Why? Descend to Arvenus lv cap is 13. BG3 seems heavily inspired by it.

I know that over 99% of 5e campaigns is low level bandit slaying on Sword Coast and nobody talks about interesting campaigns on elemental planes, on Spelljammer setting, on Netharil settings, etc. Contrary to Pathfinder where most modules end up at lv 15 to 20. But on CRPG's, you can't improvise with a low level character and the fights become "i attack"... Like most part of BG1. Or complete unfair challenges, like Temple of elemental evil, for eg, is a chore due the lv cap = 10. Took many tries to beat the game without lv cap remover, you are supposed to fight a demon lord with lv cap = 10. You are forced to make pun pun builds on that game and try like 10 times to beat the final boss. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands was the same thing on the end game. Due 2e multiclass rules and lv cap = 9, there are no reason to NOT multiclass your characters. If wasn't by domination spell and a lot of patience and lucky, i could't have ended the last encounter.

BTW, Dark Sun is a pretty high level setting where you should start at lv 3 and in some city states, at lv 5 or even 7 and you can even become "dragon god" if you max out psion and defiler levels. And most templars are epic levels, most sorcerer kings are godlike. They can maintain civilization in a near dead world abandoned by the Gods. But Shattered Lands limits PC's to lv 9.

One reason to why BG2 is considered far better than BG1 is because due being a mid to high level campaign, you can experience far more interesting things, the dungeons can be far more varied and so on. Can get class specific strongholds and much better dungeons. On Pathfinder Kingmaker, the mid to later chapters are considered the best ones. Exactly because fighting undead cyclops and invading a tomb fulfilled of strong undeads is much more fun than fighting bandits with autoattacks.

On 5e, the spells are monsters are already very lackluster. For eg, Finger of Death no longer OHK, no spell scale with your level, Horrid Wilting on 2e deals d8 damage per caster level(it combined with chain contigency can deal 60d8 damage at lv 20 on BG2) on 5e, it deals only 12d8 necrotic damage. Enemies like Liches which had deadly spells has way weaker spells. Immunity to cold? Now is just resistance. About D&D editions in general, IMO 2e has the best martial rules and 3.5e has the best magical rules. Because 2e realizes that plate armor is much more likely to deflect a sword than a mace. And 3.5e realizes that resisting Finger of Death casted by a lv 1 mage who casted his first cantrip yesterday with a scroll and a lich king should have different difficulty chances.

On 2e, also is possible to do very powerful things, combing spells can make you OHK even a Dragon. Just use a sequencer with lower resist and malison to negate magical resistance and reduce the target saves and then, cast a chain contingency with 3 skull traps



The lv cap = 10 also restricts a lot the build diversity on the game.

Cantrips will always be capped with the second "bonus", eldrithc blast will deal 2d10 from lv 5 to lv cap. Fighters will always have only 2 attacks per round.

I am completely fine with the level cap at 10. By having such a low cap, more time can be spent on good plot, story writing, and coding, and less time trying to fix martial/caster disparity or bugs.

13th level would be perfect for many of my build ideas. That being said, I'm fine if they leave it at 10. This way as Simon says they can concentrate on plot, more races, classes, spells and feats. I'm assuming BG3 will be able to be modded. Maybe someone will add a side adventure? Or we could wait for BG4

Pathfinder Kingmaker has way more spells, races, than this game will gonna have and ... LV cap = 20. Wrath of the Righteous will bring epic options, including lichdoom path, path to become a golden dragon and so on.

PS : The disparity of martial/class is NOT something that needs to be fixed. People compare lv 20 wizards with every money in the world to have a libary full of scrolls and time to rest after every encounter with a poorly equipped lv 20 fighter. And it is just dishonest.

A game who starts with mindflayer spelljammer ship fighting over cities being a low level kobold slaying on sword cost is very disappointing.

I feel certain its because they are planning on a Sequel to Baldur's Gate 3, Baldur's Gate 4. BG3 levels 1 to 10, Baldur's Gate 4 levels 11 to 20. If their is a BG5 WotC will end to figure out epic levels for 5e. 😎

why do you hapr on so much about the level cap?
it just seems like another one of those sacred cows.
Muh high level play.

>Martial caster disparity needs not to be fixed
Youre ridiculous.
You cannot just handwave this away because you are a frothing at the mouth defender of castes beeing oerpowered, to the point where you have shown yourself to make nonsense matematical comparisons between apples and oranges.

Youre wrong and everyone knows it.
When a problem is that blatant that the discussion of it is a staple of TTRPG discussions, you cannot just act as if there isnt a proble. It makes you sound like angela merkel

I´ll be fine if it´s just one level, level 11 to get some necessary improvements for some classes and 6th level spells for casters.
With only a level cap of one level more, 11 you can have the warlocks´ mystic arcanum, artificer´s spell-storing item, fighter´s third extra attack, rangers´ and monks archetype feature and rogue´s reliable talent...


This!
I will add NWN2 or PoE2, etc to that list too.
You may like it the dialogues, plot, characters, etc in those games or not; , but in sheer numbers you can make a good amount of plot and story writing and class and combat content in the same game. The guys that write the script and dub the games are not the same that tests the combat and classes to be balanced.

...And they have the base combat, class and race mechanics, character creation already made---> D&D5e

LV 13 is mid level. High level is LV 15+.




No, i an NOT defending that casters should be overpowered. My point is that 5e already have very lacklusters spell and spell like abilities(monsters). If you wanna nerf then even more, why not just remove then from the game? I honestly rather not seeing something than seeing something completely nerfed serving only to cause frustration, like arcane casters and warlocks on nwn2 without mods like spell fixes and warlock reworked. They tried to fix this non problem and when i joined a server with a sorcerer, everyone said that is a waste of time playing as one when i asked about it.

The fact is, people who say that casters are overpowered on 5e generally pick a wizard with every money in the world to have all scrolls in the existence, and the fighter doesn't have anything expensive like that; that the wizard knowledge about what is coming and ability to rest after every encounter. And ignore that all other casters has way less versatility. A Lurker Pact warlock can't be around casting fireballs and walls of fire at the same way that a Fiend warlock can't cast black tentacles and cone of cold.



Yep; but for some people here a single cast of a 6th tier spell per long rest too overpowered and believe that we should spend 80 hours slaying kobolds in sword coast

I imagine the cap is at 10 largely to avoid having to deal with 6th level spells.



It's not how many times you can cast it, but what that cast can do and how hard it would be to program it.

At the very least, Transport Via Plants, Programmed Illusion, Move Earth and Wind Walk would have to be out.

as Stabbey put it, its not about beeing able to cast one once, it sbaout haivng them at all.
It would be a lot of effort for osmething you bareley use.

And thats what i meant with muh high level play.
Muh high level wizard wank. It doestn matter thatn 13th level isnt the level cap of dnd.

The fact that you claim that 5e wizards are actually TOO WEAK not just proes my argument, but makes me think i havent been wording it strongly enaugh.
For one, no, nobdoy is comparing a wizad wit all the gold int he world with a fighter. We compare cahracters with equal ammount of money.
However, well also not just resort to the White empty room, we talk about day to day adventuring utility.

Which is the point where the wizard looks even more ridiculous in comparison, considering all the fighter will buy with that money is gonna be magic items that make him hit harder and magic armor thats gonna make him less likeley to be hit, problems the wizard doesnt even need to deal with, since he spends his money on utlity alone.

You are beeing disingenuous here.
And quite frankly, i dont think i need to reiterate that claiming that theres no disparity between casters and martials in 5e is ridiculous.
Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and so far youve not given any. And now, how much damage a level 20 fighter can do in one round is not an argument, its dodging the question since i am well aware of that, and you should be aware that htis is not the point.

You are right. But some spells can easily be programmed. Eg


• Chain Lightning
• Sunbeam
• Circle of Death
• Conjure Fey
• Create Undead
• Flesh to Stone
• Mass Suggestion
• Psychic Crush (UA)
• Summon Fiendish Spirit (UA)
• True Seeing
• Wall of Ice
http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/spells:wizard

I saw all of this spells(except conjure fey) on other CRPG adaptations. Sure, some times they are much more limited than on P&P. Eg, Create Undead on Pathfinder CRPG allow you to create even undead war elephants. On Pathfinder Kingmaker, only living armor and graveknights



Again, not include all spells from 6th tier.



I said that is too weak compared to previous editions. Here is a 3.5e warlock that can deal 68d6 damage / round with Eldritch Glaive ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Eldritch_Glaive_Master_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build) )

And since he is a warlock, he can fly, teleport, grapples enemies with tentacles, transform enemies into toads, etc; with spell like abilities not restricted by spell slots. Compare to any pact of the blade warlock on 5e and see how 5e warlock pale in comparation. See i killing a BG2 end game dragon in less than a round on the original post screenshot.



I din't said that. I said that the solutions to this "problem" tends to be far worst than the "problem" itself. See nwn2 butchering of arcane classes. And in CRPG, damage becomes far more important than utility.

Exactly and they'll probably start raising things up with expansions and a DM toolkit. I'd rather see a finished game than something broken with too much content.

Only to remember. That if the game will reach Arvenus, there are strong chances that you will have to face really powerful devils like Belhifet... Even high level parties has problems with him (eg https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/38871/why-is-the-last-fight-in-iwdale-1-so-horrificly-unfair )

Solo him on IWD was a pain in the ****. IDK if on Siege of Dragonspear he is easy because i never played SoD. Even with this guy he was very tough. And yes, i an using mods because i already finished IWD/BG2 many times, but Pale Master is extremely similar to the normal sorcerer. Has some necromantic abilities that are useless VS this boss but that is it.



And honestly, that is something that i really wanna in the game. That BG3 will gonna be mod friendly.

Just like NWN2 with mods is far greater.

He was way harder in SoD. That fight in insanely unfair, if belhifet himself wasn't bad enough he also summons minions, and all of them apply Dominate or terror, which pretty much end the fight.

Higher numbers doesn't mean better as some here seem to think. You make some assertions, like BG2 being considered "far better" than BG1 because of the high-level gameplay, which is objectively untrue as well as removing context out to prove your point. Both BG1 and 2 (including expansions) are considered classics with comparable review scores. However, BG2 was also a considerably larger game (BG3 promises to be far bigger than both) that benefited from the experience gained from making the original. BG2 also benefited from increased player engagement. It was the long-awaited final chapter, the culmination, of a particular story and the players had grown attached to their characters. All the big guns was pulled out for it not to be anti-climactic. But beyond level 20 this growth was over the top (while still remaining immersive due to the high-powered nature of the character/storyline). BG2 appeared more epic partly because of the sense of growth from BG1 starting with the lowly rats in cellar RPG-trope. Retrospectively those kobold commandos in BG1 seems a trifle, but they could decimate your party as fast as a dragon or lich on later levels.

Based on limited experience with D&D 5e (from my interest in BG3), the classes seem more front-loaded and sustainable while the power creep with level progress is less exponential; the numbers are not super-inflated and lower level mobs still may pose a threat - whereas a thousand hobgoblins is a walk in the park with Pathfinder (1) and older editions of D&D. That means more mobs stay somewhat relevant and that you may face those epic monsters while still not high level yourself. Of course, you may have to wait until BG4 to be able to cast all the spells that make you drunk with power. In my mind, this is a good thing.

You really need to let me talk to your GM about the proper use of hobgoblins in PF. They are nasty in cave environments for low-to-mid-level parties.

In the Classic "Red Hand of Doom" 3.5 module your main adversaries are the Red Hand army, and they are hobgoblins and bugbears with PC classes and it´s an advanced difficulty module, even the in the PF version.

Take a look at the CR of the hobgoblin enemies of the campaign. No way you beat thousands of those, not even dozens. The standard encounter is 3 +/- 2 creatures for a 4-player-party.



¿Maybe you've mistaken the videogames based in D&D and PF for the Tabletop? If that´s the case I do not think you can compare a videogame based on previous versions of D&D and Pathfinder with a session of the D&D 5e Tabletop.
It would be like saying that Hamilton and Schumacher are not such a good pilots because when you play "F1 racer" with them you made it 20s faster per lap in the videogame.

My point is not that the higher numbers means something. My point is that the damage numbers should be made in relation to the rest of the game. For eg, 10d6 damage on 2e is much greater than 10d6 damage on 3.5e.



IMO it is a problem. I don't think that a group of 60 goblins should have any chance with a lv 20 fighter with adamantine armor and a +5 halberd. A single cleave should...

I think the spirit of the D&D adventure is that a "level up" event should feel like a big accomplishment, no matter what number the new level is. It should not be something that happens three times in the same dungeon. I can remember the original Baldur's Gate when I finally got my mage to level 2, I felt like I earned it! Damn the wolves, now I have two sleep spells! That was a much more satisfying feeling than when I went from Level 22 to 23 in Throne of Bhaal, for example.

Now people think that less levels will actually help the game by letting developers focus on story? I will die, but I won't have seen all when it comes to gaming community lol and, honestly, what is a great story without great gameplay? This is Larian's philosophy!, They created co-op on Divinity and then they figured out later what kind of story and elements would revolve around the gameplay they were aiming, not the other way around!

Gamers believe in so many myths! "you can't have co-op in RPG games coz it will ruin the story" (this one is classic), "divinity will never work with controllers", "neverwinter nights can't be done on consoles", Diablo-like games would be terrible on joystick" etc etc etc

It seems to me some gamers only look at one direction and fail to see other possibilities.

Maybe they can't change that now because they'd have to change things in the game that would be hard to do because the game is not far away from releasing... But this argument that would be good to not change the level cap so developers can focus on story is nonsense. Gameplay comes first! Imagine baldurs gate with a great story, but terrible gameplay? It wouldn't be a success at all

>high levles are required for good gameplay.

lolololololollolololol

Well, this one is still to be proven false. At the very least, it's burning up a lot of resourced for a feature which means little to nothing to me in a computer RPG.

Because you are new to the game and because from lv 1 to 2 is a much more power gain than from lv 21 to 22.

The first time of everything is more enjoyable. Your first date is far more impactful than your 666th date.



If autoattacking and spending 80 hours killing bandits and kobolds is good gameplay, then yes. And lv 13 is not high level. Most people divide low level from 1 to 7, mid level from 8 to 14 and high level from 15 to 20.

Baldur's Gate 1 is most of the time low level and the final chapters mid level *
Baldur's Gate 2 is most of the time mid level and the final chapters, high level **
ToB is high level to epic level.

But is hard to say "is low level" or "mid level", because a Thief can reach level 23 on BG2:SoA without ToB expansion while a Sorcerer can only reach lv 17. And it makes sense, thieving arts seems far simpler than arcane spells, so should take far more to fully master the arcane arts. While with the ToB XP cap, a sorcerer can only reach lv 31, a Thief can reach lv 40.

But epic levels aren't that impactful. I mean, the difference between lv 1 to 10 and 10 to 20 is astronomical compared to 21 to 30... Unless we are talking about Netheril : Empire of Magic where Archwizards have floating cities where they rule and in order to do that you need to go epic. A lv 40 arcanist managed to steal the power of a deity. His name? Karsus. The strongest wizard of all time. See at 3:30 on the video bellow. He managed to do something comparable to Ao





A lot of RPG games had coop and worked well.

Many people tends to hate MP on RPG games because they think that it would make the game into another generic wow clone mmo. When in reality, the first graphic mmo, Neverwinter Nights from 1991 was extremely similar to Gold Box games, Dark Sun Online : Crimson Lands was extremely similar to Dark Sun "Offline". even Ultima Online was almost a copy of Ultima Offline.

Every mmo being a gear farming cooldown based wow clone is a modern plague, but this doesn't means that is the unique way to make a MP game.

>coop ruins your game has yet to disproven
ok.
I guess baldurs gate 1 and 2 were shit then.
Congratulations.
>means next to nothing
to you.
speak for yourself.

>Autoattacking
Thats the fault of 5e for beeing a shit system.
Good systems dont have autoattacking.
Also, on high level, youll have just the same ammount of auto attacking from the majority of your characters.

Thankfully, Larian is alleviating those problems by things like making shove or disengage a bonus aciton. Giving you more options.
this is not a "high or low" level rpoblem, its a problem about 5e beeing a system designed for the lowest common denominator and almost exclusiveley around dice rolls
for fucks sake that game doenst even have rules for flanking.

And yes the impact of level 10 to 13 might not be as impactfull between level 1 and 10, but thats also probably why that level range was chosen.



I fail to see whats the problem with the level range.
Theres no benefit to having more levels.

WHeres the difference between 100 hours from level 1 to 10 or 100 hours from 10 to 20?
Is the game less fun because your numbers are lower?

What i think this is about is wizard wank.
Its about those spell slots, because thats the actual difference between level 10 and level 20. The further you get, the more all powerfull casters get.

No, is not because the numbers are lower. Is because the adventures that a mid level party can face are far more interesting than a low level party.

On every low level D&D game/module, you don't fight dragons for eg. Nor Lirches, Rakshasas, nor can survive on elemental planes, it limits where your party can be and what they can face. The tactics that a party can use on combat among a lot of other things are also very limited on low level gameplay. High level gameplay in other hands, depends a lot on the DM.



But in one point you are right. Lv cap = 10 is not the worst thing that Larian could make.

I honestly would rather NOT HAVING arcane casters than having a ultra nerfed version of arcane spells like for eg, nwn2.

But using your own argument is silly, is no different than saying "a guy with a katana has no chance vs a guy with anti materiel rifle, stealth field, power armor and explosive .50 bmg rounds on fallout new vegas, so lets remove all firearms stronger than the .357 magnum revolver, in order to balance the gameplay, lets also remove deathclaws and other creatures" which is only less awful than the awful firearms on hellgate: london.

And as i've said many times. The unique way to not ruin arcane casters is by making martial classes more supernatural and a barbarians with warcries acting like spell like abilities, auras and other things can be cool and interesting. But people who wanna to solve everything with fast swinging blades, from a guy in plate armor, to insect swarms and iron golems would hate it(just look to arcanum. A lot of people hate ore golems which damages weapons if you had the dumb idea of using a sword against him BUT melee builds using technology or magic are quite powerful)

And note that BG1/BG2/BG3 are party based games, so chances are that you will have one caster in your party.

>the adventures a mid level party faces are more interresting
are they now?
thas up to you. the majority of play sessions in dnd 5e according to official sources go from level 1 to 7.

I perosnally enjoy starting out small and dealing with local problems and stumbling into a big sotry.
id say anything beyond level 13-14 is not interresting to me anymore because of how intangible it tends to get. Or how convoluted the story has to be for you to still give a shit about the average joe when you start to get so removed from him.
The elemental plains are a personal bugbear of mine, they are boring as fuck and they have no depth to them.
No story ive ever seen made me get excited about going into one of them.
Id rather do spelljammer while were at that.

I want that 1 to 10 expirience to be meaningfull and long.
and THEN i can enjoy the 10 to 20 expirience more.

I gotcha when you say mid level, i enjoy the level 5 to 10 dungoen crawling, when you start encountering the iconic DnD monsters but they are still highly lethal threats. In my opinion level 5 to 10-12 is when dnd is at its best.

but ultimatley this too is a matter of taste.

>Tactics are limited in a low level gameplay
this is where we gonna disagree on a fundamental level.
Tactics a high level party can employ arent tactics at all, they throw stuff at problems to make the problems disappear.
Tactics are somethign that only low to mid level parties actually utilize.
5e of course is a terrible system that requires House Rules and a good DM to allow any form of "Tactics" at all, because any tactical gameplay will be dependant heavily on Roleplaying and Mother may i.
But thats again a flaw of the system.

To me, tactics are good when preparing for a fight, positioning, flanking, choosing the locaiton of the encounter, using terrain and carefully restriting your ressources to not overocmit.
Tactics stop mattering when everyone can fly, cast fireball multiple times a day, see invisible enemies, conjure insane ammounts of damage, instantly disable traps and flat out ignore the terrain.

>caster wank

and again you misrepresent my point.
You act as if i want casters to be shit.

What i want is casters to not be so damn un fun.
And thats what they are.
Casters make problems go away instead of solving them. Casters do not provide good gameplay, they provide easy soltions.
Thats what i hate them.

I want casters to focus on cool shit like rituals, summoning monsters, controlling the battlefield, supporting and so on.
Stuff most games that arent dnd figured out.

What i dont want casters to do is trivialize other classes by spells like knock, or hell, cantrips like mend. I dont want casters to stop time willy nilly or teleport ot places they havent been to before.
And if they do so, they should be restricted to subclasses.
Ive made this poitn many times before and you keep ignoring it.

And yes, i want martials to have more options.
Note how i am at no point neither with martials nor wizards tallking about the POWER as in CADENCE of what they can do. Im talking about the UTILITY and the AMMOUNT OF OPTIONS they get.

And what i want is simple:

Casters to have LESS options
martials to have MORE options

Specifically i want them to meet in the middle of where they are right now. Every class should have TONS OF OPTIONS but only within their designated ROLE.
A Caster should never take the Role of a Rogue.
A Fighter should never takte the Role of a Wizard.

Its that simple. Stop misrepresenting my argument.

Sordak, i agree with many points of you. But for eg, most adventures of 5e being low level, i said about it on first page. About 5e being trash, i partially agree. 5e is like the "skyrim" of TTRPG's.

As for more specialized casters, look to warlock on 5e. Their spell selection is extremely limited and their patron can only teach few thematic fitting spells. You can easily do a similar homebrew rule and force wizards to take a "theme" and only learns spells consistent with that theme.

And i saw a adaptation to D&D even for low magical settings where magic is extremely dangerous. I don't remember the link but if i find, i will post. In nutshell, many spells like create food and water, teleport, knock, stop time, wish(...) are removed and there are only 2 classes with access to spells. Warlocks and Clerics. Clerics needs to follow a strict dogma and perform good actions to level up( in addition to the experience) and warlocks, they bargain with outsider creatures for eldritch knowledge(they don't borrow or draw their power like a cleric) and to create a lv 1 warlock or get a level on warlock by multiclassing, or leve up as a warlock, you need to do a ritual, and do a persuasion check and after the ritual, you get exhaustion "levels" and roll a bargain table. The creature can take parts of your soul, reducing permanently your WIS and CON score, gold, giving weakness to a element, a curse, request a quest or nothing and often will require a "tribute" that can be slaves, animals, gold, etc; Eldritch Blast is invisible to non supernatural beings(except higher level martial classes) and you don't have spell slots, instead, you need to roll to cast a spell and the DC becomes exponentially harder as the spell level advance and damaging spells blow up in your own hand if you fail on casting the spell. Summons can become hostile and so on.

That magical system is great? For a Conan themed game, yes. For a high magical game which starts with mindflayers spelljammer ship fighting dragon riders. no...

As for elemental planes, i could't disagree more. One of the most amazing moments that i had was when my party was on city of embers trying to bargain to get access to certain archives to solve a huge problem.

"5e of course is a terrible system that requires House Rules and a good DM to allow any form of "Tactics" at all"

wtf? 5e is a great system that puts the focus of the game on actual gameplay, combat, role-playing, etc, over number crunching and mathing. I realize the everyone on forums like this love to shit on Critical Role because its popular, but CR is a PRIME example of how great 5e is. 5e doesn't allow for tactics? patently false. And as far as house rules...people made house rules for every earlier edition of D&D as well, so saying you use house rules for 5e as well is a moot point.

>5e puts the focus on the game on actual gameplay
yes because dnd is only 3.5 and 5e. Theres no other editions.
And 3.5 still had more gameplay than 5e does.
3.5 has 5 feet step, 3.5 has flanking rules, 3.5 has combat maneuvers, 3.5 has charging. Granted none of these things work very well, but at least they are there. All of those are absent in 5e.

Positioning in 5e is completley pointless outside of AoE and opportunity attacks. you cannot gang up on an enemy without wasting a feat for the privilege of doing so, neither can you charge.

The edition that actually focuses on gameplay is the fourth one and people hated it for that reason.
ADnD and older editions also focused on the gameplay but did so remarkably better than 5e.

>patently false
how about you step out of your bubble and try some other system to see if what you are saying is actually correct.

I played 3.5e for years, 5e is better in every way

yeah exactly, you played 3.5 and now assume that every other ttrpg is also about math management.
5e did away with the needless bulk of 3.5

but it also did away with mechanics that worked for no reason other than accesibility. Gimping a bunch of classes in the process.
Theres no reason for Charge or flanking not beeing there.

Tell me about the tactics you can do in 5e in low levels.
And i mean tactics, not strategy. Im not talking stuff like dig pits and set up traps before an encounter

No, i don't assume every other ttrpg is just math management like 3.5 was.



It also fixed some important things, like casters getting cantrips that have unlimited uses. There is also official optional rulesets for things like flanking.


There are plenty of tactics you can use. You can grapple, fall prone to impose disadvantage on ranged enemies, take different actions like disengage/dodge/dash, use a help action, ready an action, use area of effect spells/effects, use the optional flanking ruleset, who knows how many skill tactics you can use like intimidate, persuade, etc etc etc (innumerable possibilities), tons of tactics with feats. I mean the list goes on and on, it's up to the imagination of the player to utilize good tactics but there are PLENTY of tools there for that in 5e.

I know people get very defensive when anybody says something about D&D5e but I played several PNP game systems so I can compare.
D&D puts his focus on roleplaying, indeed, but I think it`s often criticized for his lack of actual options in combat in comparison with other similar game systems. People get really emotional so I will try to put bare facts here.



Ok. No. I think the only reason you said that it´s because you do not know better game systems.

First of all, Persuade, intimidate, etc have roleplaying effects in combat determined by the DM in PNP games like Pathfinder as in 5e ( I mean they are RPG games too) but ALSO have mechanics that you can actually use in combat, like demoralize, feint, coerce, fascinate, etc.

I am going to use the typical warrior/fighter/etc types for simplification and because that role is in all the fantasy games. I will also put a few examples of basic classes and subclasses, and before anyone reply that "yeah, but that particular subclass or obscure recently UA subclass or multiclass character can do XYZ and can use some spells!" but I can assure you that for every 1 example you give me for 5e I can give you 10 examples of subclasses and multiclass characters in the other game systems that do many things too and can also use a lot of spells and unlimited cantrips.

All characters in all those games could use magic items they have or pick potions, fire flasks, and stuff from the inventory so that they would not be included in the comparisons.

So, we´re in combat, It´s your turn and your warrior can act. Let´s see what can I do and what tactical moves I have:

• 5E
  I´m a Fighter so I´m going to move and ATTACK. I´m level 11 so I´m going to ATTACK Twice or thrice. Maybe have a subclass or feature that allows me to add more damage to my ATTACK, like arcane archer that allows me to add elemental damage to my ATTACK or some special feats that I have to learn like charge that allows me to ATTACK from afar.
  Maybe I´m a barbarian or a paladin so I can use my class features like rage or smite evil that basically allows me to add more damage to my ATTACKS.
  I could also be a ranger, so I can mark my target and adding 1d6 damage to my ATTACK. Maybe I´m a hunter so I can ATTACK several targets too if I picked that feature.
  There are some combat maneuvers I can use instead of your ATTACK. Well, two combat maneouvers : Grappling an enemy, holding it in place, and SHOVE the enemy ¡5 entire feet! or knocking him into the ground.
  And then you can wait to swing the enemy with a AoO if it´s dumb enough to try to move nearby or maybe protect an ally of an attack with your shield IF you picked that specific feature and none of the other ones (because for some reason you could only have one combat style ever unless you multiclass) and have a shield.

• Pathfinder 2e
  
  I´m a warrior so I could move and ATTACK too, but since I´m trained in martial arts and knowledgeable in tactics and warfare, maybe I can do something else too:
  
  This enemy seems too good at dodging, so maybe I could use a FEINT to caught him unaware and lower his defenses against the next strikes for this round or several rounds if I critically suceed.
  
  I´m pretty intimidating so maybe I can use a fierce battlecry that demoralize de opponents, lowering his skills and saves so my fellow casters could take them out easily.
  
  I will try to move to position myself on the battlefield so I and my allies will flank the enemy, giving us combat bonuses against him (Unlike PF1&2 5e flanking is optional and many GMs do not use it because they feel that the bonuses it gives are "gamebreaking").
  
  I could also try to Grapple or TRIP the enemy, pushing him or knocking him down to get some combat bonuses against prone enemies(But unlike 5e, the enemy need to use an entire action to get up, in 5e they only lose half his movement, so it could get up, attack and move half his movement in its turn so it´s merely situational).
  
  My adversary is a skilled swordsman with a deadly weapon, so I´m going to try to DISARM it, knocking his weapon to the ground. Then I´m going to SHOVE him 5ft in the same turn. Unlike 5e you could automatically move to occupy the space after shoving an enemy, so I will move and place my foot over the weapon so it cannot even recover it while I´m here.
  An enemy is attacking my ally, so I will try a reposition maneuver, forcing him to swap positions with me and putting myself between it and my squishy party member.
  
  I´m the first line of defense, so after the ATTACK I am going to raise my shield and brace myself to BLOCK one strike against me in the enemy´s turn.
  
  I´m a ranger, so I will use my hunter´s prey to mark the enemy and unleash a volley of ATTACKS against him or making extra damage. But since I´m a veteran skirmisher I have some options too.
  My scout skills will allow me to give an initiative advantage to my all allies due to my heightened senses. I could study the enemy to assess his vulnerabilities and allow us to hit it where it hurts.
  I could make a PINNING shot, pinning the enemy in place.
  After that, I will order my faithful beast companion to bite the enemies down (In 5e you forfeit your attack action to allow your animal companion to attack, in PF2e both you and your companion can attack in the same turn. Your companion also level-up with you, increasing size, stats, etc) and will use our teamwork strikes to give debuffs to the enemies we attack.
  If I´m particularly bloodlust I will mount my faithful companion and we will both charge into melee to overrun the enemies with combined strikes.
  I could craft and use traps in the battlefield, giving unaware enemies some nasty surprises.
  
  Then I will be ready to use AoO to enemies that move nearby, or protect an adjacent ally with my shield, clock with my shield, dodge and retaliate, or if I´m a champion use my reactions to protect and use divine punishment in the enemies that attack my allies. If I´m a ranger I could make AoO with my ranged weapons too.

• TDE
  
  I´m a warrior or an amazon, so I will move and ATTACK. but I´m also trained in combat so I will study the battlefield and will try to pick the perfect strategy.
  I will use my offensive stances to smash the enemies or my defensive stances or bladewall if I´m surrounded. Maybe rage if i have the feature.
  My fencing moves depend on the weapons I´m wielding and my training, but I will just list what can I do to the enemies.
  Using my brute force I could knock down the enemies, dealing a Mighty blow, trip them, make a wrath strike so strong that the enemy is pushed.
  I could use feints to confuse the enemies and lower his defenses against my strikes
  If I´m surrounded I´ll just make a roundhouse blow, sweeping my blade against all the enemies around me.
  I could use my finesse to make several strikes in a row or using mortal blows or lunge towards the enemies to deal bleeding wounds, knowing that four wounds in a living enemy will kill it.
  I could use a precise shot or throw to improve my aiming and pierce their defenses, or unleash a rain of iron or arrows to the enemies.
  Then I will get ready for the enemy´s retaliation using master parry, windmill, etc.

And before you say anything I know I D&D5e you can roleplay that you can intimidate the enemies, make a bungee jump attack with a vine too but I will have to give you some news: Games like PF, TDE, Vampire, etc are ROLEPLAYING games, so you can actually say that you kick a table against the enemy, kick a table to cover behind, throw an arrow to the candlelamp so it can fall over the enemies, surprise the enemies to bang one heard against each other... like in any RPG game ever existing. If you are playing Vampire, TDE, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, Just ask your GM and possibly he´s going to laugh and say "You can certainly try". You do not really need to "roll a d20 for a creativity check and you can do something".
But in other games, you can roleplay your actions in combat and ALSO you get to make all those combat moves above. Those are legal moves, so the DM cannot refuse unless he has some reason, if you try to roleplay the DM could just say "no, you cannot do that".

I really cannot fathom why people just assume 5e is the first TRPG game ever made that allows roleplaying. It was always there: it's in the name. Even in 3.5.

If it never happened to you, you just were very unlucky with your GM and party members, because nothing in the rules of games like Vampire, TDE, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, etc forbids that.
And I can assure you that many 5e games played online, mostly text-based discord games are just number-crunching combat and skill checks, with the Avrae bot making all the combat rolls. If you take a look at the campaign log it´s like an excel spreadsheet. So the problem is not necessarily in the game system.

If you really want real story-focused, heavy-roleplaying games, with less dice-throwing you could try Anima, World of Darkness games (Vampire, Werewolf, channeling,...), Call of Cthulhu, etc.

My personal opinion is that creators of 5e tried to reach a middle ground between all of those games, which uses simplified rules to get a mix of dice-rolling, role-playing, and exploring. You can make good adventures with that but that puts a lot of work into the DMs and sometimes that simplicity is counterproductive in long campaigns if you are doing the same combo +30h because it´s all your character do. You know the saying: "Jack of all trades, master of none".

No-one said you cannot have fun playing 5e, it´s just a mechanics/rules comparison between game systems. I mean, people play extensively mobile games like Fate or Candy crush and they are fun, but no one can deny the mechanics are also very simple and requires fewer tactics than other videogames.




Uh, Nobody said anything about Critical role in this thread. Moreso, only a few posts talk about them in this forum in months, and many of them are your posts or posts quoting you. (just make a search with the words "Critical Role" in it)
http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php
It would be great if you do not bring grudges from other forums to this thread.

I´m more an Acquisitions Incorporated guy if I want to see some streaming but the things I watched of Matt Mercer show he is a very knowledgeable DM. That said, D&D5e is more than streamers and YouTubers.

well, thanks for summing that up, i wouldve been too lazy to do that

"Ok. No. I think the only reason you said that it´s because you do not know better."

You're an idiot. You intentionally leave 5e as a short little paragraph and then add a lot of fluff to the others. Whatever man, you do you.

You know you´re doing it right when all the arguments against your own are insults on a personal level.

I just summarized the "combat" chapters in the core manuals of those three PNP games and explain what the terms mean. All tactic options are in the manual. Anyone could check and tell. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Be polite. If you have nothing constructive to say then please don't.

Honestly you lost the argument when you said dropping prone was a tacitcal choice.

Dropping prone absolutely is a tactical choice.

Pretty much the only tactical choice you have besides attacking and attacking after attacking with your attacks for warriors... so give him this one, Sordak. He needs a win.

I get that 5e tries to be good to the lowest common denominator, but they could bring some combat manuvers from 4e to 5e as optional rules... So the game will be accessible and offers more diversity than "i attack". Give warcries from D2 barb can also help making martial classes less "i attack"

Since you insist on using fighters as an example, let's look at the PHB, shall we? As a battle master you get maneuvers, superiority dice, and a fighting style to use. At level 1 you get 4 superiority dice that resets after a short or long rest; so basically you get 4 for EVERY encounter. Should I list all 16 maneuvers for you? They give a fighter all the tactical options they could want as a fighter; melee or ranged.

The only coop oriented RPG I know of are Divinity: Original Sin 1&2. And while they have many merits, a lot of it's issues when played as a singleplayer RPG experience could be tracked back to coop centric design. It ruined the game for me but it's also series' biggest strenght.

Baldur's Gates weren't designed around Coop. You can add Battle Royale and lootboxes, if it doesn't affect singleplayer campaign I don't really care. FiraXCOM1&2 have multiplayer. I don't care. But if FiraXCOM3 is primary a coop or multiplayer game I will raise my eyebrows, complain and either not buy the game at all, or wait for deep deep sale. Many RPGs in the past had multiplayer, but it wasn't a central concept around which every design decision revolved. Companions, quests, conversation wouldnt be designed the way they were, if that was a case. Neverwinter Nights was... surprise, I really don't like the game. Any of it. Even campaigns which aren't completely awful - even at it's best NWN had nothing to offer to me

As I stated many times before - it's great to have a coop-centric RPG series. I find it unappealing, as I can't imagine finding a friend or a couple with whom I could beat a 80h campaign, but it's cool it is there, and that there is audience for that. I don't even care that much that BG3 will most likely not appeal to me. But it is still series that have special place in my heart, and the demo they showed gave me a shred of hope that I might like at least some of it. At the same time, I do see a lot of coop designs moved over from D:OS2, which made me not enjoy that game. I went so far as to play through entire D:OS2, take notes, and write lengthy feedback in hopes it might at least in some way help Larian satisfy people like myself.

Singleplayer and mutiplayer games are different kind of experiences. I cannot think of a single game which would do both very well (possibly Starcraft2 and Warcraft3?). Baldur's Gates did single-player really well, and had underwhelming mutliplayer feature, which some people seemed to enjoy anyway. Divinities offer great multiplayer experience, and pretty mediocare singleplayer experience, though still there are those who managed to enjoy it. Which one BG3 will be? I wish for the former but I expect the latter.

Yeah, for one subclass, congrats D&D 5e. I pity the ones that want to play anything that is not a battle master. I hope they play in roll20 and could make a Macro with "I Attack" and "I attack again" because that's what they are going to do in any combat in the next 60h of the campaign. Saves you a lot of time.
And you forgot to mention that you could only learn 3 of those if you want another you have to replace it. Some of them are merely additions to your ATTACK!


A vanilla fighter, ranger or monk in PF2e has a higher number of manoeuvres like that from starters, and then you can get multiclass archetypes etc.

A ranger skirmisher of PF1e has 15 to choose, a swashbuckler over 8, first at level one, a gunslinger (not the DND5e dumbslinger, the original one of PF) over 12 deeds; and it's only one of the 30 classes and archetypes you may have. And that adds to the combat manoeuvres that any character can do (As I posted them before, they are much more than 3).

Look, it´s ok if you have fun with 5e. Me too. It´s like a mobile game, I spend hours in candy crush and have a field day with it. It doesn´t have to be complicated. It's simple, its fun, You do not have to justify yourself that you like it and enjoy playing it. I do.

But when you try to convince someone that a Mobile game like Candy crush is a tactical masterpiece that requires planning, knowledge and a strategic mind and compares to the tactical depths of Civilization and Total war... That´s just insulting to the intelligence of your listeners, man.

But since insulting seems to be your jam, at least you are consistent.

I never said 5e was a tactical masterpiece, but thanks for misrepresenting my argument. Comparing 5e to a mobile game like candy crush is ridiculous, but you've made up your mind so there's no point in arguing further.

Yeah, you´re right. Candy crush has a better fanbase and you need more than 2 buttons (move&attack) to play it.

Again yet another of your posts without presenting facts that counter my arguments, so there was never a discussion from starters.

>using the battlemaster as an example for tactical options in 5e
the battlemaster is the cherry on top.
the battlemaster is a "what could have been".

Even the battlemaster cant charge attack. He cannot flank.
you need an entire subclass to get the options that every class had in other games.

Note how this subclass is ofthen referred to as the de-facto fighter class exactly beacuse of that.
note how numerous paladin builds dip into battlemaster specifically to get those options.

Batltemaster is an argument against 5e, not for it.
The superioity die mechanic was SUPPOSED to be the mechanic martials use in 5e, only they scrapped it.
Just like they scrapped 5 foot step, just like they scrapped charge and locked it behind a feat.

Thats the entire issue with 5e, it locks all those "options" behind mutually exclusive choices and feat tax.
You want the Mark feature? better play a Cavaleer fighter, you get that at level 3. You want combat maneuvers? better be a battlemaster, oh you get that on level 3. You want to fear people in an AoE? yep, paladin subclass level 3 You want to be able to charge an enmy? better get that feat, level 4.
You want to be able to shield an ally? better get Protective Fighting style.

Note how in order to do all those things at once, youd need to multiclass and essentially have at least 9 levels to do all those things.


meanwhile, a Dragonborn Fighter in 4e does all of these things and more at level 1

Hell yeah, if Battlemaster was the vanilla fighter as first intended so you can choose another subclass and combat styles would improve with levels like the caster`s cantrips and the official Ranger would be the 2019 RR I´m sure many people will be happier playing martial classes. Not perfect, not comparable with other PNP games but it´s an improvement.



If you are playing a campaign, a one-shot... joking with your fellow players, roleplaying, taunting the enemies, having fun in the combat, you may not have a problem with playing a ... lets call it option-handicapped class like a fighter or a barbarian.

Warrior-types also usually have less support and utility options than other classes. Even the skill powerhouses of the rogues often cannot compete in utility with some wizard builds, so usually a Fighter often do not have much to offer outside combat if you compare it with other classes in D&D5e.

Since BG3 is going to be a videogame, and moreover, a multiplayer game and a Turn-based game (So you cannot put your fighters in autoattack to strike automatically instead of order them ATTACK, ATTACK ATTACK every turn) I concur with @SorcererVictor and @Sordak, I think some overhaul of the fighters would be needed to give them more options in combat than "I attack" for 50 h in the campaign because the rules of DND5e right now do not offer options outside homebrews.

which is an important bit to note here.
in a video game, you lack the leeway a DM gives you

Rangers are probably the class which needs more love on 5e. Among the caster classes, warlocks are probably the less versatile(but still far more versatile than martial classes)

Yeah, that´s my point, You cannot ask the game engine "Can I intimidate the goblins so they run in fear?" "Can I taunt the ogre using insults to attack me instead of my squishy party member? " May I throw my shield to the Ettercap´s head?" "I want to shoot an arrow into the cyclops`eye to blind it if its allowed".

Well, I mean you can, but If it answers you I recommend you to call the nearest daycare clinic and set an apointment just in case.


The lack of a human DM could be a little taxing to all characters but in the case of Fighters, rangers, barbarians it could be "crippling". Not in combat value, because they fight pretty well, but in tedium and repetitiveness.

What LArian can do in a adaptation is convert things COMMONLY asked in tabletop into "manuvers". Just like Wish on BG2 can't do 1% of wish in P&P but a lot of players asks for XP, for killing all enemies, etc; some times the wish is perverted, eg, if you wish XP a lot of powerful enemies will spawn and kill then to get the XP :P

So, if ranger players tends to ask the DM "can i use that plants to craft poison and poison my arrows", we can make it a ability. Try to intimidate like a Barbarian can be also converted into a ability. Same with decapitation. It can be covered into a ability. "i picked sand and trowed into enemy eyes" from a rogue also can be converted into a ability. It will not give 1% of the things that Martial classes can do on P&P with a human DM but will make then far better.

Archers on BG1 where great due the sheer amount of amazing special arrows that they can use.

I agree. In some editions of D&D (namely D&D 3.5) dropping prone grants you a +4 bonus to Armor Class vs ranged attacks; and you can also use a crossbow while lying prone.

In D&D5e, the game we are talking about, it´s different:




Ranged attackers have disadvantage against you, but if the enemies move into melee they attack you with advantage and you have disadvantage in all attacks.

pretty much, d ropping prone is never a good option. Its much better to go into evade and just move your highest movement.

Dropping prone would only be usefull if you are in a situation where you have no ranged weapon, no cover and are beeing attacked by range characters that you cannot reach, such as when you are on a boat or somehting.

In this case congratulations, your "tactical choice" of dropping prone is because your character would otherwise be useless

Also, probably, if you are outnumbered in ranged combat, dropping pone would disadvantage the opposition more than you, depending on the combatants' relative abilities.

not realy since you sitll shoot back just as bad.

If boht you and the enemy have disadvantage, the relative situation remains identical

No, it depends on the number of attack rolls that are disadvantaged for each side. If you have 2 ranged attacks per turn, and your opponents have 7 ranged attacks, you are better off dropping prone since statistically you will have a better damage ratio per turn if you do so. It will, however, lengthen the number of turns taken to complete the combat.

EDIT: This is a simplification that assumes you are superior to the enemy but outnumbered, since the chance to hit and damage done per attack by you and your opponents needs to be factored in to determine if dropping prone is a good idea. Disadvantage makes the likelihood of hitting non-linear, which changes the way you need to look at damage per turn calculations.

Ok, prone is a tactical cool thing that you can make on 5e. Now look how many things Pathfinder 2e and even D&D 4e allows his users... Rangers on 5e are probably the most lackluster class ever. And is possible to make rangers great. Just look to Rangers on Dragon's Dogma. I know, a action game, but most longbow skills can be translated to another game. Great gamble is probably the hardest skill to translate. But it can be translated.

Martial classes on 3.5e had cleave, disarm, grapple, knockdown(...). We could also add throw dirt inflicting temporary blindness on a failed save, decapitate, etc; if the DM allow improvisation on combat and if we wanna makes martial classes supernatural too, we can even add warcries, auras and other cool stuff for high level martial classes.

That IMO would be cool. Just like the caster can use a cloudkill to destroy a low level army on 3.5e and weaken mid to high level enemies, a barbarian able use a warcryes and make enemies who fails a save run in terror or die from fear, would be cool. When someone mention MID/HIGH level barbarian in a fantasy setting, i imagine Guts from Berserk fighting on Berserk armor, decapitating hordes of demons and making human enemies run in fear just by seeing him, not a guy "i attack" and "i attack", now "i attack"... And i honestly don't even know if i would consider him high level. For me, he is mid level. Similar to Thoth-Amon on Conan(to compare him with a arcane caster)

They really should put a "Like" button in this forum =D

Agreed to that, mate. Hope they take this and other ideas for martial classes for the game.

Mike "The Ranger is fine as it is youre just playing wrong" Mearls is still responsibe for the video game section of WOTC and Crawford is notoriously not any better.

so i wouldnt beholding my breath

That does worry me. Mearls isn't a name that mean anything to me.

As I see it Greenwood created the Forgotten Realms setting, R.A. Salvatore wrote the books that made it famous. And then guys in charge of 4th edition blew up Fearun. Greenwood was moved to the back office and Salvatore was told "we killed all but two of your characters -- just deal". After 4th edition crashed and burned, Greenwood and Salvatore were brought back to heal the wound WoTC inflicted upon itself .

The test of whether this is a successor to BG2 will come down to the quality of the story telling. Do the NPCs seem 'alive', is the story compelling and such. And that's where an endorsement from Salvatore, Greenwood or any of the BG2 authors would mean much more than anything Mearls has to say.

Anyway, Larian have solved the problem of DnD Martials having no options...you can throw your boots!

Now all we need is access to a stock of:
- boots of disarming
- boots of knockdown
- boots of warcry
- ...

When i talked that i don't think that arcane and martial difference is a problem, i was thinking that the unique way to solve that problem is by making casters equally boring. Converting things that people generally do eg "can i intimidate that guy" into abilities can IMO makes martial more versatile, like arcane. And when i mean arcane, i mean warlocks, not wizards which has literally unlimited versatility when they get wish(of course wish limitations is up to the DM, but theoretically, a circle 9 wizard can do anything or at least try). And even if the lv cap is raised, i don't think that demiplane, astral projection and etc will be in the game.

About auras and other supernatural elements, If high level undead warriors can get auras on previous editions, why not give auras to high level living warriors? I know that some mythic paths for Pathfinder WoTR will probably allow that but i don't have much information yet. On 2e times, Paladins was among the most popular classes.



LOL...

We don't need boots or magical items to allow martial classes to knockdown or disarm enemies.

And note that 5e has a attenument and concentration rules, so you can't cast a endless amount of buffs and wear 10+ magical items.

Yup. We can have basic magic weapons and armor but the good stuff requires attunement and each character can have only three attuned items.

At 3:25 on community update https://youtu.be/-YsT9eQ_CO4?t=205


It is serious? Underdark in a low level game? I had troubles on underdark as a high level on nwn:hotu and BG2: SoA.

So on one hand you want it to be higher level on the other hand you want lower levels to be less interresting?
Id like to point out that Descent into Avernus lts you go to literal hell at a pretty low level.

IDK about the current 5e setting, but in older Underdark Books, the thing was pretty much seperated into multiple layers. Which were different in level range, so unless you waltz into a Drow city you probably got a fighting chance

Plus you have a tadpole ( could nobody come up with a less naff name ? ) which will doubtless provide you with countless unexpected benefits, such as auto-nerfing your opponents so that you have a chance of killing more than rats and goblins.

Yeah, It´s a little weird that you could fight Underdark enemies at a low level, but to be honest, I prefer fighting Myconids, intellect devourers, demons and some than +100 kobolds and goblins. Good stuff.

5e is not as equipment-dependent, low-level characters are somewhat competent and the gap between levels is not that huge in terms of stats, armour, BAB, saves, etc as in previous editions ( I.E. In 5e your saves, base attack and skills improve with your proficiency after a set number of levels, in previous editions your saves, BAB, skills,... usually improves every level-up) so it could be done, I think.

No, my fear is that they will nerf underdark monsters to make it less harsh.

My experience playing low level D&D adapted games says that or become boring kobold slaying game or complete unfair battles where you need to min/max your build to pun pun levels. I know that on TT is different.



For me, is on mid levels when D&D shines. Low level you have no variety. High level to epic level, is only great IF the DM is pretty smart and good. As for 5e having less gap, the 3.5e gap applies to monsters too. A skeleton chieftain can kill 40+ skeletons on 3.5e.

Levels matters less on 5e but numbers matters far more.

>unfair battles
well thats larians style.
Make the battles realy hard btu give you the tools to succeed.

Thats what they do best. You can do this in a video game cause its not the TT, in the TT if you overtuned battles, you die. In a video game you can save and load, you can take your sweet time. I think its a good way to do things.
An thats what the underdark should feel like to me. Beeing heavily outgunned. I dont think you need to only get into an area when youre the right level for it. That kind of thinking coems from MMORPGs, not from CRPGs or PnP games.

also
>low level has no varierty
i beg to differ. DnD has tons of low level monsters. 5e naturally lacks character agency at low levels, but then again so did ODnD.
In the tbaletop, a lot of the low level fun comes from doing unusual things with the rules that isnt on your character sheet.
I mean thats one of the core tenants of OSR, the solution to your problems i sprobably not on your charsheet.
Thats what low level play should be

Yep; you are right. A battle vs zuggtmoy on P&P is far harder than on a computer game due the fact that you can try all day. But still, considering that descend to arvenus goes up to lv 13, i believe that a CRPG inspired on it should end on mid levels too.

Is that less believable going from beating Seravok into Siege of Dragonspear and fighting a liche, a mind flayer, an adult green dragon, a devil named Bhelefit then getting captured by Irenicus and fighting goblins in BG2?

i dont think anyone here takes siege of dragonspear seriously

I don't think that Larian should take SoD as a inspiration... Anyway, i strongly believe that Belhifet is extremely nerfed on SoD. Seriously, when i tried to solo IWD, i din't had problem with any boss, except him. Had to lower the difficulty from insane to normal and years later, when i soloed again, i had to try 12 times to beat him on insane.

Here is the average score for SoD on GoG


Maybe underdark can be interesting. Did you played Gothic 2? When you get into valley of mines, you will have a really hard time against anything on chapter 2. If you got claw of beliar, then maybe you can lure a ork and take only one of then at time, but not the strongest orks nor the strongest wild animals. On late game, when you are strong enough, it becomes so satisfying to clear a area which you could't do anything before... Maybe the underdark is a late game area which you need to be extremely careful. And maybe you can enter in the same area on a DLC or BG4 with more power.

An adventure where you need to escape from underdark avoiding combat, mainly against many foes can be interesting. But i don't wanna fight a Dracolich like Vix'thra on a low level campaign... Run from him and try to escape is ok. Defeating him, is not.

There are enemies to use for a low-level Underdark setting. Not every cave in the Underdark is filled drow Matron mothers and high-level monsters...often the upper tunnels that lead to the surface house mostly low-level cave-dwellers but there are plenty of creatures to keep it interesting.

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/6hswjz/dming_monsters_of_the_underdark/

Myconid CR 0,

Drow CR 1/4, Grimlock CR 1/4, Kuo-Tao CR 1/4, Vegepygmy CR 1/4,

Chitine CR 1/2, Deep Gnome (Svirfneblin) CR 1/2, Myconid Adult CR 1/2, Piercer CR 1/2, Rust Monster CR 1/2, Gazer (Beholder) CR 1/2,

Duergar CR 1, Kuo-toa Whip CR 1, Quaggoth Spore servant CR 1, Thorny CR 1,

Ettercap CR 2, Grick CR 2, Quaggoth CR 2, Vegepygmy Chief CR 2,

Hook Horror CR 3, Cave Fisher CR 3, Choldrith CR 3, Spectator CR 3

Oh, I agree. Doesn't change the fact that it happened. Besides, we don't know what level we enter the Underdark or how deep into it we go. That could be late game material when we're closer to level 8-9 and we don't go deep into it for all we know.

Hopefully we'll see more in the gameplay reveal this Thursday since Swen did mention the Underdark.

I take SoD seriously. It's a good expansion. When looking at the score you need to understand that the rating were bombed. If you haven't played it you should -- I've seen it on sale for something like 13 bucks or so.

It's not flawless -- overly linear, low replay value -- but plenty of hours of play, good loot, and some fun banters.

And WotC takes it seriously.

WotC also appears to take the stupid baldurs gate novel seriously.
Not exacrtly a high bar then.

Off topic rant...

I think SOD reviews were bashed intentionally. The expectations were too great, the intifnity engine fans and Baldur's gate fans were ruthless and unpleasable. The game was doomed to live up to the hype, nevermind the expectations. It just couldn't succeed.

And despite all that, I think it was really good for what it was. For those who haven't played it, do it. It's the last of its kind (infinity engine), and if you're a true BG fan, you have to give it a try. And for those who don't want to try it because you've heard about ''that'' plothole, and ''that'' line spoken by ''that'' character, well, get over it. If your willing to not try a game you were waiting for because of what you heard or, worse, try it but making a point not to like it because of moral issues and not taking it for what it truly is, a GAME, than maybe your not a real BG fan after all.

End off topic rant

Turning this rant into something on topic.

I think that the same issues of Infinity Engine and Baldur's Gate purists exist for BG3. There are people, especially on the Steam forums, who just will not let the fact that the game is four person party (that we know of) and TB rather than RTwP somehow disqualifies it from being a Baldur's Gate game.

I can say with some confidence that there will be people who buy this game just to give it a negative review because it isn't perfectly what they want a Baldur's Gate game to be.

I bought all the Beamdog updated versions of IE games both to support them in what they were doing and to have easy access to them should I want to replay them.

I have not ignored SOD because of reviews; I would not expect a game in a 20 year old engine to be particularly special, so I would not expect it to review well either.

But I also have little interest in new games being written in really outdated engines. There are clear limits to what Beamdog can do with IE, and I prefer they put their efforts into improving newer engine tech, which is what they are doing.

I don't ignore SoD, but it does give a few good lessons on what not to do. It's like having a DM in a D&D campaign who just railroads the party because they have a story and they're sticking to it. It also has challenges for the players that are fun and engaging but don't make narrative sense since it takes place between BG1 and 2. We go from fighting dragons and devils to getting kidnapped and fighting goblins.

I think Siege of Dragonspear's biggest problems is its narrative dissonance since it was just kind of put in between two games.

True. Beamdog knew where they started and knew where the game should end because there was already a game right after that in the time line, hence the railroading. But we ALL knew that going in, so every body acting pissed because it's too linear, honestly, what did you expect? We all already knew the ending, dont act surprised🤦‍♂️

I'm not surprised at all, merely voicing an issue with Siege of Dragonspear. The Baldur's Gate games are still fun, there are plenty of creatures in the Underdark, not all are meant for higher level parties.

I mean, I just look at Critical Role. The very first arc they streamed in Campaign 1 took them to the Underdark where they were fighting Durogar and infiltrating a city of Mind Flayers and I think they were all level 7-9 at the time. So depending on how things go in Baldur's Gate 3 it can make sense for our characters to be in the Underdark but not too deep into it.

Ah well. I enjoy the Baldur's Gate games and I'm looking forward to early access this August (maybe).

[/quote]I'm not surprised at all, merely voicing an issue with Siege of Dragonspear. The Baldur's Gate games are still fun, there are plenty of creatures in the Underdark, not all are meant for higher level parties.
.[/quote]

Yes, they are fun, even today. Wasn't trying to sound like an ass btw, wasn't targeting you. It's all good 👍 I'm more worried about the "hardcore" BG fan that will probably buy BG3, play it, enjoy it, and still trash talk it on the forums because it wasn't this and that... These guys are stuck in 1998 there's just nothing to do about it.

Puff I do not think it´s the novel (At least I hope so), it´s because Abdel Adrian, wich sadly is the name of the main character of the novel, became the canon baalspawn "Hero of Baldurs gate" in the lore (he even appears in "Murder in Baldurs gate")

This is not truth. If you read the negative reviews, you will see a lot of reasonable arguments. But only because someone is criticizing something, doesn't means that people would't buy...



Well, Neverwinter from 1991 was the first graphical mmorpg and was turn based. Neverwinter nights changed it to real time with pause and NOBODY criticized NWN1/2 by it. In fact, Larian is far more experienced with turn based and other RtWP games like Pathfinder Kingmaker/Wrath of The righteous and PoE 2 Deadfire are getting turn based options.



Considering that we got a lot of TRASH D&D adaptations, mobile cashgrabs, sword coast legends, neverwinter mmo, and arguably, SoD is decent compared with that titles, i see that they will probably purchase BG3. Even if they criticize it.

IMO BG3 will be great. Good as BG2? No. I will play more than Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous? Probably not. A game which you can even become a lich and reanimate bosses seems far more interesting to me than a low level game.

Is not that for me it is a necessity, is just that i don't see lichdoom on CRPG's since M&M VIII - Day of the destroyer.

Negative reviews huh? Was the game buggy? Not really. Did they change the engine or mechanics? Nope, still the crappy infinity engine. Did they change the scenery? No, still good old Baldur's Gate, plus some really interesting new places. Did they change the characters? No, pretty much the same friendly faces plus some new ones. Poor writing? Let's say different, more actual, since there is about 20 years between games. Still, not particularily bad. Story? It was good for an expension, and even tied to some other IE game.

Si if everything above is at least good, and you still bash the game and give it negative reviews, than you probably had way too high expectations for this, wich doesn't mean the products is bad, it just didn't live up to your standard.

Again, it is just my opinion, not talking about you specifically 👍

I think the narrative of SoD was great, and Caelar particularly shone. They were really able to pull off a villain that is lawful good, and a gigantic bitch.
The problem of SoD is the encounter design, which is what makes you realize it was made by another team. Fighting liches, dragons, vampires, demons with a severely underleved party gets tiresome. In the end I was exhausted.

Can't agree of belhifet though. In IWD you can get to like level 16+, whereas in SoD you'll cap at 11~12. What makes it even more absurd is that maybe it is not even the hardest fight in SoD.

I din't purchased SoD, so i can't have a honest opinion, only say what i've heard about it.

But talking about video games adaptations, all iterations of underdark that i know are high level to epic level.

• NWN1 - HotU starts at lv 15. And you only goes down to the underdark on chapter 2.
• BG2 you only venture on underdark when you have the slayer form and has a six party member
• DDO menace of the underdark is a high level/epic level campaign.

But maybe i an wrong. IF one thing that i learned is that you can't judge Sween by his words. He said "missing obvious not work", "spell slots aren't intuitive" among other things and the gameplay that i saw seems great. I can only judge how underdar will gonna be when i see it Note that spell slots is not something which only D&D uses. FF 1 and Dark Souls 1/2 uses it too.

I really can't see why so many people are confused that there would be an Underdark portion to BG3 for lvls 1-10...you can make low level Underdarks settings very easily. the highest levels of the underdark usually have low CR monsters

I´ll not be too worried about it.

In the previous gameplay footage, two level-1 characters beat an encounter with three intellect devourers so I think the tadpole in your head gives you an advantage or the enemies are toned down to be an equal to your low-level characters.
The intellect devourers are CR7 creatures, and widely known as party-killers. It was strange when I found out they can be killed with a boot. Gotta try that next time.
Now seriously, in the gameplay the Intellect devourers did not use some of their signature moves, they just attack so I think we´ll find enemies modified and balanced to match our low-level party.

There also options for low level creatures in the underdark too, but after watching the gameplay footage I do not think that´s what Larian aims. Anyway, some low-level monsters could be found to use it in settings like Menzobarranzan, etc.

Flumph (cr 1/8, mm 135); easy, 25 xp
Giant Rat (cr 1/8, mm 327); deadly, 50 xp
Wretched Sorrowsworn (cr 1/4, mtf 233); hard, 50 xp
Derro (cr 1/4, mtf 158); hard, 50 xp
Flumph (cr 1/8, mm 135); easy, 25 xp
Wretched Sorrowsworn (cr 1/4, mtf 233); hard, 50 xp
Goblin (cr 1/4, mm 166); hard, 50 xp
Xvart (cr 1/8, vgm 200) and 1 x Giant Rat (cr 1/8, mm 327); deadly, 50 xp
Grimlock (cr 1/4, mm 175); hard, 50 xp
Flumph (cr 1/8, mm 135); easy, 25 xp
Kobold Dragonshield (cr 1, vgm 165) and 2 x Kobold (cr 1/8, mm 195); deadly, 250 xp
Skulk (cr 1/2, mtf 227); easy, 100 xp
Minotaur Skeleton (cr 2, mm 273); medium, 450 xp
Kuo-toa Whip (cr 1, mm 200) and 1 x Kuo-toa (cr 1/4, mm 199); medium, 250 xp
Shadow (cr 1/2, mm 269); easy, 100 xp
Quaggoth (cr 2, mm 256); medium, 450 xp
Kobold Scale Sorcerer (cr 1, vgm 167) and 2 x Kobold (cr 1/8, mm 195); deadly, 250 xp
Piercer (cr 1/2, mm 252); hard, 200 xp
Firenewt Warlock of Imix (cr 1, vgm 143)

Wizards of the Coast had a complete campaign that took place in the Underdark with characters starting at level one.

https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/outoftheabyss

So I am sure Larian can Descend into the Underdark for some low-level encounters.

And that's a great module. The first part is bit of meat grinder but that seems to be a pattern with the 5th ed modules. Excited to go the underdark.

quoting from WoTC "A Dungeons & Dragons adventure for characters of levels 1–15"

I din't read the module but i believe that you will be spending most of low level times on Upperdark and will not even see the Lowerdark...



My guess is that or Larian will nerf the enemies completely or you will only stay on upperdark.

Upperdark or Lowerdark? Still part of the Underdark.

Just like the first floor or second floor or basement can still be part of the Inn.

I´ll be happy if they do not "Pull on a Siege Of Dragonspear" too much and make us fight severely nerfed ilithids, baatezus, dragons, Ropers, etc only to be able to say that you fight epic encounters with a lower level party in the game...
Not saying that you should be fighting kobolds and goblins for 50 hours, but not fighting intellect devourers at level one either; just using the stat block of a goblin and make it look like a stronger creature (like an intellect devoured) only to let the players think it´s a more challenging and cooler fight (when it´s only a glorified goblin ambush/rats in the cellar fight).