Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Love & Extreme, Utter Disappointment with Leveling: Level 12 Cap Issue

TLDR: BG3's XP distribution does not adequately account for completionist play patterns and punishes players for enjoying the game

Late to the party, but doing 1st playthrough and I love the game!! There was a learning curve since I was unfamiliar with D&D rules but it was rewarding and quickly became one of my all time favorites due to a variety of reasons. However, after a brilliantly paced Act 1 & 2, I was devastated to learn of the level 12 cap in Act 3.

Generally I try to explore everywhere, and I capped out in Act 3 with 4 main quests, 11 sidequests (and more if you count the character quests) remaining. Over 15+ quests of content that I feel cheated out of enjoying. There is no XP scaling or diminishing returns to compensate for this. With respect, why would you make content that there's no incentive to completing?

Now that I've capped with so much of the game remaining, I feel betrayed & punished for enjoying and playing the game. Stories & fights I had once bought into are now cumbersome and dragging. I just want to finish the game but also don't want to completely spike my game and throw away my character's (Gorpmilk) playthrough and choices.

My understanding is that the design of the level 12 cap is to avoid especially powerful D&D spells from ruining the balance scaling. So you can 1. not include those spells in the game (already done), 2. have scaling enemies or 3. diminishing return leveling after lvl 12. So people can still finish the game with a level 12 character, via multiple playthroughs or someone has a really robust and long lasting campaign.

There is a Mod that has level 20 cap that allows multiclassing with a single level class cap at 12. I feel like this addresses most of the issue but unfortunately since I don't want to download from an unofficial external source (and I have a Mac) I may just stop playing entirely.

I feel like a fool for reading books, learning the details of the world, doing the small things, getting small XP here and there, appreciating the small details of the game that people put so much effort into making. Capping the game so early is an insult to everyone who has worked on it and who's played it to completion. This is a real bummer and a major turn off to new players. Please advise and fix

What do you think about the level 12 cap? multiple choice, up to 4 choices
	Its bogus as hell. It punishes certain playstyles and for actually engaging with the content
	Its fine the way it is. While abrasive, it lends itself towards completing multiple playthroughs while maintaining D&D's 5e's action economy + spell tier system. It was a scope decision.
	Wasn't really something I noticed
	Ew, you have a mac
	Ur soft, I capped out way earlier
	Who cares you capped out? Its about the story
	The mods are an adequate and safe solution to this issue and I'll comment which ones I used and where I got them
	The mods gave my computer aids and I'll comment which one/where so others can avoid
Votes accepted starting: Yesterday at 07:24 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I mean, shouldn't the incentive simply be, to experience the stories? Also, some quests provide loot as a reward.

If your ONLY reason for doing anything is to make number go up, then grab yourself a calculator and type in some random numbers after you complete a quest while level capped.


Level caps are often a pretty significant discussion. Often with 2 main sides:

- Level capping early is bad. Lack of progression and overall watering down of activities because of no "Number goes up" (Due to that being a primary factor for some players rather than... You know... The actual gameplay)

- Level capping late is bad. Feel pushed into doing ALL content to get maximal experience gains (Including exploiting game mechanics, such as double dipping on experience by using dialogue to avoid combat... Then attacking everyone anyway). Feels lame to not get to actually use your full build at all.

Regardless of what is done, some group of people will always feel bad.


Scaling does nothing to stop high level spells from breaking the game. Spells like Wish, Invulnerability, Time Stop and Imprisonment don't really care how scaled an enemy is.

You'd have to omit such spells, but that can also cause issues, such as having higher level spell tiers being very underpopulated due to how few spells would remain.


It addresses only one of the issues. Which is high level spells.

While creating more issues by way of skewing balance towards casters whom will still scale to level 9 spell slots to use for upcasting (Thanks to 5e's shared spell slot progression) while martials are still stuck with their lack of scaling with no additional extra attacks and no better weapons than the +2 and +3 stuff of the base game.

The more balanced ones are the proper level 20 overhauls that include scaling up to level 20 for classes. With proper support for enemies also scaling up to 20 too.


There's at least 2 mods I can see that provide a level 20 cap available on mod.io which means they are available from within the game itself using its mod menu.

Nexus mods is 3rd party but they're fine, there's no malware there. Everything that is uploaded is checked by the site moderators.


Ehh... It never bothered me. I mean, I am somewhat annoyed about the level 12 cap rather than 20. But I had no qualms about when the cap was reached. I still did quests and optional content even after reaching the cap because gaining experience is not why I played the game.

But I suppose I'm usually getting annoyed at JRPG's where you hit max level, get the best gear and finish you builds and then have ONLY the last boss to actually use it all on (Who, to pour salt into the wound, is often weak af especially compared to the optional super bosses you had to fight before reaching full strength...)

I dont really get this complaint because both BG1 and BG2 have also been capped, and so has every other D&D game I've ever played.

None of the options you give address this, so I cannot pick any option of your poll.

Besides, people have capped in BG3 even back in Act 2 already.

@Taril Thanks for responding duder. I alluded to appreciation of the story in my poll options of which I can definitely respect. Getting slightly upgraded gear is something to consider but not sure it makes up for the lack of progression, at least to me. Character buffs from level progression, even in a diminished capacity such as no more feats, skills or massively increasing level thresholds after lvl 12, at least rewards players for completing the quests. Unfortunately I cant use a calculator to get more health or do more damage. Perhaps I have a larger lesson to learn about enjoying the ride though.

You mentioned the 2 sides of level capping too early and too late, of which I agree!

I agreed with the omission of high level spells and limiting the single class level, as included by the current mod. With that restraint, it'd be nice if enemies had a modifier based on your level at the start of the encounter after level 12. Unless you think that'd get too complicated?

I've still got a lot to learn with the 5e's system so I didnt realize the disparity between wizard and monk in this case. The level 20 for both players and monsters would be ideal but I understand that wouldve taken a lot more work and they already spent 6 years on it. Maybe they just figured mods could be made after the fact to address this.

To me, its not so much as 'making numbers go up' as it is, getting more stats (even if diminished) to improve for future encounters. Going on quests, enjoying both the story and adventure while getting better.

Thanks! I had heard about mod.io but didnt know it was accessible from within the game. Will check out

And thats a good point about only having the last boss to use finished builds on.

I mean... Are you even actually progressing with those restrictions in place?

All leveling up gives is a singular die of health based on class (From d6 to d10) plus Con modifier.

That's it.

No damage increase, no extra skills. Just like 8-13 health (Maybe you get a bit more if you're a Barb with 20 Con... For a whole 15 health!)

Power from leveling in DnD comes from getting feats, proficiency bonuses and class features. If you don't get them (Either they're not implemented or leveling is so diminished you don't get enough to reach the thresholds) then your power doesn't change.


Well, Larian themselves were set on making the cap level 12. They simply didn't want to have to deal with higher level class features (Though they did bring some classes level 14 features down to level 11 so they can be used. Such as Draconic Sorcerer's flight). They then balanced their campaign around this.

Modders have addressed this though. Not so much the mod.io ones which simply raise the cap but don't do much in regards to experience or class features. But some of the ones on Nexus fully intergrate level 20, including rebalancing experience gains across the campaign (Though I think they still cap out around the same time mid-Act 3 but I can't say for sure as I haven't really used such mods much) as well as adding support for enemies to also utilize later level features (As well as scaling appropriately)


Which is an interesting thought process, when also wanting enemies to scale up too.

It's actually one of the comical fallacies in regards to dynamic level scaling in video games. The whole idea of "I want to level up to get stronger" but also "I want enemies to level up with me" which leads to the situation where... You're not actually moving anywhere. Your numbers increase in size, but your relative power remains static.

I've also noted it in non-dynamic level games such as MMO's. I start off as a no name pleb doing 1 damage to a boar's 10 health (So it takes me 10 hits to kill it) and end up as a super strong world saving hero doing 100,000 damage to a 1,000,000 health Hellboar (So it still takes me 10 hits to kill it)

Which is the situation that lead me to seriously questioning the whole "Leveling" mechanic in games. With the conclusion that in many cases, leveling is just pointless. Since any increase in power is mitigated by enemies getting equally more powerful.

So I tend to have a more critical eye about what exactly a character's progression actually is (Even more so with my history in JRPG's... Especially the Disgaea series where a maxxed character is one that has reached level 9999 and then reset back to 1 at least 100 times in order to inherit bonus base stats - The process of doing that with 12+ characters in 7+ titles in the series really makes you aware of just how meaningless an individual level can be...)

For example, in Cyberpunk 2077, enemies scale with you as you level (With certain level breakpoints where all items upgrade to the next level, which often provides a spike in enemy difficulty as their weapons upgrade while you need to wait to loot a new one or get resources to upgrade your existing stuff). However, you do become more powerful over time thanks to an increase in Cyberware Capacity allowing you to equip more stuff. Thus, it's not really the levels that are providing you with power, it's just the cyberware capacity. So theoretically, all levels could be removed from the game and you simply gain cyberware capacity (Plus perk points) when you get enough experience and the game would perform identically as that's the only form of actual power scaling of the character.

As a result, I don't have any major hang ups about gaining experience or levels.

In fact, I have qualms about both.

- Levels for the sake of levels is redundant and pointless. If enemies are simply going to get equally more powerful, then there is no point to such things. Progression should be tied to meaningful power increases, not just "Here's more stats so you can remain equally as strong as the new stronger enemies you face"

- Experience systems are kind of trash, especially for RPG's. This is something that is addressed in a lot of Table Top game groups, where they eschew getting experience for individual actions and instead the entire party levels up as they reach milestones in their campaign. This means that the players aren't having to micromanage where to get experience (And who to give it to) or feeling forced to do every little side quest just to get that experience, they just play the game how they want and get progression in line with the campaign.

The way experience is handled also leads to more issues with "Level caps". Since a developer has to either balance around completionists who do every little quest and every single skill check so experience requirements are put high (Meaning that role-players will be underleveled). Or they balance around role-players who only do things that make sense for their character to do (Meaning that completionists will be overleveled). Meanwhile, main story progression would always be the same regardless of player.

In addition to railroading player choices. Take for example the Abandoned Village in Act 1. You can either do a dialogue check with the Goblins to pass through safely or you can kill them all. Both reward the same experience (Ignoring the ability to pass the dialogue check and then ALSO murder them). But what if someone just sneaks past them? No experience. Goes an alternate route to not encounter them? No experience. Causes other NPC's to engage with them (Such as summoning Lump and co)? No experience.

Of course, the premise would rely on having some factor other than experience to motivate players to do side quests (Though this is nothing new. Games have done things like use currency, items, faction reputation and even special character boosts as alternate incentives for side quests for yonks)

I think the original cap , during the early access development, was planned at Lvl 10, because lvl 6 spells were considered overpowered for the game. But Larian then raised it at some point to 12 and included a number of 6 spells. So I guess they did weigh all options and made a decision, not simpy based on ease of development, but taking player desires into account also.

Of course you can question level, like you can question all kinds of other popular gaming concepts, like for example hitpoints. But there is always a reason why these concepts are popular, and level is exceptionally important and hard to do without.

The point of leveling is that you have a measurement of the power of the character. This is necessary so you can always have a challenge, and keep the challenge in the sweet spot where the game is not too easy and thus boring but also not too difficult and thus frustrating. So level is supposed to give an easy way to approximate the power of your character.

Games without leveling exists, like one of my favorite games ever, Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines (2004) by Troika Games (R.I.P.). But here we follow a very strict game in regards of control over where you can go when. Also, the improvements that you could have for your character have been strictly regulated as well.

Even so when I started playing VtMB, I made many errors, and some combat became impossible. Not having level is tough.

Namely in VtMB you should not undervalue defense, as you can do in other games. Defense really is essential when you face large groups of opponents. High or low defense is then the difference between a manageable fight and an impossible one. This of course only happends on some vampire clans. A Ventrue or Gangrel can rely on Fortitude instead.

Another important rule in VtMB is that ranged starts of really weak, but becomes very strong later, so on a Nosferatu its a must to have, and other clans can definitely benefit as well.

In an open game world, its even less desireable to not have level. It basically means you cannot have progress at all.

It by the way also helps the player. If I can see the level of the opponent, I can know if I should avoid them for now.

And games that keep the level of your opponents the same as your own are really bad. They remove all meaning from level.

Worst offender in this category was The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. Not only did your opponents strictly level with your character, but level didnt even represent a specific level of power. So you could easily make your character underpowered and end up with an unplayable game. Oblvion literally forced you into powergaming.

To a lesser degree many games do this. Which is fine. As long as you dont do this too severely. BG3 by the way also does this. If you create not one but two characters, you face four Imps with Laezel instead of the usual three.

It is not.

In many cases, level is completely redundant and easily done away with.


Which is not unique to "Levels".

There's plenty of methods to measure character power without levels. Such as equipment quality (Gearscore), stat points, skill points and basically everything that is normally acquired alongside a "Level" without the actual "Level" itself.


That is so laughably untrue.

There are and have been many ways to have progress without levels.

In the DLC for Elden Ring, Shadow of the Erdtree, they created progression by way of having your character collect "Scadutree Fragments" something independent of levels that provided progression (Which was implemented as they wanted to create a form of progression irrespective of player levels. So even a "Max Level" character would have to progress through the DLC like a non-max level character). This is on top of the base mechanic of the entire Soulsborne series where "Level" simply means how expensive it is to gain stat points (As well as online matchmaking)

In GTA you progress by acquiring new homes and opening up new locations on the map to be able to acquire better weapons and vehicles.

Many open world games feature some sort of skill points or other forms of character progression from doing certain side activities, which are independent of levels. (For example, Cyberpunk 2077's DLC Phantom Liberty has the Relic points from interacting with Relic Point nodes. It also has Cyberware Capacity which can be obtained through Cyberware Capacity Shards)

Heck, we can even look at something like GW2, where you have Hero Points as a non-level based progression system. In an MMO. As well as Elder Scrolls Online and its Skyshards to gain skill points (ESO also has its Champion Point system. Whereby after Level 50 CP 160 you stop "Levelling" meaning gear, stat and enemy scaling ceases. Your only progression is then through acquiring Champion Points and investing them into the Champion Skill Trees)


Which is again, independent of levels. It's plenty possible to convey enemy threat level without levels. Heck, even with levels you still often have the basic quantifier of colour (Grey = Trivial. White = Equal. Yellow = Slightly tougher. Orange = Fairly strong. Red = Tough. SKULLS = DANGER). Which is again, not reliant on levels.


Which is literally all games.

Either they dynamically scale with you. Or your natural progression means you are constantly facing equally strong enemies. Which is the point as to why levels are redundant when all "Progression" from them is rendered moot when enemies simply scale equally with you.

The only exception is static enemy levels means you can sequence break to encounter easier or tougher enemies. (Or in the case of things like JRPG's, you can grind to artificially inflate your level). Which is usually a minor aspect of the game and not generally the intended way of playing (With again, exceptions. In this case, based on poorly balanced level curves. Such as in Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning where you very quickly and easily outlevel zones by just doing their story)