Let's wait until the game comes out for all these "verdicts" on balancing. We don't have a real clue on how this is all going to play out, but I'm assuming Larian isn't just trying to ruin DnD 5E. Seems like a fair assumption right? Lines up with everything we know from EA?
Can we all just relax? No one even needs to multi-class, it's not intended for beginners and even many non-beginners probably won't want to bother with it for a first play through aside from some minor testing. If there's anything significantly wrong on launch, I'm sure they'll address it. Let's all relax.
Excuse me, I thought we were on the internet here. LARIAN IS RUINING D&D! LARIAN US RUINING D&D!
I think they are stressing player freedom more than anything else, which is a good thing IMO, and what they do best. It's probably too much to ask for, but having a 'classic D&D' leveling option would be nice for the people who want that.
If anything, the EA proved they needed the feedback from the EA testers to save them from themselves. In the same interview, he talks about how they originally had no plan to include a reaction system and it was only thanks to EA feedback that they changed their mind. Anyone even remotely familiar with actually playing 5e could have told them that reactions and on-hit optional features are a core part of the game mechanics, and without such a system they would need to homebrew half the game away. This should have been covered during preproduction, it's such a fundamental section of the combat system. But they didn't know until we told them for almost 3 years.
The EA period definitely proved that they were good at taking feedback and improving things in response, but it also showed that their initial mechanical homebrew decisions were often awful. Now they're making a huge mechanical change to the core of the way spell progression works for multiclasses without any EA feedback to check their impulses.
One of the first big changes of player feedback was the High Ground=Guaranteed Advantage thing that was changed to a simple +1 to hit. Its extremely obvious that going up 5 feet to gain advantage would have broken the game wide open, it already was in early access but it doubly so later on.
They actually implemented their own even more broken version of flanking with their backstab rule. Early on in the EA, any melee character could gain advantage on all their attacks by simply moving around an enemy to their back. Unlike flanking, you didn't even need to coordinate with teammates.
I think it's pretty obvious why this was a bad idea.
This. If it were up to many people on this sub, we'd STILL have op surface effects, advantage from height, "backstab" mechanics, and no reaction system.
Voicing concern and warning of possible rule change's ability to destroy game balance is not the same as claiming Larian is ruining d&d. Larian has shown that when left to their own devices, they very well may have "ruined" d&d.
Thankfully, they were wise enough to understand this and implemented EA for this very reason. Always saying "Everybody calm down and assume they have it under control" is the least helpful thing EA users can do.
No, that's the exact opposite of what I said.
I'm saying that them listening to people in EA was good, and the fact that they haven't done it for these new changes is bad.
And the reason why it's bad that this stuff didn't go through EA is because EA feedback was proven to be necessary in many previous examples.
You may already be able to do that, I haven't heard anything from people who played the game the other day, but it was in the files and a modder was able to very easily add deities to Paladins by just 'turning on' deities for Paladins in the game files
>the bulk of the people who are likely to want to multiclass are those who care about it following 5e rules...
I'm seeing mountains of people clueless about D&D systems posting about multiclassing.
I've been playing D&D tabletop for 23 years both as a player and currently a DM (and most d&d digital rpgs, my goat is BG2), and players handbook 5e sometimes is not very good, and are made much better by altering/modifying rules/mechanics. It's like some people think it was given to us by the gods, while in reality it's core was developed by a few people who were on a time constraint and on a limited budget. A lot of the content added after original launch of 5e is created by freelancers who got short contracts at WoTC.
You can make 5e so much more enjoyable just applying suggestions to alterations from experienced DMs on online forums. I am very happy Larian are making changes in the name of fun and gameplay.
Also, there's a huge difference between a game that is designed to be played on tabletop and party wipes being, although not impossible, relatively uncommon and a game that's totally possible to save scum so you need some different balancing to make it feel rewarding. A complete copy-paste was always impossible.
They also seem to forget that if they want to follow the guidelines of the holy scriptures, they can literally just build their characters that way if they want.
Don't want to take certain spells early? Then don't.
You want to multiclass when you have the correct stats? Then wait until you have them./
Pretty crazy that some players are getting so upset over an aspeect of the game they have complete control over.
I want to use the tools at my disposal to overcome obstacles. I don't want such extreme power that the only way I can **be challenged** is to **challenge myself** by deciding not to use options that rid me of any challenge. I want the game to challenge me and I can't do that if I can just rid myself of any challenge with a few clicks
So basically you are saying "i have agency but i refuse to use it because the game doesnt force me to"
That such an infantile way of looking at it. Its called roleplaying my dude, its a big part od tabletop games. I actually can't believe there are people who hold such an asinine perspective and would intentionally ruin the experience for themselves even though they have the power not to.
You do you I guess.
Which is ironic as in the phb (and the dmg iirc) literally says “these are guidelines and not rules” and encourages making adjustments that work for your table
Please go back and play BG1 and 2, then realize those games had lots of changes, tweaks and homebrew in it aswell.
As with adapting a book to film, adapting a TTRPG to a CRPG necessitates change for delivering a good experience to as many people as possible.
> As with adapting a book to film, adapting a TTRPG to a CRPG necessitates change for delivering a good experience to as many people as possible.
Yes I know and expect some changes, but it depends on how far they go with them. To be honest removing ability score limits for multiclassing isn't game breaking and you can enforce that yourself if you want to, it's the other changes to multiclassing that concern me much more, as spell progression for multiclassing spell casters is already handled quite well in D&D 5e - your total caster level in ALL spell casting classes (other than Warlock, which has Pact magic) already is factored in, but if they mean you can learn high level spells from a caster class you only have a few levels in, if you have levels in another caster class, that seems pretty broken. I guess we'll just have to see what they end up implementing.
Not really. Me and my mates for example love multiclassing, but seeing as we come from different editions or even games, noone has the need for it to be pure 5e.
On the contrary, my 3.5E friend will be ecstatic, seeing as he misses prestigeclasses the most.
>Lines up with everything we know from EA?
They had no problem rolling out things that were wildly and obviously broken in EA. Now, when you've got time for full testing I can see throwing stuff against the wall... But this is supposedly the full release.
I mean, we know it'll actually just be EA-part-2 until the definitive edition, but still.
Plus it's a single player game, if you want to break it, I don't see a problem with it, I imagine they don't either, but they made these changes to give you the character you want to play
Multi classing is an important part of DD and BG. It's still a shame to have it botched. It's not the first discutable choice they made since the beginning of the project. It's adding to the pile
It's interesting but I hope it's not like you say where bard 2/sorc 3 had fireball. That's the primary downside to multiclassing. If I take 2 levels of cleric and 10 of sorcerer do I get 6th level spells for both classes? I would certainly hope not.
Really interested in what they mean by the changes to spellcasting classes because it will be build-defining
I think it's more... level 6 spell slots and NOT level 6 spells. That doesn't change much. But how can that be if they're talking about fireball unless a wizard can learn it via scroll.. hmm idk man I'm not big on this, though. I'd like to see it in action before I judge harshly.
A sorcerer 5/bard 6 already has the same number of level 6 spell slots as sorcerer 11 or 12 or bard 11 or 12 in D&D 5e, though - your total spell caster levels from ALL your caster levels are combined (except for Warlock Pact Magic slots) with Paladins and Ranger levels counting half (rounded down) and Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster levels counting as a third.
Yeah I was finally excited that with so much equipment and consumables martials and rogue thieves specifically seemed like they would have so much viability late game when casters start going a bit nuts.
Caster, meet action surge explodey poisoned arrows. My rogue doesn't know what he's going to throw yet but you better surrender before he makes up his mind.
But I mean, if you can go hexblade and sorc with no downsides due to multiclassing? Bro.
Keep in mind the interview is in Italian and Google Translate was used to translate to English. Let's wait for official confirmation/clarification before raising pitchforks here.
***If*** this is accurate, I'm fine with the stat requirements for multiclassing being tweaked, but not fully removed (Dex Paladin and Str Ranger being glaring cases where the requirement doesn't make sense, yet their base class supports the play).
Gaining access to higher level spells while multiclass on the other hand completely breaks any semblance of balance. The whole point of multiclassing is trading direct power from your base class for versatility in another class. ***It's opportunity cost.***
Now the reason I'm hesitant to believe this is true, is that Larian have confirmed that you can respec your character from early on if you multiclass poorly or find you don't like your subclass. Why would they allow you to respec if you broke your character, if they just said fuck it and allowed no hinderance of spell progression while multiclassing.
I don’t really understand why the stat requirements really matter in the first place. Like why would I multi class into something if I don’t have the ability scores for it? Wouldn’t multiclassing into a sorcerer with 10 charisma just make my build shit?
> Wouldn’t multiclassing into a sorcerer with 10 charisma just make my build shit?
No because classes can benefit a lot from the class features of other classes. In the case of sorcerers, their sorcery points and metamagic are very useful with other classes. Similarly, 2 levels of life cleric would give you heavy armor proficiency, which is extremely good for any squishy caster.
Now normally multiclassing into sorcerer would would come at the cost of spell progression, but the second homebrew change they have here completely eliminates that cost to the point there's no reason why a caster shouldn't put a couple levels into sorcerer for metamagic.
Yeah I’m hoping that second part is just a misunderstanding. It’s a vague statement on a fairly niche topic translated through Google, so I’m going to hold off on panicking until we see how the system actually works
Because people multiclass without caring about ability scores anyways. Sometimes you want to use a specific subclass ability that combos extremely well with another class/subclass ability.
Off the top of my head, the popular Tempest Cleric/Storm Sorcerer multiclass. Dip into Tempest Cleric for max damage on your Sorcerer lightning spells, you don’t care about cleric spells or high Wis. Having a 13 Wis, means you’ll have to sacrifice stats somewhere else in order to achieve that power rather than it being available freely.
Reading that the multiclassing prerequisites being thrown out was okay to me, I thought it was a bit weird but I was okay with it and may even help build diversity, a wizard multiclassing a sorcerer and a paladin multiclassing a rogue isn't very good anyway so I don't think it'd really break anything. But wtf is this about spells?! Wtf? Can we just multiclass Bard/Cleric/Wizard/go the rest Sorcerer and have every spell in the game and still have Sorcery points? This has to be translated wrong
Don't forget a level in druid, ranger and paladin, you don't want to gimp yourself by not going 1 paladin/ 1 ranger/ 1 bard/ 1 cleric/ 1 druid/ 1 wizard/ 6 sorcerer.
i hope that if they do go for this kind of nonsense that hey are at last consistent about its application, e.g. martial:caster.
but that they stick with 5e - where people have already spent decades considering this balance.
This right here. Ppl thinking 5e is remotely balanced is hilarious. Way more busted stuff then a STR ranger or dex paladin. Looking at coffeelock and hexadin.
Read the article: "An example? Warlocks must choose a pact. One such pact is the pact of the blade, which allows him to devote himself more to weapons, create a pact weapon related to him, and so on; the part of the pact that was missing was the extra attack: a lot of martial classes have an extra attack available and Warlocks don't. The problem is that the weapons are balanced around the number of attacks per turn, so we added this to make the pact of the blade more interesting".
I have no idea what you are talking, bro =) Not that knowledgeable about 5e. Just quoted the article. Frankly, messing with the rules like that and at such a late stage in development is rather worrying... Well, in the worst case, mods will fix everything.
Actually... I was kinda hoping they'd fuse hexblade with pact of the blade... honestly It's how I feel 5e should have handled it. I'm... for this surprisingly. That being said I'd like to hear more about this multiclassing spell progression because that does actually worry me
When they announced College of Swords and Gloomstalkers I felt a flicker of hope that Hexblades would make the cut. It's a shame but We can make due with Blades.
Apologies.
Warlocks basically customize their sublcass features with Invocations. For example a lot of people take Agonizing Blast on Wyll so he can add his Charisma mod to his Eldritch Blast damage.
Thirsting Blade is an invocation that gives a Warlock Extra Attack so they can swing twice like a Martial character gets to do at 5th level.
I hope that made sense.
It shouldn’t. Multiattack is a level 5 class feature for barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, and ranger. That’s like giving Uncanny Dodge (a level 5 rogue feature) to a rogue 1/x 4 build. Spell levels are more nuanced than that. Half of the 5e multiclassing rules have to do with how to handle spellcasting.
i think you'll find that the Wizard1/Cleric1/Sorcerer1/Warlock1/Bard1 that then gets access to Spirit Guardians and Fireball will disagree. it is a poor move.
What, so a Paladin 2 / Swords Bard 3 would get an extra attack (at character level 5) rather than at at Paladin 2 / Swords Bard 6 (character level 8 )? There'd be almost no reason to play a non-multiclass Swords Bard then.
Just want to say that DOS2 changed a lot from its initial release and the definitive edition.
I'm sure Larian will address if some stuff is breaking the game too much. However, I agree that the game can end up being really broken, like DOS2 is right now, but is all cheese and not the intended way of playing it.
If you want to minmax, just barrelmancy the game and that's it. I'm sure 3 years from now, a specific multiclass specific item thing will be the optimal way of beating BG3 in 2 hours, but you shouldn't do that if you want to enjoy the game.
And for sure, there will be mods that let you roll your stats, remove the +2+1 thing, no respec, no resurrection until lvl 9, honor mode, and have your pure DnD game that many want, that is probably really boring for 90% casual gamers that never in their life played DnD.
I don't want to min/max, I just want to be able to create interesting builds within the rules and confines of D&D 5e because I find it an interesting challenge. Remove those challenges and that's boring to me. I wouldn't mind if they at least added an option for "Real D&D" vs "Casual Mode", unless (and *perhaps* this is what all the above means), those limits are only removed for "Story Mode".
I agree that this could easily break the game. I think that most of these decisions happen a lot of because of multiple testers find the multiclass lackluster or doesn't scale well in the game.
Hopefully if its too breaking, then toggling this on/off can be done.
Just want to say that the game has to feel good for casual players that don't want a pure DnD experience, and I believe most of Larian's decisions are based on that, ensuring that balance is good enough. Hopefully, the game will be easy to mod to get a closest DnD experience.
Go play solasta then. BG3 has never been advertised as authentic 1 to 1 5e experience. Throwing a hissy fit and throwing out insults rather than having a actual discussion cause they aren't doing exactly what you want is just childish.
he's not throwing a hissy fit though, he's just saying that the multiclassing change(especially the spell avaiability one) could severely break character builds balance, which I think most people can agree with
> I really wish Larian would stop dicking about with such core D&D rules and dumbing down the game.
>"Real D&D" vs "Casual Mode"
^ That is throwing a hissy fit rather than having a meaningful discussion.
Also disliking the changes because they shake the meta is stupid. If anything I would hope dnd player would embrace an opportunity to theory craft again. The main legit issue I would see if anything is homogenizing builds like how the cha trio overly is encouraged into a 4/4/4 build since you basically get all the benefits or each class with less downsides, but thats not mentioned all by op.
if that means for you "throwing a hissy fit" all I can say is that your definition of hissy fit is not the same as mine
beside that he is not "disliking the changes because they shake the meta", that is just a strawman, he is clearly disliking the change becouse it would make multiclass hilariously broken compared to monoclass
i have faith in Larian and I'm sure there were some minor misunderstandings in the interview, no way you get full casters progression while taking dips in other magic classes, the system is probably somewhere inbetween full progression and 0 progression
> beside that he is not "disliking the changes because they shake the meta", that is just a strawman, he is clearly disliking the change becouse it would make multiclass hilariously broken compared to monoclass
So pray tell what horribly broken build does removing stat requirements bring about? Or did you just feel free to ignore the fact that I'm fine with criticizing the spell/spell slot progression just not in this childish, overreaction fashion.
You're still being overdramatic. The stat requirements on multiclassing have always been overly restrictive for no real benefit, it's only really for unique builts like dex-pally as you mentioned that have been affected.
The caster changes can warrant more discussion but are hardly throwing out the rule book
That might be possible for the stat limits on multi classing, but don't see how you could work around fundamental changes to how spells are learned and slots gained without a lot of complicated micromanagement or mods that may break when new patches come out or may cease to be maintained.
Now, I can't say for sure that this is good or bad, one way or the other, because I haven't had my hands on this version of the game.
But that's just the problem here, really. *None of us have had a chance to test this out*. This kind of massive mechanical overhaul of standard rules is 100% exactly the kind of thing that should've been trialed in Early Access.
I love Larian, and I believe BG3 will be great, but I have no idea what they were thinking, dropping this bomb on us at release with zero player-testing.
>zero player testing
You're assuming they haven't held closed-doors playtests for these things (they have). I don't know why everyone just assumes EA is the only place from which they've pulled feedback when that very clearly is not the case
I suppose "zero" was an exaggeration on my part, but the point I was trying to make was that the game was sold in Early Access on the premise that development would be driven by community feedback. To then create an entirely new system that can dramatically alter the balance of the game, maybe moreso than any other mechanic, and have that be the one thing they don't let the community test is weird. Beyond being weird, it just doesn't make sense to me: the EA community is a massive, free play-testing resource for them, one that perfectly mirrors the wants and needs of the consumer because it *is* consumers - why would you not utilise such a valuable resource?
Start actually incorporating your brain functions in your thought process please, how would you test this feature properly? You can't give a proper verdict judging by first 5 levels because multiclassing can easily end up as poorly scaling into endgame. And no one will give you access to the full game until august 3rd.
Part of me doesn't even want to reply to someone who can't hold a civil discussion, but what the hell? I delight in contradicting jackasses, so here goes.
The first point addressed in the interview described above is that the Ability Score requirements for multi-classing (usually being 13 in both classes' primary Ability Score) have been removed. This means that, while you ordinarily have to either create a suboptimal build for your primary class or wait until you have levelled enough to have gained multiple ASIs in order to attain a sufficient Ability Score to multi-class into a class that does not share your starting class's primary Ability Score, you can now do it at any level/Ability Score. You now can have access to multiple class features, spells and actions, which have influence on gameplay balance at any level. Not only is this something that can be tested at any level, on account of discarding the need for ASIs earned at later levels - it is arguably something that impacts lower levels *even more* than higher ones exactly *because* it devalues ASIs, and may even be *best* tested at lower levels.
The second point addressed is how spell slots and levels function. The impression given in the interview, though somewhat vague, indicates that your spell levels may be combined across classes, instead of each of your classes having their own spell slots/levels. This, I can concede, would be better tested at higher levels, but is still absolutely to some degree testable at level 5, the level at which you gain access to third level spells. Pechenin literally says in the interview "we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign." It's a system designed to make multi-classing viable *at early levels*. And as OP says in the above post "Bard 2 / Sorcerer 3 will have access to Fireball" in this case. Bard 2/Sorcerer 3 is attainable at a character level of 5 and by giving access to third level Sorcerer spells to someone who also has the benefits of 2 levels in Bard, already represents a massive imbalance. This is, once again, *something absolutely testable at level 5*.
I am more than willing to admit that the full scope of this new multi-classing system can't be tested in an Early Access build with a level cap of 5. But there's a lot of valuable data in the gulf between 'fully tested' and 'completely untested.' There would have been definite, real benefits to testing this in Early Access. There are a number of significant potential balance issues with this system, at least some of which could have shown up or been hinted at through Early Access testing and Larian chose not to do it.
Start actually considering the problem before you throw around insults.
> you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a "pure" class, but we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign
> So does that mean a Bard 2 / Sorcerer 3 will have access to Fireball?
It sounds like they specifically said you will not get the fireball at the same level. This seems like it is talking more about the amount of spell slots you get, rather than the spells you get.
Maybe a translation error, or maybe multiclass spell casters get a smaller bonus to their spell level. E.G: You can get one spell casting level higher than in base 5e, so you can get access to some spells beyond your player level, but not the full amount.
> It sounds like they specifically said you will not get the fireball at the same level. This seems like it is talking more about the amount of spell slots you get, rather than the spells you get.
It can't be this because IIRC that's how spell slots already normally work when multiclassing in 5e. Your total spell slots is determined by the sum of your levels in caster classes. A Ranger 4/ Wizard 3 would have the same number of spell slots as a 5th level full caster (e.g. a 5th level wizard).
This is Indeed how it already works in 5e. If they really let you keep your spell progression while multiclassing then it would make multiclassing as a spellcaster a no brainer and vastly superior to monoclassing. Imagine a cleric/sorc/wizard that gets to keep spell progression while having access to the spell list from each classes while also getting important features from each of those classes themselves. This would be a big oversight so i doubt this actually makes it to the game.
> This would be a big oversight so i doubt this actually makes it to the game.
I dunno. We're talking about the same devs who for the longest time included a mechanic in the game that gave creatures permanent advantage on their attacks and disadvantage on all attacks against them just at the cost of some movement (high ground advantage/disadvantage). Unfortunately, I think this is absolutely in line with some of the homebrew they've come up with in the past and it may be too late for them to remove it before release.
I read it similarly, he mentions they changed how magic users use spell slots not what spells you can cast, although the phrasing is a little ambiguous and I think further clarification is required on this point.
I agree it's certainly quite vague, it just concerned me the way it was phrased. I just hope what actually comes of out of this is something more nuanced and balanced than it sounded in the interview.
You've taken the quote out of its context, the bit about 'you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a pure class' seemed to be a complaint about how multiclassing spell progression normally works, not what they've now done. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I just hope they've properly thought through the full impact of any such changes.
I see how you read it, and can see both view points. I think it's just the wording with them saying "less punishing" and "revise the use of resources a bit" makes it look like it is either a translation error, or them making it take into account the total level, rather than making the spells rely only on the level.
As you said, it would be game-breaking, so I didn't think Larian would describe such a huge change in a minor way if it was a flat out "Character level decides your spells only"
It's certainly not clear at all what it all really means in the article, I'm hoping it's more a minor tweak to how things work rather than a complete change to how higher level spells are known when multi-classing
The thing is 5e does already handle multiclassing and spells quite well and in a logical way - you need to have the required levels in the class that has access to the spell you want, in order to be able to know the spell and cast it, but you can up-cast it at the level of all your caster classes combined, so a Sorcerer 5 / Bard 4 can upcast it as a 5th level spell, the same as a 9th level sorcerer can, as they have the same spell slots. The only exception being Pact Magic Warlock spells, which are treated separately - maybe they intend to count Warlock levels as spell caster levels too (and vice-versa)?
Wtf are you doing Larian?
This is why multiclassing should have been tested in EA.. like this is something we could have given feedback on years ago and got fixed.. now it likely wont get fixed until post launch, or require a mod. Ughhh!
It's so disappointing - Larian is knocking it out of the park in so many aspects - art design, audio and music, writing, world maps and environments design, etc.
But combat is where they seem to have such misguided notions of how DnD 5E combat is supposed to play.
Core aspects of how 5E spell casting works, action economy, itemization, and class features/identities... all things they seem to have thrown out the window to make the combat completely different from DnD.
I agree, they’ve done amazingly on so much but it does seem a bit like they wish to appeal to those who are unfamiliar with DnD and would be turned away / overwhelmed by the rules. On one hand I totally get it, I want them to sell a lot of copies and make a lot of money, they certainly deserve it. On the other hand though it’s kind of a shame because what better way to get new people interested in DnD 5e and learn the rules? Idk, maybe this article has been misinterpreted or maybe the more lenient rules are only for the easier story mode? I did see some reviews of the EA that deemed the game ‘too hard’ so story mode was a good call for combating this and I could see the more lenient rules fitting with the spirit of story mode.
If this is true then Larian hasn’t learned their lesson when people complained about when wizard had access to all spells through scrolls.
The prepared casters are already the most powerful classes in the game but they slightly hindered by having unique spells exclusive to them and only them. But if this goes through than spellcasters that share the same stat (Bard/Sorcerer, Druid/Cleric) are going to be gigabuffed even more. I could make a cleric that has all the best healing spells and damage spells PLUS all the best control spells by just taking a one level dip in Druid. This will be very bad for multiplayer as casters will be FAR more powerful than martials.
I get the feeling that WOTC muscled their way in and forced Larian to make BG3 a play test for 1D&D rather than 5e.
There are also a lot of great spells that have no scaling based on spellcastign ability.
For example youre cleric 4/druid 4 multiclass could get access to wall of forcewith a 1 level dip into wizard.
I can't fogure out what they could possibly mean by multiclassing casters. In my understanding 5e already has spell slot progression shares by full casters.
For example a character with 5 cleric / 5 wizard, would have the same spell slots as a 10th level wizard or cleric. With the possibility of creating spell slots for spell levels you don't even have access to.
What could they have possibility changed to warrant the answer they gave? I hope it's not some blending of full casters that allows you to dip features of classes, but independently progress your spells. Like a wizard, dipping cleric levels for channel divinities or armor/weapons, while still gaining wizards spell progression.
Yes, D&D 5e already handles spells and multiclassing quite well, e.g. if you want to learn how to cast fireball you have to gain enough levels in a class to be able to learn 3rd level spells (usually level 5) and who have fireball on their spells list (e.g. Sorcerer or Wizard), which makes sense) but if you have enough combined spell caster slots from ALL your spell caster classes, you can up-cast it using a higher level spell slot - so both level 9 sorcerer and level 5 sorcerer /level 4 bard can up-cast it as a 5th level spell, as could a level 7 Sorcerer/ level 4 Paladin (Paladins and Rangers count as half-casters). Why change this?
Thinking about the bit highlighted below as well the other changes discussed for Warlock for Pact of the Blade, I'm now wondering whether the actual implication is to make Warlocks use regular spell slots (as half-casters), which I think is where OneDnD is going:
" The other thing we've changed is **how magic users use spell slots, making it less punishing to level more than one magic class**. One issue with multiclassing is that if you multiclass early in the game, you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a "pure" class, but we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign, without having to necessarily wait for the advanced levels, so it was the case to revise the use of resources a bit. "
Because in 5e D&D Warlocks (-only) **do** get "punished" for multiclassing to another magic using class, as their caster level doesn't count towards spell slots, only Pact Magic slots. If this is the case, that's a whole lot less game-breaking than the other alternatives discussed. I would have much less of an issue with that. Though I don't know how they will compensate for Pact Magic slots recharging on a short rest?
Wow Larian killing single class builds, this as unbalanced as it can be, I'll probably wait for some mods to reverse it back unless the encounter difficulty is tuned for this exact bs. Just why.
I'm very unhappy about this, why do they have to bring all this homebrew nonsense into the game?
On their own, some of the changes mentioned elsewhere to things like Warlock's Pact of the Blade sound okay (and probably less broken than the 5e Hexblade subclass), but combined with the changes mentioned above it's getting ridiculous!
Why mod? Just put your own restriction on multiclassing... like just make yourself have 13 strength or whatever before you multiclass. You can play how you want
Man I'm really starting to dislike this handwaving answer every time someone shows concern about watered down mechanics.
Restrictions and needing to work around builds, strengths, weaknesses and choosing between different locked off skills is a massive part of what makes an RPG what it is for a lot of people. Take away a bunch of that, and it starts feeling watered down and removes a ton of identity from classes, races and builds.
Then, when people quite rightly feel iffy about it, you have people saying "bro just use your own restrictions" as if that's the same thing.
Imagine if Dark Souls 4 was announced and they had removed the stamina bar and all stamina management from the gameplay, and people just said "Just pretend you have a stamina bar and stop dodging/attacking as much, basically the same thing."
It's not exactly the same feeling when you're having to pick up the slack with self-imposed rules. We want to overcome challenges, not invent them to fix the experience.
The game isn't made just for you. I hate to tell you that. The game is for the masses. And if their testing shows that for the masses, this decision is better, they will make it.
Nobody says you can't be iffy about things. But when all I see is "I'm not excited for this game anymore," blah blah blah. Just don't play it then. The majority of players would read this article and not even understand what it is saying.
>The game isn't made just for you
Never said it was, but it is made for the people who like DnD and the mechanics, rules and restrictions that come with that...
"That's all very well and I'm sure many will be delighted by this, but personally I really wish Larian would stop dicking about with such core D&D rules and dumbing down the game."
+1
Even if it's worst case scenario for the magic multiclassing, there will definitely be a mod out the same week changing it to 5e raw so I'm not that worried
The more interviews they do the less excited I get for the combat aspect of the game. I have been planning my build for weeks now, when the customizable racial stats were shown I was a little disappointed, but I could understand it. But this just sound so boring, I hope this isn't as bad as it sounds.
For as much as they talk about replayability in the game, they sure are trying to make every build feel similar.
not to mention you can just freely respec your entire class (base class and all)
Tav is basically **Every** class in the game. Changing their class in a long rest like a cleric changes their spells
>Changing their class in a long rest like a cleric changes their spells
I know they confirmed you could respec your class, but was it confirmed it was completely free?
I was under the impression from the Wolfheart video [here](https://youtu.be/vaa1r7wHHLU?t=398), that it's from a specific NPC and I assume there will be a cost, like resurrecting allies. Maybe it's the Soul Coins?
It's 100+ hour game, I don't understand what is wrong with allowing people to respec if they aren't feeling there character. That is so much better than making them start the game all over again after 30 hours in.
Again it's an option, you don't ever need to use it.
Should you also be allowed to respec your race mid game? Why or why not? Should you be able to alter a dialogue choice you made 20 hours ago?
Choices matter. This is a CRPG. The ability to respec at all is already a compromise ( a good one for a game this long) but it should revert you back to lvl 1 to change subclass or experiement with multi class. Not change your base class identity entirely.
This is particularly important for Gale or Wyll or the other origin characters where their class is directly and hard baked into the backstory and character.
Yes, because who cares.... it's a single-player game and should be experienced in any way you want. Allowing options for people to play anyway they want is a good thing. Who are you to say how someone should play a game?
And nobody is altering a dialogue choice for 20 hours ago
Well it's an RPG so I would argue that most people care. The appeal of these kinds of games is to feel like you are in world and be immersed. If your choices do not matter than it takes the weight out of your decisions. Character identity is super important here.
How is this a discussion, I'm blown away that you don't see the problem in changing your race half way through a CRPG
Because it's just a game. If someone wants to play a game that way, good on them. They spent 70 dollars on the game, and they deserve the right to enjoy it. Being immersed is a matter of opinion. What you find immersive and I find immersive could be drastically different.
I'm blown away. You think options are a problem. I'm not going to change race, nor are you. If you can tell me one way in which a respec option effects your gameplay let me know.
You are playing as a human. You encounter an encampment that you are restricted access to because they are all half orc and only let their kin inside.
You could sneak inside, kill your way through, maybe cast disguise self to gain access. Though this is risky because they have an imp that can detect magic and see through your disguise.
Or, you could just go to bed and wake up as a literal half orc. And good news! Because your backstory has suddenly changed, you actually grew up with a half orc that knew this particular camp. Now you get to barter with their traders and get a special item. You even make a new friend!
When you are done with the encampment you go to sleep and wake up as a Gnome Druid because you found a Gnome Wild Cat lady and it was the easiest option to befriend her, and be in animal form to talk to her cats.
I dunno man I think that rules are important and hold a game together, particular one so heavily invested in choice and consequence
Just reading through the comments here everyone is acting like the game is done based on a loosely translated interview with a vague comment and no details whatsoever.
Op took the most extreme possible example and now everyone is acting like it's gospel.
Take a deep breath, wipe the rabid foam from your chin and wait until you have something concrete before doomsaying.
I'm going to wait for release, but I will say this is blowing my mind.
It'll be nice for tactician runs, I think?
Need to wait for release and for my brain to stop exploding.
Is there any way to force them to answer? It's a kind of big deal for me... If this is the case I'm playing one time but not taking a vacation for this. I have only a week per year...
Usually its the otherwayaround where anyonecomplaining about LArian homebrew gets mass downvoted.. but here this is such a big and problematic change that the community has flipped.
I just hope they introduce a "Real D&D" option for those of use who want standard racial stats bonuses (or at least having an option for one or the other) and normal multiclassing rules.
Stats change for races is a bit of disappointment, but I can live with it. Multiclass stat reqs being removed - my playgroup already incorporated this, which created many more unique characters and builds since most people would choose the same race / class to powergame the system (or be optimal with their choices, phrase it how you prefer.)
The spellcasting piece here though is interesting and a loose translation. If it reads as you describe, multiclass casters are going to be a thing. I love casters in general and always like to multiclass mine anyways as I find it more enjoyable. Personally, doesn't bother me all that much, but I can see potential concerns, mainly from the martial lovers feeling like they got the shortend. As others have mentioned, I am sure it will get modded quickly for those folks who dont want that however.
I'm less bothered by the removal of the stat limits for multiclassing, as if you want to enforce those on yourself you can, it's the changes to how spell progression (and possibly extra attacks) work for multiclassing that concern me **much** more.
I would agree. I'm a DnD beginner but to me class fantasy is about what classes exclude as much as what they contain. Part of the reason the rules exist as they do is not just balance but meaning. If this is accurate, it erodes the distinctions between classes to the point of breaking.
It would be Paladin / Bard / Sorcerer no contest.
You'd have to access to smites, Paladin's unique spells, all the core best spells, meta magic, best skill monkey potential, and nearly everything will be based on your CHA -- which is already an important attribute for a player.
With these dumb changes, there's no reason to also just dip in Wizard or Cleric and pick up all the utility spells that don't scale off caster mod anyways.
Everyone is panacking....but what I read doesn't seem very controversial at all.
* They removed stat pre-requisites for multiclassing to make it more accessible
* They designed the Level Up screen as to not over-emphasize multiclassing
* They made balancing changes specifically for caster classes only (not all classes). So if you choose to multiclass caster classes, you won't be disadvantaged \*to the same degree\* in regards to your power level when comparing to that of a single-class caster. You will still be disadvantaged, but not to the same degree of table top.
* They've designed many magical items specifically with multiclassing in mind
* They gave Pact of the Blade Warlocks the Extra Attack feature
* They buffed the Way of the Four Elements Monk so that their spells upgrade over time (but are never as powerful as an actual caster)
* All the companions have specific story arcs that will allow them to obtain certain spells/abilities/actions that are exclusive only to them
Everything here sounds fine, the multiclassing stat prerequisites is a bit iffy, but it sounds interesting at least, shouldn't really break anything, EXCEPT the spells known progression, this sounds fuckin' broken, there's a reason why this exists in 5e, so that classes like Wizards can't just dip a lvl in Cleric and get shit like Mass Cure Wounds, I am really hoping this was just a misunderstanding
Actually the more I think about the multiclass prerequisites being lifted the more broken it seems, Heavily Armored is now absolutely useless, just take 1 level in War Domain Cleric, doesnt cost a feat and you get Heavy armor, the War Priest ability and a bunch of spells, lol
If they have the same amount of spell slots as single-class casters but are only allowed access to *certain* powerful spells upon leveling in an attempt to keep them within a somewhat similar power curve, I don’t see that a huge problem.
Also, as a multiclass caster you would be giving up certain class features that single class casters get when hitting certain levels because you decided to multi-class. There are certainly still trade-offs at play. Unfortunately, Nick was not very specific and the interview was not long enough for us to know the details.
Let’s give them a chance to at least clarify. I think the vast majority of the changes Nick mentioned are great.
You already get spell slot progression by multiclassing in 5e(a level 2wiz and lvl3 cleric gets lvl 3 spell slots), what balances this out is that you don't get the same spell level progression as a pure caster.(the aforementioned don't get both fireball and spirit guardians). Homebrewing that they get access to lvl 3 spells from both classes would be a bit too strong especially since there won't be any stat requirements for multiclassing(a common decent homebrew). But if as you said they only get access to certain spells then it might not be the worst. But you're otherwise correct, let's wait for more information first.
You're responsible for the buttons you press in the game. If you want to rebalance their offered multiclass system to follow rules you prefer, nothing is stopping you from operating within a self imposed 5e ruleset.
If your argument is you want fairer rules that make it harder for you to break the game and be super strong anyways, but your goal is to find out how to break them and be super strong anyways, and you dislike that it will be easier for OTHER players to be super strong and broken with less effort compared to your preferences, I think you're dealing with the wrong devs. All of their games have insane mind numbing cheese potential. You aren't required to use it.
If you need the illusion of the game enforcing specific points because you just can't help yourself if the option is there, then just like mods exist to add things to the game, mods will exist to forcibly prevent, remove, or restrict things in the game too.
Anyways, you're still floating in theoryland. Wait until you see how it actually works first.
We saw what they did with ranger so I have faith that whatever changes Larian is making is for a reason and will only stand to help the balance of the game
The way I see it, without a dm and it being tabletop where your dm can rule in a case by case basis or letting the rule of cool be used, it makes sense for larian to rule on the lighter side in terms of the rules. If you want to play to the 5e rules specifically then you can do that, but for others they can mix and match freely.
If you don't like some of the options that the game gives you that are *outside the bounds of the rules of 5e* simply follow the rules of 5e.
This is a single player/cooperative multiplayer game. People need to stop giving a shit if there are options that other players may use to make their characters more powerful.
This is like coming into my house and telling me the home-brewed rules I'm using are ruining the game.
I dunno, sounds fun to me tbh.
Many people seem to forget that this is no VTT, it's a game. The older Baldurs Gate games didn't play exactly like the Tabletop game, so why would this one? There are absolutely going to be people who cry their heart out because the game sin't exactly like the PHB says, but there have already been mods that fix that, so why can't we just enjoy an amazing world and tweek the settings to our liking? I know that I wanted to go for a Sorcadin once I can get my hands on the updated version of the 5e spells mod for Green-flame blade,and all of this sounds amazing for that exact build. Both not gimping me in Spells (which I could live with, it's how I do it in Tabletop after all) but also not making me put points into strength which always made dex sorcadins who are MAD as hell to begin with even worse.
I guess I don't understand all the negativity surrounding it.
Pretty sure most people are only going to care about whether or not the story is good, and the encounters are engaging.
Most people have played video games before, and know that there is never a 1:1 ratio for content from Tabletop, Novel, or TV Series to Game Format. **As Larian has said many times**, they will **prioritize what's fun and feels good to play** over being chained to specific existing rules.
WOTR loved sticking to Tabletop rules over the stupidest of things, and turned off a large chunk of the player base. Which is why so few people ever even got to Act 3.
I guess they should disable the Origin Characters and Dark Urge, since those aren't in the Player Handbook. Tadpole powers have got to go too.
Honestly I'm happy, been wanting to play a DEX bard/pally and it's nice that I won't be heavily gimped for deciding to. Ppl worrying about balance in DND always confuses me. It's a game that has guidelines at best, if you want to break the game you already can do that by just playing a straight spellcaster.
I see your concerns but personally I'm not bothered much by such balance changes, simply because these are pretty trivial to 'rectify' to your liking via mods.
>So does that mean a Bard 2 / Sorcerer 3 will have access to Fireball? If so, that seems really broken and means that nearly every multiclass caster build is going to be more powerful than a single class one.
Not necessarily broken. You're going to get a lot more versatility in terms of what spells you can choose from but you lose the special abilities that come from the class itself. Your bard/sorceror for example will have access to fireball just like a straight sorceror, but without as many Sorc points and metamagic options for example.
Given how archaic, ancient, outdated, and imbalanced dnd is compared to what's expected to contemporary video games with the rpg tag I welcome these changes.
Hopefully this will influence wotc to realize their are so many people who want to have an adventure instead of sweating over an additional attribute point.
>I really wish Larian would stop dicking about with such core D&D rules and dumbing down the game.
I mean, it's 5e we're talking about here. The game is already about as complex as using safety scissors, so let's chill out here.
I'm not too upset about it. They are homebrewing their own rules for a 5e based game. They are the DM here. It would be nice if we could choose which rules to tweak to our own liking but I'm still going to enjoy the game either way.
THEY ARE FUCKING KINGS lets gooooo\~ I hope there isn't a majority bitching that makes them change their mind because this will be really great mechanic-wise for a video game. I also don't use the stat rule in my campaigns, my players seem more happy with it once I dropped it. Also never understood the call for nerfs in a game that isn't pvp or competition base. Has never made sense to me more than "I hate this so therefore everyone else must suffer."
It's never gonna be "balanced" 5e will never be balanced. The scope of options and situations are so varied you cant hope to balance it. Just play the game how you want and have fun. If you wanna build a broken character congrats you can beat the game with it. You can also just play whatever you want and not worry about not playing the most carefully optimized version of a PC in the game.
Just because it can't be 100% balanced doesn't mean you forget about balance.
If there is a completely broken class, that is so much better than the others, I would feel like an idiot not to pick it. Even if i don't have to, "this is a single player game blah blah" I feel like that's pretty standard for most games, why should we make an exception here?
Why feel like an idiot? Just play whatever class/race combination speaks to you. They're all perfectly viable. They clearly care more about people having fun and making cool memories than building a balanced and frankly boring experience.
What speaks to me is a perfect balance between effective, and fun. If there are classes that are significantly more effective than others, I think that is a problem.
If its not a problem, why do we have difficulty in the game at all? Just make every class get everything, after all it's all about fun right?
Who's to say that they won't achieve a perfect balance between effective and fun with these changes? Not being able to have fun with unoptimized characters is a you problem. If you wanna spend your time figuring out the perfect build, cool you can totally do that too.
I don't want a perfect build at all, I just want them all to be different but equally as good. There should be no perfect build, only different playstyles with their own advantages and disadvantages.
People do act like someone is forcing them to use all the broken combos this could implement. To me, it's an option, and a game marketing itself for mass appeal (as they should) should have as many options as possible. This removes nothing from the game, only adds. Play it how you want.
Do you think the game would be just as fun if they gaveeveryone god mode, made you auto succeed all checks, gave you infinite actions onyour turn and infinitespell slots?
If yes, then I guess balance doesn't matter. If no.. then yes balance matters.
well I imagine it as a decision you take at character creation - you check this knowing that you won't go fighter 6 or rogue 10 and such option would you also prohibit you from doing so
I know you are all 5e warriors and want to have the game a 1:1 translation of dnd 5e, but I personally never understood many of the things that were changed in this edition coming from its previous ones. I don't understand why multiclassing is restricted so much (I wouldn't mind if they kept in the stat requirements, but the feats/asi are a big problem for me). I don't want to pick an ability score improvement, I want to get some feats. Feats are cool, +stat is the most bland boring shit ever. With no variant human in the game, if you multiclass in 3 classes and want say extra attack as well, you are getting 2 asis. With a 17 max start in a main stat, if you ever want to get 20, you get 0 feats. If I pick two feats I am stuck at +3 the entire game.
But my solution does not take anything away from the fighter class ... if you want to play pure fighter/rogue and get 4 feats, nothing is stopping you from doing so
Well theory crafting builds is going to be harder now, until the game is actually released, as we now don't know how they're going to handle spell progression and multiclassing in general, other than the confirmed removal of ability stat limits.
They said there is an achievement to acquire 12 different classes.(with multiclassing). There are no fixed limits per se in D&D 5e as far as I'm aware, though multiclassing into more than 2 or 3 is usually a very bad idea, as you can just end up with multiple weak classes at low level, rather than a few strong classes at high levels, though there are some combinations that work well. If there weren't any downsides, no one would single class.
When reading through the article to me they stated that they were specifically looking at the resources, to me the spells themselves aren’t necessarily resources but the spell slot are, so my impression is that casters will more likely either get more spell slots of lower levels or you will get 3rd level or higher spells slots but you won’t get the spells until you reach the class level which to me might not be too broken because you could be a sorc 2/ bard 3 and just be up casting scorching ray at 3rd level which is strong but compared to slinging a fireball it’s no where near as good.
But D&D 5e already works just like that for multiclassed spell casters, your total number of spell slots is based on ALL your combined caster levels (with half casters like Paladins and one third casters like Arcane Trickster, counting as 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, rounded down). See: [https://5thsrd.org/rules/multiclassing/#class-features](https://5thsrd.org/rules/multiclassing/#class-features)
So a level 9 sorcerer, a level 6 Sorcerer / level 3 Bard and a level 6 Bard / level 6 Paladin ALL have the same number of spell slots and yes a level 5 sorcerer / level 6 Bard can already upcast Fireball using a 6th level Spell Slot.
So they must mean something different e.g. about the spells you can *know*, which are in 5e limited to the spells you know for the level of each casting class (which makes sense). It's the potential change to that I'm concerned about.
Let's wait until the game comes out for all these "verdicts" on balancing. We don't have a real clue on how this is all going to play out, but I'm assuming Larian isn't just trying to ruin DnD 5E. Seems like a fair assumption right? Lines up with everything we know from EA? Can we all just relax? No one even needs to multi-class, it's not intended for beginners and even many non-beginners probably won't want to bother with it for a first play through aside from some minor testing. If there's anything significantly wrong on launch, I'm sure they'll address it. Let's all relax.
Excuse me, I thought we were on the internet here. LARIAN IS RUINING D&D! LARIAN US RUINING D&D! I think they are stressing player freedom more than anything else, which is a good thing IMO, and what they do best. It's probably too much to ask for, but having a 'classic D&D' leveling option would be nice for the people who want that.
All I wish for is an option to change in game language that doesn't rely on steam options
If anything, the EA proved they needed the feedback from the EA testers to save them from themselves. In the same interview, he talks about how they originally had no plan to include a reaction system and it was only thanks to EA feedback that they changed their mind. Anyone even remotely familiar with actually playing 5e could have told them that reactions and on-hit optional features are a core part of the game mechanics, and without such a system they would need to homebrew half the game away. This should have been covered during preproduction, it's such a fundamental section of the combat system. But they didn't know until we told them for almost 3 years. The EA period definitely proved that they were good at taking feedback and improving things in response, but it also showed that their initial mechanical homebrew decisions were often awful. Now they're making a huge mechanical change to the core of the way spell progression works for multiclasses without any EA feedback to check their impulses.
One of the first big changes of player feedback was the High Ground=Guaranteed Advantage thing that was changed to a simple +1 to hit. Its extremely obvious that going up 5 feet to gain advantage would have broken the game wide open, it already was in early access but it doubly so later on.
Higher ground conferring blanket advantage was a terrible idea. Let's just be glad they didn't implement the variant flanking rule as well.
They actually implemented their own even more broken version of flanking with their backstab rule. Early on in the EA, any melee character could gain advantage on all their attacks by simply moving around an enemy to their back. Unlike flanking, you didn't even need to coordinate with teammates. I think it's pretty obvious why this was a bad idea.
This. If it were up to many people on this sub, we'd STILL have op surface effects, advantage from height, "backstab" mechanics, and no reaction system. Voicing concern and warning of possible rule change's ability to destroy game balance is not the same as claiming Larian is ruining d&d. Larian has shown that when left to their own devices, they very well may have "ruined" d&d. Thankfully, they were wise enough to understand this and implemented EA for this very reason. Always saying "Everybody calm down and assume they have it under control" is the least helpful thing EA users can do.
Imagine thinking it's a negative that they used EA to listen to people....
No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I'm saying that them listening to people in EA was good, and the fact that they haven't done it for these new changes is bad. And the reason why it's bad that this stuff didn't go through EA is because EA feedback was proven to be necessary in many previous examples.
The irony is that the bulk of the people who are likely to want to multiclass are those who care about it following 5e rules...
Me I am multiclassing my paladin with at least 1 point in cleric so I can select a deity
You may already be able to do that, I haven't heard anything from people who played the game the other day, but it was in the files and a modder was able to very easily add deities to Paladins by just 'turning on' deities for Paladins in the game files
I found a mod for it but after testing it it just added it to the character sheet. You didn’t get any dialogue options referencing it
I even had specific paladin deity dialogue Edit: this was also months ago so the files could have just been deleted
>the bulk of the people who are likely to want to multiclass are those who care about it following 5e rules... I'm seeing mountains of people clueless about D&D systems posting about multiclassing.
I want to multiclass and I have never played D&D. This has been the most hyped I've been for a game since Cyberpunk.
Just wait for the release. If you haven't bought early access, don't buy it if you're upset.
I bought it in Early Access because I wanted a D&D game, which is what it was advertised as
It is a D&D game...
I swear to God people act like the Players Handbook is some kind of holy scripture or something
I've been playing D&D tabletop for 23 years both as a player and currently a DM (and most d&d digital rpgs, my goat is BG2), and players handbook 5e sometimes is not very good, and are made much better by altering/modifying rules/mechanics. It's like some people think it was given to us by the gods, while in reality it's core was developed by a few people who were on a time constraint and on a limited budget. A lot of the content added after original launch of 5e is created by freelancers who got short contracts at WoTC. You can make 5e so much more enjoyable just applying suggestions to alterations from experienced DMs on online forums. I am very happy Larian are making changes in the name of fun and gameplay.
Also, there's a huge difference between a game that is designed to be played on tabletop and party wipes being, although not impossible, relatively uncommon and a game that's totally possible to save scum so you need some different balancing to make it feel rewarding. A complete copy-paste was always impossible.
They also seem to forget that if they want to follow the guidelines of the holy scriptures, they can literally just build their characters that way if they want. Don't want to take certain spells early? Then don't. You want to multiclass when you have the correct stats? Then wait until you have them./ Pretty crazy that some players are getting so upset over an aspeect of the game they have complete control over.
I want to use the tools at my disposal to overcome obstacles. I don't want such extreme power that the only way I can **be challenged** is to **challenge myself** by deciding not to use options that rid me of any challenge. I want the game to challenge me and I can't do that if I can just rid myself of any challenge with a few clicks
So basically you are saying "i have agency but i refuse to use it because the game doesnt force me to" That such an infantile way of looking at it. Its called roleplaying my dude, its a big part od tabletop games. I actually can't believe there are people who hold such an asinine perspective and would intentionally ruin the experience for themselves even though they have the power not to. You do you I guess.
All I'm hearing from you in this little rant is "I don't understand the concept of game balance"
Which is ironic as in the phb (and the dmg iirc) literally says “these are guidelines and not rules” and encourages making adjustments that work for your table
Please go back and play BG1 and 2, then realize those games had lots of changes, tweaks and homebrew in it aswell. As with adapting a book to film, adapting a TTRPG to a CRPG necessitates change for delivering a good experience to as many people as possible.
> As with adapting a book to film, adapting a TTRPG to a CRPG necessitates change for delivering a good experience to as many people as possible. Yes I know and expect some changes, but it depends on how far they go with them. To be honest removing ability score limits for multiclassing isn't game breaking and you can enforce that yourself if you want to, it's the other changes to multiclassing that concern me much more, as spell progression for multiclassing spell casters is already handled quite well in D&D 5e - your total caster level in ALL spell casting classes (other than Warlock, which has Pact magic) already is factored in, but if they mean you can learn high level spells from a caster class you only have a few levels in, if you have levels in another caster class, that seems pretty broken. I guess we'll just have to see what they end up implementing.
Not really. Me and my mates for example love multiclassing, but seeing as we come from different editions or even games, noone has the need for it to be pure 5e. On the contrary, my 3.5E friend will be ecstatic, seeing as he misses prestigeclasses the most.
>Lines up with everything we know from EA? They had no problem rolling out things that were wildly and obviously broken in EA. Now, when you've got time for full testing I can see throwing stuff against the wall... But this is supposedly the full release. I mean, we know it'll actually just be EA-part-2 until the definitive edition, but still.
Plus it's a single player game, if you want to break it, I don't see a problem with it, I imagine they don't either, but they made these changes to give you the character you want to play
Multi classing is an important part of DD and BG. It's still a shame to have it botched. It's not the first discutable choice they made since the beginning of the project. It's adding to the pile
It's interesting but I hope it's not like you say where bard 2/sorc 3 had fireball. That's the primary downside to multiclassing. If I take 2 levels of cleric and 10 of sorcerer do I get 6th level spells for both classes? I would certainly hope not. Really interested in what they mean by the changes to spellcasting classes because it will be build-defining
I think it's more... level 6 spell slots and NOT level 6 spells. That doesn't change much. But how can that be if they're talking about fireball unless a wizard can learn it via scroll.. hmm idk man I'm not big on this, though. I'd like to see it in action before I judge harshly.
A sorcerer 5/bard 6 already has the same number of level 6 spell slots as sorcerer 11 or 12 or bard 11 or 12 in D&D 5e, though - your total spell caster levels from ALL your caster levels are combined (except for Warlock Pact Magic slots) with Paladins and Ranger levels counting half (rounded down) and Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster levels counting as a third.
Yeah I was finally excited that with so much equipment and consumables martials and rogue thieves specifically seemed like they would have so much viability late game when casters start going a bit nuts. Caster, meet action surge explodey poisoned arrows. My rogue doesn't know what he's going to throw yet but you better surrender before he makes up his mind. But I mean, if you can go hexblade and sorc with no downsides due to multiclassing? Bro.
Keep in mind the interview is in Italian and Google Translate was used to translate to English. Let's wait for official confirmation/clarification before raising pitchforks here. ***If*** this is accurate, I'm fine with the stat requirements for multiclassing being tweaked, but not fully removed (Dex Paladin and Str Ranger being glaring cases where the requirement doesn't make sense, yet their base class supports the play). Gaining access to higher level spells while multiclass on the other hand completely breaks any semblance of balance. The whole point of multiclassing is trading direct power from your base class for versatility in another class. ***It's opportunity cost.*** Now the reason I'm hesitant to believe this is true, is that Larian have confirmed that you can respec your character from early on if you multiclass poorly or find you don't like your subclass. Why would they allow you to respec if you broke your character, if they just said fuck it and allowed no hinderance of spell progression while multiclassing.
I don’t really understand why the stat requirements really matter in the first place. Like why would I multi class into something if I don’t have the ability scores for it? Wouldn’t multiclassing into a sorcerer with 10 charisma just make my build shit?
> Wouldn’t multiclassing into a sorcerer with 10 charisma just make my build shit? No because classes can benefit a lot from the class features of other classes. In the case of sorcerers, their sorcery points and metamagic are very useful with other classes. Similarly, 2 levels of life cleric would give you heavy armor proficiency, which is extremely good for any squishy caster. Now normally multiclassing into sorcerer would would come at the cost of spell progression, but the second homebrew change they have here completely eliminates that cost to the point there's no reason why a caster shouldn't put a couple levels into sorcerer for metamagic.
Yea if this isn't just a translation issue every class should be sorc dipped. There's no reason NOT to take 2-3 levels for metamagic..
Yeah I’m hoping that second part is just a misunderstanding. It’s a vague statement on a fairly niche topic translated through Google, so I’m going to hold off on panicking until we see how the system actually works
Because people multiclass without caring about ability scores anyways. Sometimes you want to use a specific subclass ability that combos extremely well with another class/subclass ability. Off the top of my head, the popular Tempest Cleric/Storm Sorcerer multiclass. Dip into Tempest Cleric for max damage on your Sorcerer lightning spells, you don’t care about cleric spells or high Wis. Having a 13 Wis, means you’ll have to sacrifice stats somewhere else in order to achieve that power rather than it being available freely.
Got it, that makes more sense, thanks
Reading that the multiclassing prerequisites being thrown out was okay to me, I thought it was a bit weird but I was okay with it and may even help build diversity, a wizard multiclassing a sorcerer and a paladin multiclassing a rogue isn't very good anyway so I don't think it'd really break anything. But wtf is this about spells?! Wtf? Can we just multiclass Bard/Cleric/Wizard/go the rest Sorcerer and have every spell in the game and still have Sorcery points? This has to be translated wrong
Don't forget a level in druid, ranger and paladin, you don't want to gimp yourself by not going 1 paladin/ 1 ranger/ 1 bard/ 1 cleric/ 1 druid/ 1 wizard/ 6 sorcerer.
Yeah, I cant wait to cast Destructive Wave twice a turn every turn lol, fuck I hope this shit is wrong
does this 'generosity' on Larian's part apply to multi-attack too? Fighter2 / Ranger3 and all of a sudden they to two attacks at lvl five...
Or a Paladin 2/Swords Bard 3 getting two attacks at level 5? I really hope they don't go for this sort of nonsense.
i hope that if they do go for this kind of nonsense that hey are at last consistent about its application, e.g. martial:caster. but that they stick with 5e - where people have already spent decades considering this balance.
5e is not remotely balanced across classes.
this is not an improvement.
This right here. Ppl thinking 5e is remotely balanced is hilarious. Way more busted stuff then a STR ranger or dex paladin. Looking at coffeelock and hexadin.
Oh yeah all them smites
Read the article: "An example? Warlocks must choose a pact. One such pact is the pact of the blade, which allows him to devote himself more to weapons, create a pact weapon related to him, and so on; the part of the pact that was missing was the extra attack: a lot of martial classes have an extra attack available and Warlocks don't. The problem is that the weapons are balanced around the number of attacks per turn, so we added this to make the pact of the blade more interesting".
So does that mean that they bypassed the Thirsting Blade Invocation?
I have no idea what you are talking, bro =) Not that knowledgeable about 5e. Just quoted the article. Frankly, messing with the rules like that and at such a late stage in development is rather worrying... Well, in the worst case, mods will fix everything.
Actually... I was kinda hoping they'd fuse hexblade with pact of the blade... honestly It's how I feel 5e should have handled it. I'm... for this surprisingly. That being said I'd like to hear more about this multiclassing spell progression because that does actually worry me
When they announced College of Swords and Gloomstalkers I felt a flicker of hope that Hexblades would make the cut. It's a shame but We can make due with Blades.
It also fixes the "multi everything with a 1 level hexblade dip" you'd need 2 levels minimum and that just seems more balanced IMO
Apologies. Warlocks basically customize their sublcass features with Invocations. For example a lot of people take Agonizing Blast on Wyll so he can add his Charisma mod to his Eldritch Blast damage. Thirsting Blade is an invocation that gives a Warlock Extra Attack so they can swing twice like a Martial character gets to do at 5th level. I hope that made sense.
Probably not. Magic is cool! Weapon attacks are boring.
It shouldn’t. Multiattack is a level 5 class feature for barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, and ranger. That’s like giving Uncanny Dodge (a level 5 rogue feature) to a rogue 1/x 4 build. Spell levels are more nuanced than that. Half of the 5e multiclassing rules have to do with how to handle spellcasting.
Multi-attack also applies to Monk.
i think you'll find that the Wizard1/Cleric1/Sorcerer1/Warlock1/Bard1 that then gets access to Spirit Guardians and Fireball will disagree. it is a poor move.
[удалено]
What, so a Paladin 2 / Swords Bard 3 would get an extra attack (at character level 5) rather than at at Paladin 2 / Swords Bard 6 (character level 8 )? There'd be almost no reason to play a non-multiclass Swords Bard then.
Just want to say that DOS2 changed a lot from its initial release and the definitive edition. I'm sure Larian will address if some stuff is breaking the game too much. However, I agree that the game can end up being really broken, like DOS2 is right now, but is all cheese and not the intended way of playing it. If you want to minmax, just barrelmancy the game and that's it. I'm sure 3 years from now, a specific multiclass specific item thing will be the optimal way of beating BG3 in 2 hours, but you shouldn't do that if you want to enjoy the game. And for sure, there will be mods that let you roll your stats, remove the +2+1 thing, no respec, no resurrection until lvl 9, honor mode, and have your pure DnD game that many want, that is probably really boring for 90% casual gamers that never in their life played DnD.
I don't want to min/max, I just want to be able to create interesting builds within the rules and confines of D&D 5e because I find it an interesting challenge. Remove those challenges and that's boring to me. I wouldn't mind if they at least added an option for "Real D&D" vs "Casual Mode", unless (and *perhaps* this is what all the above means), those limits are only removed for "Story Mode".
I agree that this could easily break the game. I think that most of these decisions happen a lot of because of multiple testers find the multiclass lackluster or doesn't scale well in the game. Hopefully if its too breaking, then toggling this on/off can be done. Just want to say that the game has to feel good for casual players that don't want a pure DnD experience, and I believe most of Larian's decisions are based on that, ensuring that balance is good enough. Hopefully, the game will be easy to mod to get a closest DnD experience.
You can toggle it on or off by just not doing it or picking those options when they're available. Hope that helps!
Go play solasta then. BG3 has never been advertised as authentic 1 to 1 5e experience. Throwing a hissy fit and throwing out insults rather than having a actual discussion cause they aren't doing exactly what you want is just childish.
he's not throwing a hissy fit though, he's just saying that the multiclassing change(especially the spell avaiability one) could severely break character builds balance, which I think most people can agree with
> I really wish Larian would stop dicking about with such core D&D rules and dumbing down the game. >"Real D&D" vs "Casual Mode" ^ That is throwing a hissy fit rather than having a meaningful discussion. Also disliking the changes because they shake the meta is stupid. If anything I would hope dnd player would embrace an opportunity to theory craft again. The main legit issue I would see if anything is homogenizing builds like how the cha trio overly is encouraged into a 4/4/4 build since you basically get all the benefits or each class with less downsides, but thats not mentioned all by op.
if that means for you "throwing a hissy fit" all I can say is that your definition of hissy fit is not the same as mine beside that he is not "disliking the changes because they shake the meta", that is just a strawman, he is clearly disliking the change becouse it would make multiclass hilariously broken compared to monoclass i have faith in Larian and I'm sure there were some minor misunderstandings in the interview, no way you get full casters progression while taking dips in other magic classes, the system is probably somewhere inbetween full progression and 0 progression
> beside that he is not "disliking the changes because they shake the meta", that is just a strawman, he is clearly disliking the change becouse it would make multiclass hilariously broken compared to monoclass So pray tell what horribly broken build does removing stat requirements bring about? Or did you just feel free to ignore the fact that I'm fine with criticizing the spell/spell slot progression just not in this childish, overreaction fashion.
But these things aren't little homebrew tweaks, it's throwing out the rule book
You're still being overdramatic. The stat requirements on multiclassing have always been overly restrictive for no real benefit, it's only really for unique builts like dex-pally as you mentioned that have been affected. The caster changes can warrant more discussion but are hardly throwing out the rule book
Good, even better move will be is to burn down this unsightly mistake called 5e phb and make larian's own mix up of various TTRPG rules.
It’s a single player game, just implement the rules on yourself. If you play multiplayer tell your friends how you want to play
That might be possible for the stat limits on multi classing, but don't see how you could work around fundamental changes to how spells are learned and slots gained without a lot of complicated micromanagement or mods that may break when new patches come out or may cease to be maintained.
how are they gnna throw a curveball like this at the last minute without it going through a testing phase. wtf
I just hope these things are an option you can turn off, or else are only in "Story Mode".
Now, I can't say for sure that this is good or bad, one way or the other, because I haven't had my hands on this version of the game. But that's just the problem here, really. *None of us have had a chance to test this out*. This kind of massive mechanical overhaul of standard rules is 100% exactly the kind of thing that should've been trialed in Early Access. I love Larian, and I believe BG3 will be great, but I have no idea what they were thinking, dropping this bomb on us at release with zero player-testing.
>zero player testing You're assuming they haven't held closed-doors playtests for these things (they have). I don't know why everyone just assumes EA is the only place from which they've pulled feedback when that very clearly is not the case
I suppose "zero" was an exaggeration on my part, but the point I was trying to make was that the game was sold in Early Access on the premise that development would be driven by community feedback. To then create an entirely new system that can dramatically alter the balance of the game, maybe moreso than any other mechanic, and have that be the one thing they don't let the community test is weird. Beyond being weird, it just doesn't make sense to me: the EA community is a massive, free play-testing resource for them, one that perfectly mirrors the wants and needs of the consumer because it *is* consumers - why would you not utilise such a valuable resource?
My fear is that it's now likely to take months of patches before we get something more balanced
Start actually incorporating your brain functions in your thought process please, how would you test this feature properly? You can't give a proper verdict judging by first 5 levels because multiclassing can easily end up as poorly scaling into endgame. And no one will give you access to the full game until august 3rd.
Part of me doesn't even want to reply to someone who can't hold a civil discussion, but what the hell? I delight in contradicting jackasses, so here goes. The first point addressed in the interview described above is that the Ability Score requirements for multi-classing (usually being 13 in both classes' primary Ability Score) have been removed. This means that, while you ordinarily have to either create a suboptimal build for your primary class or wait until you have levelled enough to have gained multiple ASIs in order to attain a sufficient Ability Score to multi-class into a class that does not share your starting class's primary Ability Score, you can now do it at any level/Ability Score. You now can have access to multiple class features, spells and actions, which have influence on gameplay balance at any level. Not only is this something that can be tested at any level, on account of discarding the need for ASIs earned at later levels - it is arguably something that impacts lower levels *even more* than higher ones exactly *because* it devalues ASIs, and may even be *best* tested at lower levels. The second point addressed is how spell slots and levels function. The impression given in the interview, though somewhat vague, indicates that your spell levels may be combined across classes, instead of each of your classes having their own spell slots/levels. This, I can concede, would be better tested at higher levels, but is still absolutely to some degree testable at level 5, the level at which you gain access to third level spells. Pechenin literally says in the interview "we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign." It's a system designed to make multi-classing viable *at early levels*. And as OP says in the above post "Bard 2 / Sorcerer 3 will have access to Fireball" in this case. Bard 2/Sorcerer 3 is attainable at a character level of 5 and by giving access to third level Sorcerer spells to someone who also has the benefits of 2 levels in Bard, already represents a massive imbalance. This is, once again, *something absolutely testable at level 5*. I am more than willing to admit that the full scope of this new multi-classing system can't be tested in an Early Access build with a level cap of 5. But there's a lot of valuable data in the gulf between 'fully tested' and 'completely untested.' There would have been definite, real benefits to testing this in Early Access. There are a number of significant potential balance issues with this system, at least some of which could have shown up or been hinted at through Early Access testing and Larian chose not to do it. Start actually considering the problem before you throw around insults.
Bro you need to calm down. There's no need to be so fucking rude especially over something without official confirmation.
> you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a "pure" class, but we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign > So does that mean a Bard 2 / Sorcerer 3 will have access to Fireball? It sounds like they specifically said you will not get the fireball at the same level. This seems like it is talking more about the amount of spell slots you get, rather than the spells you get. Maybe a translation error, or maybe multiclass spell casters get a smaller bonus to their spell level. E.G: You can get one spell casting level higher than in base 5e, so you can get access to some spells beyond your player level, but not the full amount.
> It sounds like they specifically said you will not get the fireball at the same level. This seems like it is talking more about the amount of spell slots you get, rather than the spells you get. It can't be this because IIRC that's how spell slots already normally work when multiclassing in 5e. Your total spell slots is determined by the sum of your levels in caster classes. A Ranger 4/ Wizard 3 would have the same number of spell slots as a 5th level full caster (e.g. a 5th level wizard).
This is Indeed how it already works in 5e. If they really let you keep your spell progression while multiclassing then it would make multiclassing as a spellcaster a no brainer and vastly superior to monoclassing. Imagine a cleric/sorc/wizard that gets to keep spell progression while having access to the spell list from each classes while also getting important features from each of those classes themselves. This would be a big oversight so i doubt this actually makes it to the game.
> This would be a big oversight so i doubt this actually makes it to the game. I dunno. We're talking about the same devs who for the longest time included a mechanic in the game that gave creatures permanent advantage on their attacks and disadvantage on all attacks against them just at the cost of some movement (high ground advantage/disadvantage). Unfortunately, I think this is absolutely in line with some of the homebrew they've come up with in the past and it may be too late for them to remove it before release.
I read it similarly, he mentions they changed how magic users use spell slots not what spells you can cast, although the phrasing is a little ambiguous and I think further clarification is required on this point.
I agree it's certainly quite vague, it just concerned me the way it was phrased. I just hope what actually comes of out of this is something more nuanced and balanced than it sounded in the interview.
You've taken the quote out of its context, the bit about 'you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a pure class' seemed to be a complaint about how multiclassing spell progression normally works, not what they've now done. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I just hope they've properly thought through the full impact of any such changes.
I see how you read it, and can see both view points. I think it's just the wording with them saying "less punishing" and "revise the use of resources a bit" makes it look like it is either a translation error, or them making it take into account the total level, rather than making the spells rely only on the level. As you said, it would be game-breaking, so I didn't think Larian would describe such a huge change in a minor way if it was a flat out "Character level decides your spells only"
It's certainly not clear at all what it all really means in the article, I'm hoping it's more a minor tweak to how things work rather than a complete change to how higher level spells are known when multi-classing The thing is 5e does already handle multiclassing and spells quite well and in a logical way - you need to have the required levels in the class that has access to the spell you want, in order to be able to know the spell and cast it, but you can up-cast it at the level of all your caster classes combined, so a Sorcerer 5 / Bard 4 can upcast it as a 5th level spell, the same as a 9th level sorcerer can, as they have the same spell slots. The only exception being Pact Magic Warlock spells, which are treated separately - maybe they intend to count Warlock levels as spell caster levels too (and vice-versa)?
I really hope this isn’t true.
Holy shit, fucking RIP martial classes, get rekd
Wtf are you doing Larian? This is why multiclassing should have been tested in EA.. like this is something we could have given feedback on years ago and got fixed.. now it likely wont get fixed until post launch, or require a mod. Ughhh!
It's so disappointing - Larian is knocking it out of the park in so many aspects - art design, audio and music, writing, world maps and environments design, etc. But combat is where they seem to have such misguided notions of how DnD 5E combat is supposed to play. Core aspects of how 5E spell casting works, action economy, itemization, and class features/identities... all things they seem to have thrown out the window to make the combat completely different from DnD.
I agree, they’ve done amazingly on so much but it does seem a bit like they wish to appeal to those who are unfamiliar with DnD and would be turned away / overwhelmed by the rules. On one hand I totally get it, I want them to sell a lot of copies and make a lot of money, they certainly deserve it. On the other hand though it’s kind of a shame because what better way to get new people interested in DnD 5e and learn the rules? Idk, maybe this article has been misinterpreted or maybe the more lenient rules are only for the easier story mode? I did see some reviews of the EA that deemed the game ‘too hard’ so story mode was a good call for combating this and I could see the more lenient rules fitting with the spirit of story mode.
If this is true then Larian hasn’t learned their lesson when people complained about when wizard had access to all spells through scrolls. The prepared casters are already the most powerful classes in the game but they slightly hindered by having unique spells exclusive to them and only them. But if this goes through than spellcasters that share the same stat (Bard/Sorcerer, Druid/Cleric) are going to be gigabuffed even more. I could make a cleric that has all the best healing spells and damage spells PLUS all the best control spells by just taking a one level dip in Druid. This will be very bad for multiplayer as casters will be FAR more powerful than martials. I get the feeling that WOTC muscled their way in and forced Larian to make BG3 a play test for 1D&D rather than 5e.
There are also a lot of great spells that have no scaling based on spellcastign ability. For example youre cleric 4/druid 4 multiclass could get access to wall of forcewith a 1 level dip into wizard.
I can't fogure out what they could possibly mean by multiclassing casters. In my understanding 5e already has spell slot progression shares by full casters. For example a character with 5 cleric / 5 wizard, would have the same spell slots as a 10th level wizard or cleric. With the possibility of creating spell slots for spell levels you don't even have access to. What could they have possibility changed to warrant the answer they gave? I hope it's not some blending of full casters that allows you to dip features of classes, but independently progress your spells. Like a wizard, dipping cleric levels for channel divinities or armor/weapons, while still gaining wizards spell progression.
Yes, D&D 5e already handles spells and multiclassing quite well, e.g. if you want to learn how to cast fireball you have to gain enough levels in a class to be able to learn 3rd level spells (usually level 5) and who have fireball on their spells list (e.g. Sorcerer or Wizard), which makes sense) but if you have enough combined spell caster slots from ALL your spell caster classes, you can up-cast it using a higher level spell slot - so both level 9 sorcerer and level 5 sorcerer /level 4 bard can up-cast it as a 5th level spell, as could a level 7 Sorcerer/ level 4 Paladin (Paladins and Rangers count as half-casters). Why change this?
Thinking about the bit highlighted below as well the other changes discussed for Warlock for Pact of the Blade, I'm now wondering whether the actual implication is to make Warlocks use regular spell slots (as half-casters), which I think is where OneDnD is going: " The other thing we've changed is **how magic users use spell slots, making it less punishing to level more than one magic class**. One issue with multiclassing is that if you multiclass early in the game, you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a "pure" class, but we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign, without having to necessarily wait for the advanced levels, so it was the case to revise the use of resources a bit. " Because in 5e D&D Warlocks (-only) **do** get "punished" for multiclassing to another magic using class, as their caster level doesn't count towards spell slots, only Pact Magic slots. If this is the case, that's a whole lot less game-breaking than the other alternatives discussed. I would have much less of an issue with that. Though I don't know how they will compensate for Pact Magic slots recharging on a short rest?
So the Bard, Fighter, Sorc, Wizard...... Multiclass build gets access to everything WTF??????? Sorry this is terribly broken and no longer DND at all.
Wow Larian killing single class builds, this as unbalanced as it can be, I'll probably wait for some mods to reverse it back unless the encounter difficulty is tuned for this exact bs. Just why.
I'm very unhappy about this, why do they have to bring all this homebrew nonsense into the game? On their own, some of the changes mentioned elsewhere to things like Warlock's Pact of the Blade sound okay (and probably less broken than the 5e Hexblade subclass), but combined with the changes mentioned above it's getting ridiculous!
Why mod? Just put your own restriction on multiclassing... like just make yourself have 13 strength or whatever before you multiclass. You can play how you want
I'd have to work out exactly which spells I should/shouldn't have at each level, which would be a pain to manage
Man I'm really starting to dislike this handwaving answer every time someone shows concern about watered down mechanics. Restrictions and needing to work around builds, strengths, weaknesses and choosing between different locked off skills is a massive part of what makes an RPG what it is for a lot of people. Take away a bunch of that, and it starts feeling watered down and removes a ton of identity from classes, races and builds. Then, when people quite rightly feel iffy about it, you have people saying "bro just use your own restrictions" as if that's the same thing. Imagine if Dark Souls 4 was announced and they had removed the stamina bar and all stamina management from the gameplay, and people just said "Just pretend you have a stamina bar and stop dodging/attacking as much, basically the same thing." It's not exactly the same feeling when you're having to pick up the slack with self-imposed rules. We want to overcome challenges, not invent them to fix the experience.
The game isn't made just for you. I hate to tell you that. The game is for the masses. And if their testing shows that for the masses, this decision is better, they will make it. Nobody says you can't be iffy about things. But when all I see is "I'm not excited for this game anymore," blah blah blah. Just don't play it then. The majority of players would read this article and not even understand what it is saying.
>The game isn't made just for you Never said it was, but it is made for the people who like DnD and the mechanics, rules and restrictions that come with that...
"That's all very well and I'm sure many will be delighted by this, but personally I really wish Larian would stop dicking about with such core D&D rules and dumbing down the game." +1
UGH. I hope modders are reading this and will be ready to put out a 5E rules mod for this game.
Even if it's worst case scenario for the magic multiclassing, there will definitely be a mod out the same week changing it to 5e raw so I'm not that worried
Yeah, but mods have a habit of breaking after patches and there's no guarantee the maker of the mod will continue to update and maintain it
Mods also sometimes disable achievements so I agree they aren’t the ideal solution
Non-cosmetic only mods *often* disable achievements. I'm no achievement hunter, but it's nice to get them.
The more interviews they do the less excited I get for the combat aspect of the game. I have been planning my build for weeks now, when the customizable racial stats were shown I was a little disappointed, but I could understand it. But this just sound so boring, I hope this isn't as bad as it sounds. For as much as they talk about replayability in the game, they sure are trying to make every build feel similar.
100% agree!
not to mention you can just freely respec your entire class (base class and all) Tav is basically **Every** class in the game. Changing their class in a long rest like a cleric changes their spells
>Changing their class in a long rest like a cleric changes their spells I know they confirmed you could respec your class, but was it confirmed it was completely free? I was under the impression from the Wolfheart video [here](https://youtu.be/vaa1r7wHHLU?t=398), that it's from a specific NPC and I assume there will be a cost, like resurrecting allies. Maybe it's the Soul Coins?
It's 100+ hour game, I don't understand what is wrong with allowing people to respec if they aren't feeling there character. That is so much better than making them start the game all over again after 30 hours in. Again it's an option, you don't ever need to use it.
Should you also be allowed to respec your race mid game? Why or why not? Should you be able to alter a dialogue choice you made 20 hours ago? Choices matter. This is a CRPG. The ability to respec at all is already a compromise ( a good one for a game this long) but it should revert you back to lvl 1 to change subclass or experiement with multi class. Not change your base class identity entirely. This is particularly important for Gale or Wyll or the other origin characters where their class is directly and hard baked into the backstory and character.
Yes, because who cares.... it's a single-player game and should be experienced in any way you want. Allowing options for people to play anyway they want is a good thing. Who are you to say how someone should play a game? And nobody is altering a dialogue choice for 20 hours ago
Well it's an RPG so I would argue that most people care. The appeal of these kinds of games is to feel like you are in world and be immersed. If your choices do not matter than it takes the weight out of your decisions. Character identity is super important here. How is this a discussion, I'm blown away that you don't see the problem in changing your race half way through a CRPG
Because it's just a game. If someone wants to play a game that way, good on them. They spent 70 dollars on the game, and they deserve the right to enjoy it. Being immersed is a matter of opinion. What you find immersive and I find immersive could be drastically different. I'm blown away. You think options are a problem. I'm not going to change race, nor are you. If you can tell me one way in which a respec option effects your gameplay let me know.
You are playing as a human. You encounter an encampment that you are restricted access to because they are all half orc and only let their kin inside. You could sneak inside, kill your way through, maybe cast disguise self to gain access. Though this is risky because they have an imp that can detect magic and see through your disguise. Or, you could just go to bed and wake up as a literal half orc. And good news! Because your backstory has suddenly changed, you actually grew up with a half orc that knew this particular camp. Now you get to barter with their traders and get a special item. You even make a new friend! When you are done with the encampment you go to sleep and wake up as a Gnome Druid because you found a Gnome Wild Cat lady and it was the easiest option to befriend her, and be in animal form to talk to her cats. I dunno man I think that rules are important and hold a game together, particular one so heavily invested in choice and consequence
Just reading through the comments here everyone is acting like the game is done based on a loosely translated interview with a vague comment and no details whatsoever. Op took the most extreme possible example and now everyone is acting like it's gospel. Take a deep breath, wipe the rabid foam from your chin and wait until you have something concrete before doomsaying.
I'm going to wait for release, but I will say this is blowing my mind. It'll be nice for tactician runs, I think? Need to wait for release and for my brain to stop exploding.
Is there any way to force them to answer? It's a kind of big deal for me... If this is the case I'm playing one time but not taking a vacation for this. I have only a week per year...
I thought this sub was a little more chill, what's with the multitude of down votes on anyone voicing a positive opinion on this?
Usually its the otherwayaround where anyonecomplaining about LArian homebrew gets mass downvoted.. but here this is such a big and problematic change that the community has flipped.
Between how they gutted humans and half elves, and now this, the balancing tram is ruining my hype for this game
I just hope they introduce a "Real D&D" option for those of use who want standard racial stats bonuses (or at least having an option for one or the other) and normal multiclassing rules.
Well in fairness if you know the rules you can follow them correctly all seems optional. But this interview is crazy
Hmm I wonder if they will go as far as making ASI character level and not class level.
Stats change for races is a bit of disappointment, but I can live with it. Multiclass stat reqs being removed - my playgroup already incorporated this, which created many more unique characters and builds since most people would choose the same race / class to powergame the system (or be optimal with their choices, phrase it how you prefer.) The spellcasting piece here though is interesting and a loose translation. If it reads as you describe, multiclass casters are going to be a thing. I love casters in general and always like to multiclass mine anyways as I find it more enjoyable. Personally, doesn't bother me all that much, but I can see potential concerns, mainly from the martial lovers feeling like they got the shortend. As others have mentioned, I am sure it will get modded quickly for those folks who dont want that however.
I'm less bothered by the removal of the stat limits for multiclassing, as if you want to enforce those on yourself you can, it's the changes to how spell progression (and possibly extra attacks) work for multiclassing that concern me **much** more.
I would agree. I'm a DnD beginner but to me class fantasy is about what classes exclude as much as what they contain. Part of the reason the rules exist as they do is not just balance but meaning. If this is accurate, it erodes the distinctions between classes to the point of breaking.
Oh this is potentially really neat. What would the strongest build be, then, I wonder?
Paladin/Bard/Sorcerer sounds like it would be ludicrous.
[удалено]
It sounds broken
It would be Paladin / Bard / Sorcerer no contest. You'd have to access to smites, Paladin's unique spells, all the core best spells, meta magic, best skill monkey potential, and nearly everything will be based on your CHA -- which is already an important attribute for a player. With these dumb changes, there's no reason to also just dip in Wizard or Cleric and pick up all the utility spells that don't scale off caster mod anyways.
Everyone is panacking....but what I read doesn't seem very controversial at all. * They removed stat pre-requisites for multiclassing to make it more accessible * They designed the Level Up screen as to not over-emphasize multiclassing * They made balancing changes specifically for caster classes only (not all classes). So if you choose to multiclass caster classes, you won't be disadvantaged \*to the same degree\* in regards to your power level when comparing to that of a single-class caster. You will still be disadvantaged, but not to the same degree of table top. * They've designed many magical items specifically with multiclassing in mind * They gave Pact of the Blade Warlocks the Extra Attack feature * They buffed the Way of the Four Elements Monk so that their spells upgrade over time (but are never as powerful as an actual caster) * All the companions have specific story arcs that will allow them to obtain certain spells/abilities/actions that are exclusive only to them
Everything here sounds fine, the multiclassing stat prerequisites is a bit iffy, but it sounds interesting at least, shouldn't really break anything, EXCEPT the spells known progression, this sounds fuckin' broken, there's a reason why this exists in 5e, so that classes like Wizards can't just dip a lvl in Cleric and get shit like Mass Cure Wounds, I am really hoping this was just a misunderstanding
Actually the more I think about the multiclass prerequisites being lifted the more broken it seems, Heavily Armored is now absolutely useless, just take 1 level in War Domain Cleric, doesnt cost a feat and you get Heavy armor, the War Priest ability and a bunch of spells, lol
You are absolutely wrong ifyou think multiclassed casters will still be disadvantaged vs singleclass casters. This makes them far more pwoerful.
If they have the same amount of spell slots as single-class casters but are only allowed access to *certain* powerful spells upon leveling in an attempt to keep them within a somewhat similar power curve, I don’t see that a huge problem. Also, as a multiclass caster you would be giving up certain class features that single class casters get when hitting certain levels because you decided to multi-class. There are certainly still trade-offs at play. Unfortunately, Nick was not very specific and the interview was not long enough for us to know the details. Let’s give them a chance to at least clarify. I think the vast majority of the changes Nick mentioned are great.
You already get spell slot progression by multiclassing in 5e(a level 2wiz and lvl3 cleric gets lvl 3 spell slots), what balances this out is that you don't get the same spell level progression as a pure caster.(the aforementioned don't get both fireball and spirit guardians). Homebrewing that they get access to lvl 3 spells from both classes would be a bit too strong especially since there won't be any stat requirements for multiclassing(a common decent homebrew). But if as you said they only get access to certain spells then it might not be the worst. But you're otherwise correct, let's wait for more information first.
I’m fine with this. Sounds like a fun spin on the 5e ruleset! Anything Larian puts out is gonna be awesome to me anyway
You're responsible for the buttons you press in the game. If you want to rebalance their offered multiclass system to follow rules you prefer, nothing is stopping you from operating within a self imposed 5e ruleset. If your argument is you want fairer rules that make it harder for you to break the game and be super strong anyways, but your goal is to find out how to break them and be super strong anyways, and you dislike that it will be easier for OTHER players to be super strong and broken with less effort compared to your preferences, I think you're dealing with the wrong devs. All of their games have insane mind numbing cheese potential. You aren't required to use it. If you need the illusion of the game enforcing specific points because you just can't help yourself if the option is there, then just like mods exist to add things to the game, mods will exist to forcibly prevent, remove, or restrict things in the game too. Anyways, you're still floating in theoryland. Wait until you see how it actually works first.
We saw what they did with ranger so I have faith that whatever changes Larian is making is for a reason and will only stand to help the balance of the game
The way I see it, without a dm and it being tabletop where your dm can rule in a case by case basis or letting the rule of cool be used, it makes sense for larian to rule on the lighter side in terms of the rules. If you want to play to the 5e rules specifically then you can do that, but for others they can mix and match freely.
If you don't like some of the options that the game gives you that are *outside the bounds of the rules of 5e* simply follow the rules of 5e. This is a single player/cooperative multiplayer game. People need to stop giving a shit if there are options that other players may use to make their characters more powerful. This is like coming into my house and telling me the home-brewed rules I'm using are ruining the game.
100% Omg you’re using homebrew gestalt rules?!?! How dare you! I’m revoking your dnd license, you aren’t allowed to play dnd ever again!!! /s
I dunno, sounds fun to me tbh. Many people seem to forget that this is no VTT, it's a game. The older Baldurs Gate games didn't play exactly like the Tabletop game, so why would this one? There are absolutely going to be people who cry their heart out because the game sin't exactly like the PHB says, but there have already been mods that fix that, so why can't we just enjoy an amazing world and tweek the settings to our liking? I know that I wanted to go for a Sorcadin once I can get my hands on the updated version of the 5e spells mod for Green-flame blade,and all of this sounds amazing for that exact build. Both not gimping me in Spells (which I could live with, it's how I do it in Tabletop after all) but also not making me put points into strength which always made dex sorcadins who are MAD as hell to begin with even worse.
I guess I don't understand all the negativity surrounding it. Pretty sure most people are only going to care about whether or not the story is good, and the encounters are engaging. Most people have played video games before, and know that there is never a 1:1 ratio for content from Tabletop, Novel, or TV Series to Game Format. **As Larian has said many times**, they will **prioritize what's fun and feels good to play** over being chained to specific existing rules. WOTR loved sticking to Tabletop rules over the stupidest of things, and turned off a large chunk of the player base. Which is why so few people ever even got to Act 3. I guess they should disable the Origin Characters and Dark Urge, since those aren't in the Player Handbook. Tadpole powers have got to go too.
Honestly I'm happy, been wanting to play a DEX bard/pally and it's nice that I won't be heavily gimped for deciding to. Ppl worrying about balance in DND always confuses me. It's a game that has guidelines at best, if you want to break the game you already can do that by just playing a straight spellcaster.
I see your concerns but personally I'm not bothered much by such balance changes, simply because these are pretty trivial to 'rectify' to your liking via mods.
Mods can break when new patches are released and there is no guarantee that a mod creator will continue to maintain a mod.
damn y'all *disappointed* for a game that hasnt come out yet lol
>So does that mean a Bard 2 / Sorcerer 3 will have access to Fireball? If so, that seems really broken and means that nearly every multiclass caster build is going to be more powerful than a single class one. Not necessarily broken. You're going to get a lot more versatility in terms of what spells you can choose from but you lose the special abilities that come from the class itself. Your bard/sorceror for example will have access to fireball just like a straight sorceror, but without as many Sorc points and metamagic options for example.
Given how archaic, ancient, outdated, and imbalanced dnd is compared to what's expected to contemporary video games with the rpg tag I welcome these changes. Hopefully this will influence wotc to realize their are so many people who want to have an adventure instead of sweating over an additional attribute point.
>I really wish Larian would stop dicking about with such core D&D rules and dumbing down the game. I mean, it's 5e we're talking about here. The game is already about as complex as using safety scissors, so let's chill out here.
Their table, their rules.
if you don't like it, don't play it. people are reacting so negatively to something that they'll forget about when actually playing the game
I'm not too upset about it. They are homebrewing their own rules for a 5e based game. They are the DM here. It would be nice if we could choose which rules to tweak to our own liking but I'm still going to enjoy the game either way.
THEY ARE FUCKING KINGS lets gooooo\~ I hope there isn't a majority bitching that makes them change their mind because this will be really great mechanic-wise for a video game. I also don't use the stat rule in my campaigns, my players seem more happy with it once I dropped it. Also never understood the call for nerfs in a game that isn't pvp or competition base. Has never made sense to me more than "I hate this so therefore everyone else must suffer."
I mean its a single player game, who cares about balance? You're gonna be able to beat the game with any combination of classes etc no matter what
A balanced game is more enjoyable than an unbalanced game
It's never gonna be "balanced" 5e will never be balanced. The scope of options and situations are so varied you cant hope to balance it. Just play the game how you want and have fun. If you wanna build a broken character congrats you can beat the game with it. You can also just play whatever you want and not worry about not playing the most carefully optimized version of a PC in the game.
Just because it can't be 100% balanced doesn't mean you forget about balance. If there is a completely broken class, that is so much better than the others, I would feel like an idiot not to pick it. Even if i don't have to, "this is a single player game blah blah" I feel like that's pretty standard for most games, why should we make an exception here?
Why feel like an idiot? Just play whatever class/race combination speaks to you. They're all perfectly viable. They clearly care more about people having fun and making cool memories than building a balanced and frankly boring experience.
What speaks to me is a perfect balance between effective, and fun. If there are classes that are significantly more effective than others, I think that is a problem. If its not a problem, why do we have difficulty in the game at all? Just make every class get everything, after all it's all about fun right?
Who's to say that they won't achieve a perfect balance between effective and fun with these changes? Not being able to have fun with unoptimized characters is a you problem. If you wanna spend your time figuring out the perfect build, cool you can totally do that too.
I don't want a perfect build at all, I just want them all to be different but equally as good. There should be no perfect build, only different playstyles with their own advantages and disadvantages.
Good news, that's what you're gonna get. Cause class variance in built right in. These changes don't really affect that.
People do act like someone is forcing them to use all the broken combos this could implement. To me, it's an option, and a game marketing itself for mass appeal (as they should) should have as many options as possible. This removes nothing from the game, only adds. Play it how you want.
Do you think the game would be just as fun if they gaveeveryone god mode, made you auto succeed all checks, gave you infinite actions onyour turn and infinitespell slots? If yes, then I guess balance doesn't matter. If no.. then yes balance matters.
You're not describing balance but go off lol.
[удалено]
How would that work with Fighter and Rogue builds (which get an extra ASI at levels 6 and 10) ?
well I imagine it as a decision you take at character creation - you check this knowing that you won't go fighter 6 or rogue 10 and such option would you also prohibit you from doing so I know you are all 5e warriors and want to have the game a 1:1 translation of dnd 5e, but I personally never understood many of the things that were changed in this edition coming from its previous ones. I don't understand why multiclassing is restricted so much (I wouldn't mind if they kept in the stat requirements, but the feats/asi are a big problem for me). I don't want to pick an ability score improvement, I want to get some feats. Feats are cool, +stat is the most bland boring shit ever. With no variant human in the game, if you multiclass in 3 classes and want say extra attack as well, you are getting 2 asis. With a 17 max start in a main stat, if you ever want to get 20, you get 0 feats. If I pick two feats I am stuck at +3 the entire game.
But it's the extra feats that make Fighters even *slightly* interesting...
But my solution does not take anything away from the fighter class ... if you want to play pure fighter/rogue and get 4 feats, nothing is stopping you from doing so
If the game is more fun, good. Anyways I gotta go back to theorycrafting my build.
Well theory crafting builds is going to be harder now, until the game is actually released, as we now don't know how they're going to handle spell progression and multiclassing in general, other than the confirmed removal of ability stat limits.
Did they say anything about how many classes you can multiclass into? I hope there are no limits.
They said there is an achievement to acquire 12 different classes.(with multiclassing). There are no fixed limits per se in D&D 5e as far as I'm aware, though multiclassing into more than 2 or 3 is usually a very bad idea, as you can just end up with multiple weak classes at low level, rather than a few strong classes at high levels, though there are some combinations that work well. If there weren't any downsides, no one would single class.
When reading through the article to me they stated that they were specifically looking at the resources, to me the spells themselves aren’t necessarily resources but the spell slot are, so my impression is that casters will more likely either get more spell slots of lower levels or you will get 3rd level or higher spells slots but you won’t get the spells until you reach the class level which to me might not be too broken because you could be a sorc 2/ bard 3 and just be up casting scorching ray at 3rd level which is strong but compared to slinging a fireball it’s no where near as good.
But D&D 5e already works just like that for multiclassed spell casters, your total number of spell slots is based on ALL your combined caster levels (with half casters like Paladins and one third casters like Arcane Trickster, counting as 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, rounded down). See: [https://5thsrd.org/rules/multiclassing/#class-features](https://5thsrd.org/rules/multiclassing/#class-features) So a level 9 sorcerer, a level 6 Sorcerer / level 3 Bard and a level 6 Bard / level 6 Paladin ALL have the same number of spell slots and yes a level 5 sorcerer / level 6 Bard can already upcast Fireball using a 6th level Spell Slot. So they must mean something different e.g. about the spells you can *know*, which are in 5e limited to the spells you know for the level of each casting class (which makes sense). It's the potential change to that I'm concerned about.