Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Balance

This may have been discussed before, but I didn't see it on a quick search. It seems to me that you are fighting almost epic monsters at a very low level. At 4th level you are fighting phase spiders, drow, dueragar and minotaurs. What are you going to be fighting at 6/7th level? Demi Gods? It seems a bit much. I wouldn't think you would be fighting many of the creatures until much higher levels. What does everyone else think?

At least some players more familiar with DnD expressed worries over what seems like a high level campaign being set within levels 1-10+. There was also some complaining about using higher level enemies and nerfing them so they can be fought by level 1 party, and overall changes to bestiary - especially phase spiders have been criticised for having little to do with "phase spiders" from the tabletop version.

If I remember correctly, around EA launch, the discussions on this topic focused on which would have been the best/worst way of nerfing these supposedly too high level enemies by adding/decreasing their HP vs. their AC.

It makes me sad, bcs i less and less believe that i would ever fight a kobold in this game.

Most of these enemies aren't particularly "high-level" creatures in PnP. Regular Drow are CR 1/4. Phase Spiders, and Minotaurs, are CR 3. Duergar are CR 1. Bulettes are CR 5. It's totally expected for a party of 4 4th level PCs to fight any of these creatures, especially with full resources. In fact, a lot of these creatures would get crushed by a party of 4 PCs if they were alone, which is why there's multiple of them so that there's some challenge. The two minotaurs encounter would be considered a medium difficulty encounter in tabletop for a party of 4 5th level characters.

The issue most PnP players have with these creatures in BG3 is actually that they have a bunch of new abilities that don't necessarily relate to their tabletop counterparts. Phase spiders, for example, have slightly less HP than PnP (28 vs 32) but can now teleport and make ranged attacks via their new spit ability, which actually makes them a bit stronger than their PnP counterparts. However the problem people have with them is that their ethereal jaunt ability was turned into a teleport when that's not really what it did in PnP.

There are still a ton of creatures that can challenge higher level PCs, Larian isn't going to run out of them. In fact, one of the good things about using 5e is that even lower CR creatures can still be relevant at higher levels if fought in appropriate numbers.

The issue for me is the lack of creating a sense of progression and achievement. If we consider that our Level 1 characters are something along the lines of apprentices, students or graduates, then they are being thrown in the deep end somewhat. It might be a trope but I really don't think there is anything wrong with cutting your teeth on some more basic creatures.

It worked immensely well in BG1 in my opinion; a wolf was a real threat at the outset but a couple of levels later and you could deal with them with little trouble...hence creating a tangible sense of your character's evolution. I get Larian has this fixation tie getting away from their concept of 'boring' but the flip side is that everything is exceptional and explosive...and so the experience of facing a dragon later in the game is diminished, because we have already seen them in the intro...and can apparently even kill the one in the Githyanki patrol.

The really offensive enemies are the tutorial ship's mind flayer and Commander Zhalk. We should be absolutely obliterated if we try to fight them. The Mind Flayer should Mind Blast us (60 foot cone, DC 15 Int ST or take ~22 damage and get stunned if you somehow survive it), since it would be simple to get both us and Zhalk in the same blast. Idk about Zhalk but I assume he, as a seemingly powerful individual, should also have something similar.

But the fact that it's fairly feasible to win that combat just makes a joke of all "powerful" enemies. The mind flayers seem like they're supposed to be (one of the) Big Bads of BG3. So let them be a Big Bad. There should be enemies we can encounter that it's nearly impossible for us to defeat.

As for the rest of the enemies, eh the only other one that's potentially a problem (as others have said, Drow are CR 1/2, Duergar are CR 1, and even Minotaurs are only CR 3; all perfectly reasonable enemies for level 1-5 characters) is the red dragon. If you attack the red dragon before it flies off, it should also obliterate you.

Most of these creatures really aren't anything that special.They're hardly monsters that only seasoned adventurers can deal with, they're the CR they're at for a reason. There's still plenty of high CR creatures that can feasibly threaten tier 2 and 3 PCs in the monster manual and other 5e books which can definitely give players a real sense of progression.

The dragon is also kind of a bad example here. The reason they're introducing you to dragons early is because they're plot relevant and so it makes sense that one would show up early. You can't actually fight the dragon either. You can kill it, but only by going with the extremely cheesy barrelmancy strategy of sneaking in without triggering the cutscene, placing a very large amount of explosive barrels next to it, and detonating them to deal enough guaranteed damage to kill it. I'm not sure if this strategy even works anymore though since they've nerfed barrelmancy a lot since the EA started.

Needless to say, this isn't really a fair fight in any stretch. An actual fair fight against the dragon would be nearly impossible since it's a CR 17 Adult red dragon that can knock out multiple level 4 PCs in a single turn and can instantly kill an entire party of level 4 PCs with it's breath weapon. A party of 4 PCs can totally kill it in an actual fight at level 13 or so, but it's definitely not something you can really do at level 4.

Imps - 3 of them, are beyond deadly for 2 Level 1 characters in D&D. 3 intellect devourers are beyond deadly for 2 level 1 or 2 characters.

A party of 5 or 6 level 1 characters have a much better chance at 3 imps, and it's more balanced. Likewise, a party of 5 or 6 at level 1 or 2 have a much better chance against 3 intellect devourers.

Yes. The ONLY reason these encounters aren't impossible is because the monsters are nerfed - severely.

All Larian has to do to balance these encounters is allow for party of 4 custom characters, increase the party size max to 6, and implement actual 5e monster stats.

There's nothing wrong with the encounters. It's the party size and the fact that they aren't ACTUAL D&D monsters. They're baby thug monsters that have been given the appearance and names of really tough monsters.

I believe it dont ...
Few patches back, someone tested it in some stream i watched, and no matter how much explosives you deliver, it allways just started cinematic how dragon is flying away.

I think it would be an overreaction to increase party size (I like it at 4) or give a full party at once or do something else on the player side, just to make a few minutes in a tutorial more to DnD rules. To the imps there could be a story element why they are severely weakened. To the mindflayer and the devil, it should simply not be possible to beat them (and get Everburn) in the tutorial.

To the intellect devourers, they could say they're all babies.

To the phase spiders, they could say they're all a mutant strange breed found only in the Western Heartlands - a breed that teleports instead of phasing into the Ethereal Plane and that spits globs of poison, and that acts nothing like a phase spider.

To the harpies, they could say that they're a strange breed that can't use clubs and fight up close but who flies around hurling stones constantly instead and whose lure song works different from other harpies in the world.

To the wood woads and mud mephits - um... Yeah, they're a Western Heartlands breed too because they multiply WAY more frequently than your typical mud mephits and they also don't have the same stats as a typical mud mephit. Wood woads too. They aren't as tough. Hmmm. They'd be more of a 6 person party enemy, like the phase spiders... And the harpies... And the intellect devourers...If they had D&D stats...

Hmmm... And the original encounter with skeletons in the cellar... They had to nerf it because party of 4. Now, you fight like half of them, if not a 3rd of them. Not exactly a good guardian group for a necromancer. You fight what - 3 now?

And the red caps... They had to spread those guys out so they can't get into melee too quickly because if they do, total wipe party of 4.

Or the Gith patrol, at level 4, they are STILL a seriously tough fight for most people, and the hardest fight in the game. Party of 6? Not as hard or impossible. (I've tested it.). Hmmm. Strange. They're pretty darn close to 5e stats. So, balanced more for party of 6. Really hard for party of 4 at level 4. Geez, don't even try them at level 3 or 2. Party of 6 though? Even at level 3, you COULD do it. It's real tough, but not impossible for party of 6 at level 3.

Minotaurs - don't act like minotaurs with their hulk smashing.

Bulette is balanced for party of 6.

Spectator and Drow, nerfed for party of 4.

Hook horrors and Filro - meant for party of 6 and nerfed so you can beat them with party of 4.

Over and over again, almost every monster is nerfed or changed into something NOT D&D so that you can play the encounters with party of 4. I know because I've tested it by recreating the scenarios with tabletop. The encounters are built for party of 6, not 4. THAT is why most monsters don't behave with their proper stats and abilities.

All your monsters don't have to be a copy paste of the MM you know. NPCs are better if their 'legal' but monsters should fit to every situation.

I mostly agree (monsters in the MM are just examples after all) except for cases where homebrewing makes them less interesting. E.g., Imps without DR are equally as interesting combat encounters, but Intellect Devourers without the ability to devour intellect...at that point they can only do a basic attack. Just use an wolf/imp/humanoid thrall enemy instead.

Yes. True, and I agree. My point, though, is that MOST monsters are NOT 5e. MOST don't act like they should

They can't devour your host brain

*claps dust off hands*

Of course excuses are just excuses but unless the game makes a point of telling us we're at risk of having our intelligence devoured, I won't make a point of it either. Maybe when we next encounter the Illithid faction our training wheels will be lamp-shaded...or have a hat put on it...it will be addressed I'm trying to say.

For the record I'd love an intro that makes us terrified of entering combat but we're not going to get that.

And again, it's not just the intellect devourers. It's MOST monsters in BG3. The only ones that are kinda sorta okay are goblins and their allies.

Except that they like to shove a lot... And throw bombs and shoot magic arrows that send people flying... And some - many - are really buffed beyond Goblin Boss stats... Hmmm. Wait. Maybe the goblins don't have proper D&D behaviors and stats either. I mean, some do, but many don't. Many aren't even close.

So what in BG3 actually acts like what it should?

I dont think its Larian fault that nobody invented illithid themed enemy that would be adequate threat for single level 1 PC ...

It seems just right ...
Monster form sets the tune of the story ...
And monster statistic (and abilities) sets difficiulty of combat.

So, then where's the problem? There is no law/treaty which dictates the game to be DnD 5e PnP with a party of 6. It's a video game with a party of 4 based on the DnD world and implementing (after what I've read from others, as I'm no DnD player) only about 80 to 90 % DnD 5e rules, not everything. They have to rebalance the monsters, and they have done it mostly in an entertaining way, for my taste.

If you tell your audience that you're going to make a D&D game based on the 5e ruleset, as faithfully as possible, then you have an obligation to do so and to not change things or deviate them from that unless it's truly necessary to make the game work. If they had implemented thee ruleset 80% faithfully, very few people would be complaining - I'd be happy, for one thing. They have not done that; not even close. Whoever is telling you that they've done an 80-90% faithful rendition of the ruleset is straight up lying to you.

The problem is that setting a game in particular setting, using (or claiming to use) a particular ruleset, and placing within it creatures that are the defined property of that game's licence with representations within that ruleset... all creates an expectation that what is presented will actually be the thing that it is claiming to be - not something else that uses its name and (sometimes) appearance, but is functionally completely different.

If they want a creature to do a certain thing, and they don't find an appropriate D&D monster to fit that niche the way they want (unlikely, to be honest), then they absolutely have the freedom to make a new monster that DOES fit exactly what they want! They HAVE that freedom! If they want to make a special kind of troll that does fire damage is immune to fire, bleeds fire when you cut it, and does not have its trollish regeneration suspended by fire... they can do that! No-one (almost no-one, probably) will complain! ... As long as they don't call it a "Troll". As long as they call it a name that suites the new creature that is - call it an Emberwrack Troll, or something of that nature... fine; that's a-okay.

What's not okay is placing iconic D&D monsters into the space for players to fight, but then not having them actually be those creatures; it adds nothing of extra value to those who don't know better, and only makes those who do know better annoyed - you say you're fine with how they've been rebalanced, but you admit yourself with your own comment that you don't actually know how they've been rebalanced, or how they are meant to be in the first place. That's okay, but what it illustrates is that you'd have been happy either way; you'd have been happy if the creatures presented in their current state looked a bit different and had a different name. You wouldn't even know the difference. So why; why in the world would you support decisions from them that make no difference to some people's enjoyment and take away from others, and add no positive value experience over a difference choice, to anyone? Because that is what we have here.

==

To Rag; It's LARIAN'S fault that there is no CR 1/4 illithid-themed enemy to pitch to a single level one character as a fair encounter... It's their fault entirely because they are the ones who created the situation where such a thing was called for, but, as our DM, as you are so fond of referring to them as, they didn't create a suitable creature to fit that need. That's their job, as DM. If they had a scenario, and looked in the monster manual, and couldn't find a creature suitable for their needs, and a re-skin and block-borrow would not suffice, then it was their responsibility and duty as our DM, to Make one for the scenario they had envisioned. They Didn't do that, and they are Not doing that, and by and large that is the problem.

I'll point to solasta again here, just because - They only have the SRD to work with, and so they don't have license for the complete monster manual. This means that they've had to build monsters to suit their scenarios and situations. They have done so, creating creatures that obey the general D&D design rules and principles, creating stat blocks that fit their CR and which, while unique and new, still nevertheless feel like creatures designed for the 5e ruleset, and which work as such, often utilising many of the traits that you'd expect such a creature to have (Like their little winged dragonette-type creatures having fly-by, for example). The result is that even though these are all new creatures with their own names and appearances, they still feel like 5e monsters, through and through... compared to BG3's monsters which, Despite having the visually distinct iconic appearances and names, do Not, in an alarmingly high number of cases.