Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Creature scaling immersion

How do you feel about the level scaling of BG and BG2?

It is skewed perception I think.
"MLG methods" out of the picture, knowing the terrain and situation is half the battle.
And we can encounter an enemy as often as we like by reload.

First time the Minotaurs bodyslammed and Sumowrestled the nine Hells out of my group before I even knew what was going on.
Cause we ran into them with unfavourable positioning. When I knew though, they became my beef.
This is the power of knowing what's gonna happen.

Same as with the Beholder and Hag.

The monsters effectively have levels, but it would indeed be better to offer a CR - but that doesn't mean that you cannot have powerful creatures around you. In fact, there should be more though most should not be made easier just because your character can come across them at earlier levels. Rather, you should be coming back to fight them at later levels or they should be handled by other higher level adventurers that coexist with your group - to create a more fully fleshed out world. Hell, what I threw at my level 3 characters in my most recent DM session was a wizard's keep along their path to fight bandits - it was above their CR and that was made apparent with the first enemy they came across outside the keep. They learned the lesson without dying and stuck to what they want - but this existed and they could opt to come back to it later.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant that I wasn't talking at all about the difficulty in this thread I meant that game balance isn't the point for me, it was targeted at narrative and what kind of enemies they are using.






The way BG3 is structured though, you are not meeting enemies that you can't handle (exception would be the fight between the mindflayer and demon, but I've read someone beat the demon, right? and the other exception would be that you are not suposed to fight the dragon... but again, people kill him with the questionable game design decisions). Its a common trope to meet the arch nemesis before you can handle them. Or see challenging creatures that you avoid and come back later. None of this is though present in BG3. You just keep seeing the rarest creatures D&D can offer, you can even squish them if you like and you move on your quest with your ultra special friends... being level 4. Keepin in mind that once you finish a hub you have absolutely no reason to come back and in DOS2 you actually even couldn't from what I remember, so I don't think any content is meant to be 'kept for later'.

I have no problem with variaty to some degree. For example I'm fine with the goblins not being the standard D&D goblins (I'm not fine with the game design reasoning behind it, but I generally don't mind modifying enemies to fit the story). But as an example on that I didn't like where the two utterly random buffed up minotaurs that did nothing for the story or setting except whipe your party with an unexpected skill set. To me minotaurs are not the first monster that comes to mind in the Underdark, it just felt random and out of place.

At the end of the day, we can desect every single encounter on pros and cons why they are in there, but the result of all parts combined to me remains what I've said. Everything is special to the point that nothing feels special in this game. Sadly.



Regarding the level scaling and level displaying - it actually might just be a bug or unfinished part, since it looks ported from DOS2. So I wouldn't read too much into it, but who knows.

I'm sorry where do you guys find a beholder? Are you referring to the spectator? Because those are two very different things.

Yes, it was already indentified as mistake on the part of us calling it a beholder.

They may have overdone it - but it is not automatically problematic as it was originally put forward as. I liked that they managed to properly add in mindflayers to tell the story. I never tried to attack the dragons because I saw them as background as opposed to things I could kill - I have tried to kill the demon lord but horribly failed. I have not tried to go through the underdark as of yet wanting to try more things in the storyline before with different characters - but minotaurs do seem an odd placement.

I agree with most things said here:

- In the movie "the incredibles" the bad guy said "If everyone is super, then no one is." when he talked about selling stuff that gives super powers. That's right. BG3 tries so hard to throw special stuff at you that it does not feel very special.
I think I know something similar: PST was great because it turned usual fantasy stuff upside down. Numenera was bad because it threw tons of strange stuff at you just for the sake of being strange.

- I agree that it may be a good idea to remove the level shown on enemies.

- BG1 and Gothic 1+2 were great because you started very weak and you could run into stuff that was way too much for you. But you grow stronger and you can come back later.
No levels shown on enemies was also nice. Find out the enemies strength by fighting them.

This is a very interesting quote to bring up, in the context of BG3, because it describes a fundamental difference in Bioware's narrative design vs. Larian's.

The original BG's narrative leaned super heavily into the "Chosen One" trope. It's clearly set-up to be a power-fantasy where Player Character is the "most special"- beyond just being a Bhaalspawn. I mean, the series literally ends with a Highlander "There Can Only Be One" scenario where you wreck all the other Bhaalspawns to prove that you are #1. It's the go-to set-up for most epic-fantasy stories, and there are good reasons why it's very popular - it's incredible fun and satisfying. However, it's also the antithesis of Dungeons and Dragons - where it's a team game, and no one party member should be more special than the others (unless you want to be "that guy"). In many ways, the original BGs were an epic fantasy story simply using the D&D ruleset to support it.

Baldur's Gate 3 has clearly design its narrative to more so reflect actual D&D games. You are basically just another adventurer, in a world full of magic. The world is every bit as extraordinary and special as you are - if anything, you're the fish out of water. All the companions have their own background, agency, and goals, but the DM/narrative finds some common ground reason to get the party to travel together. No one in the party is specifically more special or the "chosen one". Struggling to trust one another and RPing through group issues is given much more importance - you see it quite a bit with all the popular D&D Shows (i.e. Critical Role). BG3 is a single player game that tries to give you a D&D table-top experience.


The BG3 kind of set-up obviously works much better in actual D&D. However, I can see it being a bit more jarring in a single player CRPG. It's one thing to enjoy the spotlight with your friends. It's another doing it in a SP videogame with characters you may actively dislike. If done poorly, it can feel like you're dealing with a writer's bad self-insert fanfic. I don't think BG3 has crossed that line yet, but I do feel the potential for it to happen.

I can also understand why some people will think that making BG3 feel like a table-top game is a fundamental betrayal of the original BG (hence the "call it BG: anything but BG3" argument). Personally, I'm fine with it, but I do get the criticism. Sorry, I kinda went off topic there. Just thought it was interesting.

Except of course for the magical tadpole which only YOU (+support cast) can control because some deity took interest in you. Thats especially true when you play an origin character and not a custom one.
No, in BG3 you are exactly as much a chose one as in BG or other RPGs.
The difference is that while on other games you start low and slowly rise to the top in BG3 you already encounter things normal people speak of in awe and fear like mind flayers, demons, fully grown dragons, the underdark, etc. left and right. What usually would be "the stuff of legends" is just normal from level 1 on.

I literally said: No one in the party is specifically more special or the "chosen one".

By default, the fact that multiple origin characters exist with the same powerset and "destiny" as you (either as custom or 1 of the 5 origins), means you are not the chosen one. Nevermind that you meet at least 4 other "True Souls" just in the starting area, and aside from you being far more clueless than they are, there's no conclusive evidence that you're more special than they are.

Contrast that against BG2. Imoen is a bhaalspawn too, but her bhaalspawn abilities severely lags yours because the "chosen one" narrative demands it. By the time she gets her first set of powers in ToB (equivalent to what you have in SoA), you're already tiers above her having gained the Slayer form in SoA. The game has mechanical differences built in to actively to show your "specialness".



Is there a rule that low level adventurers must not meet higher creatures/people, or not allowed in certain locations? Or is that just an assumption? Faerun and BG games aren't MMORPGs with level-gated areas, where certain players and characters must be X level to enter.

There are official 5e adventures for level 1-15 that starts in the Underdark.

The prequel module to Baldur's Gate 3 - the Table Top - Baldur's Gate: Descend into Avernus also have character starting at level 1, and soon after get to watch as the armies of hell invade Elturel. Oh, and in the beginning you're hanging out with an Archmage that casually drops level 9 spells.

You run up against Legendary things in BG1 too. Sarevok is a level 15 fighter and he's basically the first encounter. Drizzt is level 16 ranger and most people think of cheese-killing him in BG1 as a rite of passage. You meet, and get to cheese-kill Elminster - the most legendary character in all of Faerun - if you want... who's what? Level 30 in 2e?

And of course every true soul, including the three goblin leaders, and of course that one guy you saw literally dying before you while his two siblings fall under your control, and presumably at least tens of others.

Hint : there are no level scaling in BG1/2

That's where you are wrong. All areas in BG1 and 2 had their contents and encounters change depending on your level.

Yes... No...

That's only true for a very specific and very limited number of combats. That's only for random encounter (doesn't exist in BG3) and SOMETIMES a few random spawn point on maps (doesn't exist in BG3).

This is very limited and this is absolutely irrelevant to the thread.
Scaling trough an ice wolf instead of a wolf is totally different than creating a lvl 4 or a lvl 10 dragon.

Is it though? Morrowind for example also used level scaling (and to a much higher degree than BG). Level scaling in itself isn't wrong, it's like salt: you have to keep it the right amount, too little and it might end up bland, too much and it ruins everything.

That's the lesson to be learnt from Oblivion's failure. Not "level scaling is horrible and there should be no level scaling whatsoever".

It's almost like we are talking about entirely different things.
At no point I ever complained about strong "high level" enemies being there.
In fact, it's arguably the opposite: I'm complaining about the game not having the guts to put strong enemies/characters in and instead scaling them to fit the player's level range (sort of, the discussion is a bit more complex than that, and I already went more into detail in the thread I linked in the previous reply).

In short, it's not a matter of difficulty and challenge, but it's about presentation and consistency.
You can't tell me that I'm facing the "Dark Uberlord of Evil" at level 3 and then give me goblins that are stronger than him five hours later in the second chapter of the game.
Not if you want me to take your setting and rules seriously.

The only encounters that scaled in BG 1 and 2 were the ones against humanoid "parties of evil adventurers". And in a limited way, too.

Yeah, and it was terrible.

To be fair: you added "Dark" to the title.

EDIT: awww, someone already reference it...

I think that Larian did a terrible initial job labelling creatures and accidentally created a sense of "scaled world" in the initial EA. Some of this seems to be fixed though.

RE: Level 4 "Red Dragon"
This seems to be fixed in Patch 3 or one of the hotfixes. The Adult Red Dragon is now listed as a level 17 creature (technically still wrong, since CR =/= level, and proficiency bonus is still wrong, plus immunities)

RE: Level 5 "Archdruids"
I personally think the Archdruid situation is a misnaming instead of a decision to scale down. Reason being that if Halsin was an actual Archdruid by the books (a level 18 caster), the narrative just breaks. The entire Goblin cult shouldn't really pose a threat nor should he be captured if he actually is a level 18 druid. He can just level the entire camp with a couple of Earthquakes or Firestorms. Seriously, they should just call him a basic druid and leave it at that. Narratively and mechanically he doesn't deserve the title.



It's not just scaling humanoid parties in BG though. If you're high enough level, monsters are added or replaced, sometimes very powerful ones.

As someone who partook in the solo no-reload challenges in the Bioware forums back in the day (and thus meta-gamed the crap out of the game), planning around the encounter scaling was all part of the game plan. Some examples of if you're high level enough:

1) Shade Lord's Temple - Liches are introduced to the dungeon (had a run end here because of this once)
2) Unseeing Eye Quest - Beholders replaces Gauth
3) Tanner's Basement - Bone Golem added to the encounter (3rd level, where you get the Gesen Shaft)
4) Firkragg's Dungeon - Adamantine Golem added in the maze
5) De'Arnise Keep - Big mob of troll spawns right before the final battle in the cellar
6) Planar Sphere - More Clay Golems, plus an Iron Golem if you're high level enough
7) Sewers - a group of Beholder just shows up when you're above the 2 million XP mark

There are more, and some that seemed to adjust based on party size too (i.e. # of Illithids at the Underdark Entrance via Sahuagin city seemed to depend on party size).

With all that said though, I think the BGs are an example of a good implementation of difficulty scaling. Especially if you compare that to the Elder Scrolls stat bloating.