Talk:Ability Drain

Targeting Allies

Responding to @Anything Random:

There are many other instances of descriptions using the words target, creature, entity, and character imprecisely, so I wouldn't uniformly consider that a bug. In this case, the code explicitly checks for an enemy, and it's reasonable for players to expect an offensive feature doesn't work on allies.

It would also be just as reasonable (if not more reasonable) for players to expect an offensive feature to work on allies. Many, if not most, offensive features do work on allies, including weapon attacks and cantrips (e.g. Fire Bolt, Ray of Frost, Eldritch Blast) which are among the most common actions taken in the game. Exceptions that can't target allies (e.g. Hold Person) at least usually and really should specify that you must target an "enemy" in their descriptions. Even very similar spells, like Wrathful Smite and Compelled Duel, are consistent with their descriptions and behavior about whether they can affect any "target" or "an enemy".

Furthermore, even if inconsistent usage is widespread, that doesn't necessarily make incorrect usages correct. Especially when the terms are already given specific meanings in D&D rules that many readers and players would understand.

So I still disagree, i.e. I think that this disagreement between the description and behavior belongs in the bug section. Quaris (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2026 (CEST)

By my own personal rubric, this seems like it's 100% intentional behaviour on the part of the devs, and reasonably expectable on the part of the players, call it 50% expected. So, overall, I find it leans more towards an understandable hand-wave than a bug.

I asked another frequent editor about this particular change and they seemed to be on the same page with me. If you want to seek more consensus, feel free to ask other editors on discord. Anything Random (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2026 (CEST)

When you say "this seems like it's 100% intentional behaviour": Do you mean the condition only applying to non-allies is intended? Or that the disagreement between the description saying any "target" and the behavior only applying to non-allies is intended?

I agree it's likely the former was intentional; it's the latter that I think is unintentional. Do you agree with that much?

I would rather reach consensus via either of us being persuaded based on the merit of arguments, as opposed to multiple people "voting". It is not possible to "seek consensus" by only speaking with other people. Quaris (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2026 (CEST)

I meant that the the coder who wrote the feature took the time to write and not Ally() at the end of the Conditions. So the former, I suppose. It is likely that the person who wrote the (English) description was not the coder and may not have even been a technical person. The description may also have been based on the initial design from before the feature was even implemented. It's hard to say, but even if you take the position that the wording was not intended based on how the feature actually works, I don't read it as a strict disagreement. That would be like if the feature said it only targeted enemies, but in fact worked on allies. 'Targets' is ambiguous. Another point that recently occurred to me: would you consider this something that should be fixed in a patch? In the context of BG3, I suppose the question is more so if you would expect this to be changed upon downloading a bugfix mod, since there are effectively no more patches coming. That seems, to me, a good heuristic for where to draw the line for a bug.

And, I didn't mean to say that we put it to a vote. The purpose of asking other editors is to get more perspectives and possible arguments than just two people can muster (If you have some time to spare, take a read of the Wikipedia policy on this topic, I try to pull from these whenever situations arise on this wiki where policies aren't clearly outlined or established). Very often I have found third options or novel arguments that swayed me when discussing "edit war" pages (not that I would describe our interaction as such) with other editors. There are also just some people who I know have a deeper game knowledge than me (and pretty much anyone). On the topic of game code, if someone like Joow weighted in on the discussion, I would probably take their opinion as near-truth, since they have a much deeper knowledge of the codebase than me (This issue is quit minor though, so I wouldn't ping them or anything). Anything Random (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2026 (CEST)

Ok, so we agree the description specifying "target" was (likely) unintentional, but we disagree on the interpretation of "target".

The D&D 5e 2014 rules explicitly use "target" to describe creatures who are affected by spells or other effects, regardless of whether the spell has beneficial or harmful effects, and sometimes even use the term "target" to mean yourself. For example, see the D&D 5e 2014 player's handbook, Chapter 10: Spellcasting > Casting a Spell > Targets.

Baldur's Gate 3 also widely uses the term "target" when describing any creature who are affected by spells, regardless of whether the spell has beneficial or harmful effects, and even sometimes for spells who can only affect allies. For example, the UI when casting multi-creature spells calls the creatures (or objects) that are affected by the spell "targets", even for spells like Bless that can only affect allies, or spells like Hold Person that can only affect enemies.

The term "target" is intentionally ambiguous about whether it describes an ally, enemy, or even whether it's describing a creature at all (it could be describing an object). It would not be correct to interpret "target" as only meaning enemies.

Re "would you consider this something that should be fixed in a patch?" (or bugfixing mod): Yes. For example, the Item and Spell Bug Fixes mod includes "Type 2 fixes: After determining Larian's intent for an item/spell, changing its description..." and has made description-only changes before, such as correcting the description of Cloak of Shadows. (This is assuming the description of Ability Drain is what would be changed, but a bugfix mod changing the behavior to match the description doesn't seem unreasonable to me either.)

Stating that someone else, even an expert, agrees with your stance is "putting it to a vote" though, which is not preferable to building consensus through discussion. Even the wikipedia guidelines that you linked yourself state that getting a third party opinion should only be done after discussions have failed, not as the primary way to resolve discussions. I find it very frustrating to have someone use solely an appeal to authority to shut down a disagreement, and I suspect many other people would too. Quaris (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2026 (CEST)

We have 5 whole pages detailing the significant D&D 5e rule changes in BG3, and honestly those pages are far from complete, even just on other wiki pages people add notes all the time going over this or that change from tabletop. Because of that, I never find an appeal to D&D to be especially convincing. Regardless, I agree that that's how the word 'target' should be used, and even matches the dictionary definition. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not used consistently like that in BG3.

Here's a list of actions I could find that can only target/trigger from enemies and use the noun 'target' in their tooltips:

•  Great Weapon Master: Bonus Attack (only triggers if you kill an enemy)
•  Mantle of Majesty: Command (refers to a 'creature' and a 'target' but only works on enemies, same goes for the other sub-spells)
•  Crushing Flight (Owlbear Wild Shape)
•  Mind Blast
•  Lupine Slash
•  Stage Fright
•  Arrow of Many Targets (Despite the name, only works on enemies and objects)
•  Bend Luck: Ability Check Penalty
•  Ichorous Corrosion
•  Coldbrim Chill

Here's some that use a similarly ambiguous/inaccurate term, like 'creatures':

•  Displace
•  Sleep
•  See Invisibility
•  Burrow (Badger) (Only knocks enemies Prone)
•  Force Tunnel
•  Bane (spell)
•  Let the Slaughter Begin (I think allies can technically get the condition, but are immune to the Dazed effect)
•  Confusion
•  Hypnotic Gaze
•  Planar Binding
•  Slow (Someone edited the word 'enemies' onto the wiki, it doesn't say that in-game)
•  Blindness
•  Vicious Mockery
•  Charm Person (Just says 'humanoid')
•  Guardian of Faith (Again, wiki is wrong, in-game it says 'entities')
•  Cull the Weak
•  Executioner (Requires you to kill an enemy)
•  Hellish Rebuke
•  Lathander's Light (Only affects enemy fiends and undead)
•  Howl of the Dead
•  Radiance of the Dawn
•  Destructive Wave (Says 'creatures' in-game)

And here's some that don't mention any particular noun for what you hit, but only work with enemies

•  Arcane Vehemence
•  Radiant Shockwave
•  Splinter Shadow (Must be attacked by an enemy)
•  Sweetplum Gales
•  Dominate Beast
•  Time Thoroughly Bided
•  Synergetic Moments (Requires a condition to be inflicted on an enemy)

This list is not exhaustive, but I think I've made my point. You can understand why I'm hesitant to set a precedent here: it would have a large rippling effect across the wiki. I don't think there's any issue with adding targeting information to a page, but to consider an unambiguously offensive effect to be bugged because it doesn't work on allies feels like a bridge too far to me. Anything Random (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2026 (CEST)

Also, to your last point, "putting it to a vote" would be to rule based on the majority opinion, which I am not in favour of. The point I was making about an expert weighing in was secondary to the main point of bringing in other perspectives, and was mainly to give a simple example of how I could be swayed to the other side of the argument. Anything Random (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2026 (CEST)