Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Level Cap

If he was not a vampire than why does he need to sock blood than? vampires can be thralls to you know lets say you are a greater vampire when you make a vampire he or she will be your thrall

If they make future expansions, I am happy about the level cap. For that all, we need to do is buy the game.
Later they might add "legendary" classes ect.. if they need new content.

They said that he is a Vampire Spawn (a kind of lesser vampire minion created as servants by real vampires) which does not really fit with their powers:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/vampire-spawn

Its ofc just a story element without any stats giving a lvl1 char regeneration etc would be too OP. But as I said a vampire without his characteristic traits is not really a vampire.

I mean, if a tadpole bored into your brain, you might lose some experience and motor function, too.

BG1 felt pretty "complete" by the time you got through it and 1-10 can be quite fun, though obvioulsy the COOL stuff comes at higher levels.

If it means the plan is to add stuff later though DLC or a sequel then I am fine with that. As a stand alone, sure that would be a little dissapointing.

I can't find it now, but in one article from folks who were present on one of the exclusive presentations actually raised concern, that the leveling progress might be too slow.
It came with a statement like 'they skipped to somewhere like 10 hours in the game, and we were just level 3' and I remember it as objective observation followed by a 'could that be to slow'-like generalized question.

With that in mind, reaching level 10 too quick is probably nothing to be concerned about.

Personally I wouldn't see slow leveling progress necessarily as something bad, since that gives more meaning to each gained level and the longer the game lasts, the better.

I mean, I know it won't be one for one, but it took like two years of gaming 5+ hours a week for my main group to reach level ten in the pen and paper. You'd be SHOCKED how much content you can squeeze into there.

I realize this was a joke, but they're actually going with the tadpole making the characters stronger. Makes no sense.

As for the 10 hours for level 3? That won't be a problem for a lot of people used to it, but for those (like myself) who are used to a variety of different games, that's a rough progression. I definitely think they should have different progression systems such as one for levels 1-10 and something to run alongside of it to add some more frequent stuff.

there is actually an interresting case for the levels of characters regarding to age.
Pathfinder i think has a table for t.
a level 1 fighter might be a 16 year old lad. A level 1 Wizard is probably at leas tin his 30s

Will level cap make the game shorter?

I remember the TOEE videogame has a level cap of 10, and it is really short (mainly because it´s based on the module of the same name) and the original bg also has roughly the 10 lvl cap and it´s a far larger game, so I think level cap is not necessarily related to the length of the game.


They promised in some interviews a larger game, larger than DOS2....

Seeing a fair amount of assumptions on how spells function in 5e, which is pretty different than 2e (ADND). In 5e, you can cast spells you have at a higher level, which enhance them. So this idea that circles 1-5 are garbage and only start getting good later is grossly mistaken. You can slot a fireball as a 6th level spell and deal 11d6 damage in a 20 foot radius. You can slot ray of sickness, a level 1 necromancy spell that deals 2d8 + makes the enemy poisoned (disadvantage) on attacks, slot it at level 6 and deal 8d8 damage + poison from 60 feet away. So before you begin to criticize the power curve, you may want to revisit some PNP as that is ultimately the base/foundation they are using for this game. Circles 2-5 are quite good, and while 5e doesn't have the broken spell mechanics of 2e, it's quite powerful none the less. But 5e is much more centered around a party and creates synergy around them far better than previous editions, especially 2-3.5, where it was much more about acute min/maxing of each character as a separate entity and less how they contributed to the overall strategy of the party. Druids are also much much better than 2e, in my opinion. Clerics are roughly the same minus the blunt weapon requirements, channel divinity and domains are much better and more versatile than 2e did. Not to mention, school specialization is finally good in 5e, and schools that were once garbage--looking at you divination--are actually awesome now due to portent, they all have unique class abilities that create the differentiation rather than you get this and you give up all this other stuff from the spell list.

PS: a 5e paladin is also 1000000000x better than a 2e paladin, the burst damage they can deal is insane

The level cap is right into what we get in most D&D 5e campaigns though. They bring you at the highest from 1st to 12-13th level and that's it. So level 10 sounds quite the normality to me.

Problem is not it in number of lvl ups itself, but in the fact, that it is low lvls, what limits all - less variety of spells, equipment, enemies. It's fine for tabletop campaign to usually not get above 10 lvl because the main fun comes from good GM and live communication of players in the party, it may even turn out badly when you get high levels and too wide pool of abilities - need too much controll to not turn a game into the mess. But it's not the case in CRPG where most of calculations and control over system performed automatically by program. When you play CRPG as singleplayer game (most of such games played as single, no matter how good multiplayer is) more variety is always a bless. BG2 SoA also has ~10 lvls of progression, but you start not with lvl 1, you already have 7-8 lvl and have a nice pool of abilities to experiment with. Also it's more enjoyable to get a gear worth to change for the whole playthrough, like from normal to +4\5 in BG2. In BG1 it was awful to get +2\3 easily and soon (in the 2-3 chapters just by exploring areas near Nashkel and Beregost) and realize that you wouldn't find anything better then you already have.
You may tell that 10-20 lvls are for the godlike characters in d&d but what if so? Just let us to face with enemies with comparable strength. BG2 did it and there was a great variety of unique enemies and great battles with them. In BG1 battles with the same groups of low lvl creatures with no unique attacks or properties which demand to use different tactics were really dull.
Well, i didn't like progression from D:OS2, where you can get x1.5\2 dmg boost just for 1 lvl up, but progression of low lvl characters in d&d game will be even worse cause of boring. I know, it's obvious that Larian wants to keep high levels for the sequel, but having an example of BG1 and BG2 makes me want to wait BG4 instead of BG3.

try not playing a caster for once and the progression wil feel exactly the same as from 11 to 20 :^)

realy progression doesnt feel satisfying if you dont start at level 1.
And a 1 to 20 campaign would mean a LOT of level ups fast.

The only way to do this , without the DM giving you XP for everything, is to have a VERY combat focused campaign.
by which i mena somehting like ToEE where youre constantly beeing thrown enemies to fight

Experience is given for using skills, as well as combat, puzzle riddles, conversations.. overcoming a obstacles. Just my opinion and how I ran my pnp games.

but thats what youre supposed to do anyway.
my group has been playing the currentl campaign for about a year and we just hit level 5

I really don't know what to say to that,.. Sorry?

I can see achieving lv 5 in one year, if you played a few hrs a year. I have not played Pnp In years but I do have decades of memories, my groups got down to buisness rather quickly, level 5 would be achieved with in a couple weekend sessions.

It all depends on the DM.
Remember that the Rulebook is a guideline, not a holy bible. If you want to give your players a level per session; do it! If you want them to only gain a level after every milestone you set in your deep story; fine! If you want to give out EXP exactly as listed in the book; that's good, too!

There's no set rule that says 'If you're players don't hit level 5 by session 10, you're doing it wrong'.
Maybe Sordak is/has a DM that gives out less EXP?

The point of D&D is to have fun and enjoy playing with friends, not level up as fast as possible.

Your right, cant argue with house rules. Match point