Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why not implement customizable difficulty options?

In principle, I agree with toggles. However, I strongly disagree with your take on the relationship between toggles and balance:
In your scenario, the game is "balanced" around whatever options Larian decides on to be the "default" options. This means that the game I (and many others, as seen by posts in this forum) would *want* to play never gets created, because turning on the options we feel would make it a better game would actually make our experience even worse by destroying balance.

In an exaggerated example, Larian decides on a set of mechanics that result in THE winning strategy to be a) gain high ground and b) explode barrels against c) mobs that you can only hit with Advantage or AoE.
Encounters are adjusted to be balanced based on that ^
Some sizable fraction of players find the fights in this game lacking tactics/not fun, so we change the toggles.
The result is: incredibly unbalanced encounters that could be literally impossibly hard.
No improvement.

Simply adding toggles doesn't necessarily fix things. It is critically important to determine which toggles are on/off by default.

The only toggles you listed that should always be available regardless of balance should be:
-dialogue dice rolls
-companion romances
-interact with empty containers

I hear what you are saying, but I am trying to be reasonable too. Larian is going to make their game and balance it according to their vision. To expect them to balance the game around a huge list of variables is unrealistic. So IMO is better to essentially have their version and options that other people want too. I hate to speak for others, but I would think a lot of people would rather see many of their "wants" in the game even in a potentially unbalanced state than not have them at all. You can't please everyone. I think something like this is the closest they could come to that.

@RumRunner151

Yeah I get what you're saying too. I agree that Larian shouldn't be expected to balance the game for every possible combination of options. And the game would strictly be better if Larian added all these toggles (at the very least it would make it easier for modders to make X-set of toggles a balanced game).

I just want some of these toggles (e.g., 3 short rests with less emphasis on frequent long rests) to be the default options Larian balances the game around. Then add toggles to allow more rests.

Absolutely YES!!!
They are priding themselves (and rightfully so) that you can approach any quest or combat in the game with many different option.
They should continue they own formula with game settings as have been suggested here these would go a long long way in making the game better for everyone.
regarding to balance, even now when balancing they shouldn't do it based one specific way they intend for me to do combat, if you dont want to use oil barrels and surfaces you shouldn't have to.
Sure some option might make it easier or harder - but in the end the player will choose what more important to him.

Very nice, OP!! I fully support a GREAT many option toggles in the game. It is one of the most awesome features of Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

I would like two more options:
Max HPs returned when using any form of healing outside of combat
Remove dice roll animations (but show rolls in the dialogue/combat info box)

These options are great but I definitely agree with mrfuji3... This list consider that the game is balanced but it is absolutely not...

Disengage/throw/jump/shove as action should not be an option... They have to find a way to balance these options, then we could talk about increasing the difficulty (harder to shove, ...)
Same about cantrips, surfaces and backstab.

It looks like a list to "custom the balance", not to custom the difficulty of a balanced experience.

IE why would you like in an easy experience of a strategy game that ennemies can't use potions, scrolls or surfaces ? They could i.e have maluses or deal less damages... But why shouldn't they use this at all ?

IE backstab should have more or less impact to custom the difficulty... not be a part of the game or not.

I don't really remember all the options of P:K but I love what they did... But it make more sense to me because it increase/decrease the difficulty of the game. The balance is something different.

I think in Larian devs mind, freedom is more important than balance, exploits becoming a way to overcome challenge.

Exploits can be fun sometimes of course. But in a game like D&D, the combat system relies heavily on well defined rules to ensure everyone around the table get their fair share of fun by allowing synergies between characters powers.

In a game which allows anyone to basically destroy enemies by throwing barrels of oil and powder, and then ignite the lot with a torch, why even bother implementing classes? Freedom of action decreases their uniqueness.

And personally, I don't know if it's great to have a mage who can literally fight with a two handed sword as efficiently as a fighter or can heal the party with as much potency as a cleric.

I'll be fine with just a D&D hardcore setting like in other D&D CRPGs. It's a bit of a tradition since BG1.

I don't think a switch for every little feature is worth the effort for the devs. Like with height advantage I don't think either on or off is the right way, but rather nerf the impact of high ground instead.

They are professional game devs. It's up to them to provide a good experience to both D&D veterans and casual players without putting every feature behind a toggle.

+1. I am with a lot of others here, the game's default settings should be more true to D&D 5e, and the encounters, gameplay and combat should be balanced around that. Let others turn on barrels, environment effects, king of the hill, etc. if they want a different experience.

Hey Rumrunner, some interesting things here are my thoughts, mostly about the difference between toggles and difficulty levels - I mostly veer towards the latter.


Yep though for me I feel this should be tied to a story mode - I don't think its right to be able to divorce regular difficulties from a key part of d&d which is all the non-combat stuff including failing your checks.

I think they should weigh a lot lot more, and encumbered status should work at your max weight, not 2x your max weight or however it is done. The throw-ability also - I think the strength requirements for throwing should be raised. I have no problems with the barrels "being there", just being able to lug 5 of them around just feels off - most of the barrel-cheese could be fixed by making it incredably tedious to move them from a to b and stack them up such as no rest/return to camp when encumbered.


Surface effects are one of my favorite things about the game - but burning from surfaces can proc with burning on character at the same time, and then with movement. It can result in a lot of damage. I would dial them down so any one elemental type can only proc once on your turn for 1dx, unless you move. I can understand that people want them removed but they just arn't a big deal for me with potions of fire/acid resistance available everywhere.

I would like them to remain in "core-rules" mode and to see an easy difficulty where mobs don't each all have a fire/acid arrow in their pack, which would reduce the number.


I think this has to be a both or neither thing. You could have an option to tone down the benefits/disadvantages universally, but since certain mobs are coded to seek height advantage then it would be a bit absurd to be able to turn it off for them without recoding ranged AI.


I can understand this but I think it would have unintended consequences for the game. It would be interesting to play a version like this so yeah, maybe an optional toggle.


A higher difficulty level where you only had x number of rests before something bad happened would be great. I would also like to see gale explode if you don't resurrect him and attack you in desperation/leave if you don't feed him artifacts.


Short rests are bugged as is because they don't advance time so you can buff before short rest, including things like 3 round potions and they are all still up after. But yeah, I would like 3 short rests implemented for "core" difficulty then maybe fewer for higher difficulties.


I suspect this goes against the spirit of these two classes but I don't really mind.


I think this is a bug/oversight, but if it is in the final version it should be disableable/only for easy difficulty. I would add that it would be nice for higher difficulties for only arcane casters to be able to cast arcane scrolls and likewise for divine casters.


This is the only one which is a hard no from me. I super dislike exhaustion mechanics.


As I said above, I like surface effects but understand that it gets a lot of others upset.


I don't care about this and feel that higher HP and fewer misses will in the long run save a lot of gamers keyboards from excessive nerdrage.


Interesting, but maybe if you wanted to really increase the difficulty you could shift all currently bonus-action spells to actions. Basically I am neither hear nor there on this.


I like this one as a toggle because I think the "checking every container" roleplay player should be catered to. So I don't think this should be tied to difficulty, nor changed across the board. What I would like to see is that if you open a container then click on another container the first one closes, rather than now having 2 container windows open.


disagree, but mostly because without seeing the whole game its difficut to say what this would mean. Maybe no more offhand attacks than actions? i.e. 2 actions and 2 offhand actions would enable 4 attacks but 1 action and 2 offhand would only allow 2, not 3? Just a thought.


I would like to see merchants either pack up and leave (i.e. just disappear) if they lose too much to a thief, or else not restock their inventory because they are now too broke.


100%, regardless of difficulty level. Better AI dealing with stealth please.


Would tie it to difficulty. Using your bonus action eating food for minimal healing is a crutch to get players through early levels and is almost always a waste of a bonus action imo. I would like to see it remain in "core" difficulty but be limited to out of combat in hard and higher difficulty.



A "Survival mode" would be fun, but I wouldn't tie it to difficulty since its more of a tedium-roleplay element. Toggle would be cool. maybe if you reaaaaaly want exaustion it would be a survival mode feature


As above I would tie them having them in inventory to difficulty level.


100%, but as a higher difficulty level.


As per above I would tie no food in battle to difficulty.
Equipment swap is very cheeseable: Attack with big two handed sword, swap to sword and shield end turn is pretty funny. Its a crutch but BG1-2 had on the fly weapon swapping - I would leave it as it is for core difficulty and make it an action for higher difficulties: e.g. there's no real reason, give the games turn based nature, why you wouldn't be able to swap your necklace or rings for another in the middle of a battle or pull out another weapon. I would have to have a think about how it would effect balance.
Dipping should stay imo

Ill add some others:

The "camp full of concentrating followers solo cheese bug"
Classes can only use class-related scrolls
Merchant inventory refreshing tied to purchases, rather than resting
Hardcore/Permadeath Mode
No-reroll mode with no permadeath (I don't know how this would be implemented but basically no tpw full game restarts but if you fail a persuasion check you are stuck with it.)
Heart of Fury/Legacy of Bhaal Mode

Harder difficulties where:
You do not start with revivify scrolls.
Potions are much more expensive.
Enemies are buffed as per your 27-29
Enemy spellcasters who are already buffed with day-long or concentration buffs
Far fewer scrolls on enemies and with merchants
Merchant full inventory and gold is not pick-pocketable
Maybe reduced XP for kills.

@RumRunner151 :
I agree. I too would hope for a difficulty slider that is less coarse than easy-medium-hard. (And for that matter, an impact on enemies that is more subtle than tweaking their stats, but rather varies the performance and tactics of their AI.) So I hope we can activate/deactivate a couple of features. However I think the list you provide is way too long. At some point, Larian will have to cut through and say : this is our vision, that would be a pain to allow you to tweak, and finally that one you can freely play with or without.

@mrfuji3, Maximuuus (RumRunner151) :
Larian must choose one default setting and optimise/balance around this. It's not solely because I'd rather want the artist to come forward with their very personal gaming proposition, and then evaluate whether I liked it or not. It's also because it's impossible to do otherwise. Many players have a very precise idea of where they want the game to truly be, of what should constitute the default game. They can argue forever that their vision is righter than that of others, but there will not be a consensus. And Larian cannot optimise for multiple settings at once (it's often mathematically impossible). So they have to choose one.
That is why Early Access cannot be about making the single best version of (everyone's idea of) the game : not all players agree of what this best version should be. Thus it can only be about helping the studio make the best version of their vision of the game.

That's why it's probably too early to think about "how to increase the difficulty" or "how to customize the experience".

At the moment the game has serious issues in it's core mechanics.
This is a fact for all those who can be objective.

Yep. Balancing, fine-tuning, numbers tweaking ... that's late stage development. I feel the more urgent tasks for Larian are : making the UI and controls right, improving the roleplay/story/writing, and figuring out the (combat and non-combat) mechanisms.

For instance, the short-vs-long rest discussion, and specifically how many short rests should be allowed per long rest, feels like putting the cart before the horse. At the moment, there is no sense of time, no mechanism or roleplay element around it. The resting mechanism isn't really figured out.

Likewise, yes, we've barely entered the Druid Grove and we reach level 3. But there's no need to worry about this until they have figured out how long the game is, how many encounters we will fight, etc.

Larian has to choose a limited number of settings to optimize balance around, correct. But not necessarily just one. I don't think creating balance for two game modes is an unreasonable ask: i.e.,
-"Normal difficulty" with the current set of Larian rules
-"5e Raw" with rules modified to be closer to D&D rules
This would be the ~same amount of work as creating a dedicated Tactician mode: a mode with better AI, more difficult fights, no?

@RumRunner151
I have a suggestion for your list: shared exp.
-Off: only PC gets exp and all party members are auto-leveled to match. This allows you to play a very difficult game if you choose to play solo, or very easy if you play with 6 characters.
-On: exp is divided between active party members. You level faster as a party of 1, slower as a party of 4+, which ~auto-balances encounters.

dotemtpy, please don't take offense to this, I am just using you as an example and I kind of agree with you but only to a point. And that is the point. Your vision of what this game should be is different than mine. Yet, we probably agree on 90% of things. You say: "I am with a lot of others here, the game's default settings should be more true to D&D 5e" yet no one above you made that comment. IMO you, like almost everyone else here, see something you agree with or see someone agree with you and think that makes a consensus when in reality you both still have very different visions. If I am putting words in your mouth, I apologize, but they apply to others if not you, so I am using you as an example.

Here is the point. If you say the game has to be this, that, and the other, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The game will never be everything you or anyone else wants, it simply can't be. Left unchecked Larian will make their game. They have shown you the direction they want to go. They believe they have taken the 5e rules and adapted them as needed to make the game more fun. And they have stayed close enough that WotC is fine with what they have done.

So assuming that few of us share Larian's exact vision, my intent was to give options so that many more of us could have the game we want possibly at the expense of balance, but even that may be fixable with mods.

The reality is these forums are a small subset of the entire player base. And even within these forums, there are a wide variety of people and opinions. Instead of being a line and trying to say who it on what part of the line, let's call it a polygon with many points and then where people fall closest to the points. I am going to limit it to a triangle. One point is the "content" person. This person may not even care about dnd much less 5e. This person just wants to see the game. They want to make a character and go explore. Combat is just a break in the story. They want to choose their dialog options, not roll dice. The 2nd point is the 5e diehard. If it is not exactly as the PHB or MM or DMG state, it's wrong. Doesn't matter that some of this will not be fun for a lot of players. Screw them this is DnD 5e or GTFO. The third point is people that just want challenging tactical combat and a story to go with it. As it stands, while many may find BG3 acceptable it will not be the perfect game for any of them.

I am also going to single out alice_ashpool (Alice) as an example. Take Alice's comment about exhaustion: "This is the only one which is a hard no from me. I super dislike exhaustion mechanics." I am 100% in the same boat. If it were a mandatory part of this game it might even be a deal-breaker for me. BUT there are some who think if it's not in the game, it's not a good game.

Also, if you made the combat in the game challenging to Alice, 99% of the player base would be in tears.

The only way I see to make a game that is closer to what everyone likes is to give options. IMO from a programming standpoint based on a quarter-century of programming, it is not as hard as it may sound.

Lastly, in my long monolog (apologies), We have "balance". There are 2 problems. 1) You can't have both all these options and a game balanced around any combination. It's absurd to expect that. But you might have a choice between Easy (purposefully not balanced), Normal, DnD 5e, and Custom. And it might be reasonable to have 2 sets of balance - Normal and 5e. So you could do a custom where you deviated slightly from normal or 5e and the game would still be fairly balanced. You want a completely custom game...you have to be willing to accept balance problems. Problem #2 with balance: It's subjective. I promise you that your idea of balance and Alice's are VASTLY different. So just like the game with no options cannot possibly please everyone, neither can any set of options be "perfectly balanced".

Later, I will add to the list the suggestions made so far.

Thank you for reading this and please think about any significant options I may have missed.

may I add, NO jump/feather fall/flight/teleport create water/food spell. might also add any magic effect that would influence dice checks. like guidance. (low magic age mode) :P
and no fast travel :P
and the hardcore ... 1 save mode(when you quit the game(totally) (can still be abused but, darn, it will be way more annoying do to so)).

I would also like a full RNG mode where the game chose everything for me :P (story wise)

I definitely like the idea of having numerous difficulty options, instead of merely a set Easy/Normal/Hard trichotomy. There could be numerous different aspects of difficulty that are individually configurable, and I would like that very much.

I think your list, however, is too long and includes things that Larian is just not going to change. While to some extent, they want to let players enjoy the game in their own way, game developers also have their own vision. They want to make their own game, and they want players to experience it in a specific way. That's a large reason why most games do not offer many options and significantly impact how the game is played, alter the fundamental design principles, or change how the story is presented.

Hypothetically, it would be nice to have every single thing as an option, complete customization of the game. But Larian is not going to do that. No developer is going to do that.

The ones I think are the most realistic as options are: 1, 10, 11, 13 (I think this is just a bug anyway though), 18, 19 (though I hope this isn't an option, but is in fact just implemented as a fix), 20 (in some form, perhaps, though nothing too complex), 21 (this is surely just unfinished AI and will be fixed anyway), 22, 23, 28, 29 (in the form of just better AI overall), and "a" from the bottom. I think the others are either part of Larian's core design philosophy, or too inconvenient to implement, or too minor to bother with.

But it's a good list, and a good thought. More individual difficulty/gameplay options would be great. I just think we shouldn't get our hopes up too high as to how many of them there will be.

I think pathfinder Kingmaker did it best. You have the normal difficulty slider, but you can also customise the settings which is great

Yep. Though I doubt BG3 will have the same level of rule depth, it is a good model.

I basically chose what was closest to the tabletop rules (so 1:1 damage taken and dealt), with Death's Door, but lowered Criticals (the Crit damages in PF are just too extreme. In tabletop PF1, I have seen a Paladin one-shot an adult Green Dragon who had ambushed us). It meant though not gaining a Steam Achievement for Challenging difficulty. I do not regret those choices as it was plenty difficult without being impossible.

Yes please add them all +1