Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Why not raise the lv cap to at least 13?

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.