Is it just my impression or enemy casters have unlimited spell slots?
If that's the case I believe this should be rectified as it makes fights quite unfair.

They have unlimited Cantrips but should not have unlimited spells slots.. they should have the same amount of spells as casters of that class. So a level 3 Wizard enemy should have 4 level 1 slots and 2 level 2 slots..

I am not so sure, in the goblins hall there was a lv2 human wizard who cast Command a ridiculous amount of times.

If you raise enemies you can see they have more spell slots than a player could have. Not unlimited, just more. Most of the time they have higher stats too. The player is almost always the underdog. It's similar in TT if you are curious.

Yeah, I also get the feeling they have waaaay more spell slots than they should? I certainly hope I wrong about that.

They do indeed have far more spell slots than they should; as Aishaddai mentions, you can raise a variety of them with Glut to see this, since they come up with their full ability set. It's not just one or two extra; it's more like a level 5 character with eight 1st level slots, six 2nd level slots and four 3rd level slots... while others have custom homebrew 'abilities' which emulate 1st or 2nd level spells that they can use unlimited as bonus actions.

This is NOT at all the way it goes in TT (and if it is you should probably get a new DM); enemies play by the same rules as you except in very specific exceptional circumstances.

Enemies rarely follow the same rules as players. This is quite common for the AI to have any chance against the player. This isn't a big problem.

Only players have levels. Enemies have challenge ratings with custom rules. To me its the same principal. You do not follow the same rules as enemies in this sense.

Yea and that's especially necessary when the players have so much WTF OP tools the ennemy won't ever use...

They're really bad at balancing combats.
Can't understand how they can miss that using the rules of a game that had already done all the job for them...

They should have use a D&D encounter builder...

In base 5e enemies don't really follow player rules too closely, though having every spell caster have more spell slots than an average wizard is eh to me. Arguably some casters should have less, like a gobbos shaman could cast less spells a day than a trained drow wizard.

To all those saying that enemies don't follow the same rules as players... Yes. In 5e, they generally do.

For example....

Archmage; quintessential high-end spellcaster enemy.

Archmage is a CR 12 creature, able to pose a moderate but not overwhelmiong threat to a group of 3-4 level 12 player characters.

In the Archmage block there is this section:

"Spellcasting. The archmage is an 18th-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 17, +9 to hit with spell attacks). The archmage can cast disguise self and invisibility at will and has the following wizard spells prepared:

Cantrips (at will): fire bolt, light, mage hand, prestidigitation, shocking grasp

1st level (4 slots): detect magic, identify, mage armor*, magic missile

2nd level (3 slots): detect thoughts, mirror image, misty step

3rd level (3 slots): counterspell, fly, lightning bolt

4th level (3 slots): banishment, fire shield, stoneskin*

5th level (3 slots): cone of cold, scrying, wall of force

6th level (1 slot): globe of invulnerability

7th level (1 slot): teleport

8th level (1 slot): mind blank*

9th level (1 slot): time stop

*The archmage casts these spells on itself before combat."

This is exactly the spell capabilities an 18th level player character wizard would be expected to have, with the exception that the enemy spellcaster has a slightly lower save DC and attack bonus than the equivalent player Wizard would have, because the archmage is only rated at Pb+4, while an 18th level character is Pb+6.

They absolutely DO use the same rules and limitations as player characters, and do not generally cheat the rules with excessive extra casting capabilities. Resorting to cheating the stats is a sign of a poor GM, poor balance, or poor game design.

Enemies having more spell slots or higher stats is poor design. It makes your player character feel inferior when you find that out through examining the enemies.

Why are we limited to 28 point buy and how did some random miniboss get much higher stats? Why does your PC, the hero, look like a commoner compared to random NPCs?

It feels unfair in a bad way.

Take Minthara for example. She's not threatening in any way, one of the easiest fights. But her stats are much higher than your PCs, probably to make her a tougher opponent. But they could have designed her as a level 8 Cleric with lower stats instead. She could actually be a better fight and a real threat with 4th level spells. You would defeat a higher level enemy who uses impressive powers unavailable to you.

That would be unfair in a good way.

Some npcs have higher walking speeds than they should, like 12m per round. Npcs like Minthara, for example. I may be remembering it wrong, but I think I saw a gnome with this speed as well. Maybe they all have it. I'll check if I remember tomorrow.

@Niara The CR system is messy when it comes to certain things. CR is in reference to how it as a enemy can challenge a group of adventures. Depending on the level range of the campaign you have to account for things as a DM like which items you reward to your players and team composition for example. Like a bandit at cr3 can have more hp and multi attack than a fighter at level 5.

For a campaign you don't have to adjust anything and could simply pick an enemy from a higher challenge rating or you can severely limit what rewards a party can attain or you can make some changes. Regardless an enemy from the campaign can, but does not have to, follow the same rules to the letter as players.

Their are all sorts of supplement books out there to help make campaign's. Some players, if you let them, will stomp an encounter into dust if you aren't careful. Some challenge without overwhelming the players helps.

The key point here is that the Archmage is a CR 12 creature but an 18th level caster. So in BG3 it'd be given the designation of "level 12" but would be able to cast 9th level spells, something no level 12 player can do.

Similarly, A "level 2" human would likely be a 3rd- or 4th-level spellcaster, which would give them access to 6-7 spell slots.

As Niara and Aishaddai said, a enemy with a CR of X needs to pose some kind of threat to the entire party, which is why they often have better abilities (spells, multiattack) then an equivalently-leveled party member.

I'm well aware; CR is a guideline, and has been moderately carefully balanced using a set of rules that add up and calculate a creature's offence CR and defence CR, and along with other modifiers work together to create the final projected challenge rating for the creature - being a projection of a moderate but not overwhelming threat to a party of between three and four player characters of a level equal to the projected CR. I am very well versed in all of this, and use it along with the necessary adjustments to make custom creatures quite regularly as and when I need to for a game.

Because CR represents a moderate threat to a party, a well rested party with good synergy or good planning can usually punch substantially above their CR, at the cost of more of their daily resources, but at relatively low overall danger. This is normal, and a good DM accounts for it without punishing the possibility that a group won't be as tactically organised. There are, of course, a number of specialised cases of individual creatures or certain scenarios where setting a higher CR monster can be disastrous for the group, even if they'd normally be able to punch at that weight on another creature. Spell access vs. spell immunity by level is one such most notable case (it's even highlighted in the DMG as a classic case where this kind of outlier crops up), and a good DM watches out for these situations when designing encounters or areas. Please trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about.

In a video game, our DM (Larian) as ABSOLUTE control over exactly what we are able to see, where we are able to go, and what we can fight, when... they have no player anomalies to account for because they control, absolutely, what we can and cannot do or be, and what we can or cannot try. This means that they have zero excuse for lazy hack jobs that unbalance encounters, or for cheating the rules unfairly because they haven't wrapped their heads around proper encounter design; unbalancing a creature by giving it far more spell access than it should, or even *Could Possibly Ever* have, without adjusting its CR, is just ridiculous, lazy and stupid, and it pushes players towards cheap, cheaty strategies and immersion-breaking cheese. Of course, we've already seen that that's what Larian wants, because that's what their developers define 'fun' as being.



It should either display as Level 18, or as CR 12. Anything else is Larian's failure and not something that we should account for or accept... I know this is how they do it right now, and it's not an excuse I accept. Calling such a creature Level 12 is just Larian showing that they have not understood the system they're working with yet.

It doesn't matter what internal level or external CR a caster character is, it is never going to have eight 1st level slots, six 2nd level slots and four 3rd level slots; that's not how magic works in 5e. It is a hacked, cheated character that is breaking the game's rules, and it's a poor excuse, and a lazy one, to actually designing fair and challenging encounters.

I am in full agreement here. Not sure why people are defending Larian.

Well said.

I would say that larian has a much more difficult task to balance matches correctly.
The DM can adapt to the group on an ongoing basis by appropriately selecting the risk.
This cannot be done in the game. How to balance the game when you have no idea what the player will have in the team.
A player may as well have a team consisting of only combat classes that do not require much rest, or a team based entirely on classes that require more common rests.
Certain enemies will, of course, be a much greater threat to one type of team than to another.
Do you see where the problem is? Of course, the composition of the team itself is not the only thing that the creator has to take into account.

Really ?

How is it possible that Solasta is balanced then ?
How would it be possible to balance any party based video games ? It looks like you're making up false assumptions.

D&D is pretty well balanced and the issues of BG3 only comes from Larian's changes and nothing else.
Not sure why you're trying to convince yourself of something else because it's absolutely obvious.

This thread is about spellslots but it's not the only problem. How could you explain that some people struggle with a party of 4 while others can solo'd the game with any classes ? Because it's D&D ?

No... Because it's Larian and their breaking game balance mechanics everywhere.

Hope they'll realize BG3 has the potential to become a real, deep and balanced tactical TB game that could easily be simplified for the newcomers.

@Niara

So let me get this straight.

You are using my explanation of why enemies have more spell slots right now as a way to vent on your frustrations with Larian? What exactly is cheating about extra spell slots when you know enemies are CR and not level?

This is getting ridiculous.

Edit: Have you even considered level cap in EA? If its too hard leave it alone. That is data at worse.

In 5e CR for monsters with casting ability isn't just determined by their caster level, but also by what spells they have at their disposal.



Which is why a stock archmage is a CR 12, even though it's a caster level of 18.

Larian brought this upon themselves. Introducing lop-sided mechanics. Some folks do misunderstand the CR system IRL, but it's not that difficult to understand. It's rather easy to balance as well (With the understanding that multi-attack / pack tactics can murder a low-level party).

Introducing lop-sided mechanics was always going to make balancing more challenging. Especially when depriving the player of reactions.

If counterspell is a thing, and they may be incapable of implementing reactions so it may not be, it will have a major practical effect.

Maybe someone will actually pick up the mage slayer feat. Lmao. Lore Bards might be Mvp too. I don't mind either of those.

Also might be why Gale is cannonically abjuration. The ultimate counter wizard.

Is Gale canonically an abjurer? It lets you pick his subclass for yourself.


I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Could you imagine counter spell in the current system? You would just auto counter the first spell that goes off. If it's like hellish rebuke, you would even have to spend the spell slot BEFORE you cast it, which is gross.

Even worse is the divination wizard's portent ability. How would that work in the current system? What are they going to do, nerf divination wizards? I hate to say it, but it may be the case.

Gale party banter says he prefers abjuration over other methods of fighting.

Their is always a cannon, you just aren't bound to it as a player.

Within the context of the 5e rules for magic and magical availability which the player characters in this game abide by, and within the setting context of the Frogotten Realms, and the rules for magic and its availability as defined by current world lore, what CR of creature or caster has access to eight 1st level slots, six 2nd level slots and four 3rd level slots?

Name one.

That is the problem. It is a deliberate break in an established system which has impact upon the game and how it plays, and the challenge of an encounter, and the choice points which players and enemies alike may face. It is being done in ignorance and without any tact or understanding.

So "it's not lore friendly" is what's bothering you?

Have you met Larian? You are in for a rough time. Wotc are backing this so good luck with that. DM's choice is quite the mountain to climb. Dnd has lasted this long because DM's change things. Every table is different. Even Wotc change fundamental things like race stats, abilites, and core concept.

If you are adept as you claim then you should know lore is the least consistent aspect of Dnd as a franchise.

Make a topic and break down what bothers you if it means that much to you. Larian might see it and change things to your liking. You have done it before. What's one more.

Personally it has not bothered me so far so it's win/win for me.

As far as I know, WotC rarely contradicts itself lorewise in an edition? Like things change in between editions, the lore is different between 4e and 5e for example (like 4e allows gnolls to be civilized while 5e basically made em always fiendish feral), but during an edition things don't contradict often (or atleast I can't think of any moments). Things can massively change, and sometimes new things are revealed, but WotC doesn't mess up their lore in a set.

Also people talking about how a level 18 mage is a CR12 enemy is why I said they don't follow player rules too closely. CR isn't completely tied to level and things can be a little loose. I will admit the MM is not the thing I am most knowledgeable about, I mostly pay attention to what I can summon. However, something I noticed is Cr doesn't match levels and often times Monsters have something that is different for them that makes them special in a fight against a player, sometimes it is innate spellcasting or recharged abilities or something strange, so to me a singular enemy having more spell slots than normal is ok if not every enemy has that. It becomes a problem when every enemy deviates from the base of players in the same way because it then becomes predictable and arguably unfair/unfun.

Out of curiosity, Aishaddai...

Hot did you manage to get: "it's not lore friendly" Out of: "It is a deliberate break in an established system which has impact upon the game and how it plays, and the challenge of an encounter, and the choice points which players and enemies alike may face. It is being done in ignorance and without any tact or understanding."

That's a fascinating achievement.


There's a big difference between Wizards backing something, and permitting something. We've seen them back something strongly - D&D Beyond, for example. That's an example of Wizards backing something that is not ultimately theirs, but which uses their license and has a direct impact on their game and publicity. They back that super hard. It's not actually Wizards who owns D&D Beyond - they just back it.

They are not putting the same amount of effort and support into backing this game, at least not any more. They're permitting it, with a tokenary appearance and occasional thumbs-up support, but little else.

Yes lore from edition to edition is mostly what I mean. So far recently in 5e Wotc has taken interest in changing things in different way's. Like for example the new Dark Alliance is 5e technically but is nothing like table top or even previous Dark alliance games. It is it's own thing. An attempt to modernize to grab an a particular audience. Bg3 seems to be exactly the same concept. Modernize and capture the Larian audience. The difference is that the dnd crowd want in on this game but hate Larian designs lol.

Another example is tasha's custom rules. They are trying hard to turn dnd into a flexible franchise where much of the core right down to your very character can be customized. I'm not suprised that Larian's version of a campaign is experimental. The only thing that suprised me was how stubborn, rude, rigid, and arrogant the dnd online crowd is. You'd think after a table or two people would learn to be flexible.

To me EA is in flux. If enemies have more spell slots then mage slayer will be op, counter spell will be more op, jump/longstrider will be very useful, etc. Nothing is set in stone so complaining till you are blue in the face seems pointless. Larian's past EA's don't exactly spring confidence either.

I am only on my side. The side that simply looks at the game and won't make a concrete opinion till release. I'll make observations at most from time to time. If something bothers me I'll make a suggestion and move on. I won't waste time like this Niara person. Their are more exciting things to do with my time now. Have a nice day.

Blurg the level 5 Hobgoblin Wizard has way more spell slots than a level 5 Wizard would. 8 / 6 / 4.

And his attributes are 16 / 12 / 14 / 18 / 14 / 14.

I really don't like this kind of design. Hopefully he is supposed to be higher level or something and all the stats are just randomly thrown in for placeholder. It's super annoying your PC Wizard "hero" has to scrape by with a reasonable 27 point buy while a random hobgoblin NPC of the same level has much higher stats and extra spell slots.

Blurg also has an "extra action point" so he could probably cast two spells per turn in a fight. Now.. is there an even bigger homebrew bomb ticking somewhere? Is Larian going to give extra action points at higher levels and throw D&D even more out of whack than they already have?