Baldur's Gate 3 - Differerences to D&D 5e

Pladio

Guardian of Nonsense
Staff Member
Moderator
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
8,163
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Problem with Pathfinder for me is actually what you describe @Arkadia7;.
For example, a Wizard is meant to be INT based and a Cleric WIS based, right ?

Well in Pathfinder's subclasses, you have a WIS based Wizard and a INT based Cleric. You have this for almost every class, which makes most classes feel less unique in my opinion.

I had tons of fun with both games, but I did find that a bit of a weakness.
 
N

Nereida

Guest
I don't like 5th edition D&D, period. There was nothing wrong or difficult to understand about THAC0, it just is a sad reflection on the dumbing down of society, in general.

I agree. I remember in the olden days when the sun shone and people paraded to applaud me as I walked through the street and then brought me cakes too. And th-- nngh!

I… must… resist! *closes the page*
 

Arkadia7

SasqWatch
Original Sin 2 Donor
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,999
Location
Pacific NorthWest, USA!
Problem with Pathfinder for me is actually what you describe @Arkadia7;.
For example, a Wizard is meant to be INT based and a Cleric WIS based, right ?

Well in Pathfinder's subclasses, you have a WIS based Wizard and a INT based Cleric. You have this for almost every class, which makes most classes feel less unique in my opinion.

I had tons of fun with both games, but I did find that a bit of a weakness.

I am (for sure!) not an expert regarding Pathfinder. But just from my reading some of the mechanics in the reference online to the Pathfinder game, and playing the video game, it seems to be much more attuned to classical D&D. That said, I don't know about the issue you are talking about re: subclasses in Pathfinder, and for sure there could be weaknesses in the Pathfinder system as well.
 

fadedc

SasqWatch
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
I am (for sure!) not an expert regarding Pathfinder. But just from my reading some of the mechanics in the reference online to the Pathfinder game, and playing the video game, it seems to be much more attuned to classical D&D. That said, I don't know about the issue you are talking about re: subclasses in Pathfinder, and for sure there could be weaknesses in the Pathfinder system as well.

Pathfinder is attuned to 3rd edition D&D, so whether or not that is classic largely depends on when you started playing it :). They were popular back in the days of 3E, but their popularity really took off when 4e came to be, which was probably the most controversial of editions (which is saying something because every single new edition has had a vocal group saying how awful it was). The people who didn't like it flocked to pathfinder instead since they had an open gaming license and were able to continue being 3rd edition D&D without actually being it.

As people have said, Solasta is pretty representative of 5th edition D&D, although it's much more limited, presumably due to budget reasons. Actual 5E gives you many more options and customization choices.
 

Redglyph

SasqWatch
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
5,387
Location
Good old Europe
Problem with Pathfinder for me is actually what you describe @Arkadia7;.
For example, a Wizard is meant to be INT based and a Cleric WIS based, right ?

Well in Pathfinder's subclasses, you have a WIS based Wizard and a INT based Cleric. You have this for almost every class, which makes most classes feel less unique in my opinion.

I had tons of fun with both games, but I did find that a bit of a weakness.

I know there are a few rare exceptions, but I don't think that they're in the more "classic" Wizard and Cleric classes, I may be wrong.

For ex. I see that a Magus is an arcane spellcaster based on INT, but the Eldritch Scion archetype is CHA-based (because they are more instinctive casters like sorcerers I suppose?). And Sorcerer has a Sage Sorcerer archetype based on INT, maybe because it determines knowledge skills.

Perhaps there's a divine caster exception too. It seems rare to me, but maybe I missed other exceptions.

I agree though, the sheer amount of possibilities, of types of casting, is easily overwhelming. It's not as if we could have a clear idea of each class - I sure can't, there are many features that have rubbed off on one another. It's grey and not B&W, which doesn't please everyone.

In general when I think about Pathfinder, that's what springs to mind: it's very complex, limit overdone. And their rulebooks reflect that in the # pages ;) (on top of that, they're not very well written). But I like that.
 

wolfgrimdark

Follower of Fenris Wolf
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,450
Location
NH
There is always a price. The cost of uniqueness is often at the cost of flexibility. Having cases where a Sylvan based Druid uses charisma over wisdom gives a player the chance to play a more charisma based Druid at the cost of making the class less unique (for example).

Pathfinder has a lot of this it seems, certainly in WOTR there seemed to be an exception to everything. And if the class didn't have one a background trait would (like there is one background that lets you use wisdom in place of charisma for persuasion checks if you wanted to have a wise character with low charisma but still wanted to be persuasive).

I went back and forth. On the one hand I really liked the ability to not be pigeonholed into one class because I wanted X but otherwise didn't like Y. Yet at the same time one of the Hunter sub-classes was almost identical to the Sacred Huntsman subclass of the Inquisitor. And being more unique can be fun.

All that being said, for myself, I will take flexibility over rigid definitions as I prefer to make my characters the way I envision them versus how some rules force them to be defined.

Not all the rules make sense on their restrictions, some just seem arbitrary while others seem to have more logic to them.

Red also pointed out that usually there is some explanation on why a cleric might be able to use INT or a druid could use charisma, and so on.

When I can I tend to ignore worries about uniqueness and simply pick the class that best fits my character and don't care whether there is overlap with others … because in the end why does it really matter?
 

Arkadia7

SasqWatch
Original Sin 2 Donor
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,999
Location
Pacific NorthWest, USA!
These are all some very good and interesting posts about the game systems - I like reading them.

I do agree that uniqueness can cost flexibility.

That said, I did grow up playing Advanced D&D and so this is what my preference is, and I like the strict class based system.

It doesn't mean I can't appreciate and play skill based flexible-type rpg systems too, but I think the class based system is by far the best if you are playing a party based game, where each person has a specific "profession" if you will (class), and it makes things very interesting when they all combine together, with their various highly specialized strengths and weaknesses.
 

vanedor

Keeper of the Watch
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
1,197
Location
Quebec city
Maybe 5E is better for board games where you can really RP a personality with its flaws & qualities. Video games don't have this dimension.

I believe 5E is probably better when you play "Pen and Paper" since it simplified so many rules and let you concentrate on the important stuff. For video games, you don't have the same constrains. The game takes care of the complexity. 5e makes the game feels a bit dumbed down in comparison to Pathfinder/3e games.
 

JFarrell71

SasqWatch
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
3,209
Location
Portland, OR
I thought the idea of 5E was to make characters more customizable with feats & abilities, which are more significant than before, instead of a multitude of subclasses?

I play 5E and that is not the case at all. Vanilla 5E doesn't even have feats. All abilities are tied to class, and to further subclass choices (made at 3rd level) within those classes. D&D 5E has perhaps the least customizability of any RPG system I can think of.

I believe 5E is probably better when you play "Pen and Paper" since it simplified so many rules and let you concentrate on the important stuff.

For me at least 5E is way over simplified. Everything is handled through a basic advantage/disadvantage system. You have higher ground? Roll with advantage (meaning roll twice and take the better result). You're trying to cast a spell while on fire? Roll with disadvantage (roll twice and take the worse result).

I play 5E only because of the friends I play it with. As a system I would metaphorically punt it into the ocean. As such, I couldn't care less whether BG3 strictly adheres to it.
 

fadedc

SasqWatch
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
For 5E it depends on what you compare it to I guess. It has many more customization options than 1e or 2e, but fewer than 3e. Of course 3E had a lot of problems with game balance and trap builds, where the game gave you the option to play something but in practice it was awful and you'd never want to. So if you cared about optimization at all you often had very few options. But if you didn't care about that then it definitely gave you the most choices.

I'm a big fan of feats so my biggest disappointment was the lack of emphasis on them in 5E. Still there are so many subclasses, backgrounds, etc. and the feats they do give are often incredibly powerful and character defining. So I generally find I can create any weird character type I want there, while still having it be effective from an optimization perspective. I'm an optimizer so that last part is a big deal. Ultimately though I think every edition has things it does better than others, even 4e.
 

Dolby

Watchdog
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
153
I believe 5E is probably better when you play "Pen and Paper" since it simplified so many rules and let you concentrate on the important stuff. For video games, you don't have the same constrains. The game takes care of the complexity. 5e makes the game feels a bit dumbed down in comparison to Pathfinder/3e games.

Kinda have to agree with this. In general be it for 3e or whatever Ip rules… This looks to be the biggest problem when it comes to porting of "PnP" to video format and most devs don't get it or they ignore it.

Both formats have completely different strength and weakness basically on every espect of the game.

If you gonna use licenses like that best you just fully adapt from ground up, take the lore and worldbuilding and build a video game only on that.

In BG 3 case 5e rules and advantage from a simplefiend system get completely lost in video game.
 

Pladio

Guardian of Nonsense
Staff Member
Moderator
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
8,163
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
There is always a price. The cost of uniqueness is often at the cost of flexibility. Having cases where a Sylvan based Druid uses charisma over wisdom gives a player the chance to play a more charisma based Druid at the cost of making the class less unique (for example).

Pathfinder has a lot of this it seems, certainly in WOTR there seemed to be an exception to everything. And if the class didn't have one a background trait would (like there is one background that lets you use wisdom in place of charisma for persuasion checks if you wanted to have a wise character with low charisma but still wanted to be persuasive).

I went back and forth. On the one hand I really liked the ability to not be pigeonholed into one class because I wanted X but otherwise didn't like Y. Yet at the same time one of the Hunter sub-classes was almost identical to the Sacred Huntsman subclass of the Inquisitor. And being more unique can be fun.

All that being said, for myself, I will take flexibility over rigid definitions as I prefer to make my characters the way I envision them versus how some rules force them to be defined.

Not all the rules make sense on their restrictions, some just seem arbitrary while others seem to have more logic to them.

Red also pointed out that usually there is some explanation on why a cleric might be able to use INT or a druid could use charisma, and so on.

When I can I tend to ignore worries about uniqueness and simply pick the class that best fits my character and don't care whether there is overlap with others … because in the end why does it really matter?
Really good post. I understand what you mean, but I think that for me specifically, there is no point in a class system if you can essentially be anything anyway.

It's like having a food menu with 100 pages of options. In the end I can only choose one so why have so many. Make the ones you have meaningful.

In the end, if you think about it a non class based system ends up with you picking some kind of class anyway. For example in Gothic 1 you could be a mage or a fighter.
 

wolfgrimdark

Follower of Fenris Wolf
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,450
Location
NH
Really good post. I understand what you mean, but I think that for me specifically, there is no point in a class system if you can essentially be anything anyway.

It's like having a food menu with 100 pages of options. In the end I can only choose one so why have so many. Make the ones you have meaningful.

In the end, if you think about it a non class based system ends up with you picking some kind of class anyway. For example in Gothic 1 you could be a mage or a fighter.

That is a really good point, about why not go to a classless system in that case.

To make it seem like I am contradicting myself I tend to prefer class systems over classless. I tend to feel a little aimless with no classes although I don't mind them. I mean I love FO and Skyrim and none of those games have classes.

Thing is I also grew up on Dungeons and Dragons. It was 1974 (well according to the WIKI not like I would remember the date exactly) so I was 10 then. I started playing when I was around 12 and played it heavily in Highschool then off and on till I was in my late 20's before shifting mainly to computer games.

So I do like the whole aspect of AD&D in general a lot. The classes, the lore, the mechanics and style, and so on. But I am flexible. I don't really care if a game sticks to it or not. I mean I loved FO1 and 2 but also loved FNV and FO4.

Anyhow the point I am making is I do enjoy classes. They give you a template, a structure, they have some cool restrictions at times, and so on. I think Paladins should be LG and Druids Neutral of some sort. It makes sense most divine casters be more on wisdom than intelligence, and so on.

I guess I am not as extreme about it? I don't mind the overlap simply because it gives me the flexibility I talked about earlier. I mean I love playing classes with a wolf or animal companion. If I could only do that with a ranger, or worse, a ranger that was only bow focused, it would be annoying as I don't like bows.

I like in WOTR I could be a Sacred Huntsman, or a Barbarian Mad Dog, or a Ranger, or a Hunter, or a Sylvan Sorcerer. There were lots of flavors with animals.

Also I liked that if I wanted a high charisma I had a few options to work around wisdom limitations.

In short I still find the classes useful even if they do overlap a lot. I do agree they overlap and totally agree it can waterdown the classes and make them less unique.

I still feel, however, you can design a party around traditional AD&D classes though, even with that system. You can still have a party with a pure cleric, a pure tank, a pure mage, and a pure rogue.

My question is this - how does having these additional options get in the way of someone wanting to play with traditional classes? Can't you still do that? Why does it matter if there is also additional cross over and the like? Who does that limit your play style?

So while I value uniqueness and structure and classes … I also value flexibility and in that regard WOTR provides me both options.

Perhaps by doing so other things don't get as nicely developed, I could see how that would be annoying. Perhaps the core classes could have been much better developed if they hadn't made like 100 classes. Still I think they did a good job myself (Owlcats).

Anyhow I get people like things done a certain way following certain traditions and history. I simply am not that way myself.
 

JFarrell71

SasqWatch
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
3,209
Location
Portland, OR
I like systems that force you to make real, lasting choices as to how to develop your character(s). Doesn't so much matter to me whether it's a class based system or not. What I don't care for is a system where by the end of the game (if it's a computer game) or by the time you're, say, 20th level (if it's a pen & paper RPG) you've pretty much chosen every ability available to you. This has been pretty common in computer games. Games with skill trees where every player ends up with everything and only the order of selection varies.

If you do that correctly, you still end up with a class of sorts in a class based system, just one that the player him or herself defines. In Skyrim I always had a character concept and picked stuff that fit that. I'll bet most players do the same. I would think it would be a rare player indeed who just takes abilities from every tree on a rotating basis from the ground up.

If the game has classes, I want to feel like my character isn't going to be the same as another person who picks that same class, and another, and another. D&D 5e is pretty close to that. Without supplements, each class has three subclasses, and if your character and my character are the same class/subclass, mechanically we pretty much have the same character. As mentioned above, there are no feats. There aren't many skills, and there are even fewer that are used much in gameplay.
 

Redglyph

SasqWatch
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
5,387
Location
Good old Europe
If the game has classes, I want to feel like my character isn't going to be the same as another person who picks that same class, and another, and another. D&D 5e is pretty close to that. Without supplements, each class has three subclasses, and if your character and my character are the same class/subclass, mechanically we pretty much have the same character. As mentioned above, there are no feats. There aren't many skills, and there are even fewer that are used much in gameplay.

There are feats but they are optional, so you can decide to use feats. Or is there a problem with them? I only know what I've heard, and I've only seen their description, I've never played with them so it's a genuine question.

They seem to have much more impact than in previous editions, too, which was the argument I read before: it's specifically meant to avoid this feeling of replaying the same character if you keep the same class or subclass (this was one common reproach with previous editions). Unless you change the abilities, traits and very few other choices available.
@fadedc; brought that up, but I'm not entirely sure why he's disappointed. Is the lack of emphasis due to players not using them? Because it's optional? Or maybe not enough choice?

Or do you both have an issue because the usual, less significant feats have disappeared?
 
N

Nereida

Guest
Watches approvingly as everyone behaves, giving their opinions politely and accepting each other's opinions without dumb generalisations, or throwing whole generations of people under the bus just to feel a bit better about themselves.

Ah yes, my work here is done.


I agree with @JFarrell71; in general, choices that matter, that make you feel like your path is uniquely yours (at least reasonably!) is what entices me most in story-based RPGs.

With a game that will easily be played by millions of players, it's impossible to have a unique class or experience for each of them, but offering different paths for each player to take at their own choice goes a long way to accomplish that feeling of self-determination.
 

Hastar

Unspeakable
RPGWatch Donor
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,563
Location
Wolf Light Woods
I don't like 5th edition D&D, period. There was nothing wrong or difficult to understand about THAC0, it just is a sad reflection on the dumbing down of society, in general.
(That some find this "too difficult" - a straightforward combat system mechanic - to understand.

I think D&D, as it has "evolved", just my general impressions are, it has gotten worse, not better.

It is a good thing to have rigid and specific class abilities and requirements in order to make each class distinct and unique, in my opinion, for an example. Watering down this concept, by making classes more able to use abilities, spells and themes from other classes, just makes the whole system worse and is the opposite of the correct direction. *end of mini-rant* :biggrin:

It depends on what you enjoy as a player between AD&D and 5e. AD&D most fighters will play the same way except for the magic items. So your character is formed by the DM. In 5e you have subclasses and can choose feats or raise abilities every four levels. Fighters can play very differently.

AD&D had some incredibly dumb rules like dwarfs only being able to gain 9 levels in the fighter class and just try to make a bard in AD&D :). Can anyone figure out the chart on ranged weapons in the old Player's Handbook?

5e is definitely for a newer generation. People like to roleplay more and it's way harder to die in 5e. Older players will definitely want to add some house rules. We play meat-grinder rules in my group so it's much easier to die. We don't roleplay as much and still play D&D like we are Murder Hobos. You can't take the wargaming out of our group.
 

JFarrell71

SasqWatch
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
3,209
Location
Portland, OR
There are feats but they are optional, so you can decide to use feats. Or is there a problem with them? I only know what I've heard, and I've only seen their description, I've never played with them so it's a genuine question

There are no feats in the core rulebook so a lot of campaigns end up being run without them. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit since they do exist, but there aren't many in the Player's Handbook.
 
Last edited:

Redglyph

SasqWatch
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
5,387
Location
Good old Europe
There are no feats in the core rulebook so a lot of campaigns end up being run without them. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit since they do exist, but there aren't many in the Player's Handbook.

Ah I see now.

I've quickly checked and I see about 42 of them, that didn't seem a small list when I first saw it. But considering each is only relevant to a specific class / combat style, that doesn't leave much choice.

And sure enough, I see that WoC is selling other books to complete the list. Nice. :-/
 

fadedc

SasqWatch
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
My disappointment was not so much in lack of feats. 5e decided that players should have a smaller number of powerful feats instead of dozens of weaker ones. And feats in 5e are powerful and flavorful.

My disappointment was more that feats compete with the stat boosts at level 4. So many players won’t even consider them until they have maxed out their main stat. If you are using standard point buy that means no feats until level 12. Of course that makes the human variant that gets an extra feat much stronger and that does get around the problem but also humans maybe a little too strong.

In theory feats are optional but I’ve never actually heard of a campaign not using them unless they are complete newbies learning the game.

Other than that though I disagree about characters being similar. Even in the same some subclass two characters can be radically different. Though some subclasses allow for that more options than others.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom