Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General It's not lvls 13 to 20

Larian used ITEMS instead of levels to power up everyone by end game.

Good quick way NOT to add more levels/spells if your short on time and resources for the game release.

Given as well the fact that this is Baldur's Gate 3, the only point of reference that's relevant is the previous titles.

BG2, level 40 cap, literally become a demigod with megapowers.

This has nothing at all to do with PnP, in fact isn't the other reason given against higher levels the fact that 'PnP campaigns never even go that high'?

Then people also want to claim 'PnP is fun cos high levels, that's not possible to do in video games'.

The arguments against higher level caps in a video game, especially considering what BG2 already did 20 years ago are just absurd.

Being stuck at level 12 throughout act 3 when you can in fact reach that cap before you even reach Baldur's Gate, like why does Act 3 even exist if acts 1 and 2 are already levels 1-12?

Also regarding 'high level spells are just too powerful' ... Deconstruct is a level 6 spell that if it was featured in this game would trivialize Act 3 by simply being able to destroy all the Golems plus all the level 6 slot recharge items. Balance is not hindered at all by level cap or spell levels, the most obvious point is you also make the content to support that cap, Act 3 already and if it also had the upper city added could easily support up to level 16 content.

'Balance'is not just combat prowess.

And that's not the point here, a level one Halfling bard with 14 Smokepowder barrels will blow up your min-maxed level 12 party like it's nobody's business.


But. Yes, we reached that point where we said; 'then jsut leave those spells out.'

Right, so you really want to have a fireball with higher numbers. It's not about more things to do at all.

More abilities / spells = more things to do, more builds to try, more character variety.

It sounds more like BG3 is your first experience of a DnD based PC game, or even a CRPG for that matter.

As for 'barrelmancy', that is purely a Larian thing, nothing to do with DnD at all.

Balance isn't fun. No character development isnt fun either. And taking up the example of barrels, one can't exactly claim to be favouring balance when crap like that already exists in this game.

I will tell you what isn't fun though, needing to click through romance / companion text in camp for hours on end in every playthrough. Meanwihile I can replay a solo run through BG1&2 for the millionth time and still have the most fun possible in any video game, or maybe not, Tales of Maj Eyal is actually even better. Or a Spiderweb Software CRPG.

In all honesty, DnD & CRPGs simply don't work well at all for a AAA game because all developers seem hell bent on ruining everything that makes them great so they can appeal to the masses.

Next time I'm playing DnD, I'm gonna play as the guy that places explosive barrels everywhere.

You seem to dislike not only the game, but the entire concept of the genre. Why would anyone follow your advice on how to make this genre of game?

Funny, in BG1&2 and most other CRPGs, I play without any companion dialogue, since when is companion dialogue the entire concept of this genre?

My favourite aspect for companion dialogue in BG2 was actually being able to tell Jaheira to simply STFU and she never bothers you again. Where is that option for Gale? Also there are literally a multitude of QOL mods for BG2 that actually remove all the cutscenes and dream sequences and such so players can simply enjoy the game. Imagine thinking that a feature is so important when players actually use mods to remove it from their game lol.

I believe it was Dragon Age Origins that introduced mandatory companion dialogue, while a good game, hardly the basis of the CRPG genre, and then we all know what happened following that game with Bioware. But I suppose, having a forced romance & sex simulator is mandatory for AAA games in order to sell.

Yeah, look. I will blame the game for a fair amount of things, the writing is certainly one of them.

But not having enough things to do? Most certainly not.

Also, 'we must compare it to previous titles'

That puts Baldur's Gate, the first game with the ruleset at a level cap of Level Seven. Nine, with TotSC. Twelve, with the Siege of Dragonspear thing.
Icewind Dale had a cap of thirty, but only attainable through NG+, otherwise you're facing Behlifet at level twelve, too. Which is fitting, considering you're fighting the same guy in the end as in Siege of Dragonspear.

[Fun fact, BG2 had an experience cap, whereas IWD had a level cap, meaning you could technically attain levels [a 30/30/30 F/M/T for example through multiclassing that you couldn't in Throne of Bhaal]

And frankly, that ruleset is way more about numbers than it is about the things that actually happen. A level 30 fighter or a level 1 fighter do the *exact same thing*, just more times and with higher numbers. There were no combinations, no true builds, just levels and numbers. The only 'building'you do in classic Baldur's Gate is rolling for stats and picking a weapon proficiency. Yeah, picking spells on a Sorcerer. Otherwise, the progression is exactly the same for everyone of the same class. And yes. Wizards and Sorcerers had more options, but there too, the options in what you could viably pull off were severely limited. More than half the spells in Bg2 had no real use.

I may sound like it to you, but I dare say I know the classic Infinity Engine games better than most, even the few - and have played them religiously for over 20 years. But there is no contest in things you can do, and the variety of encounters between these games. Speaking with animals/corpses, environmental shenanigans, barrels and bombs, improvised weapons, flying, light and darkness, verticality, fun class /race combinations that actually change what you can do.

Gale... STFU

I love it,

DDO junkie since fall of 06'