Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Max level 10 too low?

5e multi-classing is a little different than the bg2 3.5 era.

A multi-class 10/1 needs the same amount of experience as an level 11 character.

After seeing how Firebolt works I am extremely excited to see what a Fireball can do in this game. Also slightly terrified of enemy wizards getting those spells without having a party formation to fall into at combat start.

The only turn off I have about BG3 is the level cap.
This is due to the fact I already play table top a lot and am sick to my back teeth of levels 1-14. I have seen high levels in table top only a handful of times, due to various reasons.
Those times where I've gotten to a high level have been the most fun I've had in D&D with the least amount of drama among the players cause we were all badass and were powerful enough for the DM's to go to town on the story throwing what ever he wanted in. From Barbarian invasions to terrask egg babysitting (long story) it was amazing.

I was hoping BG3 would be my opportunity to have an adventure in D&D that allowed me to play how I wanted, to a high level...
If we don't get 20, so be it, but I am hoping we at least get to 20 at some point via a DLC if it is not there at launch.

That all said, every one enjoys the game differently and I aml just glad to have a D&D game with the 5e ruleset.

Dont forget to use grease!

Two wizards can alternate using grease and firebolt, that makes 8 fireballs at level 4!

Or 10 if you take the extra level 1 spell slot feat.

But that needs two wizards for a fireball every turn before level 5.

I really hope we can get all the way to max level, ngl.

We need to pump Shadow Heart to level 30 so that she can finally kill Selune personally
... in our fantasies

Old news, bad news. The level cap won't be 10. They are reevaluating the levels. So it will be just like a normal D&D 5e campaign, around level 12-13. Descend into Avernus is 13 for instance.

The first few hours of game combat could of been a lot more interesting if we got to start at level 3 , as in BG2 (game starts at level 6-7 ). Starting at level 1 feels completely out of place with the characters being introduced...

I don't understand dnd beyond playing BG games but I don't really get this criticism. BG 1 max level was 7-8 and it was fine

Was it? I remember playing it back then and feeling cheated. Dont get me wrong, I loved the story and game play but we didnt have the internet and communication we do today. 22 years ago, when I was 13, I still remember going into a game store (electronic boutique I think) to pick it up.
Quite a few of my friends who played D&D in after school clubs were discussing it and saying they wanted to be higher level. We got our wish exactly 2 years later (bg2).

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it will severely hamper the game if we dont get to levels 10+, I am just saying that I would LOVE to not have the same old tired progression I currently get with table top.
Lots of previous games have had little to no trouble implementing high levels, I cant see why BG3 cant do the same.

Do you need to level up to get more skills and spells?

Are can you still use tomes, artifacts and other gameplay mechanics to keep growing your character?

Some part if me kind of likes that as players dont become too godlike while on the other hand I want more spells and specializations to play around with.

It's true they're all grown adults with backstories, but I don't have a problem hand-waving the starting level at 1 as this being their first real "Adventure" in D&D terms. It's the adventuring that drives the level-ups, and none of the companions/Origin characters in this game have ever faced this kind of thing before. Something like that.

It's better than some of the other tropes that game designers use to start players at level 1, like the tired "amnesia" bit, or a farm boy venturing out of his village for the first time.

The variance of answers in this thread illustrates exactly why games like this can never be "perfect". Everyone wants and expects different things so no one can truly be happy. Some think starting at lvl 1 sucks, others want to hit lvl 25, etc.. This is Larian's first D&D game and it's taking place 100 years after BG1/2, why in god's name would we start at anything but level 1? I get that some that play a lot of low level campaigns would like to play higher levels but a lot of people have never even tried D&D of any sort so starting off at higher levels makes zero sense from that perspective. New players should be introduced at low levels to grasp the mechanics and also experience the growth of the character properly. Starting off characters at level 3 and forcing sub-class choices before they even get a chance to understand what ground zero feels like doesn't make a lot of sense.

Level 10-12ish seems like a fine ending point for the standard campaign and if the game does as well as everyone is hoping I don't see how we wouldn't be getting some form of DLC to allow us to play even higher.

I would agree starting at level 1 would be ideal when starting a new adventure, especially in a video game. But I would humbly disagree 10-12 is an ideal "end of adventure" point. I am not saying you are wrong, and level 12 nets a lot of classes some nifty features, but I just dont see why you wouldn't use the full range of levels available to you. Especially when we are talking .

As you said, stopping at level 10-12 leaves room for a DLC/Expansion that takes you to higher levels but DLC could easily be new adventure packs/races/subclasses and the like so we can have other (perhaps smaller) adventures via DLC/mods. In my mind, not having the full range of levels available from the start (even if the campaign ends at level 10-12) is diminishing the potential of the game and its longevity.

I dont mind giving Larian my money, but leaving out content from the original source just so you can add it in a DLC feels.....well....very Electronic Arts. I'd prefer the DLC be classes/races/new adventures rather than "WE RAISED THE LEVEL CAP".

Ofcourse, this is just my opinion and I am quite bias lol.

I agree that the ideal will be starting the campaign at level 1 and ending it at 20.
Ending the campaign at level 12-13 is also ok as long as level 20 content is still in the game (up to level 9 spells, feats abilities and such) for the later mods and campaign builders that hopefully we will get..?

Bioware did it tho. As did Obsidian.

Aren't level 20s like gods or something?

I would guess 10 would be basic max, with 12 or 13 maybe as full completionist max. BG4 or DLC or whatever will finish up to 20, probably ending with a God theme similar to Throne of Bhaal im BG5 or 6.

They gave us a full 1-20 adventure, then raised the level caps to 40 (in nwn) and 30 (nwn2) in expansions. 3.5 had epic rules that supported higher levels.


Not even close. Incredibly powerful, but far from gods, demi gods or other powerful beings.
An avatar of a god is around CR 30, which would need a group of level 17-20 adventurers to defeat unless they have some sort of plot protections like in the rise of Tiamat.

If we go into combat in BG3 with anything near the power of an avatar, we would 100% need to be near level 20 to do so (unless they have some plot device to stop us getting stomped)

I played as a fighter and as rogue, but didn't feel all that different. I think a big part of it is that it isn't a system I'm familiar with like you said. Hopefully I'll get used to it more with time.

Yeah I've been trying to read some of what comes with higher levels and later spells seem.. too much for a video game to capture.