard to even say they are better at that if it can be circumvented by just having 2 *stab* npcs rather than 1 *stab* *stab*.

[Amnestic]

To go back to BG3, what's the vibes on human racials, since they're mostly different to both S+Vhuman?

+2/+1 to any stat (this is the same for all BG3 races)
Civil Militia: Proficiency in pikes/spears/halberds/glaives/light armour/shields
Human Versatility: Proficiency in one skill
+25% carrying capacity.

With Tasha's, the four weapon profs could - like with elves - be trained out into tool proficiencies if you so wished. Getting light armour and shields but not medium armour is pretty okay - though most non-armour characters will end up using mage armour+clothes anyway, but it does let you make use of any nice magic armour that shows up. You're mostly in it for the shields.

Carrying capacity in BG3 is mostly a QOL feature since you can send anything you loot immediately to camp, but it can help lugging around a lot of scrolls/potions if you've got them. It's not something a lot of 5e tables mess around with though (mine included). It's kind of a ribbon.

Compared to v.human you get +1 to a stat, a bunch of proficiencies (some of which may be useless to you) and +25% carrying capacity...at the cost of a feat. Worth it? Eh....maybe! Certainly worth considering, I think.

[GloatingSwine]

Carrying capacity in BG3 is mostly a QOL feature since you can send anything you loot immediately to camp, but it can help lugging around a lot of scrolls/potions if you've got them. It's not something a lot of 5e tables mess around with though (mine included). It's kind of a ribbon.

In D&D terms I'd probably put that closer to the way Pillars of Eternity's restricted stash works.

You can stash items whenver you want but you can only get things out of the stash on a long rest.

That said carrying capacity mechanics may only contribute to the game when what you take and what you leave behind is an interesting question by itself, and you can probably present that question without accountancy.

[LudicSavant]

To go back to BG3, what's the vibes on human racials, since they're mostly different to both S+Vhuman?

+2/+1 to any stat (this is the same for all BG3 races)
Civil Militia: Proficiency in pikes/spears/halberds/glaives/light armour/shields
Human Versatility: Proficiency in one skill
+25% carrying capacity.


It's almost like they're a VHuman with Moderately Armored. Worse than actual humans, and kind of limited to being an arcane caster race if you want to benefit from their proficiencies. I think humans are handled better in base 5e (where they're useful for every class).

Githyanki are a strong race in BG3. All 3 of their racial spells are good in this game, they get medium armor, and perhaps most importantly they get Astral Knowledge, which is basically worth 3-5 skill proficiencies that you can change from day to day (something which is extra important in BG3 because of the "only one character can contribute to a given conversation" quirk).


Compared to v.human you get +1 to a stat, a bunch of proficiencies (some of which may be useless to you) and +25% carrying capacity...at the cost of a feat. Worth it? Eh....maybe! Certainly worth considering, I think.

It's not worth it. Moderately Armored will catch up to the +1 to a stat, and the extra carrying capacity / polearm proficiencies are barely worth mentioning.

[Oramac]

To go back to BG3, what's the vibes on human racials, since they're mostly different to both S+Vhuman?

Personally, I would say the BG3 human is rather significantly worse than either human option in 5e. The stat increase is a wash, since it's there for everyone. Civil Militia is borderline useless outside of giving your wizard a shield (which is quite nice, to be fair). Versatility is ok, but one extra skill isn't really noticeable, especially when you have so many other ways to gain skills and buffs for those skills. Carrying capacity is pure QOL; again, it's not bad, but it's not terribly useful either.

I only rarely play human in 5e, and I don't really see myself ever playing human in BG3.

[OvisCaedo]

Human giving shield proficiency could be sort of nice, as general build compatibility goes. As far as race-to-race balance goes, though, base human in BG3 might hold up even worse than in tabletop when you compare it to half-elf, since they were given the same set of free proficiencies.

[Dienekes]

To go back to BG3, what's the vibes on human racials, since they're mostly different to both S+Vhuman?

+2/+1 to any stat (this is the same for all BG3 races)
Civil Militia: Proficiency in pikes/spears/halberds/glaives/light armour/shields
Human Versatility: Proficiency in one skill
+25% carrying capacity.

With Tasha's, the four weapon profs could - like with elves - be trained out into tool proficiencies if you so wished. Getting light armour and shields but not medium armour is pretty okay - though most non-armour characters will end up using mage armour+clothes anyway, but it does let you make use of any nice magic armour that shows up. You're mostly in it for the shields.

Carrying capacity in BG3 is mostly a QOL feature since you can send anything you loot immediately to camp, but it can help lugging around a lot of scrolls/potions if you've got them. It's not something a lot of 5e tables mess around with though (mine included). It's kind of a ribbon.

Compared to v.human you get +1 to a stat, a bunch of proficiencies (some of which may be useless to you) and +25% carrying capacity...at the cost of a feat. Worth it? Eh....maybe! Certainly worth considering, I think.

Personally, not a huge fan. Civil Militia is very specific and cultural for a racial trait that doesn't even really fit the territory around Baldur's Gate all that well. And I personally dislike when abilities are set up in a way that the flavor for what they should help is the opposite of what they do.

For example, "oh you have military training, you should make a good fighter, right?" No. Fighter gets all that anyway.

Or "Oh, Goblins can nimbly escape confrontations, so they should be like a rogue, right?" No. Rogues get that ability anyway.

I'd rather have the feat.

[Psyren]

What Dienekes said, I'd much rather have the level 1 feat (even if it were limited to things like Skilled and Tough.) This game in particular could really benefit from Skilled at level 1 due to the way it makes swapping people around for exploration and interaction kind of annoying.

This is one of the biggest differences between BG3 and tabletop 5e play - in 5e, you can have an NPC drop a nugget of information on the game world and when the player says "do we know what he's talking about?" the DM can go "History/Arcana check" and everyone within earshot of the NPC gets to roll. But in BG3, too much reliance is placed on the designated PC that's leading the conversation, and if they don't know something, it doesn't matter that I literally have a Chosen of Mystra standing next to me hanging on every word, the party as a whole is treated as ignorant yokels. Similarly, a NPC can openly lie to whoever they're speaking to, and the Insightful Monk might be able to tell and tug on the main party member's sleeve in a tabletop game, but in BG3, if the character they happen to be speaking to is gullible, the entire party is SOL.

(With that said, I do think Goblin Rogues are useful even though there's overlap between Cunning Action and Nimble Escape.)

[GloatingSwine]

This is one of the biggest differences between BG3 and tabletop 5e play - in 5e, you can have an NPC drop a nugget of information on the game world and when the player says "do we know what he's talking about?" the DM can go "History/Arcana check" and everyone within earshot of the NPC gets to roll. But in BG3, too much reliance is placed on the designated PC that's leading the conversation, and if they don't know something, it doesn't matter that I literally have a Chosen of Mystra standing next to me hanging on every word, the party as a whole is treated as ignorant yokels. Similarly, a NPC can openly lie to whoever they're speaking to, and the Insightful Monk might be able to tell and tug on the main party member's sleeve in a tabletop game, but in BG3, if the character they happen to be speaking to is gullible, the entire party is SOL.


Pretty much every other CRPG has solved this problem as well. It's just a weird BG3 oversight/design choice intended to work like the Ancient Days.

I think Pillars does it best. Party members' skills are available in conversation unless there's a specific reason one person has to be chosen to act and the highest skill in the party gives a bonus to the others.

[Psyren]

Pretty much every other CRPG has solved this problem as well. It's just a weird BG3 oversight/design choice intended to work like the Ancient Days.

I think Pillars does it best. Party members' skills are available in conversation unless there's a specific reason one person has to be chosen to act and the highest skill in the party gives a bonus to the others.

Yeah I think it's a quirk/conceit of Larian's whole "party members can act autonomously for multiplayer and can even have multiple conversations/interactions occurring simultaneously" engine.

What's funny is that they have PC grouping and proximity systems that should make it so the game has no trouble knowing who is near enough to a given conversation to participate in it, and therefore shouldn't be off having their own. Ah well. Hopefully the modders will deal with it.

[Oramac]

I don't recall if it was mentioned already, but another thing BG3 does differently than 5e is Short Rests. In BG3 they're effectively instant, as opposed to the 5e 1 hour short rest.

I honestly don't know how (or if) this would translate to TT, but it's an interesting design choice by the devs.

[LudicSavant]

I don't recall if it was mentioned already, but another thing BG3 does differently than 5e is Short Rests. In BG3 they're effectively instant, as opposed to the 5e 1 hour short rest.

I honestly don't know how (or if) this would translate to TT, but it's an interesting design choice by the devs.

As long as you limit it to 2 short rests per long rest, it should be mostly fine. The main thing is that you would be able to, for instance, cast a 10 minutes spell and then long rest to immediately have the slot back as a Warlock to have more buffs up than would normally be possible for a single fight.

[Theodoxus]

I don't recall if it was mentioned already, but another thing BG3 does differently than 5e is Short Rests. In BG3 they're effectively instant, as opposed to the 5e 1 hour short rest.

I honestly don't know how (or if) this would translate to TT, but it's an interesting design choice by the devs.


As long as you limit it to 2 short rests per long rest, it should be mostly fine. The main thing is that you would be able to, for instance, cast a 10 minutes spell and then long rest to immediately have the slot back as a Warlock to have more buffs up than would normally be possible for a single fight.

I was typing up something in accord with this, but as I was thinking it through, I actually talked myself into the opposite viewpoint. Gaining more SRs (say via Song of Rest that BG3 has) actually extends the workday. Other than possibly running out of camp supplies, there's really very little reason you can't have a 5MWD, burning all your resources on every fight and then long resting. The instant SR mechanic basically allows you to continue on, healing half your HP (typically enough to get everyone topped off except for the poor fool who nearly dies every combat (that's not just me, right?)) getting CDs and warlock slots and other SR resources... this has allowed me (apparently subconsciously as I only just realized I was doing it) to move from encounter to encounter without having to long rest in between.

The only time I can recall it being an issue was actually last night. I'm playing Durge as a drow, and only have Astarion (2/2 Ranger/Rogue) and the drow and duergar hirelings - so Astarion uses disguise self to be a drow - for a 4 man underdark party (went with the romancing of Minthara on top of it) - and started a fight I couldn't possibly win in Waukeen's Rest due to having very few spell slots left. I got about 2/3 of the NPCs down before I realized I was out of everything... reloaded, rested and came back and Served the Flaming Fist a bowl of hurt.

(Sidenote, I have extreme alt-itis, so this is probably my 15th playthrough of act 1 (I have my 'main' in act 3, but I keep wanting to try new things - hence the full CE Durge run through).)

But in general, I push encounters to the limit, burning all available SRs before LR (that main I have, everyone in the party is at least a level 2 Bard, so that's 6 SRs I've access to). Of course, I'm also a wuss and playing the majority of the game on Exploration mode... so /shrug.

Back to the thread, one thing I really like are how many base spells are also rituals, and how useful they end up being. Jump and Longstrider being the biggest, but Speak with Animals is great too...

[Amnestic]

I don't recall if it was mentioned already, but another thing BG3 does differently than 5e is Short Rests. In BG3 they're effectively instant, as opposed to the 5e 1 hour short rest.

I honestly don't know how (or if) this would translate to TT, but it's an interesting design choice by the devs.

You'll need to look at some spell durations - BG3's spell durations are shifted to be closer to "one/a few rounds", "10 rounds" (effectively '1 combat' for the most part, very rarely two), or "until long rest", with most of the 1 hour spells turning into "until long rest".

This does make warlocks better if they're able to burn slots and then immediately short rest...but if you're limiting a party to 2SR per LR, then a party might not want to burn one of their precious 50% heals and their own SR resource restoration just so the warlock to get an extra "until long rest" spell up.

Personally I quite like the BG3 dynamic for it. Rarely do I end up tracking time precisely in a TTRPG so 10 minute/1 hour/8 hour durations always felt more like guess work and vibes-based to begin with.
If you're doing a dungeon crawl where each "dungeon-action" has a 10 minute cost or whatever I could see them being more useful but that is very rarely a thing in my games.

[Theodoxus]

...but if you're limiting a party to 2SR per LR, then a party might not want to burn one of their precious 50% heals and their own SR resource restoration just so the warlock to get an extra "until long rest" spell up.

One advantage of TT over CRPG, if going the route of the 'instant' SR, is that only the party members who want / need the SR need to burn it. It would put a bit more bookkeeping on the DM, probably having a couple tick marks next to each party member for used SRs, but it I were in a game that used this mechanic, I'd be over joyed have the option to use or not, my SR restoration outside the rest of the party.

[LudicSavant]

Ironically, some mechanics in BG3 feel considerably less "videogamey" than their tabletop versions. Things that can't target objects (but logically should) can in BG3, but can't in 5e. And if you have animal companions, Lassie can actually do something to help when you're in trouble (as opposed to in D&D where they just... sit there and Dodge if you're unable to take your action).

I've oft said that the way D&D 5e handles minions is so bad that it wouldn't be considered acceptable for the AI for videogame from decades ago, and apparently Larian agreed because they don't work that way in BG3. This is a lesson 5e could definitely stand to learn. And One D&D even moreso.

[BRC]

Ironically, some mechanics in BG3 feel considerably less "videogamey" than their tabletop versions. Things that can't target objects (but logically should) can in BG3, but can't in 5e. And if you have animal companions, Lassie can actually do something to help when you're in trouble (as opposed to in D&D where they just... sit there and Dodge if you're unable to take your action).

I've oft said that the way D&D 5e handles minions is so bad that it wouldn't be considered acceptable for the AI for videogame from decades ago, and apparently Larian agreed because they don't work that way in BG3. This is a lesson 5e could definitely stand to learn. And One D&D even moreso.

Do you think 5e could benefit from some standardized "Sidekick" mechanics for Companions/Familiars/Steel Defenders/Summons rather than the current method of building the rules for controlling the sidekick into whatever ability grants it.

[LudicSavant]

Do you think 5e could benefit from some standardized "Sidekick" mechanics for Companions/Familiars/Steel Defenders/Summons rather than the current method of building the rules for controlling the sidekick into whatever ability grants it.

They don't need to be standardized, but they need to be better. 5e seems to make up a different mechanic for every minion feature and they're virtually all terrible. Beastmaster has one of the most ridiculous ones of all (your dog simply cannot do many regular dog things). But even familiars (one of the least awful minion mechanics in 5e) have a weirdly arbitrary/videogamey "no attacks" restriction which doesn't even really matter in practice (since they can boost DPR via the Help action anyway) and absolutely god-awful balance ("gee, should my familiar be a frog, or an owl?"). Whereas in BG3 they can just... act normally, and each familiar option supports a different playstyle.

[Oramac]

Ironically, some mechanics in BG3 feel considerably less "videogamey" than their tabletop versions. Things that can't target objects (but logically should) can in BG3, but can't in 5e.

My favorite of "things that can't target objects but should" is magic missile. Which, weirdly, still can't target objects in BG3 that I'm aware of. But yes, all of the other interactions count as well (firebolt targeting a grease spell, for instance).


And if you have animal companions, Lassie can actually do something to help when you're in trouble (as opposed to in D&D where they just... sit there and Dodge if you're unable to take your action).

I've oft said that the way D&D 5e handles minions is so bad that it wouldn't be considered acceptable for the AI for videogame from decades ago, and apparently Larian agreed because they don't work that way in BG3. This is a lesson 5e could definitely stand to learn. And One D&D even moreso.

100% agreed. The 5e pet mechanics are just bonkers.

[Kane0]

What Dienekes said, I'd much rather have the level 1 feat (even if it were limited to things like Skilled and Tough.) This game in particular could really benefit from Skilled at level 1 due to the way it makes swapping people around for exploration and interaction kind of annoying.


Which is odd considering Solasta does do party conversations

[Person_Man]

100% agreed. The 5e pet mechanics are just bonkers.

In fairness to 5E, almost immediately after the PHB Ranger was published most people recognized this. (Though there were obviously contrarians who argued the opposite). Every "pet" mechanic published after the PHB instead allows the player to use their Bonus Action to command their pet.



I don't recall if it was mentioned already, but another thing BG3 does differently than 5e is Short Rests. In BG3 they're effectively instant, as opposed to the 5e 1 hour short rest.

I honestly don't know how (or if) this would translate to TT, but it's an interesting design choice by the devs.

Do you want the limit on resting to be "you might be attacked by enemies in the area while you wait around for an hour" or "you get a maximum of 2 per day period" (hard limit that gives more certainty to the players to make decisions). I prefer the current 5E RAW, because I'm an old school player who likes a more organic and dynamic world. But I obviously see the merit of the BG3 rules, which could easily be ported into 5E, and are more in line with modern RPG which place a greater emphasis on tactical combat and balance between classes.

[LudicSavant]

Every "pet" mechanic published after the PHB instead allows the player to use their Bonus Action to command their pet.

This doesn't solve the problem, it is the problem.

The notion that the minion just sits there and Dodges if you lose your bonus action makes it so that your dog doesn't feel like a dog, it feels like an AI so badly programmed it wouldn't be acceptable by the standards of videogames 20 years ago, let alone now.

The Tasha's variant for the Beastmaster includes a line that if you're incapacitated, the beast can act normally, but this doesn't actually solve the problem, the beast still acts like it's brain damaged while you're conscious. You can't like, send out a hunting dog to track or the like.

[stoutstien]

It's the Holy Grail for systems that have actions as the primary from of gating to introduce an entire new creature/PC onto another without busting said action economy.

[Dienekes]

It's the Holy Grail for systems that have actions as the primary from of gating to introduce an entire new creature/PC onto another without busting said action economy.

Yeah that's kind of a thing I noticed when I was designing my own system. Minions muck things up. So I ended up having to design the pet class first, and then balance everyone against them. Instead of trying to squeeze pets down to fit where every other class was.

[LudicSavant]

It's the Holy Grail for systems that have actions as the primary from of gating to introduce an entire new creature/PC onto another without busting said action economy.

I think 'Holy Grail' is overstating the difficulty of the issue a bit. Game designers have been successfully balancing summons (and other forms of differing action economies) for our entire lifetimes. Just because WotC mucked it up doesn't mean that every other game does (and indeed, they often don't).

[stoutstien]

I think 'Holy Grail' is overstating the difficulty of the issue a bit. Game designers have been successfully balancing summons (and other forms of differing action economies) for our entire lifetimes. Just because WotC mucked it up doesn't mean that every other game does (and indeed, they often don't).

Ok fair. Within DnDesque space it's fairly difficult and has been tacked in where other systems have approached with intention.

It's difficult to add it in if you don't have it in mind from the get go.

[Zetakya]

Thing is, OA is supposed to actually be a lot of that. It's supposed to be your space control and punish.

In my view one simple way to enforce this would be to make the threatened area around an active combatant count as difficult terrain. That would make it much more costly to move away, even if you did Disengage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's difficult to add it in if you don't have it in mind from the get go.

Or if you're not willing to completely abstract it away, as some of the various supers games do--officially the power lets you summon stuff, but it resolves just like any other ability with the same underlying pieces. Which, to me, is basically saying "your summoning/pet is really just an animation." Which is less than satisfying.

I like the concept of pet classes. In a D&D (and similar games) context, I've yet to see it implemented in a way that both fulfilled the fantasy/concept AND was workable mechanically.

[Zetakya]

To go back to BG3, what's the vibes on human racials, since they're mostly different to both S+Vhuman?

The only substantial use for it I've seen so far is that you can make a Rapier Duelist Shield Swords Bard without having to multiclass for the Shield proficiency, which is a combination I haven't seen anywhere else.

[LudicSavant]

Most of the summons in (tabletop) 5e are poorly designed before we even look at things like action economy. For instance:

- Animate Objects makes Tiny objects way better than most other options, simply in terms of total HP, damage, accuracy, etc. This is a fixed list of 5 options, they shouldn't be so wildly unbalanced against each other.

- Find Familiar has an arbitrary, more-videogamey-than-videogames "no attack" restriction that doesn't really matter (since it can contribute to DPR in other ways), and most of the options for it pale in comparison to an owl or bat. This was a short fixed list of animals, they could (and should) have made them all uniquely interesting. And of course this is exactly what Larian did -- they gave them attacks, and gave all the animals unique abilities.

- The scaling for the number of creatures generated by stuff like Conjure Animals is off, and as such flooding the scene with swarms of generic weak creatures is often the optimal choice. The "DM chooses the creatures" simultaneously fails to resolve this and undermines player agency.

- Animate Dead can 'hedge resources' towards a future adventuring day, and more or less directly convert downtime to power. We got the worst of both worlds here; they made it less flavorful/fun (humanoid skeletons only) and more abusable at the same time.

- The new Tasha's summons still have that "if you don't give it an order it Dodges, nothing else" silliness that's more videogamey than videogames, even though those summons don't consume bonus actions to maintain.

[Person_Man]

This doesn't solve the problem, it is the problem.

The notion that the minion just sits there and Dodges if you lose your bonus action makes it so that your dog doesn't feel like a dog, it feels like an AI so badly programmed it wouldn't be acceptable by the standards of videogames 20 years ago, let alone now.

The Tasha's variant for the Beastmaster includes a line that if you're incapacitated, the beast can act normally, but this doesn't actually solve the problem, the beast still acts like it's brain damaged while you're conscious. You can't like, send out a hunting dog to track or the like.

So how does BG3 handle it?

IMO, if you want an autonomous pet with useful actions in 5e, then I think it should be built into the main class features. Otherwise, it will likely be much better than every other subclass option.

[Kane0]

In my view one simple way to enforce this would be to make the threatened area around an active combatant count as difficult terrain. That would make it much more costly to move away, even if you did Disengage.

Oh yeah I've got a fighting style that does that. Also one that reduces a targets speed by 10' for a turn

[LudicSavant]

So how does BG3 handle it?

Familiars act independently, can attack, and each have unique special features. Frogs for example have a bufotoxin that debuffs saves, ravens can fly and scratch at eyes to blind people, cats can seem harmless and meow and be adorable (which can make it easier to sneak past creatures, or lure them into a group for an AoE ambush).


IMO, if you want an autonomous pet with useful actions in 5e, then I think it should be built into the main class features. Otherwise, it will likely be much better than every other subclass option.

Not only is it entirely possible to design an autonomous pet with useful actions without unbalancing the game and overshadowing all of the other subclasses, but there are subclasses in 5e that already do it! People don't complain about stuff like Find Steed or Hound of Ill Omen or Accursed Specter or Command Undead breaking the game.

Like... say we wanted to balance a Pet Bard (https://youtu.be/0L1sL54G45Q?si=O9nIfs7K37K6eEOl&t=42) against, say, a Swords Bard. Well, we can then consider the value of Extra Attack and Flourishes and make the pet about as valuable as those things.

And of course, Lore Bard can already pick up an autonomous pet at a point that other Bard subclasses don't have them, via their early Magical Secrets.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Like... say we wanted to balance a Pet Bard (https://youtu.be/0L1sL54G45Q?si=O9nIfs7K37K6eEOl&t=42) against, say, a Swords Bard. Well, we can then consider the value of Extra Attack and Flourishes and make the pet about as valuable as those things.


And going to mars is easy, just decide how big a rocket we need, build it, and there ya go! As with everything, the hard part is buried in those "trivial" statements. The devil is always in the details, and especially in the combinatoric explosion of possible combinations you need to balance against.

I'm not saying that 5e did a good job with summons. No. They're all busted in various ways, to both sides of the spectrum. Yes, including Find Steed and the Hound of Ill Omen. And the ones that kinda work? Are a tiny minor feature among many others. Ie they use up a vanishing fraction of the class's power budget. That's a far cry from a pet-based class/subclass, where the pet (to make the fiction work) has to be a substantial fraction of the entire power budget.

And I'm not saying it's impossible. Just that I've never seen someone actually do it right. I am by far no exception. I've tried. All the pet classes I've built and seen have been severely janky in at least one significant way, usually multiple ways.

[LudicSavant]

As with everything, the hard part is buried in those "trivial" statements. The devil is always in the details, and especially in the combinatoric explosion of possible combinations you need to balance against.

This is something that game designers do on a regular basis. Accounting for that combinatoric explosion of possible combinations is part of the job description.

I ain't saying the job description is easy, but it's very possible.

[Makorel]

Beast Master Ranger is currently the main character for my second playthrough and I'm finding the nitty gritty of how they work exceedingly interesting.

Firstly, yes, both the Beast Master and the Beast being separate entities that you can control is great and really puts into perspective how clunky the whole bonus action thing is. It really goes to show how one questionable design decision can cascade for years and now a lot of our pets are just finicky and weird for no good reason. One D&D would have been the time to fix this but I guess not in the name of backwards compatibility. I would never want tabletop games to become video games but even still this is the part where I lament the lack of a balance patch or some similar concept for the PHB.

Secondly, BG3 gives each beast a feat called Slayer's Prey, which lets the beast also get damage from Hunter's Mark if they attack the marked entity. Now that the Beast Master has their bonus action back this is great synergy. It really helps sell that you and your beast are one unit fighting together and is mechanically powerful for the tier (in theory).

As for how the beasts play it depends on where you are in the game. At level 1 they're great, with comparable HP to a 1st level character and basically amount to being an extra attack you can do below 5th level with some special abilities mixed in. Unfortunately, they all suffer from having terrible attack rolls/saving throw dcs and even with the proficiency bump at 5th level will have trouble hitting things, except for Wolf, who has Pack Tactics Advantage, and Bird, which I'll talk about later. Spider is interesting but I think their web might be bugged (this is not a pun) and it didn't seem like I was forcing saving throws when I hit with it.

Sadly as my character grew from 1st to 4th level the beast did not keep up. It wound up either doing nothing due to poor hit chance, doing nothing because they were killed outright due to their low hit points, or doing nothing because I couldn't get it to the enemy and attack in the same turn. I would say Bird was the best by this point because it could fly and wouldn't get stuck on terrain, but not by a large amount.

Anyway once the Summon Companion changes over at 5th level the status of Beast Master goes straight from So Over to So Back. This is solely because Bird gets Bad Omen, which is a once per turn, ranged, 2d8 + Proficiency Bonus damage Wisdom save which on fail can generate advantage against that creature. This means every turn bird is doing damage, and from a safer range too. Not only that, but Slayer's Prey actually works with Bad Omen, and whether it's a save or fail you always get the full d6 from Hunter's Mark, and all on top of whatever it is your Beast Master is doing. I doubt this would fly at any physical table but like a mid level marketing manager I'm just so refreshed to have some gosh-darn synergy in these abilities.

And as ridiculous as Bad Omen is it also kinda solves all of the pets' problems at once, in that it allows the Bird to do something meaningful each turn with less risk of it dying and having your whole subclass canceled until your next short rest. I'm still in the middle of playing so I'm not sure how things pan out at higher level, but honestly all the beasts need is a better to-hit chance and some more HP. Something comparable to the Elementals and Myrmadons would work perfectly well and those are just single spells and not a whole subclass.

[LudicSavant]

Human giving shield proficiency could be sort of nice, as general build compatibility goes. As far as race-to-race balance goes, though, base human in BG3 might hold up even worse than in tabletop when you compare it to half-elf, since they were given the same set of free proficiencies.

Yeah, human is difficult to recommend when half-elf also gets Civil Militia.

My impressions of the effectiveness of BG3 races so far:

Githyanki: They made this one flavorful and fun as well as effective. All of their spells are interesting and useful (including jump), and Astral Knowledge is a great skill monkey ability, far better than the 5e version, actually feels like you have a connection to the great libraries bestowed by Vlaakith to grant the githyanki "infinities upon infinities" of "perfect knowledge" (as Lae'zel puts it).

This is a great race for any class, even if your class doesn't benefit from the bonus proficiencies it grants (e.g. medium armor and access to 'dem magic swords).

Drow: Hand Crossbow proficiency is a considerably more meaningful benefit in this game, since they can make bonus action attacks without crossbow expert.

Dancing Lights and Faerie Fire are meh, and Darkness isn't moveable like in tabletop, but Darkness got other buffs to compensate and is quite good.

You also get super-darkvision, fey ancestry, and a bonus proficiency in a good skill (Perception). Affects the story too. Cool!

Half-Elf: Like human, Half-Elf is mainly for adding shield proficiency to classes that don't have it. If you already have a shield proficiency, you're probably better off looking elsewhere.

Gets light armor and shield proficiency (nice for Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Rogues), proficiency in polearms, basic Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, and a subclass benefit, all of which are decent, so pick one according to your playstyle.

High Half-Elf adds an Int-based cantrip. This isn't very useful for Wizards since they can learn extra cantrips from scrolls. For other spellcasters, you have the "it's Int-based" bit to contend with, but you can learn a racial cantrip as a (insert whatever stat you want) cantrip by spending a cantrip known. Could be useful to get an attack cantrip on a class that doesn't have one. Alternatively, you can just not worry about the casting stat and pick Mage Hand or Minor Illusion (both are useful in BG3).

Wood Half-Elf gets Stealth proficiency and +5 movement speed. Stealth proficiency isn't quite as necessary in BG3 as in 5e because of vision cones, and Longstrider is a ritual that everyone should be using (so you're really buffing from 40 to 45 instead of 30 to 35), and things like haste and jumping are far stronger in this game, so these benefits aren't worth quite as much as they might be in base 5e. Still good though.

Drow Half-Elf gets Darkness (and on a lesser note, faerie fire and dancing lights). Unlike a real drow though they won't get a bonus skill, super-darkvision, and hand crossbow proficiency (which in BG3 basically comes with most of crossbow expert built-in). Instead you get light armor or a shield.

Duergar: Super-Darkvision, Enlarge 1/long rest, Invisibility 1/combat and at-will out of combat (and Invisibility is buffed from 5e). Also gives Advantage on saving throws against a broad range of nasty stuff; poison, charm, paralysis, and illusions. That's a lotta resistances. Easily better than the other dwarf subraces IMHO.

They also get you some bonus weapon proficiencies, though I've yet to encounter any weapons that make those proficiencies really stand out (perhaps I will in the future, my playthrough ain't done yet).

They do, however, get a -5 ft speed penalty. Effectively this will make your movement 35 feet (since every party should have Longstrider, it's a ritual now), and also Jumps aren't capped by movement speed. So it's a bit easier to shake off this penalty than in tabletop, but it's still there.

Asmodeus Tiefling gives you fire resistance (it comes up), darkvision, and nice bonus spells. You essentially get 2 bonus level 2 spell slots, and they're both good: Upcast Hellish Rebuke and reworked Darkness (it's no longer moveable, but other buffs make up for it). And Bards and Clerics may appreciate getting an AC-targeting cantrip (it's initially linked to Cha but you can re-learn it as Wis for a Cleric).

Mephistopheles Tiefling is better than it will look to a tabletop 5e player at first glance, because Flame Blade makes an actual weapon in this game, instead of being a weird, lame spell attack. Mage Hand also is a reworked and potent combat cantrip in this game. L2 Burning Hands is pretty decent at low levels. I may have to experiment with the build possibilities Flame Blade offers -- it looks like it can dual wield, and Spell Sniper can increase its critrate.

Zariel tiefling on the other hand seems kinda meh, as it just grants smite spells. Though at least Thaumaturgy will give free Advantage on two types of Charisma checks.

Elf: Compared to Half-Elf, you lose the shield proficiency but gain a skill proficiency in Perception (which means that Wood Elves get two bonus skill proficiencies) and proficiencies with longswords, shortswords, longbows, and shortbows (which can matter, since there are some good magic items in the game of those types).

Halfling: Lucky is as good as ever, perhaps even better in an environment where you might plausibly be making dozens of sleight of hand checks in a row. And fear resistance ain't bad. Lightfoot gives always-on advantage on stealth, which combined with Lucky and skill bonuses can make it virtually guaranteed you go undetected (though going undetected is easier in BG3 than in 5e, because of the vision system). And Strongheart gets the usual poison resistance. Being small also means you can reach places some others can't (though there are ways to magically decrease size, including the Disguise Self ritual).

Gnome:
You get advantage on all mental saves, all the time. Not just against spells. All of 'em. You do get the small race movement penalty though.

Rock gnomes get History proficiency and Expertise in it. I like lore.
Forest Gnomes get Speak With Animals (not just for burrowing creatures, just... any creatures) There is a ton of content based around Speak With Animals in this game. However, you only really need one person in the party who can cast the spell, or you can get it from potions.
Deep Gnome gets super-darkvision (as opposed to the regular darkvision other gnomes) and perma-advantage on stealth checks.

Human: The other shield-granting race for your arcane casters. Compared to half-elf, you're trading fey ancestry, darkvision, and a subrace benefit for 1 skill proficiency, a +25% carrying capacity, and some weapon proficiencies. And one of those subrace benefits can grant a skill proficiency.

As a result I find this hard to recommend compared to Half-Elf. The weapon proficiencies are for Strength-based weapons, not especially useful for those shieldless casters. +25% carrying capacity can be used to hoist another barrel I guess, but how many do you really need?

Half-Orc: Relentless Endurance will save you from having to get yo-yoed, once, if the enemy doesn't have multiattack or otherwise damage you multiple times. It's basically only eating one attack/long rest, tops. I'm not that impressed with it. Savage Attacks only applies to melee weapons, and only gives +1 weapon die on a crit (so +1d6 on a greatsword, +d12 on a greataxe).

You get an extra skill proficiency in Intimidation, which is a solid one -- it can be given Advantage for free with Thaumaturgy, and charisma skills are useful in this game.

Gold Dwarf: I'm just not that impressed with a small amount of extra HP, especially compared to Duergar.

Shield Dwarf: Githyanki, humans, and half-elves are all easily better choices for armored casters. This one gets a move speed penalty, no skill proficiencies, no shield, no spells... come on.

Dragonborn: It's the PHB dragonborn but their breath weapon is only 1/long rest. Poor guys.

[Arkhios]

Tbh, they could've used variant human and just restrict the feat options to those that don't provide an ability improvement.

[Zetakya]

Drow: Hand Crossbow proficiency is a considerably more meaningful benefit in this game, since they can make bonus action attacks without crossbow expert.

Dancing Lights and Faerie Fire are meh, and Darkness isn't moveable like in tabletop, but Darkness got other buffs to compensate and is quite good.

You also get super-darkvision, fey ancestry, and a bonus proficiency in a good skill (Perception). Affects the story too. Cool!

Drow Half-Elf gets Darkness (and on a lesser note, faerie fire and dancing lights). Unlike a real drow though they won't get a bonus skill, super-darkvision, and hand crossbow proficiency (which in BG3 basically comes with most of crossbow expert built-in). Instead you get light armor or a shield.



Both of these are significantly better on a full Charisma caster (or at a pinch, a Charisma focused Paladin) simply because an extra cast of Faerie Fire for the area Advantage is such a huge benefit.

[Angelalex242]

Humans badly need their feat back. Or 2 or 3 proficiencies. Something.

One proficiency isn't gonna cut it when backgrounds give you what you really need anyway if your class doesn't have it.

[Mastikator]

Honestly even the 2014PHB standard human would be a step up from BG3 human.

[Oramac]

Halfling: Lucky is as good as ever, perhaps even better in an environment where you might plausibly be making dozens of sleight of hand checks in a row. And fear resistance ain't bad. Lightfoot gives always-on advantage on stealth, which combined with Lucky and skill bonuses can make it virtually guaranteed you go undetected (though going undetected is easier in BG3 than in 5e, because of the vision system).

I just want to point out that with a Lightfoot Halfling Thief Rogue, you can pretty much acquire infinite gold by pickpocketing the vendor in the Emerald Grove, taking a Long Rest to reset his inventory, and doing it all over again. It's quite useful.

[LudicSavant]

I just want to point out that with a Lightfoot Halfling Thief Rogue, you can pretty much acquire infinite gold by pickpocketing the vendor in the Emerald Grove, taking a Long Rest to reset his inventory, and doing it all over again. It's quite useful.

While that's true, you don't need to be a Halfling or a Rogue to do it. I had my Githyanki Eldritch Knight (Laezel) robbing every vendor blind.

Halfling helps prevent the 1/400 chance of a natural 1 on Sleight of Hand, but that's it.

I'll also note that if that unlucky failure chance eventually comes up and you get caught pickpocketing, you can have your pickpocket run some 90 feet away, then click "flee combat." A Githyanki can flee the scene in one jump. After fleeing the scene, they'll de-aggro and you can walk back to the vendor to smooth things over with them. There really is not a lot of consequences for pickpocketing.

[Theodoxus]

Regarding pickpocketing... are people hurting for gold? It's an interesting/fun minigame I guess, but I don't need nigh infinite gold... even with my playstyle of swapping out class builds on everyone, I'm never low on gold after selling junk.

[Oramac]

Regarding pickpocketing... are people hurting for gold? It's an interesting/fun minigame I guess, but I don't need nigh infinite gold... even with my playstyle of swapping out class builds on everyone, I'm never low on gold after selling junk.

Can't really say. Personally, in my very first playthrough (currently in mid-ish Act II) I was low on gp very early into Act I, so I gave it a shot. Knowing what I know now, I highly doubt I'll ever be low on gp again.

It's a fun little mini game, and might be helpful for some. IDK.

[Amnestic]

Regarding pickpocketing... are people hurting for gold? It's an interesting/fun minigame I guess, but I don't need nigh infinite gold... even with my playstyle of swapping out class builds on everyone, I'm never low on gold after selling junk.

I did basically 0 pickpocketing but I did loot and vendor a whole lot of trash stuff. I was, briefly, limited on gold after going on a spending spree at the start of Act 3 (there's like 4-5 new major stores with magic items you might want, and some of them are pretty pricey) but it solved itself just from more loot relatively quickly as well, and then I had nothing else I wanted to buy.

Speaking of magic items, obviously BG3 goes a step beyond 5e in that there's no attunement limits and instead you can slot anything in so long as there's a slot open (head, neck, cloak, chest/armour, 2x rings, gloves, boots, belts, weapon(s)) which is closer to 3.5

There's also more "slight increment" bonuses. A number of items just give +1 to certain skills, for instance, which typically 5e has steered away from for being perceived - rightly or wrongly - as annoying to track (not a problem for your computer, of course!)

I wouldn't look to delete attunement from 5e (though I've personally expanded it to have slots=profbonus instead of slots=3 forever), but the smaller increment items are kinda notable?

How did people find the Lightning Charge gear as well? There were a fair few pieces that offered ways to generate Lightning charges it, but you never really needed them. Would you want to see that sorta stuff ported over? Doesn't have to (necessarily) be lightning of course, there could be a similar thing for poison/cold/fire/etc.

[Theodoxus]

How did people find the Lightning Charge gear as well? There were a fair few pieces that offered ways to generate Lightning charges it, but you never really needed them. Would you want to see that sorta stuff ported over? Doesn't have to (necessarily) be lightning of course, there could be a similar thing for poison/cold/fire/etc.

I didn't even know about them until I was reading some news site explaining how they worked... it certainly wasn't intuitive in game, and I didn't think to experiment with it... between it and momentum and wrath and probably a few other things I'm oblivious to, I've honestly just ignored it. If the gear has it, great, but I'm not looking for it nor purposefully using it. So, porting it to 5E wouldn't do much for either, at the moment...

[LudicSavant]

One of the many big changes to BG3 is how they handle loot and magic gear. While I wouldn't want tabletop 5e to work quite like BG3 does (due to differences between tabletop and videogame play), I do think WotC could stand to dramatically improve the way magic items are handled -- indeed, it's one of the things I most wanted to see from One D&D (instead of Monk nerfs and furry aasimar).

The attunement system could have been great, but it doesn't truly act as a limiter on power since so many powerful items (including raw +X weapons and armor) simply don't require attunement. It's about as easy for an unwary DM to accidentally break their game with attunement as it is without it.

And then there's pretty much every system they've created around crafting, selling, etc for magic items. There are a ton of them filling up space in the books, and they're basically all a mess. To a point that a lot of DMs just ignore swathes of material and wing it.

[GloatingSwine]

The attunement system could have been great, but it doesn't truly act as a limiter on power since so many powerful items (including raw +X weapons and armor) simply don't require attunement. It's about as easy for an unwary DM to accidentally break their game with attunement as it is without it.


TBH I think one of the boldest thing D&D could do is drop the raw +X from items.

Make magic items weird and wobbly and put those flat bonuses somewhere else.

[solidork]

How did people find the Lightning Charge gear as well? There were a fair few pieces that offered ways to generate Lightning charges it, but you never really needed them. Would you want to see that sorta stuff ported over? Doesn't have to (necessarily) be lightning of course, there could be a similar thing for poison/cold/fire/etc.

Theres a staff that gives you charges whenever you do damage with a spell, and it triggers on each missile of Magic Missile. I had Gale as an Evoker and it was pretty great - combined with the necklace that gives you an extra missile, I managed to do 71 damage with a 4th level Magic Missile.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TBH I think one of the boldest thing D&D could do is drop the raw +X from items.

Make magic items weird and wobbly and put those flat bonuses somewhere else.

Amen to that.

[LudicSavant]

Theres a staff that gives you charges whenever you do damage with a spell, and it triggers on each missile of Magic Missile. I had Gale as an Evoker and it was pretty great - combined with the necklace that gives you an extra missile, I managed to do 71 damage with a 4th level Magic Missile.

Gale can even boost that Magic Missile damage up into the hundreds! :smallsmile:

[Theodoxus]

TBH I think one of the boldest thing D&D could do is drop the raw +X from items.

Make magic items weird and wobbly and put those flat bonuses somewhere else.

I kinda hope (if WotC doesn't jump on it to make it official). Is DMs use the various "common" magic items from BG3 as both outright inclusions in their own game, and as a jump off for new, similarly creative items. Doing so would allow for dropping off the +X without players feeling underpowered because they get a nifty new trick instead.

I think class abilities, parts of feats, invocation style 'once per [long] rest can cast x', movement powers, etc. would make very interesting magic items without ever touching combat bonuses.

Another thing I'd like to see would be the ability to merge two or more magic items together, maybe a ritual or some quest (if not outright as an ability of the Artificer class). So, you could take a Ring of Evasion and Boots of Striding and Springing and make 1 items that has both qualities, opening up an attunement slot. I did something similar back in 2E (I think, definitely pre-3rd) with the Staff of the Magi and the Staff of Power.

[Amnestic]

Theres a staff that gives you charges whenever you do damage with a spell, and it triggers on each missile of Magic Missile. I had Gale as an Evoker and it was pretty great - combined with the necklace that gives you an extra missile, I managed to do 71 damage with a 4th level Magic Missile.

There I was thinking I'd found a neat little trick with Wyll using it with Eldritch Blast Beams for multiple ones per turn. Gale MM spam is much better!


TBH I think one of the boldest thing D&D could do is drop the raw +X from items.

Make magic items weird and wobbly and put those flat bonuses somewhere else.

Inclined to agree there.

Would people be interested in some of the 'environmental' status effects become baseline? Wet/Acid/Chilled/Burned/Shocked? Would you want to see other ones added for other damage types? There were some items in BG3 that made 'Radiant Orbs' which illuminated the target and added a minor debuff to attack rolls, so could add that too.

[Angelalex242]

Bringing back the magic christmas tree of 3.5 was an interesting choice.

[Oramac]

TBH I think one of the boldest thing D&D could do is drop the raw +X from items.

Make magic items weird and wobbly and put those flat bonuses somewhere else.


Another thing I'd like to see would be the ability to merge two or more magic items together, maybe a ritual or some quest (if not outright as an ability of the Artificer class). So, you could take a Ring of Evasion and Boots of Striding and Springing and make 1 items that has both qualities, opening up an attunement slot. I did something similar back in 2E (I think, definitely pre-3rd) with the Staff of the Magi and the Staff of Power.

Agreed on both of the above. I actually sorta do this in my games. I've often had players who get extremely attached to a particular item, to the exclusion of everything else. Even items that are clearly significantly better than what they're using. So I implemented the "Oil of Enduring Power". Basically, one vial has enough for one use, applied on a short or long rest to a weapon or piece of armor, and it gives a cumulative +1 bonus to the weapon/armor (maxing out at +3).


Theres a staff that gives you charges whenever you do damage with a spell, and it triggers on each missile of Magic Missile. I had Gale as an Evoker and it was pretty great - combined with the necklace that gives you an extra missile, I managed to do 71 damage with a 4th level Magic Missile.

I love that necklace! I've been doing more or less the same thing with Gale, except that I respecced him to Abjuration, which has been quite nice with Projected Ward.

[Psyren]

TBH I think one of the boldest thing D&D could do is drop the raw +X from items.

Make magic items weird and wobbly and put those flat bonuses somewhere else.

I'm confused - you can already do that just fine. +X items are completely unnecessary now thanks to bounded accuracy.

Yeah if you decide to include a +3 sword in the dragon's hoard it's probably going to be the most powerful weapon if not item in that campaign by a country mile... but you can just... not do that.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm confused - you can already do that just fine. +X items are completely unnecessary now thanks to bounded accuracy.

Yeah if you decide to include a +3 sword in the dragon's hoard it's probably going to be the most powerful weapon if not item in that campaign by a country mile... but you can just... not do that.

Or, and this is a wild and wonderful suggestion, you can think of a more interesting thing for a sword to be than +3 and if the characters need the percentage uplift to hit and damage you give them that in a different way than attached to the items.

[Amnestic]

I'm confused - you can already do that just fine. +X items are completely unnecessary now thanks to bounded accuracy.

They are, but their existence in the rules at all in the edition sets a soft-understanding on both player and DM side that they should be included, and it's not like there's any suggestion/variant rule specifically calling out the +X items as something to be wary of, so far as I know.

Yes, DMs ultimately decide what to include/exclude, but the writers are still the ones who make the content in the first place. If you want to Session Zero and say "there won't be any +X items" you can do -like you've said - but those games are going to be a rarity, your players might not understand why/like the idea of it, and if you're not DMing it might not be your choice at all.

It's not wrong to want your houserule/ruling/design/whatever concept to be enshrined into actual rules to make it easier to sell to other people at the table.

[Rukelnikov]

Bringing back the magic christmas tree of 3.5 was an interesting choice.

To be fair the christmas tree was there in 2e as well, the main difference that 3e brought along was streamlining the magic item creation process and the expected greater availability of items to buy

[Psyren]

Or, and this is a wild and wonderful suggestion, you can think of a more interesting thing for a sword to be than +3 and if the characters need the percentage uplift to hit and damage you give them that in a different way than attached to the items.

So because you don't consider +X weapons to be wild and wonderful enough, they should be eliminated from the entire game for everyone else?

If their mere existence in a book makes your players feel entitled to them, that sounds like an expectation you need to manage at your table, not something everyone else playing this game should be punished for. Most of my own campaigns stick to +0 or +1 weapons, but I still wouldn't begrudge the existence of +2 and +3 weapons for tables that enjoy them.



It's not wrong to want your houserule/ruling/design/whatever concept to be enshrined into actual rules to make it easier to sell to other people at the table.

It is exactly wrong if enshrining your houserule disenfranchises others; people who don't find +3 weapons enjoyable have a plethora of alternatives without deleting something they don't like.

[Mastikator]

Would people be interested in some of the 'environmental' status effects become baseline? Wet/Acid/Chilled/Burned/Shocked? Would you want to see other ones added for other damage types? There were some items in BG3 that made 'Radiant Orbs' which illuminated the target and added a minor debuff to attack rolls, so could add that too.

Honestly I think these conditions are fantastic, I'd really love more conditions based on the elements. However I do think the "charges" are too bookingy for tabletop. They work great in a CRPG because the computer can easily keep track of those effects but when a human has to do it, then it would slow down an already slow game.

[Theodoxus]

Would people be interested in some of the 'environmental' status effects become baseline? Wet/Acid/Chilled/Burned/Shocked? Would you want to see other ones added for other damage types? There were some items in BG3 that made 'Radiant Orbs' which illuminated the target and added a minor debuff to attack rolls, so could add that too.

I started working on something like this a couple years ago, though it never got beyond a simple Excel table - so no playtesting or balancing or anything. It was back when I was exploring PF2 for ideas, so was toying with a 3-action casting, but instead of going the PF2 route, I added additional effects. I'm at work, so don't have access to the file at the moment, but the idea was basically each type of energy had a dice size and a rider effect. Every action to cast either increased the die size or added another rider (caster's choice, at time of casting). I think I stopped working on it when it was getting hard to come up with 3 riders for each energy type (acid, cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, poison, radiant, and thunder).