Game News Baldur's Gate 3 Community Update #3: Early Access coming August (maybe), new gameplay on June 18th

[Ol'man]

Yep. In 5e:

Feats are a variant option.

Multiclassing is a variant option.

There are no character options unless you count subclasses (I certainly don't, you're on rails with this). The only "real" character options are in a UA that might be official in a few years.

The designers don't test or balance adventures with feats (or magic items) because they're optional features.

We've been mostly stuck in the same corner of generic Forgotten Realms of 7 years.

Intentionally (or not) Larian is actually accurately mirroring the system.

Do not believe his lies. Outside of multi-classing being "variant", none of this is true.

Straight from the SRD - https://5thsrd.org/rules/feats/

"At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise."

Per magic items, Chris Perkins, https://twitter.com/chrisperkinsdnd/status/850183402808463365

"If your 5E characters have no magic items, the game would still be balanced. Magic items are pure candy."

or.. Xanathar's Guide to Everything page 136

"...D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon, unless an item bears a curse. Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item always makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No."

I could go on. If you want to be pedantic, we did go to Hell in DiA, and a few corner cases (Battlemaster, Hunter) in the PHb have a few decisions to make beyond picking subclass. But for the vast majority of cases, you pick your race, class, background, and subclass. Those choices are made by level 4 and that's the end of your customization beyond "I gain +2 wisdom at level 4 and 8" for an ASI that's class approriate.

Most people may use feats and magic items - but that doesn't stop them from being optional things that classes aren't balanced around. You don't have to like it, I don't, but that's 5e.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Hamsterfire...

 

[deuxhero]

Technically modules are balanced around magic items since all the official ones follow the same exact pace on giving them out.

 

[Ol'man]

Technically modules are balanced around magic items since all the official ones follow the same exact pace on giving them out.

There is a difference between handing out magic items because 1) they're needed and 2) they're wanted and is there a.... anything stated supporting that?

Because the most recent adventures don't support that. In DiA, one of the latest official adventure for example, you don't get your first magic weapon unless, under very specific circumstances around level 6/7, you do something most players aren't going to even think of (I've DM'd this several times, now). And only one of four-six people will benefit from it.

You could always sell your soul, to a devil, I guess. There is an item earlier that is a joke item and can kill the entire party. And one that is wotc trolling you since it doesn't work on what you're fighting. I've got a feeling that's not part of the equation, but hey, it's magic!

This is after 5 or so levels of fighting devils that require magic weapons to hit for full.

 

[luj1]

it was the first Divinity: Original Sin, the one everybody loved

 

[Thonius]

it was the first Divinity: Original Sin, the one everybody loved

It was pure trash. But I gave Larian second chance with DOS2...

 

[Dr Schultz]

This topic could be renamed: "People discover that 5th Ed Forgotten Realms are the epitome of the generic high-fantasy and blame Larian for being faithful to the source material" XD

Yep. In 5e:

Feats are a variant option.

Multiclassing is a variant option.

There are no character options unless you count subclasses (I certainly don't, you're on rails with this). The only "real" character options are in a UA that might be official in a few years.

The designers don't test or balance adventures with feats (or magic items) because they're optional features.

We've been mostly stuck in the same corner of generic Forgotten Realms of 7 years.

Intentionally (or not) Larian is actually accurately mirroring the system.

I was talking about the art style of the source book(s), but I suppose your are right about the adventure modules.

Truth to be told, I've never DMed a premade adventure in my entire life. I've played and mastered in a pletora of different game systems, including various editions and settings of D&D, but always with homemade adventures (the fun part for me is creating said adventures).

Speaking of 5th Ed, my group of players use feats, magic items and they are allowed to multiclass (even if they never did). They are aware that they are not playing Pathfinder, but still they never complained about the lack of character options.

 

[Zeriel]

This,.

It looks a -lot- like a modern Dragon Age game (which don't look good imho). To be honest, I have no idea how'd they'd translate the atmosphere of BG faithfully while also using a 3D engine, I don't think it can be done.

I don't see why not. All models and including area graphics in BG 1 & 2 and other IE games are 3D, just pre-rendered 3D. The bigger issue is modern artists and their sensibilities.

 

[Ol'man]

I think that's common. Probably very much the norm. I DM and play and we use most everything.

But the designers can't control if your party has a 15 str/cha paladin that pumped int for character reasons, the 20 str PAM/Sent battlemaster, or some Hexblade gish. Nor can they control what magic items a person has (or finds, in an adventure).

So they test and balance with a very boring baseline that excludes those things and it's been like this since the initial playtests. This goes for adventures as well as monsters from the MM, mtof, etc., divorced from some premade adventure. The remaining playtest docs as well as interviews with Crawford, Mearls, et al. since 2012 make this clear.

Larian is literally following this pattern. No idea if it's on purpose or not.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Larian is literally following this pattern. No idea if it's on purpose or not.

Are you sure about that? I haven't followed the forum, so I don't know if this is the case or not.
I've noticed some non-basic races for the companions/origin charactes during the presentation and a variant rule for the initiative (that I personal aprove), so I"ve assumed that they aren't stuck with the basic rules.

 

[Ol'man]

Larian is literally following this pattern. No idea if it's on purpose or not.

Are you sure about that? I haven't followed the forum, so I don't know if this is the case or not.
I've noticed some non-basic races for the companions/origin charactes during the presentation and a variant rule for the initiative (that I personal aprove), so I"ve assumed that they aren't stuck with the basic rules.

I actually don't know if wotc disallows using new, but official, optional races in their internal play tests (like Gith you see in the video). I don't see why not: most of the time races like Gith are flagged as optional iin a book is due to their strangeness in a setting (some etheral mindflayer hunter in ye old human village like a gith feels weird) not balance issues that feats/MC start introducing.

(Of course a DM has final say but if a race is listed as standard there is pressure to take them in)

In any event, Swen said their first step was converting the ruleset as close as possible (and sticking with phb classes/subclasses) then making changes based upon how it felt in game.

That was over half a year ago, though, so hard to say what they decided upon since. I think ranger will get an overhaul.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Ol'man You're being delibearetly misleading. Feats are optional in the sense that you can choose +2 to one stat, +1 to two stats, or a feat. The player manual comes with pages and pages of feats. They are part of the base game.

The game is designed around magical items being uncommon and meaningful. They are no longer considered fabric, or extensions of the characters. 5E even has, rules like attunement, to keep bloat and stat creep at bay. Being that the game is designed around a party, magical items are in fact not necessary. This is good design. Characters are no longer the sum of their loot.

Character classes are more distinctive in 5E than they have ever been. Feats are more substantial than they have ever been. The archetypes are well defined and accommodate just about everything. 5E is an excellent system.

You're talking out of your ass. Your desperate attempts at being edgy and contrarian are as boring as they are false.

 

[Infinitron]

I was told by the developers of Solasta that feats aren't a required feature in the 5E ruleset, but that they're adding them anyway.

Realistically, it's hard to imagine Larian or anybody else leaving feats out of their D&D 5E video game because they're a popular concept with gamers (they're like Fallout perks)

 

[deuxhero]

Character classes are more distinctive in 5E than they have ever been.

False. Bonded accuracy, the ease of getting any profiency you want via Race or Background, and all martial classes getting extra attack by default (rather than some other means of distinguishing them in combat) means mundanes are more samey than ever. The different casters feel different, but they did so in older editions too.

 

[Decado]

the combat initiative system has been changed,

Okay . . .

and the much-criticized narration has been overhauled.

Proof Sven reads the Codex and specifically, my awesome poasts.

 

[Ol'man]

Ol'man You're being delibearetly misleading. Feats are optional in the sense that you can choose +2 to one stat, +1 to two stats, or a feat. The player manual comes with pages and pages of feats. They are part of the base game.

The game is designed around magical items being uncommon and meaningful. They are no longer considered fabric, or extensions of the characters. 5E even has, rules like attunement, to keep bloat and stat creep at bay. Being that the game is designed around a party, magical items are in fact not necessary. This is good design. Characters are no longer the sum of their loot.

Character classes are more distinctive in 5E than they have ever been. Feats are more substantial than they have ever been. The archetypes are well defined and accommodate just about everything. 5E is an excellent system.

You're talking out of your ass. Your desperate attempts at being edgy and contrarian are as boring as they are false.

How wrong can one man be? It's all so tiring.

You first point "...Feats are optional in the sense that you can choose +2 to one stat, +1 to two stats, or a feat."

"Chapter 6 of the Player’s Handbook defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign." - https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules

Ok, so you're flat out wrong on that one. The fact that a lot of ink is spilled over optional feats is irrelevant. They're still optional and the game isn't balanced around them.

Second "..magical items being uncommon and meaningful. They are no longer considered fabric, or extensions of the characters. 5E even has, rules like attunement, to keep bloat and stat creep at bay. Being that the game is designed around a party, magical items are in fact not necessary."

Yes, and? I never said they're not any of those things. I said "The designers don't test or balance adventures with feats (or magic items) because they're optional features." and you responded "Do not believe his lies. Outside of multi-classing being "variant", none of this is true." Uh? Do you know what not necessary nor required means? You seem to be agreeing with me, now.

"Character classes are more distinctive in 5E than they have ever been. Feats are more substantial than they have ever been. The archetypes are well defined and accommodate just about everything. 5E is an excellent system."

Ok? Are you being paid to post this?

"You're talking out of your ass. Your desperate attempts at being edgy and contrarian are as boring as they are false."

There are eight years of the designers stating what I said.This isn't some contrarian hot take. This is you burying your head in the sand and being retarded. You can show me what I said is false. It's all backed up by the official publications and the designers own statements.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Infinitron Feats are optional in the sense that races are also optional. You can play without it, but why? In 5E, you can choose a stat increase or a feat, which is significant because stats are everything in 5E. The game would be entirely playable without them, but again, you could also play the game without wizards or rogues.

@Ol’man Yes, I’m sure they just wrote pages of feats into the base player handbook with no intention anyone would ever use them. Same thing for Epic Boons in the Dungeon Masters Guide, totally optional, but pages dedicated to it. Same thing with dragons having sorcerer class levels. Optional. Pages and pages of monsters in The Monster Manual. If a designer omits one creature from their campaign, does that mean the whole monster manual is bullshit? Pages and pages of weapons. Are they all bullshit because a campaign doesn’t have a kukri? They went through the trouble of designing pages of magic weapons and attunement rules so that nobody would ever use them? Pages of classes and archetypes. Does every meet-up have to have every class represented?

You’re being deliberately obtuse for the bizarre reason of trying to misrepresent the edition. One of the major points of this edition was to not let rules hamper the game. This edition stresses the need to let players breathe and house rule. The game is elegant and flexible. Balance and necessity of items is incumbent on the DM and campaign designer. Your statements are false, because they attempt to convey the system as weak, when it is in fact comprehensive—more so than any D&D edition prior.

 

[MrBuzzKill]

I just want the game to be MEMORABLE, to have its own unique identity, even a bad one. Even fucking D:OS 1 had memorable moments, such as the Cysael market vendors' shouts. NOT IN THE MOOD FOR CHEESE? THAT EXCUSE HAS MORE HOLES THAN THIS FINE GORGOMBER!

 

[deuxhero]

@Ol’man Yes, I’m sure they just wrote pages of feats into the base player handbook with no intention anyone would ever use them

They wrote an entire book of optional rules at least once...

 

[Dr Schultz]

There are eight years of the designers stating what I said.This isn't some contrarian hot take. This is you burying your head in the sand and being retarded. You can show me what I said is false. It's all backed up by the official publications and the designers own statements.

I'm no professional designer, but I think this is a quite natural approach. 5th Ed is by design a modular system, built around the idea that different groups of players can sink in the ruleset as deeply as they want. Given this premise, it's almost mandatory for a designer to balance his/her adventures around the basic rules.
I don't think this is too much of an issue, though, given the fact that players and DMs are expected to build custom contents and videogame developers have the same freedom.

Speaking of which, I doubt Larian won't adopt as many customization options as possible. Historically, this is THE feature that videogame developers have tried to translate more accurately from D&D, to the point that many CRPG players with no tabletop experience think that this is the defining feature of the genre (especially here).

Bottom line: If I have to guess, we will have feats and magic items both in Solasta and BG3. And both games will be balanced around these optional rules. Not sure about multiclassing (that personally I don't like)

 

[AwesomeButton]

before widespread Codex LarianHate began,

You seem to have a bad case of selective memory there.

Also, D:OS2 is an objectively bad RPG.

 

[Thac0]

Ol'man You're being delibearetly misleading. Feats are optional in the sense that you can choose +2 to one stat, +1 to two stats, or a feat. The player manual comes with pages and pages of feats. They are part of the base game.

The game is designed around magical items being uncommon and meaningful. They are no longer considered fabric, or extensions of the characters. 5E even has, rules like attunement, to keep bloat and stat creep at bay. Being that the game is designed around a party, magical items are in fact not necessary. This is good design. Characters are no longer the sum of their loot.

Character classes are more distinctive in 5E than they have ever been. Feats are more substantial than they have ever been. The archetypes are well defined and accommodate just about everything. 5E is an excellent system.

You're talking out of your ass. Your desperate attempts at being edgy and contrarian are as boring as they are false.

How wrong can one man be? It's all so tiring.

You first point "...Feats are optional in the sense that you can choose +2 to one stat, +1 to two stats, or a feat."

"Chapter 6 of the Player’s Handbook defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign." - https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules

Ok, so you're flat out wrong on that one. The fact that a lot of ink is spilled over optional feats is irrelevant. They're still optional and the game isn't balanced around them.

Second "..magical items being uncommon and meaningful. They are no longer considered fabric, or extensions of the characters. 5E even has, rules like attunement, to keep bloat and stat creep at bay. Being that the game is designed around a party, magical items are in fact not necessary."

Yes, and? I never said they're not any of those things. I said "The designers don't test or balance adventures with feats (or magic items) because they're optional features." and you responded "Do not believe his lies. Outside of multi-classing being "variant", none of this is true." Uh? Do you know what not necessary nor required means? You seem to be agreeing with me, now.

"Character classes are more distinctive in 5E than they have ever been. Feats are more substantial than they have ever been. The archetypes are well defined and accommodate just about everything. 5E is an excellent system."

Ok? Are you being paid to post this?

"You're talking out of your ass. Your desperate attempts at being edgy and contrarian are as boring as they are false."

There are eight years of the designers stating what I said.This isn't some contrarian hot take. This is you burying your head in the sand and being retarded. You can show me what I said is false. It's all backed up by the official publications and the designers own statements.

You are kind of right here, but it is misleading to say the least. Basically the entirety of the playerbase excluding a few retarded newbie DMs who do not understand the systems play with feats and multiclassing allowed. An argument can be made for feats suffering from being optional and generally being all over the place, but the game is absolutely balanced around multiclassing as an option, and multiclassing is really fun in 5e.

On point on the magic items tho, 5e is awfull when it comes to loot. There are no tables for how much wealth is average for what level. The rarity levels assigned to magic items are all over the place, some of the strongest items in the game have the lowest rarity while some of the wondrous legendary stuff is shit you could give to a lvl 1 party. If you actually roll loot with the hoard rules (or just use a website to let it role for you) you very quickly see that noone ever tested those rules in practise. 5e treats cash and loot, a cornerstone of rpgs, with as much importance as your backstory, IE fluff that might be relevant depending on the DM and its the worst flaw of the rule system.

 

[Black_Willow]

it was the first Divinity: Original Sin, the one everybody loved

Codex GOTY 2014

 

[AwesomeButton]

it was the first Divinity: Original Sin, the one everybody loved

Codex GOTY 2014

Not my fault.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Basically the entirety of the playerbase excluding a few retarded newbie DMs who do not understand the systems play with feats and multiclassing allowed.

They may be "a few" today, but we can be sure that Mike Mearls has "great plans" for D&D's future...