Baldur's Gate 3

[Madmarcus]

While I love the connection all the way back to Tolkien I'm fine with getting rid of them and any other half race. It seems that backgrounds and culture can cover things mechanically, it avoids the question of why are there no half-dwarves or gnome-dragonborn or whatever, and it helps clarify that these are really species (and perhaps not even remotely closely related species) not merely different looking humans.

[$iljanus]

I saw a video stating that half-orcs half-elves will be removed from the D&D handbook in the next edition, ostensibly because some people find them vaguely offensive. Dude, this is a fantasy world. It appears BG3 may be the last sanctioned game to contain those races.

Sorry Elrond. No half-Elves allowed.

[Isgrimnur]

But he was two-halves half-elf!

[Jaymann]

I hate the way half-orcs look, but I always played them because they made the best fighters. With the new universal +2/+1 system this is no longer true. Apparently their main advantage now is they go to one HP instead of dying. I can see how that could conceivably avoid a team wipe, but will probably not come into play that often.

Edit:

Spoiler:

I can envision doing a kamikazi exploding barrel run where everyone dies except your half-orc staggers away on one 1 HP.

[$iljanus]

Not that I have a centaur in this race but here's an article that has a little more nuance regarding the change.

https://www.thegamer.com/gaming-media-h ... d-dragons/

I'm not too put out by the original half-" " terminology and it's a fascinating write up on the motivation of the publishers. But what exactly do they replace it with to reflect both races without sounding ridiculous?

[Blackhawk]

Keep in mind my that opinion is based on decades of previous rpg experiences.

As is mine, as is many of ours. I started off with the colored boxes in '82, although I didn't really get heavily into it until during the 1e/2e transition in '89.

5e has ASI, which to my archaic ass seems insane.

Why not start everyone at 10's across the board if you're going to give multiple free ability points every 4 levels or so? Eventually you're going to be superhuman no matter what your starting stats are.

I both agree and disagree. As to the ASI (Ability Score Increases for your viewers at home), you won't become superhuman. For one thing, that's why they capped starting stats and limited how high you can start. For another, there is a cap. Look at a standard array Elven fighter (putting stats in spoiler tags for neatness):

Spoiler:

Str: 15
Dex: 15
Con: 14
Int: 8
Wis: 12
Cha: 10

To start with, you're going to have a penalty to something, probably Int or Cha. If they want to pump everything into Strength first, they look like this at levels 8-11:

Str: 20
Dex: 15
Con: 15
Int: 8
Wis: 12
Cha: 10

At level 12 they're here:

Str: 20
Dex: 16
Con: 16
Int: 8
Wis: 12
Cha: 10

And at level 20, the cap, they're here:

Str: 20
Dex: 16
Con: 18
Int: 8
Wis: 14
Cha: 10

That's not superhuman. It's incredible strength (it's at the cap), great constitution, a decent Dex, but they still have a penalty and their Charisma is so low that they're going to be getting spanked on their saving throws. But that's still not the whole picture because of one fact: The vast majority of D&D campaigns end by level 12. Almost none make it to 16, let alone 20. If they completely neglect everything else, they'll cap that one stat. If the stat they're going for uses their bonus, they can cap it a little early.

In any case, array or buy typically result in very cookie cutter level 1 characters. What fight is going to intentionally avoid putting 15 into str, for example? That means every first level fighter is going to have a str score of 15 (before race bonuses. And all fighters of the same race will have identical str scores at first level).

I mostly disagree with this. Had you not said, 'cookie cutter level 1 characters', I'd have disagreed more. Instead, I'll say that it doesn't matter. Yeah, level 1 characters of the same class/stat combo are going to be similar, but you're only level 1 for a single play session, less if the GM hands out XP mid-session. Level 1-3 in 5e are the equivalent of MMO starter zones. They're intended as a tutorial to teach you your character, and they're designed for you to absolutely fly through. Those first couple of level-ups come fast. On top of that, level 1 stat blocks aren't that important for setting characters apart. It's the rest of the character design process and the progression that's responsible for differentiation.

First off, there's more than one way to build a fighter. Dex fighters, for instance, are pretty popular, and some builds emphasize Con more than Str.

Second, as with most modern RPGs, the avoidance of the 'cookie cutter' character isn't about the stats (and it is here that D&D does fail as a system, more in a minute.) Sure, level 1 stats for two different Dwarf Strength-based fighters are going to look fairly similar, but unless they pick the same fighting style and background, they're already going to play differently. By the second or third session, they're going to be using different archetypes. If they make it all the way to 12, the resulting Dwarf Rune Knight who specializes in two handed weapons is going to be completely different than the Dwarf Battle Master with the Interception technique who traded one of the ability score improvements for the Alert feat.

And even that only takes into account the stats. A great deal of what sets characters apart is how they're played, their personalities. If the Rune Knight is hardcore traditionalist who frowns on any deviations from the 'old way' of doing things, is religiously devout, and has a short temper, and the Battle Master is hard drinking loud-mouth who is quick to laugh and never bathes, they're not going to be similar at all. There's a reason that games like Fiasco, PbtA, and FATE are popular, and it isn't the stat blocks - it's the non-mechanical play.

And the Elf Dex fighter with the archer archetype and dueling weapons is going to be absolutely nothing like them.

Second, as with most modern RPGs, the avoidance of the 'cookie cutter' character isn't about the stats (and it is here that D&D fails as a system, more in a minute.)

It's been a minute.

The biggest place where 5e fails isn't in lack of differentiation, it's in the lack of meaningful choices.

The Rune Knight up there would have chosen his background and his personality at level 1. He'd have decided to take his Great Weapon Fighting style at level 1. His languages and proficiencies (skills) were in place at level 1. He'd have chosen to become a Rune Knight at level 3. After that... Nothing. After level 3, leveling up means filling in your character sheet with whatever's listed in the book for that level, copy-paste. A few classes get minor ability choice, but those are usually predetermined (your Archer fighter isn't going to be taking the melee boosts, for instance.) Unless you're trading a skill-up for a feat or multi-classing, you've made all of your meaningful choices by level 3, and the rest of your character's development is just paperwork. And if you're multi-classing, it's still mostly just writing down your bonuses, not making choices.

So I agree that 5e results in cookie-cutter characters (not every fighter is going to be the same, but every level 12 Rune Knight is going to be very, very similar), but it isn't because of the stat blocks.

It's the reason that my group switched to Pathfinder 2e for our 'traditional' fantasy RPG. They designed it specifically to give meaningful choices every time you level up. The starting stat blocks are still pretty cookie-cutter (after all, you're playing a raw recruit with no experience), but after that individual characters can diverge wildly, and you're constantly making interesting decisions as you level.

[baelthazar]

I've always wondered about half-orcs from the very beginning (for me, about 11yo). And then half-ogres for awhile.

I mean, I can imagine a consensual relationship between elves and humans. It's difficult to imagine one between orcs and humans. Or worse, ogres and humans.

They are literally the result of raping and pillaging. but mostly the raping.

I think that was the general consensus from the AD&D days. But more recently the Orcs have been more humanized, likely with the advent of World of Warcraft - which made the Orcs more akin to a shamanistic, in tune with nature civilization (in Azeroth, it was their corruption by demons that made them bestial and violent). I always saw them as analogs to Klingons.

Also, it reminds me of the old meme where it showed the high variability of male fantasy races, but the females are just hot human women with color shifts and maybe some tusks or horns.

[GreenGoo]

As is mine, as is many of ours. I started off with the colored boxes in '82, although I didn't really get heavily into it until during the 1e/2e transition in '89.

Ok, I can see how this reads, but that's not what I intended. I meant that my experiences are ancient, and I have very little experience actually playing 5e. By ancient I mean likely out of date.

I both agree and disagree. As to the ASI (Ability Score Increases for your viewers at home), you won't become superhuman. For one thing, that's why they capped starting stats and limited how high you can start. For another, there is a cap. Look at a standard array Elven fighter (putting stats in spoiler tags for neatness):


That's not superhuman. It's incredible strength (it's at the cap), great constitution, a decent Dex, but they still have a penalty and their Charisma is so low that they're going to be getting spanked on their saving throws. But that's still not the whole picture because of one fact: The vast majority of D&D campaigns end by level 12. Almost none make it to 16, let alone 20. If they completely neglect everything else, they'll cap that one stat. If the stat they're going for uses their bonus, they can cap it a little early.

20 anything is (has been) entering the realm supernatural in previous versions of D&D. Hell, there were magic items that brought your strength up, but still lower than 20. That seems just out of kilter to me. Level 1 dude uses potion or belt/girdle or whatever, and through the vast power of magic, is still weaker than an elf.

So besides me seeing a 20 anything and being taken aback, it also feels weird from lore point of view. 5e has been around a LONG time and most players are now acclimatized to it as being the new normal. I am not, even though I spend a fair bit of time watching 5e themed youtubes and own several of the books now.

I mostly disagree with this. Had you not said, 'cookie cutter level 1 characters', I'd have disagreed more. Instead, I'll say that it doesn't matter.

Well I disagree with this, mostly because leveling used to be a time intensive experience, and that's where my instincts come from. In AD&D it would take several long play sessions to reach level 2. With death around every corner. You were level 1 for more than 4 hours. And that continued until you level'd into your power curve, which for pure magic-users as you know, was many levels. Maybe around lvl 5 they start being self sufficient. That's 10's of hours of play. So everyone wanted unique characters from the start. They might not be around very long, but if they were, they were likely to remain at a given level for lengthy periods of time. Not to mention that it was incredibly difficult to raise ability scores. Like, Wish spell type difficulty. Raising abilities just wasn't happening for most characters, so starting with a grid or point-buy would create samey characters that stayed samey.

So if you're gaining a level every time you play in 5e, ok, I get it, and it doesn't matter that all fighters are the same at level 1 (or fall into 1 of 2 molds, with dex based being a thing now. There were no dex based melee damage increases in AD&D that I remember, so this is new to me), because as you said, you're not going to be any one level for very long.

I feel like that devalues gaining a level, but I also realize that the original D&D was brutally slow at first, and insanely dangerous. That's not for everyone, I understand that. One of the first things I noticed about 5e is the incredible increase in survivability, right from the start. I thought it was great, at first. Now it seems very difficult to die. I'm not as big a fan of that. Yes, yes, characters still die in 5e. But only through incredibly bad luck and chained bad circumstances, typically. Anyway.

I recognize that my D&D experience is decades old and not particularly relevant to 5e. I have tried to educate myself, but I admit some of the rules just feel "wrong", emotionally, if not mechanically. There's a reason there is a whole sub-genre of old school rules/adventures and players.

As for Pathfinder, I don't have much to add. My interest in ttrpgs is mostly focused on D&D, and that includes the label. I'm not opposed to a few others but my real interest is just D&D in whatever form it currently takes. And second, I hear that Pathfinder is quite mechanically dense. AD&D was too dense for me (to play, I loved reading the rules) so I am clearly not in the demographic for rules heavy games. I'm glad Pathfinder exists and find its history fascinating, but it's likely not for me.

[GreenGoo]

While I love the connection all the way back to Tolkien I'm fine with getting rid of them and any other half race. It seems that backgrounds and culture can cover things mechanically, it avoids the question of why are there no half-dwarves or gnome-dragonborn or whatever, and it helps clarify that these are really species (and perhaps not even remotely closely related species) not merely different looking humans.

I can live with this, no problem. And as you said, if someone wants the mechanics of these former core races, they can make it work in other ways.

[GreenGoo]

I think that was the general consensus from the AD&D days. But more recently the Orcs have been more humanized, likely with the advent of World of Warcraft - which made the Orcs more akin to a shamanistic, in tune with nature civilization (in Azeroth, it was their corruption by demons that made them bestial and violent). I always saw them as analogs to Klingons.

Also, it reminds me of the old meme where it showed the high variability of male fantasy races, but the females are just hot human women with color shifts and maybe some tusks or horns.

Perhaps, but orcs originated with Tolkien, and there aren't going to be large droves of humans lining up to create hybrid children with them.

Even WoW orcs, while being humanized, yes, and still alien enough in physiology that mating is unlikely to happen even if he/she is your best friend. Imo anyway.

[baelthazar]

Perhaps, but orcs originated with Tolkien, and there aren't going to be large droves of humans lining up to create hybrid children with them.

I mean, if we are going that route, Tolkien Orcs are fallen elves hybridized in some way to be monstrous. So Tolkien was the first to create orc hybrids.

Even WoW orcs, while being humanized, yes, and still alien enough in physiology that mating is unlikely to happen even if he/she is your best friend. Imo anyway.

First off, we don't kink shame in these parts.

Second, have you seen the WoW orcs? Particularly the females? I don't think this statement is accurate.

But back to D&D, I'm ambivalent on "half" races, particularly knowing how Gygax and other's in D&D's creation were, at best, openly misogynist (remember that female characters had different stat caps in B/X). But then again, I do sort of like the idea of "good orcs" and consensual families made up from different backgrounds (the Star Trek approach).

[Blackhawk]

20 anything is (has been) entering the realm supernatural in previous versions of D&D. Hell, there were magic items that brought your strength up, but still lower than 20. That seems just out of kilter to me.

Right, and that's completely fair, but it's also not a flaw in the system. It's looking at the system through the lens of another. In earlier editions, 18 was the max (discounting racials) because it was based on 3d6, and getting higher than 18 wasn't possible. Now that the stats are no longer built off of 3d6, 18 becomes an arbitrary number, while the game system itself is built around the d20 (although you never actually use your ability score itself for much of anything.) For normal races, 20 is simply the pinnacle of development. 20 now is the 18 (or the 18/00) of years past.

Well I disagree with this, mostly because leveling used to be a time intensive experience, and that's where my instincts come from. In AD&D it would take several long play sessions to reach level 2.

So if you're gaining a level every time you play in 5e, ok, I get it, and it doesn't matter that all fighters are the same at level 1 (or fall into 1 of 2 molds, with dex based being a thing now. There were no dex based melee damage increases in AD&D that I remember, so this is new to me), because as you said, you're not going to be any one level for very long.

You're misreading me. Leveling is still at time intensive process, but it's a curve now. You stay level 1-3 for (usually) a single play session. You hit level 5 in just a few more. After that it slows way, way down. This achieves a couple of things. First, it acts as a tutorial for new players, as you don't start with all of your character's abilities to keep track of. You usually only get one or two of them. You then slowly add them, one by one, until around level 3, with some finishing touches at 5. In other words, it starts off with fewer rules and options to keep track of, then slowly adds them in over the first few sessions - which is why it rushes through them fairly quickly (again, the comparison to tutorial zones in MMOs.) The second thing it achieves is getting the party to the 'sweet spot' that most people say are the best levels for playing, around 3 through 10, where you're strong enough to survive, but not a god with an arsenal. In my experience, it works really, really well, and is a hell of a lot more fun than a wizard with 2hp who could cast Sleep once per day, then hide under a rock.

As for Pathfinder, I don't have much to add. My interest in ttrpgs is mostly focused on D&D, and that includes the label. I'm not opposed to a few others but my real interest is just D&D in whatever form it currently takes. And second, I hear that Pathfinder is quite mechanically dense. AD&D was too dense for me (to play, I loved reading the rules) so I am clearly not in the demographic for rules heavy games. I'm glad Pathfinder exists and find its history fascinating, but it's likely not for me.

Which is fine, although you're mixing descriptions of 1st edition and 2nd edition Pathfinder. Pathfinder 1 was a polished up version of the D&D 3.5 rules, and was a massive, dense tome(s) of complicated rules. PF2e is much closer to D&D 5e in complexity. Maybe 10% more complex, but still not a 'rules heavy' game the way its predecessor was. Both D&D 5e and PF2e are considered 'rules medium' games. FWIW, PF2e plays a lot like an improved 5e, but actually manages to bring back the feel of AD&D 1e/2e more than any D&D product has since TSR sold it.


Also, we probably shouldn't tell you about the fact that level 1 characters start off with maximum hit points instead of rolling, that wizards get a D6 for HP now, that cantrips are you main combat spells, that it has mostly done away with alignment, and that a lot (possibly a majority) of DMs no longer use experience points in favor of 'milestone' level advancement.

[Blackhawk]

There were no dex based melee damage increases in AD&D that I remember, so this is new to me)

This was, I believe, introduced in third edition 23 years ago. Then it was a feat (Finesse), now it is simply a quality that some weapons have - primarily light weapons like rapiers, daggers, scimitars, etc. If you're wielding, say, a scimitar, you get to choose whether to use Str or Dex for your attack/damage bonuses each time you attack. This includes when thrown, and non-finesse weapons use the same bonus you'd use with it in melee (so Strength for a thrown handaxe.)

There are also abilities that let you use Dex for defense, allowing a Dex fighter to get by without 500 pounds of armor.

[GreenGoo]

Also, we probably shouldn't tell you about the fact that level 1 characters start off with maximum hit points instead of rolling, that wizards get a D6 for HP now, that cantrips are you main combat spells, that it has mostly done away with alignment, and that a lot (possibly a majority) of DMs no longer use experience points in favor of 'milestone' level advancement.

No, I like the max hp at level 1. I think it was necessary and I believe it was basically a house rule back in the day.

I don't have an opinion about D6 hp casters.

You forgot to mention that cantrips are also free, which is a bigger deal than them being main combat spells, imo. I mostly like the changes to the casting system, although I think it has made the traditional magic-user/wizard obsolete, which makes me a bit sad.

Alignment is still everywhere. Yes, I understand there is a strong movement opposed to the idea of predetermined morality. I don't much care, although I think alignment works for those people who would otherwise play their character as a random sociopath, ping ponging around the morality dial. I also understand the logic of making decisions and letting your "alignment" fall out of that. *shrug*

I think milestone leveling is an amazing development and I am intrigued. Unfortunately I do not have any experience with it so I don't have a feel for it, just theorycrafting.

Old school treasure = experience is a different game, and it's gone except for the old school niche players. I miss the numbers of that old way of playing. In fact my fascination with D&D was mostly about the combat, creatures and numbers. I couldn't imagine a more than 5 minute roleplaying session with the local barkeep, and even that was mostly for an entertaining distraction. But that was when I was a kid and first introduced to the game. Today I see the appeal of a roleplay heavy game, but I am not a thespian nor do I want to be one, so I'm not sure I could play a game that revolves around character social interaction. Hell, I HATED the adventure modules coming out of the UK, as they weren't even dungeons in some cases!?! Hah. The Assassin's Knot is the first thing that comes to mind, but there were others.

Anywho, if I have anything further to add, I'll look for the D&D thread in the other forum.

Should probably let people get back to their BG3 excitement.

[Blackhawk]

Regarding the race thing...

It's relevant that they also stated a while back that they're moving away from the idea of good/evil races, and leaning more into them being beings that have particular cultures. Orcs used to be an evil race which had no purpose but rape, murder, arson, and rape. While the new version hasn't been released yet (that I'm aware of), I expect to see that orcs will be described more as having some sort of nomadic barbarian culture. They may engage in some good old fashioned raidin', but it leaves room for tribes that are different - more spiritual, or less warlike, or maybe even agricultural. And that leaves room for orcs that are traders, moving goods between the tribes and the cities, etc. It also opens up the possibility of individual orcs who are more acclimated to other races (and of something like a dwarf who grew up with orcs.) It does not, of course, remove the possibility of a massive warband coming over the ridge, and they can still serve as the antagonists, but it'll be a function of their culture, not their genetics.

They've said that they're doing something similar with the Drow. In the Forgotten Realms, we've only seen evil Drow (with individual exceptions), but we've also mainly seen the Drow of limited geographical areas. There's no reason that there couldn't be Drow with very different cultures - like not worshiping Llolth - in other areas. I mean, there has to be some Underdark under Chult, or Anaurach, or wherever.

That ties in well with their new hybrid race system.

[GreenGoo]

I have no problem with evil races. Fantasy and pulp fantasy in particular might not exist if it weren't for inherently evil foes to overcome. Are they realistic? Probably not, given what we know about the one real world race we have experience with, but realism is not the forte of D&D.

Doesn't matter. Murder hobos are gonna murder, and role players are gonna play roles. It won't change how most people are already playing the game, I'm guessing.

edit: I'm not overly interested in facing an ethical dilemma every time I'm about to swing my sword. Some people are. Ok.

[Blackhawk]

I have no problem with evil races.

Maybe, but our society on the whole is moving away from that mindset (that what kind of person you are is determined by who your parents were.) It's still awkward to me, and doesn't completely make sense to my brain (plus, honestly, it's a little uncomfortable), but I am aware that my thinking is likely decades out of date.

So, yeah - I'm fine with evil races. But I'm also fine acknowledging that it's a concept that may no longer be a great one.

After all, plenty of fiction and non-fiction has been about humans fighting other humans who were evil individuals or evil organizations, not just part of some nation where everyone there was inherently evil. Orcs can still live in cold war Russia, and can still be antagonists without saying that every man, woman, and child there is just as evil.

[GreenGoo]

Yes, I'm aware. Roll insight to decide whether the BBE's kid will grow up to be another BBE. Fail, let him live. Succeed, throw off cliff.

And yes, even demons can have moral ambiguity. Hello, Hellboy. I don't care. I'm not particularly interested in pondering the morality of every single action I take as a game player. Some people love it. Great for them. I'm not saying I don't enjoy a good moral dilemma, I just don't want one every time I wander into an orc lair only to find out he's "one of the good ones". Or having to bother to find out. Now every lone monster sitting alone in a hut is potentially a hermit, not a threat. Better spend the gaming session roleplaying to investigate the truth. Once? Sure. Multiple encounters every gaming session? Less sure.

[Madmarcus]

It's relevant that they also stated a while back that they're moving away from the idea of good/evil races, and leaning more into them being beings that have particular cultures. Orcs used to be an evil race which had no purpose but rape, murder, arson, and rape. While the new version hasn't been released yet (that I'm aware of), I expect to see that orcs will be described more as having some sort of nomadic barbarian culture. They may engage in some good old fashioned raidin', ... but it'll be a function of their culture, not their genetics.

I have to laugh at the idea that they are moving away from the idea of evil races. 40 years ago in high school we figured that it didn't make sense that an intelligent people would be uniformly anything. I'm not quite sure why we ditched Tolkien's twisted elves / created by evil gods idea but we did. In practice orcs were the enemy (especially in modules) but it always felt like colonization of the frontier; a battle of cultures not a battle of strictly good versus strictly evil.

[Zarathud]

If you want players to risk death in 5E, the DM takes off the gloves. Experienced players have a good sense for action economy and their foes, so tweaking monsters and giving them more opponents with fewer rests is critical. No more 4th edition with two encounters a play session, just push them into multiple, hard fights to avoid enemy reinforcements. Add a few stronger enemies, and make them smart enough to harm players in their weak spots.

A downed character will fail a death save if injured. For that reason, I had a mage blast the players with 2 fireballs in an enclosed area in BG: Escape from Avernus (if you played, you know where). Those downed by the first fireball were only 1 save away from death after the second…one player almost faced instant death from the extra damage and the players had to decide who needed to be saved to help a last player in their last death save. If they hadn’t used all their short rest HD and dipped into their potions, the traps nearby would have been game over. By the end of the dungeon, they were desperate to retreat and kick their wounds.

My only mistake with those players was not knowing there is a DEX+CHA multiclass build that lets PCs wear heavy armor without encumbrance penalty. That PC could not be hit except by surprise as Magic Missiles or just good rolls would face a reaction Shield spell. The one time I a flying an opponent pick him up during a surprise round for massive falling damage, the mage had saved a Feather Fall somehow. By then, the party realized I had a problem letting that player survive to permanently unbalance the campaign.

[Carpet_pissr]

Someone ping me when the discussion veers back to BG3 please!

(sayeth the mass derailer)

[Jaymann]

Someone ping me when the discussion veers back to BG3 please!

(sayeth the mass derailer)

So what classes are people considering for their first playthrough? I am probably going with a Drow Ranger/Gloom Stalker then multi-classing into Rogue Assassin. In EA I found out that:

Spoiler:

Goblins shy away from Drow so you don't have to use your tadpole on them.

[baelthazar]

Someone ping me when the discussion veers back to BG3 please!

(sayeth the mass derailer)

I played again tonight to mess around. A Drow Warlock was pretty fun - I mean you are a one trick pony with Eldritch Blast but it is a pretty good trick! Also, the high CHA means you can be the "face" and persuade everyone. I am thinking of either sticking with the Warlock or being a Bard.

My BG1 and BG2 playthroughs were two-handed fighter (Kensai, back in the day). I loved it. But I always either play a dual wielder or a Cleric, so maybe something new would be great.

[Zarathud]

Dragonblood Sorcerer. If I don’t like the thief, then I’ll play a Rogue for that sweet backstab damage.

[Hamlet3145]

I'll be playing an elfy Oath of the Ancients paladin. The rest of my main party will be Shadowheart (with her cleric domain respecced to something actually useful), Astarion (probably will multi-class to Gloom Stalker), and Gale being a nuke-y nuker.

[Hyena]

I was pretty sure I was going to play a ranger archer, but now I'm leaning towards a dual-wield ranger. Monk is #2 on the list.

However, after watching some videos, I am STRONGLY considering playing the new origin character. If you haven't seen it and want to avoid spoilers, it's

Spoiler:

The Dark Urge, an apparent serial killer or some such. The choices you can make are pretty...well, dark. Might be good for a second playthrough as an evil character, if that floats your canoe.

[Madmarcus]

I still haven't decided. I want to go ranger but then it becomes really tempting to multiclass for 4 levels of something else and I haven't decided what yet.

I'll keep Shadowheart around as a trickster domain cleric. The domain is poor but it fits her story so I'll leave it. I didn't play very far into EA so I really didn't get much of a feel for the others. It does seem that between the rogue and warlock there are two finesse people already (plus Shadowheart is better with a dagger) which might mean some item conflicts if Tav also wants a finesse weapon.

[Max Peck]

I was pretty sure I was going to play a ranger archer, but now I'm leaning towards a dual-wield ranger. Monk is #2 on the list.

However, after watching some videos, I am STRONGLY considering playing the new origin character. If you haven't seen it and want to avoid spoilers, it's

Spoiler:

The Dark Urge, an apparent serial killer or some such. The choices you can make are pretty...well, dark. Might be good for a second playthrough as an evil character, if that floats your canoe.

Swen recommends saving that for a subsequent play-through rather than the going with it the first time through the game. He says that all of the origin characters are intended to be for replays, in order to see the story from different perspectives, and recommends playing a custom character for the first time through the game.

[Skinypupy]

I don’t care a bit about min/maxing, figuring out complex multiclassing, or juggling a bazillion different skills. I just want to enjoy the story and experience a cool D&D world.

So I’ll probably just be going with my usual human Fighter…the same character I play in nearly every RPG.

[disarm]

I played a dual-wielding half-elf ranger as my lead character for every single Infinity Engine D&D game back in the day, so I feel pretty much obligated to keep that approach going for BG3. I might even go Drow half-elf to make my own spin on a Drizzt-like character.

I don't know 5e and haven't played early access at all though, so that whole concept is subject to change based on the details of race and class in BG3...

[GreenGoo]

[
So what classes are people considering for their first playthrough? I am probably going with a Drow Ranger/Gloom Stalker then multi-classing into Rogue Assassin. In EA I found out that:

Spoiler:

Goblins shy away from Drow so you don't have to use your tadpole on them.

Lol, I thought you were serious! I was like, these subclasses are really getting out of hand.

[Hamlet3145]

I'll be playing an elfy Oath of the Ancients paladin. The rest of my main party will be Shadowheart (with her cleric domain respecced to something actually useful), Astarion (probably will multi-class to Gloom Stalker), and Gale being a nuke-y nuker.

And . . . I've already changed my mind.

Upon further consideration, for my 1st playthrough I've decided to go with a "no respec" rule so I'm swapping out Astarion for Karlach and making Shadowheart my thief-y person. She won't be as good as a real rogue, but hopefully there will be some items to help out with that later on.

[YellowKing]

Y'all out there with these crazy multi-classes and I'm sitting here going, "I think I'll do a fighter...and a magic guy.....and a thief guy.......and a healer guy....."

[baelthazar]

Y'all out there with these crazy multi-classes and I'm sitting here going, "I think I'll do a fighter...and a magic guy.....and a thief guy.......and a healer guy....."

Yeah, my version of "multi-class" is to play several single class characters!

[Carpet_pissr]

I’m going to play as a quad wield, quarter orc/human/elf/jackalope, half caff Grondian Sorceror (not to be confused with a filthy Garundian!) which will explode into a random new class every 2.75 levels. He is highly sensitive to both sun and moonlight, so will travel via one of those bubble things you can pedal internally.

[YellowKing]

I don't need to overthink it. As long as I can still have sex with a bear, I should be able to get by with just about anything.

[Jaymann]

I'll be playing an elfy Oath of the Ancients paladin. The rest of my main party will be Shadowheart (with her cleric domain respecced to something actually useful), Astarion (probably will multi-class to Gloom Stalker), and Gale being a nuke-y nuker.

And . . . I've already changed my mind.

Upon further consideration, for my 1st playthrough I've decided to go with a "no respec" rule so I'm swapping out Astarion for Karlach and making Shadowheart my thief-y person. She won't be as good as a real rogue, but hopefully there will be some items to help out with that later on.

I know of at least one, and she has a spell that enhances sneak.

[coopasonic]

You D&D nerds have done a good job convincing me I don't need to get this game. I was already hesitant as I couldn't really get into DOS2 despite multiple attempts and the Pathfinder games about killed me. The complexity of modern D&D is beyond my interest.

[Carpet_pissr]

I thought the previous games in the series did a great job of masking the technical shit going on underneath the hood. To me, it was just a REALLY fun game, and I had only dabbled in actual D&D prior to that.

I don’t remember it being a chore or having to really know anything about D&D rules, but it was a long time ago, and I probably had a lot more patience for that back then. I guess I would never consider BG “complex” but maybe this new one is different?

[Jaymann]

You don't have to go complicated. You could simply play Hulk smash! And give everyone else magic missile.