Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Maximum Level isn't high enough

I'm not saying it's not good enough I'm simply saying that if you want to make a game using DnDs rules and then cut almost half the available levels out why even bother? I realize I'm ignorant as to the ins and outs of game development but if you're going to use source material why do half measures instead of following through? Just a thought I know the game will be good regardless I just want to be able to have a lvl 20 in BG3 since it's impossible to get a campaign group who can reach that in actual dnd but hey keep me waiting for a REAL dnd game.

I mean all you have to do us look at wrath of the rightous to see what happens when you start getting to those kind of levels.

At a certain point there's no real way to keep the game feeling and immersive and reactive. So you end up taking player agency and power away and just have things run like early game.

Wrath ended up letting you pick your frankienstein monsters outfit but fundamentally nothing really changed.

I am so, so glad we only get to 12 honestly. High levels in D&D get REALLY whacky, and just not something I want to see even attempted to translate into a videogame.

I understand that it's just that a lot of the really cool effects get missed out on and multiclass is really straining. Personally I love coming up with an amalgam character and trying to find interesting ways classes can interact with one another. I understand that the effects can get wacky but if you're going to try to go into uncharted territory like this why not go all the way?

You're not wrong in anyway but wrath was still Good for what it was. I'm not arguing against the current max at all because I just want a DnD console title but if you're gonna do it at all why not strive to be the first to do it right? I mean neverwinter wanted to do dnd as a theme and they didn't do it justice now we have someone doing everything right but they're against going through to the end? It just feels wanting.

TOB, HOTU, and Wrath clearly showed high level/epic adventures in cross can be hella fun. They were very immerssive and 'reactive'. Some if the best crpg experiences ever - espicially TOB and Hordes.

So, it's been tried, and done extremely well.

That said, level.12 is still a good number. Bg1 went to level 9-11, and did great. It's about content.

The sad part is that it seem Laruian is one and done with bg3 so we may never see a level 20ish campaign in this engine which means no level 7+ spells. I would have loved to see a new take on the Wish spell. BG2's was solid but it could be improved on. Ah well.

This is what I'm saying. I understand why they wouldn't I guess I'm just disappointed we'll never have an engine like this for a real DnD campaign. But hey I'll take what I can get

Most D&D characters never reach anywhere near level 20 during their entire lifetime. Baldurs Gate 3 is just one campaign lasting a few months at best.

High levels are very difficult to do right. How should the world react to a mage who can Meteor Swarm a city or Wish it into mushrooms? How many world ending threats and ancient dragons can there be?

Baldurs Gate 1&2 had pretty perfect level progression with BG1 taking you up to ~9 and the sequel going all the way to epic.

More doesn't equal better. 12 is a lot already.

Im glad we dont get get higher than 12 personally. From experience, D&D gets a bit all over the place after lvl 14. That is to say whacky/overpowered at times, many ways to bypass encounters etc etc etc. And at lvl 16-20? It would be nigh on impossible to implement into a video game in any satisfying manner. At lvl 20 one is so powerfull. Theres a reason why lvl 20 is referred to as godlike.

Example: At lvl 13 Paladins can summon personal mounts like Pegasus, Griffon, etc.

Which reminds me, have Larian added the Find Steed spell? Surely not? Im not blaming them at all if not.

12 is plenty - especially with the scope of this game - I just hope they nerf the experience enough so that we aint at lvl 12 50% of the way through the game....

12 is a good level and I think it makes sense, but I do want Reverse Gravity properly implemented in a game so hopefully mods or a sequel will push us up to at least level 14.

Fun fact according to Wikipedia : in the cancelled Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound, players would have only been able to advance up to level 5. This was later changed to level 8.

I can really empathize with the sentiment. After all, who wouldn't want to be super-powerful now and then? But considering what extremes the Pathfinder games had to go to to make things somewhat interesting for their level 16-20 parties, I don't think that's necessarily a good idea for just one game. I'd rather have an expansion or a sequel, eventually, made for that power level.

Also considering the old games, TOB wasn't actually very interesting, especially towards the end. Just like the last chapters of the Pathfinder games, an endless slog of fighting ever more powerful enemies with excessively inflated traits, and very little actual roleplaying. Easily my least favorite parts of these games. I finished SOA with about 10 characters. Only two of them reached the end of TOB. Because I got tired of the endless fighting at some point and just stopped playing.

I agree with leldra2 - I barely made it through BG2 due to the high class of the characters and their opponents. I bought and began play TOB but never finished.

Probably the one time Larian absolutely hit the sweet spot for me is level 12 cap - that's where for me D&D peaks. Afterwards is just steep downhill when it comes to encounter and everything. Not to mention how those spells start affecting the game outside combat. Its bad enough for DMs who can react to it, but creating a meaningful high level campaign in a video game the way Larian is doing would be incredibly difficult.

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd have prefered a lower level cap. Level 10 is generally still fine, but higher than that and D&D tends to get weird. That's why I usually prefer low level adventures to mid or high level stuff.

High level adventures are just as good as low level adventures... unless the dm is incompetent.

TOB was awesome. Pure awesomesauce.

Fun Fact:The Black Hound was canceled. Sucked so bad it got canceled. The level limit either meant they dragged the lebelling up or it was really really short.

So hard to balance a fight with 4 level 20's - they are so crazy powerful.

Like maybe a fist fight with the Death Star...but even then...

Even lv 20 caster's can run out of spells, Send them to HELL. There are sooooo many challenges, I dont even have to rack my brain to get at least 10.

Netheril was almost dismantled by the Phaerimm, and your talking about a nation of very powerful wizards.

Yes, trying to translate some lv 20+ spells to a computer game would be tough, you just dont use those spells.


I just want my Lv 17 assassin ability

Death Strike
Starting at 17th level, you become a master of instant death. When you attack and hit a creature that is surprised, it must make a Constitution saving throw (DC 8 + your Dexterity modifier + your proficiency bonus). On a failed save, double the damage of your attack against the creature.

It is my theory that the final level is set so low to leave eight more levels to go for the *inevitable* DLCs and sequels!