Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Edit: After looking through the article, it seems only some parts of the Hexblade are in, those mainly related to melee combat (extra attack and attack modifiers are mentioned). No mention of Hexblade's Curse, unfortunately; if it's out, then the Sorlock will remain gimped.
I also saw a couple of other surprising parts:
Here they seem to be confusing spells per level (spell slots) and spells known (getting new spells each level). In D&D 5.0 multiclassing all full casters (like Cleric, Wizard, Sorc etc.) get to retain spell slot progression. So if you multiclass between full casters, it doesn't matter in terms of spell slots - you'll still have as many as if you were only leveling a single spellcasting class (big change from 3.5). The only way of making it "less punishing" would be to give the same progression to partial casters (like Paladin and Ranger) or unique special casters (like Warlock) - but that would be incredibly OP.
Spells known, however, are still tied to individual classes in D&D 5.0. If that is what Larian is changing - and they do seem to imply that with their reference to Fireball - then are we getting spells known progression ALONGSIDE spellslot progression for multiclass casters? That would be... awesome, actually. Combined with the removal of stat prerequisites, it makes multiclassing more enticing than ever (in this edition of D&D at least).
Another thing that jumped out at me:
Seriously? Reactions are one of the core elements of D&D 5.0 mechanics. There are many spells and abilities tied to reactions, and overall the game is balanced around having reactions. The fact that Larian did not intend to implement them, and only did so under pressure from the community, does not speak well of their devotion to the source material.
without the community, these discussions and feedback we wouldn't have a reaction system in Baldur's Gate 3.
EDIT: nvm I see what's being done now. Yeah...kinda bittersweet. I was hoping Hexblade would become it's own thing, not make Pact of the Blade more like Hexblade. Hexblade DLC isn't looking too good now lol
I was thinking of doing a hexblade druid or something out there if Hexblade ever dropped. Might have to settle for this
"The other thing we've changed is how magic users use spell slots, making it less punishing to level more than one magic class. One issue with multiclassing is that if you multiclass early in the game, you don't get strong abilities like "Fireball" at the same level as a "pure" class, but we wanted players to be able to multiclass from the start of the campaign, without having to necessarily wait for the advanced levels, so it was the case to revise the use of resources a bit."
This seems promising, but I do share his concerns for the reaction system. Although we've pretty much known for the past 3 years that the game is very homebrew 5E built on d:os2. So not so much of a concern, more like expected.