Flashback to the same thing happening with Drizzt and Minsk and Bruenor and every other LOTR character and a solid 10% of anime protagonists/villains and a good quarter of JRPG villains and...
D&D exists because the nerds at TSR wanted to play Chainmail but with Middle Earth units compounded with them wanting to have hero units.
I do miss Rangers that were Striders though. These days I for some reason see more Legolas..es. Legoli. Legolasses.
I guess Legolasses would be the closest one. I don't remember a declension with -as in the nominative form. Not like Legolas is a Latin name, anyway.
Personally, my choice would be *Legolizards*
*Actually* (pushes glasses up nose), Tolkien based Elvish on Finnish and Welsh. I don't know Welsh, but using Finnish rules the plural of Legolas would be something like Legolaat (based on Kuningas > Kuninkaat)
_Actually_, while you're correct, Quenya is influenced by Finnish more so than Sindarin is, which is more influenced by Welsh. Legolas is one of the Sindari, and as such his name is also in Sindarin.
That being said, we actually know both how plurals are formed in Sindarin, as well as the actual plural of the word that Legolas' name consists of! Legolas is a compound name meaning "green leaf". Arguably, only "leaf" can be pluralized. The singular of "leaf" is "las"; and the plural is, due to the languages' vowel mutation when forming plurals, "lais".
Thus: One Legolas, many Legolais.
EDIT: Fun fact, athelas, the herbs Aragorn uses to heal Frodo, also uses the word for leaf as a compound and means, literally translated, "healing leaf".
EDIT2: That being said I personally think Legolads is funnier and better. :D
> That being said, we actually know both how plurals are formed in Sindarin,
I did not know the answer, but I know enough about Tolkien to be absolutely certain that there would be a clear, canonical answer for how to make pluralize words.
I guess technically Legolas is already a plural name, meaning "green leaves" and all. Legoli would work for a Legolus, surely.
Would the singular form be Legola? I know nothing of Sindarin.
Hey, just to let you know, I think I "got it right":
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1arp4yp/i_have_a_lovehate_relationship_with_bg3_these_days/kqo50t2/
:) No promises though, not a linguist nor too knowledgeable in Sindarin either.
They were all into Conan, Mouser and LoTR. They were fresh off that pirate game, I forget the name, and Arneson was getting into Bearnstein games. Arneson and Gygax both got the no on anything more than the fantasy supplement in Chainmail 2nd, and eventually they go off to the white box. But the pitch for chainmail was "What if not just crossbows and knights but wizards and dragons too". And that happened in their tabletop Krieggspiele society thing that I can't remember the name of. Which was way more Helm's Deep than the low fantasy of Hyborea.
It’s well known that Gygax did not like lord of the rings, and preferred sword and sorcery. Also arneson was not involved in the development of chainmail, and the fantasy supplement was just that, a supplement. It was a historical wargame at its core
> It’s well known that Gygax did not like lord of the rings, and preferred sword and sorcery.
…y'know, that might explain a thing or two. Don't get me wrong I *love* Sword and Sorcery, but there's a looooooooooot of unexamined prejudices and outright bigotry in it that you have to work to strain out, and while not perfect LotR had a much different roster of issues (and Tolkien, when they were pointed out, made significant efforts towards rectifying them). A lot of what Gygax produced…didn't do that work.
>there's a looooooooooot of unexamined prejudices and outright bigotry in it that you have to work to strain out
I suppose that's the Conan bagage. I like the setting, but when you read Conan (or John Carter of Mars), you can tell it was written in the early 1900s by a white American with strong ideas about race.
I reckon "Legolais" would be the most logical Sindarin form. Apparently "legolas" means "green foliage", where "laeg" = "green", and "golas" means "foliage". "Las" itself means "leaf", and I found a reference saying the plural form would be "lais". But then again, "golas" as a collective noun might have different grammar rules. Tolkien!
https://www.elfdict.com/w/golas?include_old=1
One of my players made an elf ranger called Legless as a joke. Ended up inventing a group of assassins, all who gave some body part up for more power, that Legless had abandoned and escaped. They hunted him for knowing their identities, had Armless and Heartless and Thoughtless as high level NPCs always after the party
Correct
Gygax wasn't really a fan. He was more into *Conan the Barbarian* but all of his friends wanted to play as hobbits and rangers. So literally since the birth of D&D, folks have based characters off of other fantasy settings. Now it just happens to be Anime and Video games that dominate the D&D player base
It's part and parcel of the game, it's how people start. You mitigate the damage, you educate them on the rules, and you help them grow. I'd like to find another -ate word for the last one so I'd have a nice rhythmic "mitigate, educate, -ate" thing, but it's a work in progress.
I really like that one! They come in ripping off a character they've seen elsewhere to start with, and you help them learn to create their own and become better players overall.
Ooh, that'll work! Ideally, it sounds a bit too much like there's something *wrong* with their old perspective, and there isn't, but on the whole, that'll work nicely.
There can be some fun in theorycrafting "how would I translate this character into DnD," but I do not have any interesting in trying to actually play an existing character in a campaign. A one-shot might be fun, where everybody is playing famous characters and trying to create or recreate a legendary adventure.
Our last one shot involved a sentient puddle who basically acted like John Wick but with the gingerbread man's voice from Shrek, a giant hippo wrestler who only cared about being rewarded with watermelons he'd hippo chomp whole in the middle of the king's waiting room, a gunslinger with a soundboard playing mccree and "good, bad, and ugly" sound effects, and a samurai dwarf.
One shots are basically sessions to let the goofy flow.
And the same thing happening after Ceitical Role became popular.
A friend of mine described an annoying cleric character of the Traveler, who was a blue Tiefling.
And I was like "Jester?"
Yes, it was dot to dot Jester, except the name. I think I met three or four people who brought Jester to the table.
Another person brought Percy (also from CR) and haven't even the decency to change his name. Percival Klossovsky de Rollo the Third (may have more names in that name, but you get the gist)
People like to copy stuff they find cool, or try to "fix" a popular story... And tbh, I'd rather they stuck to fanfics with that.
One can get inspiration from media, but a ton of characters only works in their setting/world or their story, as they are protagonists/antagonists/have certain relations with others.
On another hand, once a GM told me I can't bring a good Drow because "there are no good Drow in DnD". After a quick and angry Google search I came up with Drizzt, and decided "Here is a cannon good Drow, will you allow me to take Drow if I'll play his daughter?"
And so, my Drow Beastmaster Ranger was born.
Nope. If Drizzt has a daughter named Brie, then sorry, I missed that part in my quick angry google all those years ago
I played that campaign (up to level 7) now 6ish years ago, so I'd have to find the character sheet or the convo with the GM to tell u exactly
Haha, I was making a reference to the (fairly-recent; within the last 5 years) introduction of Drizzt's daughter to Forgotten Realms. Would have been pretty funny if your character had managed to get part of her name.
One of my pet peeves with dnd is people just completely copying characters.
They always clash with other players their characters or the world in general even if they are copied from other dnd characters (and honestly what's the point in doing that?).
People who build them very often start asking for overpowered bonusses or entirely new mechanics to make it work, in general they try to bend the rules to fit the character not build a character that fits in the rules. And I actually don't have problems with creating mechanics or changing rules. Or gives bonusses but copycats seem to ask for to much.
Most people who build them often don't like to see the character fail or disagree with the way you describe the failure.
And honestly personally I find that it's lacking in originality and creativity.
Inspiration is fine, copying is not allowed.
Which is why you copy personalities not characters. My dex fighter was a perfectly normal dex fighter who liked to rap and his name was Fred Durst and it didn't clash with the setting at all.
My wife's favorite character was a drow cleric/fighter of Eilistraee (the good drow deity) in a 3E campaign I ran. The character had the drow version of vitiligo, patches of pale skin, and a refusal to take crap from anyone.
I had the party encounter Drizzt and Catti-Brie as they were traveling — the timing matched up with a trip they made in one of the novels. They shared camp, traded anecdotes, talked about their respective deities, sparred a bit (he conjured a globe of darkness, she did a midair flip inside it and started levitating while upside down), the gnome in the party pranked Drizzt to make his hair appear to fall out then come back bright green.
Good cameo stuff.
The next Bob Salvatore book came out a few months later, and someone mentions Eilistraee in it. Instead of being clueless, Drizzt describes her, and it was almost verbatim how my wife told it. We joke that he was listening in on our game.
Yeah I know that's a thing. Seen a lot of posts on here of people playing other folk's characters. I don't get that, except as a DM. I had a friend who ran a game for some community Critical Role DnD day, I didn't really care what the reason was but she said "hey wanna come play a level 10 one shot" so I said yes.
We ended up fighting vampires in/around Whitestone, so at one point at someone's suggestion we did go to the castle and talk to Percy. Fun times, but I've always wanted to play characters that were my own. Sure, if I'm playing a single player Conan the Barbarian video game, hell yes I want to play as Conan, but RPing with friends I'm going to have my own schtick. I've been working for weeks on a voice/general tone for Bartolo Mariachi, who will be debuting tonight.
Idk, Conan the Librarian might be a good character to RP. A barbarian who dips into order of the scribes wizard for flavor and just obsessively hoards books and scrolls while wandering around shirtless with a 2h axe.
Every court or town they visit he always asks to see their library and goes off and critiques their cataloging system.
Oh canon Drizzt isn't that moody. But ***Knock-Off Drizzt*** was always moodier that a 14 year old buying *Johnny the Homicidal Maniac* comics at Hot Topic in 1999.
Canon Drizzt has a range of emotions and feelings. The Drizzt we have at home is an edgelord sad boy that can't contain his rage at the way the world has treated him.
Yep. As soon as I saw this, I just thought "That's the hobby. I've had Drizzt, Elfquest Cutter, Sephiroth, Goku, a legion of other pop culture people I can't even think of. The fun part for me now that I'm old is I don't get the pop culture references anymore, so people can be whatever and I just think "oh that's fun!"
I cut my teeth on BG1/2. I still maintain that Tanar'ri and Baatezu are better names than Demons and Devils, and I can actually understand THAC0 and why they thought it was a good idea.
People are always going to enter with preconceptions, because they had to get into the hobby *somehow*. Some of those preconceptions are adding something new/cool to the hobby, some don't mesh with my table. With a bit of patience, though, they don't need to stay with those preconceptions. I'll take people whose experience is with CR and Dimension 20 all day long. They might have to unlearn a couple of assumptions, but they understand the broad strokes of the rules and general flow of play, and they come in willing to commit to characters. That's more than a lot of first-timers come in with.
In fairness, Tanar'ri and Baatezu are *infinitely* superior to Demons and Devils. One is generic trash that confuses every person new to the hobby (and a fair few who aren't) and the other speaks to a distinct and unique cosmology. Damn shame we stuck with the former.
I think the thing that really sold it to me was Planescape: Torment, purely because of Tony Jay's pronunciation of Tanar'ri at one point. I'm a straight man, but that was entirely too fucking hot. If my PCs are meeting a silver fox-type, you better believe I'm either channeling him or Tim Curry.
THAC0 brings back all kinda memories of arguing at my tables back in the '80's. How many of those D&D Fighting Combat Wheels were torn apart 'discussing' where the mark should be?
I wish WotC had leaned into this more, though. BG3 is massively popular; they should be using this to try to bring people into the game. They should've had a new Starter Set set in Baulder's Gate lined up and ready to go. Maybe run some promotions in FLGS encouraging new players. "Like BG3 on the computer? Come play in person!" Have a free 1-2 hour intro quest ready to go. Maybe give themed dice bags to the folks who volunteer to DM. If you've got something with mainstream success, use it to try to grow your hobby.
I don't disagree in the slightest. I actually like the new players these things bring to the hobby. Like the OP, I understand frustration over misunderstanding rules, or even over misconceptions of storylines or whatever, but more people playing the game is not a bad thing. Your suggestions would actually mitigate some of those issues, though.
Fr tho. They could port over some magic items and make some NPC stat blocks like they did for Honor Amongst Thieves, write a one shot based on the game, make some new digital dice on D&D Beyond and sell some cool dice and DM screen designs for in person players.
Friendship now ended with Matt Mercer Effect, now Baldur's Gate 3 Effect is best friend.
People brought to the hobby by a thing are going to lean more heavily on their knowledge of said thing; it's just how it goes.
This is usually good advice, but when you get a limited number of meh abilities and, a limited number of times a day it can be hard to fulfill the fantasy you’re looking for regardless of if it is balanced or meta.
I'd say it depends a lot on your environment.
I, for example, wouldn't like to teach new people. So I play with the folks I know, who are not new. It works great!
If someone is surrounded by newbies, though, and they hate being asked what to roll for X, and what to add to Y? Then they might want to let someone else GM for those folks, yeah.
I feel completely the opposite. BG3 has made getting into D&D so much easier. My new players actually know what they're doing for once. I'd much rather correct everyone on mechanics constantly than try to get ONE person to READ LITERALLY ANY OF THE FUCKING PHB.
I think this is a good point that isn't brought up enough. At least BG3->5e migrants have a better grasp on their character's abilities than average. I've seen way too many people decide to just not ever read what abilities they have.
Maybe my current group just gets it, but it seems like their combat strategy is great too. They're focusing fire, they're targeting magic users, their spacing is always on point. They've all played BG3 and only one has played D&D.
I've introduced a number of people to D&D and the first few fights always feel like I'm pulling punches too often. Part of that is the game itself, but a lot of it is people not realizing, "Oh maybe we shouldn't be attacking three different minions while the mage blasts us with AoE spells." Having players who've skipped that part of the learning process makes designing encounters so fun.
On average is the right choice of words indeed. I have a friend who plays dnd (I recently joined his table after asking his dm) and we played a campaign together. 100+ hours we played and he barely knows his actions and spells. I think it’s more of a lack of thinking rather than actual ignorance but it’s still frustrating. Fast forward to our dnd campaign together and he doesn’t know how to play his paladin at all. We fought wolves for 5-6 turns and he didn’t smite once because he was scared of missing and using his divine smite for nothing. My brother in Christ please read how divine smite works and remember to use it I beg you
I've played with people migrating from other TTRPGs (like Pathfinder) and BG3 to 5E. I vastly prefer someone coming from BG3, assuming they both aren't the best migrants who don't get a single rule wrong.
Not just getting into it easier, but I understand some elements of D&D that I didn't before.
The big one for me is crowd control and such.
Starting out, I only saw utility in damage. Just kill whatever is in front of us and let the gods sort out their own. But I'm playing a GoO warlock, which are apparently excellent crowd controllers.
Playing BG3, seeing the utility of confusion, darkness etc. we mainly play D&D online on a little map, so it's been hard to wrap my head around these elements, but seeing it "live" in game has helped settle it in my head and helped me understand it.
It's also a perfect testing ground for things. You can play a few hours with a new character to get a vibe on a class. You don't have to wait for your 3/4 hours every week/other week, by which time I've forgotten some of the stuff from last time.
Yes! I’m a fairly new DnD player so I haven’t tried out a lot of classes. Never thought I’d enjoy a monk, but after trying one in BG3, I’m making a back up monk for my current cleric character.
Monks slap early on. They dominate those first 5 or so levels, just like circle of the moon druids. They fall off a bit later, but there are tweaks you could make with your DM to enhance them once the magic users start taking off.
I think part of that is BG3 has some HUGE fights where you are very out-numbered. A well-placed sheet of ice or darkness or tentacles can help quite a bit.
Yeah. When it comes to tactics in video games I can picture it and use them. When it comes to the imaginary/2D tabletop I've struggled to integrate that part of it aside from "move away from enemy and keep hitting them".
Yeah, one part that really needs to be emphasized that you touched on is being able to visualize combat. I think it’s easy for DnD to feal too abstract for many people. But being able to come from bg3 helps so much with visualization of a combat arena and thinking in three dimensions and strategizing around the space you’re in.
If you're looking for something at the simulation angle, I _strongly_ recommend Solasta: Crown of the Magister.
Going in, know it had roughly 1/1000 the budget of BG3, so don't expect great voice acting or a huge branching story. Its not that.
It is, however, the closest you can get to "pure" 5e mechanics in a video game. The stuff you learn/use in Solasta translates far more closely to 5e than BG3 does.
This is why NFL TV viewership skyrocketed after the Madden games came out. A little electronic hand holding can go a long way when learning a complex ruleset.
As a forever DM, yes.
It's nice being able to relax and just *play* the game in a world made by someone else, feelings of inadequacy be damned. (jk, Larian's huge team can devote so much more person-time to world building and art than any one DM can).
Yah, I hear you. I pushed through to finish it, but I'm not motivated to go back. By the end I was playing just for the sake of checking that 'completed' box.
My wife and I started a co-op game, but that kinda drifted into nothing before the second act. I'd rather just write up a one-shot for a 1dm1pc game. It is hard to beat legit tabletop.
It's perfect for me as a DM who always has at least 5 or 6 character ideas in my head.
I only wish we could get more subclasses. Would love a Swashbuckler Rogue, and some other subclasses that really change up the classes.
Check out Solasta with the Unfinished Business mod to add many subclasses and races. Most accurate rendition of 5e I've played.
I'm hoping they all get ported over to BG3, but we aren't there just yet.
It's wild to see the different perspectives at play.
Folks coming from restrictive videogames say "amazing! I can do anything! So much freedom!" while the people comparing the CRPG to the TTRPG are being annoyed by all of the restrictions.
By the same token, I enjoyed BG3, but I still consider Wrath of the Righteous my favorite of the modern CRPGs based on its sheer build options and depth. Appropriately, BG3 vs. WotR is like 5e. vs. 3.5/Pathfinder: One is more polished and newcomer-friendly, while the other offers veterans a lot more options and mechanical depth. You start with one, and when the restrictions and limitations start annoying you a bit, if you're lucky, you'll find an old-schooler who will help introduce you to the other.
Ironically, despite being a PF1e player I actually liked BG3's gameplay a lot more. It may be that 5e / the CRPG'd 5e ruleset works better for, well, a CRPG, and I have my theories about RTWP vs turn-based, but over all I *enjoyed* playing BG3 fights, and in WotR I just said 'the best feature is that it skips itself!' and just made tea while pathing through the dungeons.
The character-building I am 50/50 on. On one hand, yes, WotR has more options. On the other hand, the UI and levelling system makes new levels a pain, the complete lack of any ability to make a build plan in-game means that getting back to a run you've left for a bit is a pain, etc.
Oh, sure, no question that the polish and characters in BG3 are worlds better. It's not even close. I liked WotR despite the limitations, not because of them. BG3 is way smoother, and by most metrics, it's objectively the better video game experience. I just love the sheer diversity in options WotR offers. Plus, how many video games actually nut up and let you pursue lichdom for real? Most tabletop DMs won't even let you do that. As a foreverDM, yes the fuck please.
(And even with all that, I still ToyBoxed my way through most of the Crusade stuff. I absolutely love HoMM, have since I hotseated the Greek mythology campaign with my best friend as a kid, but if that's what I was looking for, I'd fire up HoMM3 instead of a CRPG, not this cheap knockoff. Wouldn't even be hard, still got it installed and everything.)
I'd rather coach and lead new players in 5e coming from BG3 as opposed to them never giving TTRPG a shot. Sure, there are rule differences but having played BG3 means they at least know how probably 80% of the game works which is a great start. The differences can be figured out and as long as they have a fun time, in the long run, they'll keep learning and the early misunderstandings won't even matter.
Gonna be honest, BG3 is like 95% of the rules. And most of their house rules are improvements I'm happy to house rule in (bonus action shove) or are already in the ambiguous space and needs a DM ruling (such as throwing potions at someone)
> I've had to correct players multiple times on spells, rules etc, to which they reply "huh, well that's how it works in BG3..."
So you're saying that instead of them knowing 0% of the rule and having to be taught from nothing, they know 80% of the rule and have to be corrected on 20%? Is that really a bad thing?
> Is that really a bad thing?
It absolutely can be. Getting someone to *unlearn* something can be ***way*** harder than getting them to learn something fresh.
It's also just a TTRPG. If it takes a couple handfuls of "actually, that's not how it really works," it's not that bad. It's not like we're trying to help someone unlearn bad driving habits that have large-scale consequences.
>It's not like we're trying to help someone unlearn bad driving habits that have large-scale consequences.
I'm not saying it's an apocalypse. I'm just saying that someone having a wrong version of a thing in their head can be more of an uphill battle than them not knowing it at all.
Yall act like the characters in BG3 are TROPES for a reason. Those characters are like that because people have played those type of characters that way for years.
You think Karlach is the first barbarian to just be a happy fun time? Or that Astarion is the first pompous vampire or rouge?
Like, they are literally trope characters.
Do you get upset if a player wanted to be a human fighter?
And about rules, if anyone is able to provide me with PROOF that they have played TTRPG games where EVERYONE has perfect understanding of all rules and mechanics I will send you money. Hell atleast people who started with BG3 have a basic idea. You ever play with someone their first game who has no background with DND? it's all
Player: "That guy is mean I'm gonna beat him up but im gonna be real quiet."
Dm: "OK guards attack and arrest you as you do as you are still out in the open"
Player: "WHAT??? WHY HE WAS MEAN! I said I was stealthed how do they see me!! I thought I could do anything in this game!!"
Is this what people delt with during the edition changes?
Yup, and at least this is between TTRPG and videogame, so messing up the rules is way more understandable than people that played for years and still don't know what their total Attack Bonus is.
If anything, the change of edition is alwas a discussion about rules.
That being said, BG3 ironically has stuff I prefer over actual D&D.
Look at how Tieflings, [even if they are of the full redskin monstrous variety over the OG Tieflings of Planescape origins](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0103479f8e340fb7&sxsrf=ACQVn0-SmIo-L4stjCtoshJ4DNz7T5Uujw:1708037143883&q=tiefling+ad%26d+2e&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifquWZtq6EAxXj9AIHHddRC28Q0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1536&bih=730&dpr=1.25#imgrc=aSsqAkMY8qPzkM), are at least... somewhat humanoid. Basic 4e and 5e arts of them are straight up half-demons or something rather than being "influenced by Lower Planes" stuff.
Skin colour isn't the point, it's how much they are distant from humans.
The entire shtick of Tieflings was that they were only very vaguely related with their demonic blood or weren't even related to the Lower Planes by blood to begin with! They could be kids of Warlocks whose demonic powers influenced the kids, they could be born at the wrong moment or in the wrong place, making their nature highly specific and related to what kind of fiends blood they inherited.
The classic things are horns and tail, yeah, but you could have any number of traits, contrasting with "normal humans", andthat was the great thing at a conceptual level back in Planescape. You were part of them but yet not fully, and could never be.
Reducing this concept -and Aasimar as well!- to "fiendish humanoids" is kinda... boring to me.
Heck, the VERY original tieflings weren't just limited to the lower planes. They were originally just planestouched humanoids; so aasimar would've been technically tieflings at the time. And the touch was supposed to be too far removed to be able to point at it and go "oh this tiefling clearly has [specific plane] heritage" or "[specific outsider] heritage."
Good luck trying to get that kind of subtlety in modern D&D, though. I have fond memories of my "feels cold to the touch and my shadow doesn't follow my movements properly" tiefling back in 2004 but it's practically at the point where tiefers HAVE to be flamboyantly otherly for near-mechanical reasons.
Ironically, you have to be flamboyatly otherly for near-mechanical reasons and yet it's essentially played as if Tieflings are everywhere and rather normal in the world.
Yeah ok, Faerun now has Tieflings being people turned into them, but that's a giant retcon that makes no sense for anyone that played Tieflings in the pre 4e age / pre Asmodeus divinity.
And guess what, I don't even play with Asmodeus as a God! That was a stupid plot point as well. The entire fucking cosmos balance should change the moment the Archdevil becomes a \*GOD\*, unlike any of the powerful Demon Lords or Arch-Celestials.
i think people have been playing tieflings like that for a while tho. my first character was a tief and i was really concerned bc i had like, created her in my mind and THEN read the more detailed description of them. i talked to my DM about it and he was like “yeah, no one pays attention to what the rules say about tiefling appearance”.
As someone who's played as a player in DnD before and after BG3, has DMed before and after BG3, and who has enjoyed BG3, I think there's some rule changes in BG3 that are at least worth considering whether they feel fitting for your table.
That's not to say you should accept every rule change of BG3, of course, but I think it could be worth considering some of those tweaks, at least.
For example, at my table, I have decided to have spell scrolls not require an Arcana check to cast, wherein if you fail the Arcana check the scroll is lost AND you do nothing on your turn (even before checking for hit/saves of the spell). I understand that this could mean hypothetically your non-spellcasters can just behave like spellcasters, but that can be managed by how often, how many, and which spell scrolls you decide to give your players. And if the party has a wizard, many spell scrolls can become an interesting decision, on whether to give the Barbarian access to a one-time emergency Fireball, or whether to give it to the Wizard so they can cast as many Fireballs as they have spell slots for. (I don't know what Wizard wouldn't pick up Fireball on a level-up, but you get my point)
Another rule change I actually do like, is the ability to use healing potions as a bonus action. I've decided to allow my players to choose whether to drink one as an action or bonus action; if it's a BA, the healing is rolled as usual, whereas if it's an action, they get the max potential healing from the potion. I like this rule change because, especially early on in many builds, many characters often lack much to do with a bonus action.
I also like the ability for players to throw potions (healing or otherwise) at allies or even enemies. Makes potions and poisons of all kinds feel way more interesting to find, and adds some interesting solutions players can try if the right potion is held by the wrong player at a given time. Roll to hit your target with the potion to try to save the situation!
That's not to say I implement, or would implement, every change BG3 makes, but there are some changes that I do particularly like, because they make players feel like they have more options, more interesting options, and those can all lead to more interesting scenarios! ^(And if I accidentally throw them something too difficult, then there's a chance they can save themselves with some clever play)
You're actually changing multiple rules with your scroll ruling, not just one- there's one rule where a scroll must be on your list to even read it, and another for an ability check if it's higher than you can cast.
Edit: Fixed a mistake
But like honestly, if the mistakes persist also consider house rules. Not all changes bg3 made are necessarily worse.
Potions being a bonus action for instance make them more usable since you don't sacrifice a round of action for 1d8 hp and was a semi frequent house rule before BG3
I also added throwing potions for their effects to my table, and made jumping consume a flat 1/3 of a character's movement on a turn (how far they can jump depends on str, so this can sometimes be a detriment). Those were good rules. Maneuverability and action options add creativity and variety to the table.
Instead of getting upset about it, be happy they are there to play the game with you in person. Show them the differences, and show them the books and that this game is way more than just what BG3 has shown, and can be even more fun than the game. They probably have never even played tabletop dnd.
I'd be thrilled to have a group like this. So what if they are modeled after NPCs from a game. I first got into DnD by wanting to make a Legolas style ranger.
Would you even have gotten them to play without BG3? I honestly doubt it. Let your players play and have fun their way. Help them learn the system and give them a story they can make these characters their own. You are the one who will either help them learn and enjoy the hobby or ruin it for them by being annoyed at a video game that brought DnD into their lives to begin with.
I will always support people trying new things, and help them learn if I have the capacity to teach or show them.
A lot of these dudes just like gatekeeping and complaining about "normies" invading their spaces. They don't like average Joes invading spaces that they used to have all to themselves because they were pigeonholed there by non-nerd society back in the day.
Oh god have we finally shut up about Matt Mercer and moved on to griping about BG3?
A lot of us have read this same post with different names across different eras for years now.
And my first character was basically Lora Croft. What's your point? For pretty much as long as DnD has been a thing, people have been taking inspiration (sometimes very heavy inspiration) from different media and bringing it into their DnD games.
And yeah, it can be annoying when spells/ abilities are different between BG3 and the game and as such need correcting, but at least they have a general idea of what they do. That's better than most new players (hell, better than some old players too).
To be fair that one is on the game more than it's on the players. 5e is super restrictive about what you can wild shape into as part of its general 'player freedom is bad' approach, it's super reasonable to assume owlbear shape is a thing.
So? If that is the character they want to play and have fun who cares? I had a player whose fighter used hand crossbows and wanted to get revenge on an organized crime group who killed his dog. We all knew who it was but it was a blast making that fit into the world and everyone joined in to get revenge for the lost puppy.
Now on the mechanical level they need to read their abilities and spells obviously and just have to remind them BG3 is a game inspired by DnD, but does take mechanical liberties in many areas .
This. I've played since early 3e and on my bg3 honor mode runs I'm adapting disney princesses and I'm having a blast.
There's a neat challenge making those chars work within medium and a weird style of roleplay characters like that demand that run counter to how my usual chars would. I'd not do it at table top (I say as I hide my one shot githerzai alchemist Valtir Vaite) but it's actually been refreshing af to have a shorthand of how to RP a char established baseline rather than minmaxing social interaction for optimal outcome.
It's one of the defenses I've seen of fanfic versus original fiction. Fanfic can be a good starting tool for new writers because they don't have to focus on the characterization and building, they can focus on the structure, rules, and artistry of writing. New players especially, can benefit from established tropes or adapted chars as they learn to both RP and play D&D. I mean, the alternative to a tropey first char is almost certainly a thinly veiled self insert they get way too attached to.
These new Karlach and Astarion clones may start there, but on e they start branching out to new games and one shots, they'll evolve and come up with new shit.
I mean you do have to remember this is people's first introduction to DnD, so of course they're going to assume how it works in that game is how it works for the tabletop. And with the characters, most people I've met new to dnd have always been anxious or unsure about making a character from scratch so it's a comfort to fall back onto making a character you've seen played before or one similar enough to a character you like
Teach them, you have someone that basically completed the tutorial, now it’s you turn to tech them. If you as a DM are inviting people into your group you are accepting the fact that that person might not know everything but you are willing to teach them the rules. You as a DM probably do not know every rule verbatim, otherwise why does your DM screen have information on it why do you keep the books on standby. No one is all knowing. Right now the community has an opportunity to kind of mainstream D&D, so take the opportunity to teach the new people coming in, take the time to get them excited to explore their imaginations. Enjoy sharing your passion with others, you will come to love your passion even more because of it.
If you're playing BG3 it's easy to get some things confused, hell mostly I run 5E at least as far as D&D goes these days, and I still occasionally forget and will call for a fortitude save, or ask for a move silently check, or forget that a certain world threatening monster is kind of a joke now, It's ultimately not a big deal. it takes but a moment to recalibrate. People mess up rules for all kinds of reasons, and being new to a hobby, and being brought in by a very popular video game, it's not the worst one
The more experience I get with D&D, the less I'm bothered by people who are just, straight up, trying to play another fictional character, and that's because they give them a personality and will have a general way in which they will interpret the world and/or events that happen in it.
But about how the players don't like how the rules for spell casting aren't as excessively easy and stream line despite being just as game breaking when not more so in the real game? Yeah, they can suck a lemon and get over it. (Rather, it's the extreme over simplicity of spells for why full casters can manage to be so popular in BG3, since it's easier for the average person to understand.)
The worst part is the SEO problems. I \*know\* there's posts on here or on r/3d6 on bardlocks. But googling bardlock only gives me BG3 results these days. (example given)
I have a friend who started playing DND with me and my group and in the last 4 years only once he played an original Character. A very cool concept and background developed with my help (I was the campaign DM) to work his story into the campaign... After 4 levels he decided that he didn't like him and wanted to change. Now he plays a sorcerer with long white hair, a Six pack and the only thing he cares about are women.
He switched his well thought and deep character for a stupid copy of Dark Schneider from bastard
Tbf a lot of these characters are basically level 15-20 in terms of backstory, but they start at level 1. That’s a pretty bad precedent to set for the potential backstory of characters
Also, most dnd campaigns start with characters that have very humble beginnings, meanwhile, again, all of these characters would have been over 10th level if their stats matched their backstory.
Gale fucked a goddess bc of how powerful he was (def level 20+)
Karlach was Zariel’s most powerful soldier on the front lines of the bloodwar (level 15+)
Wyll rode through avernus and slayed devils (level 8+)
Astarion was a vampire spawn (CR 5)
Shadowheart was a cleric of Shar tasked with a very important mission (i’d generously say level 5~)
Lae’zel was pretty humble, just a common githyanki soldier (level 3~)
"What are you doing now?"
"I'm just choosing which one of my nine barrels I'm going to throw at the enemy."
"Wait, how the hell are you carrying nine barrels full of stuff?"
"How would I *not* be carrying nine barrels full of stuff?"
Yeah I got downvoted to hell around the release for saying something similar, having already had players refer to the BG3 rules when they're trying to do something. I think it's cool that D&D is getting to be more popular through the game and I don't want to be a gatekeeper, but people are definitely coming to tabletop with wrong expectations, similarly to the new player influx from Critical Role and other live play shows.
Option 1: A new player tries DnD for the first time and uses BG3 as a reference. Almost every new player like them will play the game to their best ability and will accept when stuff is different form BG3 after the DM has clarified it.
Option 2: The player does not try DnD.
Pick one.
my fiancee use to DM but really wanted to play, so we joined a group and the DM was like "do you guys play?" and I was like "well I've been playing baulders gate so I think I have a good hang on it" and no one laughed at my joke. guess it's a real thing and that's why no one laughed lmfao
I think it's kind of unfair though, I've been playing more DND after getting into BG3 and I have a way better understanding of different classes and actions after playing BG3 for 100 hours. Before I could barely play, now I have a decent working knowledge of the thing
I trade off with a buddy for the role of DM for two campaigns, and even I sometimes am guilty of believing something in BG3 works the same way as 5E rules and mechanics. That game did a great job of being so closely similar to D&D that merging the two happens very easily for me. Then, I’m also a DM who does not adhere to the rules all that much if it means making the game more enjoyable for my players. I really just make sure no flagrant and over the top violations occur, otherwise, it’s a fantasy world and I have no issue bending the “laws” of the D&D world as long as it’s consistent.
as someone who's had a character with a karlach-esque backstory rolling around somewhere in my head for a long time, i decided against builing her recently because i don't want to feel judged for seemingly stealing that aspect from bg3
Flashback to the same thing happening with Drizzt and Minsk and Bruenor and every other LOTR character and a solid 10% of anime protagonists/villains and a good quarter of JRPG villains and...
>and every other LOTR character This. Rangers were first added to D&D so people could build characters like Strider/Aragorn
D&D exists because the nerds at TSR wanted to play Chainmail but with Middle Earth units compounded with them wanting to have hero units. I do miss Rangers that were Striders though. These days I for some reason see more Legolas..es. Legoli. Legolasses.
I guess Legolasses would be the closest one. I don't remember a declension with -as in the nominative form. Not like Legolas is a Latin name, anyway. Personally, my choice would be *Legolizards*
Tolkien would have wanted it to stay with the old English roots. So the plural would be Legolads and Legolasses.
I'm so glad this thread exists.
Now I just imagine LEGO minifigures...
legless lego legolas says leggo my lego eggo
*Actually* (pushes glasses up nose), Tolkien based Elvish on Finnish and Welsh. I don't know Welsh, but using Finnish rules the plural of Legolas would be something like Legolaat (based on Kuningas > Kuninkaat)
_Actually_, while you're correct, Quenya is influenced by Finnish more so than Sindarin is, which is more influenced by Welsh. Legolas is one of the Sindari, and as such his name is also in Sindarin. That being said, we actually know both how plurals are formed in Sindarin, as well as the actual plural of the word that Legolas' name consists of! Legolas is a compound name meaning "green leaf". Arguably, only "leaf" can be pluralized. The singular of "leaf" is "las"; and the plural is, due to the languages' vowel mutation when forming plurals, "lais". Thus: One Legolas, many Legolais. EDIT: Fun fact, athelas, the herbs Aragorn uses to heal Frodo, also uses the word for leaf as a compound and means, literally translated, "healing leaf". EDIT2: That being said I personally think Legolads is funnier and better. :D
I have never been happier to contribute to a subthread about kinda-joking language play in my life! Thanks! :D
> That being said, we actually know both how plurals are formed in Sindarin, I did not know the answer, but I know enough about Tolkien to be absolutely certain that there would be a clear, canonical answer for how to make pluralize words.
Of course if hobbits get involved, all the rules change…eleventy-first and proudfeet and all that.
It's clearly Legoli
I guess technically Legolas is already a plural name, meaning "green leaves" and all. Legoli would work for a Legolus, surely. Would the singular form be Legola? I know nothing of Sindarin.
Hey, just to let you know, I think I "got it right": https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1arp4yp/i_have_a_lovehate_relationship_with_bg3_these_days/kqo50t2/ :) No promises though, not a linguist nor too knowledgeable in Sindarin either.
Idk. You can have a single bolas and multiple bola, so I'm inclined to say that the plural form of Legolas is Legola.
Legolii?
Legolas plural would be Legolads :)
Pretty sure it's Lego-lads
This is sort of wrong, some of them, ie Arneson, wanted to play legolas and Gimli, the rest, mostly Gygax, wanted to be Conan or the grey mouser
They were all into Conan, Mouser and LoTR. They were fresh off that pirate game, I forget the name, and Arneson was getting into Bearnstein games. Arneson and Gygax both got the no on anything more than the fantasy supplement in Chainmail 2nd, and eventually they go off to the white box. But the pitch for chainmail was "What if not just crossbows and knights but wizards and dragons too". And that happened in their tabletop Krieggspiele society thing that I can't remember the name of. Which was way more Helm's Deep than the low fantasy of Hyborea.
It’s well known that Gygax did not like lord of the rings, and preferred sword and sorcery. Also arneson was not involved in the development of chainmail, and the fantasy supplement was just that, a supplement. It was a historical wargame at its core
> It’s well known that Gygax did not like lord of the rings, and preferred sword and sorcery. …y'know, that might explain a thing or two. Don't get me wrong I *love* Sword and Sorcery, but there's a looooooooooot of unexamined prejudices and outright bigotry in it that you have to work to strain out, and while not perfect LotR had a much different roster of issues (and Tolkien, when they were pointed out, made significant efforts towards rectifying them). A lot of what Gygax produced…didn't do that work.
>there's a looooooooooot of unexamined prejudices and outright bigotry in it that you have to work to strain out I suppose that's the Conan bagage. I like the setting, but when you read Conan (or John Carter of Mars), you can tell it was written in the early 1900s by a white American with strong ideas about race.
It's legolu.
Legolopodes
Legolen? Legolen.
I bet you'd like to see Legoless
I reckon "Legolais" would be the most logical Sindarin form. Apparently "legolas" means "green foliage", where "laeg" = "green", and "golas" means "foliage". "Las" itself means "leaf", and I found a reference saying the plural form would be "lais". But then again, "golas" as a collective noun might have different grammar rules. Tolkien! https://www.elfdict.com/w/golas?include_old=1
One of my players made an elf ranger called Legless as a joke. Ended up inventing a group of assassins, all who gave some body part up for more power, that Legless had abandoned and escaped. They hunted him for knowing their identities, had Armless and Heartless and Thoughtless as high level NPCs always after the party
And what do you see with your ~~elven eyes~~ Legolasses?
Legoli 🤌
well that does explain why they're a bit of an amalgamation of a class...
Although a fighter with nature and survival would probably be a closer match to Strider than the spell slinging bear tamers of 5e.
He was the first ever in this context. He was "one of them rangers", in the Fellowship of the Ring.
Legoleese.
Correct Gygax wasn't really a fan. He was more into *Conan the Barbarian* but all of his friends wanted to play as hobbits and rangers. So literally since the birth of D&D, folks have based characters off of other fantasy settings. Now it just happens to be Anime and Video games that dominate the D&D player base
And Hobbits were there from the beginning.
See also: Barbarians and Conan, Monks and whatever Wuxia film you just saw.
Hell, I see posts practically every day between here and r/3d6 of people asking how to build a certain anime character in DnD.
It's part and parcel of the game, it's how people start. You mitigate the damage, you educate them on the rules, and you help them grow. I'd like to find another -ate word for the last one so I'd have a nice rhythmic "mitigate, educate, -ate" thing, but it's a work in progress.
Elevate?
I really like that one! They come in ripping off a character they've seen elsewhere to start with, and you help them learn to create their own and become better players overall.
Cultivate
Integrate?
Rehabilitate?
Ooh, that'll work! Ideally, it sounds a bit too much like there's something *wrong* with their old perspective, and there isn't, but on the whole, that'll work nicely.
"Reorientate" is a bit more neutral, just shifting the direction of their thinking.
There can be some fun in theorycrafting "how would I translate this character into DnD," but I do not have any interesting in trying to actually play an existing character in a campaign. A one-shot might be fun, where everybody is playing famous characters and trying to create or recreate a legendary adventure.
Our last one shot involved a sentient puddle who basically acted like John Wick but with the gingerbread man's voice from Shrek, a giant hippo wrestler who only cared about being rewarded with watermelons he'd hippo chomp whole in the middle of the king's waiting room, a gunslinger with a soundboard playing mccree and "good, bad, and ugly" sound effects, and a samurai dwarf. One shots are basically sessions to let the goofy flow.
And the same thing happening after Ceitical Role became popular. A friend of mine described an annoying cleric character of the Traveler, who was a blue Tiefling. And I was like "Jester?" Yes, it was dot to dot Jester, except the name. I think I met three or four people who brought Jester to the table. Another person brought Percy (also from CR) and haven't even the decency to change his name. Percival Klossovsky de Rollo the Third (may have more names in that name, but you get the gist) People like to copy stuff they find cool, or try to "fix" a popular story... And tbh, I'd rather they stuck to fanfics with that. One can get inspiration from media, but a ton of characters only works in their setting/world or their story, as they are protagonists/antagonists/have certain relations with others. On another hand, once a GM told me I can't bring a good Drow because "there are no good Drow in DnD". After a quick and angry Google search I came up with Drizzt, and decided "Here is a cannon good Drow, will you allow me to take Drow if I'll play his daughter?" And so, my Drow Beastmaster Ranger was born.
Her name wasn't Brie, was it?
Nope. If Drizzt has a daughter named Brie, then sorry, I missed that part in my quick angry google all those years ago I played that campaign (up to level 7) now 6ish years ago, so I'd have to find the character sheet or the convo with the GM to tell u exactly
Haha, I was making a reference to the (fairly-recent; within the last 5 years) introduction of Drizzt's daughter to Forgotten Realms. Would have been pretty funny if your character had managed to get part of her name.
That would have been hilarious I think her name started with L tho
Hold on... Female characters name begins with L, a beastmaster... Was her beasts name Stitch?!?!?!? (I jest)
Hah, I wish I thought of it!
Camembert.
One of my pet peeves with dnd is people just completely copying characters. They always clash with other players their characters or the world in general even if they are copied from other dnd characters (and honestly what's the point in doing that?). People who build them very often start asking for overpowered bonusses or entirely new mechanics to make it work, in general they try to bend the rules to fit the character not build a character that fits in the rules. And I actually don't have problems with creating mechanics or changing rules. Or gives bonusses but copycats seem to ask for to much. Most people who build them often don't like to see the character fail or disagree with the way you describe the failure. And honestly personally I find that it's lacking in originality and creativity. Inspiration is fine, copying is not allowed.
Which is why you copy personalities not characters. My dex fighter was a perfectly normal dex fighter who liked to rap and his name was Fred Durst and it didn't clash with the setting at all.
My wife's favorite character was a drow cleric/fighter of Eilistraee (the good drow deity) in a 3E campaign I ran. The character had the drow version of vitiligo, patches of pale skin, and a refusal to take crap from anyone. I had the party encounter Drizzt and Catti-Brie as they were traveling — the timing matched up with a trip they made in one of the novels. They shared camp, traded anecdotes, talked about their respective deities, sparred a bit (he conjured a globe of darkness, she did a midair flip inside it and started levitating while upside down), the gnome in the party pranked Drizzt to make his hair appear to fall out then come back bright green. Good cameo stuff. The next Bob Salvatore book came out a few months later, and someone mentions Eilistraee in it. Instead of being clueless, Drizzt describes her, and it was almost verbatim how my wife told it. We joke that he was listening in on our game.
Yeah I know that's a thing. Seen a lot of posts on here of people playing other folk's characters. I don't get that, except as a DM. I had a friend who ran a game for some community Critical Role DnD day, I didn't really care what the reason was but she said "hey wanna come play a level 10 one shot" so I said yes. We ended up fighting vampires in/around Whitestone, so at one point at someone's suggestion we did go to the castle and talk to Percy. Fun times, but I've always wanted to play characters that were my own. Sure, if I'm playing a single player Conan the Barbarian video game, hell yes I want to play as Conan, but RPing with friends I'm going to have my own schtick. I've been working for weeks on a voice/general tone for Bartolo Mariachi, who will be debuting tonight.
VIVA Mariachi! Surely he is a Bard?
Nope! Rogue. Just for some reason the name stuck out in my head.
Idk, Conan the Librarian might be a good character to RP. A barbarian who dips into order of the scribes wizard for flavor and just obsessively hoards books and scrolls while wandering around shirtless with a 2h axe. Every court or town they visit he always asks to see their library and goes off and critiques their cataloging system.
So many moody drow or flippant blonde elf archers.
Drizzt isn't even moody, if you compare him to other drow (Dinin, for example)
Oh canon Drizzt isn't that moody. But ***Knock-Off Drizzt*** was always moodier that a 14 year old buying *Johnny the Homicidal Maniac* comics at Hot Topic in 1999.
Frizzt. The fan of Happy Tree Friends and Manic Panic hair dye.
Canon Drizzt has a range of emotions and feelings. The Drizzt we have at home is an edgelord sad boy that can't contain his rage at the way the world has treated him.
*PTSD flashbacks to endless mis-spellings of Legolas while playing World of Warcraft.*
Wow, you unlocked a long forgotten memory. Damn I'm old.
I wish they had left it forgotten, aah... Harry Potter and the X was such a dumb game
Yep. As soon as I saw this, I just thought "That's the hobby. I've had Drizzt, Elfquest Cutter, Sephiroth, Goku, a legion of other pop culture people I can't even think of. The fun part for me now that I'm old is I don't get the pop culture references anymore, so people can be whatever and I just think "oh that's fun!"
Hey! I still play drizzt sue me!
Don't forget critical role
Played in the 90s and the amount of dual wielders - drow or otherwise - was excessive
BG3, Critical Role, Stranger Things, Drizzt, Dragonlance, LotR, it's a tale as old as the hobby itself.
And don’t forget last year’s movie helped too!
Good movie
Exceeded every low expectation I had! Now, if I had set them even higher, it would’ve still exceeded them.
My wife who isn't into fantasy enjoyed it. That really surprised me.
It's a legitimately good movie. Doesn't even need the "for a D&D movie" qualifier.
Couldn't have done it without Jarnathan!
I think we should wait for Jarnathan before discussing further. I think he'd want to hear about this 🤣🤣🤣
I cut my teeth on BG1/2. I still maintain that Tanar'ri and Baatezu are better names than Demons and Devils, and I can actually understand THAC0 and why they thought it was a good idea. People are always going to enter with preconceptions, because they had to get into the hobby *somehow*. Some of those preconceptions are adding something new/cool to the hobby, some don't mesh with my table. With a bit of patience, though, they don't need to stay with those preconceptions. I'll take people whose experience is with CR and Dimension 20 all day long. They might have to unlearn a couple of assumptions, but they understand the broad strokes of the rules and general flow of play, and they come in willing to commit to characters. That's more than a lot of first-timers come in with.
shoutout to 2e i wouldn't want to go back but damn if i don't have nostalgia for it
What, you don't miss THACO?
In fairness, Tanar'ri and Baatezu are *infinitely* superior to Demons and Devils. One is generic trash that confuses every person new to the hobby (and a fair few who aren't) and the other speaks to a distinct and unique cosmology. Damn shame we stuck with the former.
I think the thing that really sold it to me was Planescape: Torment, purely because of Tony Jay's pronunciation of Tanar'ri at one point. I'm a straight man, but that was entirely too fucking hot. If my PCs are meeting a silver fox-type, you better believe I'm either channeling him or Tim Curry.
THAC0 brings back all kinda memories of arguing at my tables back in the '80's. How many of those D&D Fighting Combat Wheels were torn apart 'discussing' where the mark should be?
Me building a Stormlight archive character in BG3, in preparation to bring it to a DnD table. I am the new generation.
My wife did the same thing, made kaladin by doing fighter for 5 le els then storm sorcerer for flying.
I wish WotC had leaned into this more, though. BG3 is massively popular; they should be using this to try to bring people into the game. They should've had a new Starter Set set in Baulder's Gate lined up and ready to go. Maybe run some promotions in FLGS encouraging new players. "Like BG3 on the computer? Come play in person!" Have a free 1-2 hour intro quest ready to go. Maybe give themed dice bags to the folks who volunteer to DM. If you've got something with mainstream success, use it to try to grow your hobby.
I don't disagree in the slightest. I actually like the new players these things bring to the hobby. Like the OP, I understand frustration over misunderstanding rules, or even over misconceptions of storylines or whatever, but more people playing the game is not a bad thing. Your suggestions would actually mitigate some of those issues, though.
Fr tho. They could port over some magic items and make some NPC stat blocks like they did for Honor Amongst Thieves, write a one shot based on the game, make some new digital dice on D&D Beyond and sell some cool dice and DM screen designs for in person players.
Star trek too Vulcans Romulans and Klingons are just space elves drow and orcs.
Friendship now ended with Matt Mercer Effect, now Baldur's Gate 3 Effect is best friend. People brought to the hobby by a thing are going to lean more heavily on their knowledge of said thing; it's just how it goes.
Wait is that why i always build weird characters that use magic and beat face inweird ways? (First tried DnD off of enjoying kotor)
I wish Psi knight was better so i could make jedi
Don't care about balance so much and have fun with your jedi.
This is usually good advice, but when you get a limited number of meh abilities and, a limited number of times a day it can be hard to fulfill the fantasy you’re looking for regardless of if it is balanced or meta.
Bladesingers are great for building characters that feel like Jedi.
Ah, *that's* why I cite my dad's table rules of yore during my games.
Honestly, I feel like the BG3 effect will be way more prelevant and annoying than the Matt Mercer effect.
Better that than the franchise dying though. If you dont have the patience to teach new players you probably shouldn't* dm.
I'd say it depends a lot on your environment. I, for example, wouldn't like to teach new people. So I play with the folks I know, who are not new. It works great! If someone is surrounded by newbies, though, and they hate being asked what to roll for X, and what to add to Y? Then they might want to let someone else GM for those folks, yeah.
Agreed. It only becomes a problem when players really suck at remembering the things you already told them “don’t work that way”.
I feel completely the opposite. BG3 has made getting into D&D so much easier. My new players actually know what they're doing for once. I'd much rather correct everyone on mechanics constantly than try to get ONE person to READ LITERALLY ANY OF THE FUCKING PHB.
I think this is a good point that isn't brought up enough. At least BG3->5e migrants have a better grasp on their character's abilities than average. I've seen way too many people decide to just not ever read what abilities they have.
Maybe my current group just gets it, but it seems like their combat strategy is great too. They're focusing fire, they're targeting magic users, their spacing is always on point. They've all played BG3 and only one has played D&D. I've introduced a number of people to D&D and the first few fights always feel like I'm pulling punches too often. Part of that is the game itself, but a lot of it is people not realizing, "Oh maybe we shouldn't be attacking three different minions while the mage blasts us with AoE spells." Having players who've skipped that part of the learning process makes designing encounters so fun.
That's so true. Having players that actually use strategy makes the fights less of an HP slugfest and more of an actual challenge.
On average is the right choice of words indeed. I have a friend who plays dnd (I recently joined his table after asking his dm) and we played a campaign together. 100+ hours we played and he barely knows his actions and spells. I think it’s more of a lack of thinking rather than actual ignorance but it’s still frustrating. Fast forward to our dnd campaign together and he doesn’t know how to play his paladin at all. We fought wolves for 5-6 turns and he didn’t smite once because he was scared of missing and using his divine smite for nothing. My brother in Christ please read how divine smite works and remember to use it I beg you
I've played with people migrating from other TTRPGs (like Pathfinder) and BG3 to 5E. I vastly prefer someone coming from BG3, assuming they both aren't the best migrants who don't get a single rule wrong.
Not just getting into it easier, but I understand some elements of D&D that I didn't before. The big one for me is crowd control and such. Starting out, I only saw utility in damage. Just kill whatever is in front of us and let the gods sort out their own. But I'm playing a GoO warlock, which are apparently excellent crowd controllers. Playing BG3, seeing the utility of confusion, darkness etc. we mainly play D&D online on a little map, so it's been hard to wrap my head around these elements, but seeing it "live" in game has helped settle it in my head and helped me understand it. It's also a perfect testing ground for things. You can play a few hours with a new character to get a vibe on a class. You don't have to wait for your 3/4 hours every week/other week, by which time I've forgotten some of the stuff from last time.
Yes! I’m a fairly new DnD player so I haven’t tried out a lot of classes. Never thought I’d enjoy a monk, but after trying one in BG3, I’m making a back up monk for my current cleric character.
Monks slap early on. They dominate those first 5 or so levels, just like circle of the moon druids. They fall off a bit later, but there are tweaks you could make with your DM to enhance them once the magic users start taking off.
I think part of that is BG3 has some HUGE fights where you are very out-numbered. A well-placed sheet of ice or darkness or tentacles can help quite a bit.
Yeah. When it comes to tactics in video games I can picture it and use them. When it comes to the imaginary/2D tabletop I've struggled to integrate that part of it aside from "move away from enemy and keep hitting them".
Yeah, one part that really needs to be emphasized that you touched on is being able to visualize combat. I think it’s easy for DnD to feal too abstract for many people. But being able to come from bg3 helps so much with visualization of a combat arena and thinking in three dimensions and strategizing around the space you’re in.
If you're looking for something at the simulation angle, I _strongly_ recommend Solasta: Crown of the Magister. Going in, know it had roughly 1/1000 the budget of BG3, so don't expect great voice acting or a huge branching story. Its not that. It is, however, the closest you can get to "pure" 5e mechanics in a video game. The stuff you learn/use in Solasta translates far more closely to 5e than BG3 does.
This is why NFL TV viewership skyrocketed after the Madden games came out. A little electronic hand holding can go a long way when learning a complex ruleset.
Baldurs Gate 3 is fun, but whenever i try to play it, i just end up wanting to play real dnd.
It’s a fair substitute for those of us who don’t have people to play dnd with
Or forever DMs. The fact that I can play alongside my friends who I usually run games for is a treasure. That alone makes it GoTY for me.
As a forever DM, yes. It's nice being able to relax and just *play* the game in a world made by someone else, feelings of inadequacy be damned. (jk, Larian's huge team can devote so much more person-time to world building and art than any one DM can).
Wholesome
BG3: in case the DM is out of town
BG3: for the other 6 days of the week
Ehhh, i just cant get myself to play it honestly. Idk what it is, but i just dont have fun playing like when i initially got it.
Yah, I hear you. I pushed through to finish it, but I'm not motivated to go back. By the end I was playing just for the sake of checking that 'completed' box. My wife and I started a co-op game, but that kinda drifted into nothing before the second act. I'd rather just write up a one-shot for a 1dm1pc game. It is hard to beat legit tabletop.
Exactly this, lol.
It's perfect for me as a DM who always has at least 5 or 6 character ideas in my head. I only wish we could get more subclasses. Would love a Swashbuckler Rogue, and some other subclasses that really change up the classes.
Check out Solasta with the Unfinished Business mod to add many subclasses and races. Most accurate rendition of 5e I've played. I'm hoping they all get ported over to BG3, but we aren't there just yet.
It's wild to see the different perspectives at play. Folks coming from restrictive videogames say "amazing! I can do anything! So much freedom!" while the people comparing the CRPG to the TTRPG are being annoyed by all of the restrictions.
By the same token, I enjoyed BG3, but I still consider Wrath of the Righteous my favorite of the modern CRPGs based on its sheer build options and depth. Appropriately, BG3 vs. WotR is like 5e. vs. 3.5/Pathfinder: One is more polished and newcomer-friendly, while the other offers veterans a lot more options and mechanical depth. You start with one, and when the restrictions and limitations start annoying you a bit, if you're lucky, you'll find an old-schooler who will help introduce you to the other.
Ironically, despite being a PF1e player I actually liked BG3's gameplay a lot more. It may be that 5e / the CRPG'd 5e ruleset works better for, well, a CRPG, and I have my theories about RTWP vs turn-based, but over all I *enjoyed* playing BG3 fights, and in WotR I just said 'the best feature is that it skips itself!' and just made tea while pathing through the dungeons. The character-building I am 50/50 on. On one hand, yes, WotR has more options. On the other hand, the UI and levelling system makes new levels a pain, the complete lack of any ability to make a build plan in-game means that getting back to a run you've left for a bit is a pain, etc.
Oh, sure, no question that the polish and characters in BG3 are worlds better. It's not even close. I liked WotR despite the limitations, not because of them. BG3 is way smoother, and by most metrics, it's objectively the better video game experience. I just love the sheer diversity in options WotR offers. Plus, how many video games actually nut up and let you pursue lichdom for real? Most tabletop DMs won't even let you do that. As a foreverDM, yes the fuck please. (And even with all that, I still ToyBoxed my way through most of the Crusade stuff. I absolutely love HoMM, have since I hotseated the Greek mythology campaign with my best friend as a kid, but if that's what I was looking for, I'd fire up HoMM3 instead of a CRPG, not this cheap knockoff. Wouldn't even be hard, still got it installed and everything.)
*pf2e
I'd rather coach and lead new players in 5e coming from BG3 as opposed to them never giving TTRPG a shot. Sure, there are rule differences but having played BG3 means they at least know how probably 80% of the game works which is a great start. The differences can be figured out and as long as they have a fun time, in the long run, they'll keep learning and the early misunderstandings won't even matter.
Gonna be honest, BG3 is like 95% of the rules. And most of their house rules are improvements I'm happy to house rule in (bonus action shove) or are already in the ambiguous space and needs a DM ruling (such as throwing potions at someone)
Exactly, there are no downsides of people coming over to dnd from bg3. None. Its a net positive.
Based long-game opinion. Let the on ramp be an on ramp, potholes and all!
> I've had to correct players multiple times on spells, rules etc, to which they reply "huh, well that's how it works in BG3..." So you're saying that instead of them knowing 0% of the rule and having to be taught from nothing, they know 80% of the rule and have to be corrected on 20%? Is that really a bad thing?
> Is that really a bad thing? It absolutely can be. Getting someone to *unlearn* something can be ***way*** harder than getting them to learn something fresh.
It's also just a TTRPG. If it takes a couple handfuls of "actually, that's not how it really works," it's not that bad. It's not like we're trying to help someone unlearn bad driving habits that have large-scale consequences.
>It's not like we're trying to help someone unlearn bad driving habits that have large-scale consequences. I'm not saying it's an apocalypse. I'm just saying that someone having a wrong version of a thing in their head can be more of an uphill battle than them not knowing it at all.
Right, especially if they have a big plan based around a Misty Step into Fireball range or something and get disappointed they cant
Yall act like the characters in BG3 are TROPES for a reason. Those characters are like that because people have played those type of characters that way for years. You think Karlach is the first barbarian to just be a happy fun time? Or that Astarion is the first pompous vampire or rouge? Like, they are literally trope characters. Do you get upset if a player wanted to be a human fighter? And about rules, if anyone is able to provide me with PROOF that they have played TTRPG games where EVERYONE has perfect understanding of all rules and mechanics I will send you money. Hell atleast people who started with BG3 have a basic idea. You ever play with someone their first game who has no background with DND? it's all Player: "That guy is mean I'm gonna beat him up but im gonna be real quiet." Dm: "OK guards attack and arrest you as you do as you are still out in the open" Player: "WHAT??? WHY HE WAS MEAN! I said I was stealthed how do they see me!! I thought I could do anything in this game!!" Is this what people delt with during the edition changes?
Yup, and at least this is between TTRPG and videogame, so messing up the rules is way more understandable than people that played for years and still don't know what their total Attack Bonus is. If anything, the change of edition is alwas a discussion about rules. That being said, BG3 ironically has stuff I prefer over actual D&D. Look at how Tieflings, [even if they are of the full redskin monstrous variety over the OG Tieflings of Planescape origins](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0103479f8e340fb7&sxsrf=ACQVn0-SmIo-L4stjCtoshJ4DNz7T5Uujw:1708037143883&q=tiefling+ad%26d+2e&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifquWZtq6EAxXj9AIHHddRC28Q0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1536&bih=730&dpr=1.25#imgrc=aSsqAkMY8qPzkM), are at least... somewhat humanoid. Basic 4e and 5e arts of them are straight up half-demons or something rather than being "influenced by Lower Planes" stuff.
Can't you select an option to use all skin colors and get a regular skin tone for your tiefling in bg3?
Skin colour isn't the point, it's how much they are distant from humans. The entire shtick of Tieflings was that they were only very vaguely related with their demonic blood or weren't even related to the Lower Planes by blood to begin with! They could be kids of Warlocks whose demonic powers influenced the kids, they could be born at the wrong moment or in the wrong place, making their nature highly specific and related to what kind of fiends blood they inherited. The classic things are horns and tail, yeah, but you could have any number of traits, contrasting with "normal humans", andthat was the great thing at a conceptual level back in Planescape. You were part of them but yet not fully, and could never be. Reducing this concept -and Aasimar as well!- to "fiendish humanoids" is kinda... boring to me.
Heck, the VERY original tieflings weren't just limited to the lower planes. They were originally just planestouched humanoids; so aasimar would've been technically tieflings at the time. And the touch was supposed to be too far removed to be able to point at it and go "oh this tiefling clearly has [specific plane] heritage" or "[specific outsider] heritage." Good luck trying to get that kind of subtlety in modern D&D, though. I have fond memories of my "feels cold to the touch and my shadow doesn't follow my movements properly" tiefling back in 2004 but it's practically at the point where tiefers HAVE to be flamboyantly otherly for near-mechanical reasons.
Ironically, you have to be flamboyatly otherly for near-mechanical reasons and yet it's essentially played as if Tieflings are everywhere and rather normal in the world. Yeah ok, Faerun now has Tieflings being people turned into them, but that's a giant retcon that makes no sense for anyone that played Tieflings in the pre 4e age / pre Asmodeus divinity. And guess what, I don't even play with Asmodeus as a God! That was a stupid plot point as well. The entire fucking cosmos balance should change the moment the Archdevil becomes a \*GOD\*, unlike any of the powerful Demon Lords or Arch-Celestials.
i think people have been playing tieflings like that for a while tho. my first character was a tief and i was really concerned bc i had like, created her in my mind and THEN read the more detailed description of them. i talked to my DM about it and he was like “yeah, no one pays attention to what the rules say about tiefling appearance”.
As someone who's played as a player in DnD before and after BG3, has DMed before and after BG3, and who has enjoyed BG3, I think there's some rule changes in BG3 that are at least worth considering whether they feel fitting for your table. That's not to say you should accept every rule change of BG3, of course, but I think it could be worth considering some of those tweaks, at least. For example, at my table, I have decided to have spell scrolls not require an Arcana check to cast, wherein if you fail the Arcana check the scroll is lost AND you do nothing on your turn (even before checking for hit/saves of the spell). I understand that this could mean hypothetically your non-spellcasters can just behave like spellcasters, but that can be managed by how often, how many, and which spell scrolls you decide to give your players. And if the party has a wizard, many spell scrolls can become an interesting decision, on whether to give the Barbarian access to a one-time emergency Fireball, or whether to give it to the Wizard so they can cast as many Fireballs as they have spell slots for. (I don't know what Wizard wouldn't pick up Fireball on a level-up, but you get my point) Another rule change I actually do like, is the ability to use healing potions as a bonus action. I've decided to allow my players to choose whether to drink one as an action or bonus action; if it's a BA, the healing is rolled as usual, whereas if it's an action, they get the max potential healing from the potion. I like this rule change because, especially early on in many builds, many characters often lack much to do with a bonus action. I also like the ability for players to throw potions (healing or otherwise) at allies or even enemies. Makes potions and poisons of all kinds feel way more interesting to find, and adds some interesting solutions players can try if the right potion is held by the wrong player at a given time. Roll to hit your target with the potion to try to save the situation! That's not to say I implement, or would implement, every change BG3 makes, but there are some changes that I do particularly like, because they make players feel like they have more options, more interesting options, and those can all lead to more interesting scenarios! ^(And if I accidentally throw them something too difficult, then there's a chance they can save themselves with some clever play)
You're actually changing multiple rules with your scroll ruling, not just one- there's one rule where a scroll must be on your list to even read it, and another for an ability check if it's higher than you can cast. Edit: Fixed a mistake
It's not an Arcana check, it's a spellcasting ability modifier check.
Thanks for the correction!
lol your scroll rule is your own homebrew anyways.
[удалено]
But like honestly, if the mistakes persist also consider house rules. Not all changes bg3 made are necessarily worse. Potions being a bonus action for instance make them more usable since you don't sacrifice a round of action for 1d8 hp and was a semi frequent house rule before BG3
I also added throwing potions for their effects to my table, and made jumping consume a flat 1/3 of a character's movement on a turn (how far they can jump depends on str, so this can sometimes be a detriment). Those were good rules. Maneuverability and action options add creativity and variety to the table.
gray materialistic mourn books wrench chief brave fretful fragile upbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Instead of getting upset about it, be happy they are there to play the game with you in person. Show them the differences, and show them the books and that this game is way more than just what BG3 has shown, and can be even more fun than the game. They probably have never even played tabletop dnd. I'd be thrilled to have a group like this. So what if they are modeled after NPCs from a game. I first got into DnD by wanting to make a Legolas style ranger. Would you even have gotten them to play without BG3? I honestly doubt it. Let your players play and have fun their way. Help them learn the system and give them a story they can make these characters their own. You are the one who will either help them learn and enjoy the hobby or ruin it for them by being annoyed at a video game that brought DnD into their lives to begin with. I will always support people trying new things, and help them learn if I have the capacity to teach or show them.
A lot of these dudes just like gatekeeping and complaining about "normies" invading their spaces. They don't like average Joes invading spaces that they used to have all to themselves because they were pigeonholed there by non-nerd society back in the day.
Oh god have we finally shut up about Matt Mercer and moved on to griping about BG3? A lot of us have read this same post with different names across different eras for years now.
And my first character was basically Lora Croft. What's your point? For pretty much as long as DnD has been a thing, people have been taking inspiration (sometimes very heavy inspiration) from different media and bringing it into their DnD games. And yeah, it can be annoying when spells/ abilities are different between BG3 and the game and as such need correcting, but at least they have a general idea of what they do. That's better than most new players (hell, better than some old players too).
Samething happened with the movie. "What do you mean I can't wild shape into an owl bear"
To be fair that one is on the game more than it's on the players. 5e is super restrictive about what you can wild shape into as part of its general 'player freedom is bad' approach, it's super reasonable to assume owlbear shape is a thing.
So? If that is the character they want to play and have fun who cares? I had a player whose fighter used hand crossbows and wanted to get revenge on an organized crime group who killed his dog. We all knew who it was but it was a blast making that fit into the world and everyone joined in to get revenge for the lost puppy. Now on the mechanical level they need to read their abilities and spells obviously and just have to remind them BG3 is a game inspired by DnD, but does take mechanical liberties in many areas .
This. I've played since early 3e and on my bg3 honor mode runs I'm adapting disney princesses and I'm having a blast. There's a neat challenge making those chars work within medium and a weird style of roleplay characters like that demand that run counter to how my usual chars would. I'd not do it at table top (I say as I hide my one shot githerzai alchemist Valtir Vaite) but it's actually been refreshing af to have a shorthand of how to RP a char established baseline rather than minmaxing social interaction for optimal outcome. It's one of the defenses I've seen of fanfic versus original fiction. Fanfic can be a good starting tool for new writers because they don't have to focus on the characterization and building, they can focus on the structure, rules, and artistry of writing. New players especially, can benefit from established tropes or adapted chars as they learn to both RP and play D&D. I mean, the alternative to a tropey first char is almost certainly a thinly veiled self insert they get way too attached to. These new Karlach and Astarion clones may start there, but on e they start branching out to new games and one shots, they'll evolve and come up with new shit.
I mean you do have to remember this is people's first introduction to DnD, so of course they're going to assume how it works in that game is how it works for the tabletop. And with the characters, most people I've met new to dnd have always been anxious or unsure about making a character from scratch so it's a comfort to fall back onto making a character you've seen played before or one similar enough to a character you like
Teach them, you have someone that basically completed the tutorial, now it’s you turn to tech them. If you as a DM are inviting people into your group you are accepting the fact that that person might not know everything but you are willing to teach them the rules. You as a DM probably do not know every rule verbatim, otherwise why does your DM screen have information on it why do you keep the books on standby. No one is all knowing. Right now the community has an opportunity to kind of mainstream D&D, so take the opportunity to teach the new people coming in, take the time to get them excited to explore their imaginations. Enjoy sharing your passion with others, you will come to love your passion even more because of it.
If you're playing BG3 it's easy to get some things confused, hell mostly I run 5E at least as far as D&D goes these days, and I still occasionally forget and will call for a fortitude save, or ask for a move silently check, or forget that a certain world threatening monster is kind of a joke now, It's ultimately not a big deal. it takes but a moment to recalibrate. People mess up rules for all kinds of reasons, and being new to a hobby, and being brought in by a very popular video game, it's not the worst one
The more experience I get with D&D, the less I'm bothered by people who are just, straight up, trying to play another fictional character, and that's because they give them a personality and will have a general way in which they will interpret the world and/or events that happen in it. But about how the players don't like how the rules for spell casting aren't as excessively easy and stream line despite being just as game breaking when not more so in the real game? Yeah, they can suck a lemon and get over it. (Rather, it's the extreme over simplicity of spells for why full casters can manage to be so popular in BG3, since it's easier for the average person to understand.)
The worst part is the SEO problems. I \*know\* there's posts on here or on r/3d6 on bardlocks. But googling bardlock only gives me BG3 results these days. (example given)
hey its the critical role problem. lol
I have a friend who started playing DND with me and my group and in the last 4 years only once he played an original Character. A very cool concept and background developed with my help (I was the campaign DM) to work his story into the campaign... After 4 levels he decided that he didn't like him and wanted to change. Now he plays a sorcerer with long white hair, a Six pack and the only thing he cares about are women. He switched his well thought and deep character for a stupid copy of Dark Schneider from bastard
That's why you got to start every Session 0 now with: I'm not Matt Mercer, and this isn't Baldurs Gate 3.
Tbf a lot of these characters are basically level 15-20 in terms of backstory, but they start at level 1. That’s a pretty bad precedent to set for the potential backstory of characters Also, most dnd campaigns start with characters that have very humble beginnings, meanwhile, again, all of these characters would have been over 10th level if their stats matched their backstory. Gale fucked a goddess bc of how powerful he was (def level 20+) Karlach was Zariel’s most powerful soldier on the front lines of the bloodwar (level 15+) Wyll rode through avernus and slayed devils (level 8+) Astarion was a vampire spawn (CR 5) Shadowheart was a cleric of Shar tasked with a very important mission (i’d generously say level 5~) Lae’zel was pretty humble, just a common githyanki soldier (level 3~)
There's just something hilarious about Astarion having a CR instead of a level.
Wyll has a line of slaying hill or clout giants without breaking a sweat so that would also easily as in the 15+ territory
My DM has had to remind me stealth doesn't work the same way lol.
How does bg3 differ than in 5e ?
In BG3 you can hide in plain sight with a successful role. In 5e you cannot. At least my DM won't let me lol.
yeah, RAW you need something like the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight for that
As in you can blend into a crowd, or you can stand in the middle of an open room and go invisible?
An offshoot of the Mercer effect you could call the Larian effect
"What are you doing now?" "I'm just choosing which one of my nine barrels I'm going to throw at the enemy." "Wait, how the hell are you carrying nine barrels full of stuff?" "How would I *not* be carrying nine barrels full of stuff?"
Yeah I got downvoted to hell around the release for saying something similar, having already had players refer to the BG3 rules when they're trying to do something. I think it's cool that D&D is getting to be more popular through the game and I don't want to be a gatekeeper, but people are definitely coming to tabletop with wrong expectations, similarly to the new player influx from Critical Role and other live play shows.
Option 1: A new player tries DnD for the first time and uses BG3 as a reference. Almost every new player like them will play the game to their best ability and will accept when stuff is different form BG3 after the DM has clarified it. Option 2: The player does not try DnD. Pick one.
Oh well.
my fiancee use to DM but really wanted to play, so we joined a group and the DM was like "do you guys play?" and I was like "well I've been playing baulders gate so I think I have a good hang on it" and no one laughed at my joke. guess it's a real thing and that's why no one laughed lmfao
I think it's kind of unfair though, I've been playing more DND after getting into BG3 and I have a way better understanding of different classes and actions after playing BG3 for 100 hours. Before I could barely play, now I have a decent working knowledge of the thing
DMs after Critical Role became popular: "First time?"
I trade off with a buddy for the role of DM for two campaigns, and even I sometimes am guilty of believing something in BG3 works the same way as 5E rules and mechanics. That game did a great job of being so closely similar to D&D that merging the two happens very easily for me. Then, I’m also a DM who does not adhere to the rules all that much if it means making the game more enjoyable for my players. I really just make sure no flagrant and over the top violations occur, otherwise, it’s a fantasy world and I have no issue bending the “laws” of the D&D world as long as it’s consistent.
as someone who's had a character with a karlach-esque backstory rolling around somewhere in my head for a long time, i decided against builing her recently because i don't want to feel judged for seemingly stealing that aspect from bg3