While reading through the questions and responses on the AMA, I saw that the planned level progression for BG3 is only levels 1 through 10 for the full release of the game. I feel like this is a huge mistake for both Larian Studios and Wizards of The Coast if they decide to go this way. The D&D 5e ruleset from my understanding is based around a level 20 cap, so why would they choose to not keep that system which is already defined in the players handbook? Also, if I am only able to level my character 10 times total in a 100+ hour cRPG play-through, I for one would feel pretty cheated. I hate to compare games, but even in Pathfinder Kingmaker you had the potential to reach level 20 by the end of the game. This higher level cap lead to much more flexible builds and a very satisfactory feeling while progressing through the game of gaining power at regular intervals. I hope that Larian Studios and Wizards of The Coast decide to revise their decision to make the level cap 10 and increase the level cap to 20.

Maybe because the remaining levels will be for part 2?



I expect you will be far from alone with this sentiment, but I'd say enjoy the ride; playing the game itself should be part of the reward. I'm glad to see they are distancing themselves from the trends of video RPGs (e.g Diablo).

Pretty sure this means BG4 is already in the pipeline. (They also said there wont be any DLCs)

One reason why I prefer BG1 over BG2 (while BG2 is objectivly a better game) is the sense of scope. In BG1 they capture that "leaving the Shire for the first time" vibe that is lost the more (literal) experience you get. So for me this isnt bad news at all, it just means we'll get more games in the future.

I do agree with you even though I do think that the level cap at level 10 is a really bad idea but I am still planning on buying BG3 I think the main reason why there are doing this is more to do with the rule books not having levels past level 20 also there could be doing the same thing as BG1 and BG2 with having the same characters from BG3 and BG4 later down the line

I actually do not mind that the full release of the game caps at 10th level. Here are my reasons why:

1) Most D&D 5e adventures are not meant to be run with adventurers past level 10. I recently played in a Curse of Strahd campaign and our party went and handled nearly every side quest available before taking the fight to Strahd, and we were I believe level 12 and completely wrecked his shit. He did not have a chance.

2) Larian Studios is trying to make it so that spells can affect the surrounding environment and tactical aspect of the game. Not having to account for spells of 6th level or higher will help tremendously with this.

3) Baldur's Gate 3 is including not only every class in the PHB, but at a minimum 2 subclasses each. Limiting themselves to only 10 levels means that they have more time to not only make sure they get them done right, but that don't need to spend time making content such magical equipment appropriate for higher levels.

4) By limiting themselves to a level 10 cap, it leaves them open to actual expansions that continue the story, instead of DLCs that merely add new backgrounds, classes, races, spells, and feats.

5) Finally, having a level 10 cap means that Larian Studios can spend less time on classes, and more time on actual plot and story.

I don't mind the level 10 cap, for the most part.
The only problem I have is that, in all my years of D&D (I'm new to 5E though), Wizards and Sorcerers suffer until they hit level 6+. So I feel like they will hurt the most with level 10 being max.

This is my mine problem with the cap I really like playing as a spellcaster and the Sorcerer is my favourite class

No epic levels... more Doom everyday. I really cant believe this company got this contract, or maybe someone at WotC needs to have a job review?

1) While admittedly I have not played a D&D 5e campaign, the fact that you wrecked what I assume to be the final boss at level 12 only speaks to the balance, which as accomplished as Larian is, I have complete faith in them to be able to tweak the difficulty of enemies so that you are not completely overpowered by the end of the game or completely overwhelmed by the endgame enemies.

2) Not having a full compliment of spells for a player who wants to play as a spell casting class is kind of lame and would dissuade me from wanting to play as a caster because in my experience magic users for the first 5-6 levels are basically useless.

3) This was actually my problem with BG. While I loved the game, you only really got stronger through the equipment you were wearing unless you were a spell caster. Its an old-school system which has been improved upon IMO since the growth and development of cRPGs to add in power creep from both levels and equipment combined.

4) Expansions are cool since I believe they said there wouldn't be any DLCs, but I still want a full gaming experience where I reach the maximum level that 5e is designed around which is level 20 at the moment.

5) Larian Studios is masterful at crafting worlds and stories, I don't think that neglecting the leveling system will have any tangible effect on the story.

Edit. I cant figure out how the quote system works RIP me

DND don't do epic levels anymore there do have epic boons it seems that DND are doing the same thing as Pathfinder

Thanks for the update, really have not delved into any Pnp past 3.0, IMO they should have just stopped there ( bad business model I know..) Maybe Im getting to old for this new age crap.

Oh look, another 'Larian is evil, woe is us' post.

Larian got the job because they are damn good at what they do, and WoTC look at Div 2 and went 'That engine, and those workers, would be great for what we want out of a Baldur's Gate 3 game'.

You DO realize that, in almost every choice made, Larian has to get the go-ahead from WoTC? WoTC, and indeed most IP holders, want a game that meets certain criteria. They don't want a game that ruins their IP, because that means the IP will make less money now and possible NONE in the future, if the IP bombs enough.

So most any choice Larian has implemented, WoTC has had to okay.

I'd assume that would also include the level cap. Maybe Larian felt the high-level spells were too powerful to balance around. Maybe WoTC actually told them to make it level 10 only.

One level every 10 hrs of game play.. I dont even need to argue with you it says it all. And I did say someone at WotC should have there job reviewed as well...

Sounds fine to me

I know that feeling I know more about 3.5e than 5e

If that is indeed the case, it sounds like a slight flaw in the game, and one that could conceivably be remedied by Larian. I understand and agree with the idea that spell-casters should be weaker early on and stronger later; maybe it just doesn't need to be so pronounced.

I'm not used to be agree with you, but yea lvl 10 sounds also good to me^^

It wasn't so bad in BG1. You really feel like a noob in the beginning but you could feel the characters becoming more powerfull at each level up... but never OP.

It's good to find common ground. Cheers

Just because you don't like an idea does not mean someone should be fired.

I'm sorry but this is a HUGE sore point with me. Back before I was on disability, I worked ALLOT of customer service jobs, and I could not count how many times some guy or gal wanted someone fired because their burger did not have cheese on it, or they forgot to say 'no pickles' and expected the worker to read their minds. Or they ordered the wrong meal and decided it was our fault.

I once put up a pizza for 'Smith'. I actually said 'Large sausage & hamburg pizza for Smith. Large sausage & hamburg pizza for Smith. ' over the mic and had to turn to grab another order. Pizza is gone. Smith comes up a minute later (he was in the bathroom), and wonders where his pizza went. I'm confused, because I thought he grabbed it off the counter. We had to make him a replacement pizza, as fast as we could since he was going to a movie with his kids. So he's upset.
Another 5 minutes go by, a 60 year old lady stomps up and starts screaming that we made her VEGGIE PIZZA wrong, and the cook should be fired, and I was incompetent...and then her pizza is put up on the rack, having just finished cooking. (Note: All order have a receipt with the name the customer gave us on it)
This lady heard me say 'SAUSAGE AND HAMBURGER PIZZA FOR SMITH', took it, ate half of it, then realized it was not her pizza..and blamed us. She wanted to be comped her pizza, which she got, hot and ready. I repeat; She wanted us to give her her pizza for free, because she stole someone else's.
Even after she got HER pizza, she was yelling about how stupid we were, and how she was going to call corporate and get us fired. Over HER mistake. She did not ask if it was her pizza. It was clearly sitting on a tray, not covered, with MEAT all over it, and SHE ATE HALF OF IT.
But it was our fault.

People will lie by ordering 'A hamburger, no cheese' and then scream they wanted a cheeseburger, or take the wrong order, so they can get people fired while attempt to get a freaking $6.00 burger meal for free. They don't care that getting someone demoted or fired could cost them food, or an apartment, or their car. They just want instant gratification as the cost of everyone else.

So I bloody loathe when someone gets upset over something and says 'Well <x> should be reviewed/demoted/fired!'.
It does not matter that that could leave some poor worker ultimately homeless, or starving, no. You're unhappy, and someone must pay for it.

/EndRant

Sorry. It just really tweaks me after I spent so long in customer service.

The reason BG1 had a level 10 cap was because D&D at the time was designed around maxing out at level 10. D&D has evolved since that time to be balanced around maxing out at 20 levels, and therefore BG3 should match that change. On top of that as I said before, if you only get to level 10 out of the 20 possible levels, then mages will be basically useless until level 5-6, which I assume would be halfway through the game.

From every site I have visited or community I am part of, I can easily say nearly half is upset about one thing or another, Yes someone should have a job review with those stats IMO , But with that said, I don't want someone losing their job and home over a video game, Maybe I should have worded my feeling better.

I do agree with you that firing someone over the level cap is going to far I do not like the level cap but I would never ask for someone to be fired over a level cap also sorry to hear about you being disabled I have been disabled for a really long time so I know how that feels

Not really. It's the internet; someone will ALWAYS be upset. Lots of someones.
Just because someone is upset does not mean someone should get fired or reviewed or demoted, because you can't please everyone. Ever. Too many different personalities and worldviews and personal opinions to ever please anyone.

They'll probably do a few "house rules" to help them if so.

As an aside, I wonder what the 10 level cap means for multiclassing. 5/5 max (or 7/3, etc)? Or will you be able to go beyond ten max combinded levels? If so, everyone will be multiclassing to 10/10.

Well I sure wish the internets was around when I had to find a job, because being a roofer for nearly 30 years, when someone isn't happy.. people get fired. Any way I don't want anyone being fired. Lets let this end here. I like people, and dont want any hate. Just voicing my opinion, Ill tone it down. "Sometimes having peace is better than being right" or something like that

I can't believe Wizards of the Coast own D&D. In my opinion they've done very little good with the franchise beyond 3.5

Hey now! 4th Edition was...

Hey now! Fifth Edition is perfectly fine!

:P

I see where you're coming from, but alot of people enjoy the slow pace. If I got to chose I wouldnt mind there being 20 hours for every level.

But 3.5 edition was a lot better than 4th edition and 5th edition

I will agree to disagree.
My first edition was 3.5, then I went to Pathfinder, then I tried 4th but..ewgh. I feel like 5th has really streamlined it without being overly confusing. 3.5 had allot of clunky mechanics (Don't ever say 'grapple check!' when using 3.5 :P )

I mean, it's good. No argument there! But better? I feel that they are both equally as good.

If you were able to go past level 10 by multiclassing then everyone would do it, but it would beg the question why not just keep the level cap at 20 as expressed in the 5e handbook and let people level up fully in one class? I think there will probably be a hard cap at level 10 which could also make multiclassing feel pretty useless.

I do agree with you that 5th edition was way better than 4th edition but that's not hard to do the problem I have with 5th edition is it feels like it lacks depth but I also agree with you that 3.5 had some very clunky mechanics the thing I do like about 5th edition was how there streamlined the skills but what I would really like is a 5.5 edition taking the best from 3.5 edition without the clunky mechanics

Mages must be the very reason the level cap is 10 though. Cause some spells at higher lever would be really difficult to implement without making them super overpowered or force to tweak the game design in a too drastic way.

Nope. Even back then D&D was designed to max out at lvl20.

Level 10 cap does sound very low for magic users. You will miss out on tons and tons of cool spells. In addition to that, you don't have many spells slots at lower levels, so you'll be spamming nothing but cantrips most of the time. Pretty disappointing to me.

Actually, I don't believe the level cap will be ten, I think it'll be twenty like the core rules. Maybe they're presently working on all the content for levels 1-10, for early access you know. Given the purported length of the game, and the relatively fast leveling in 5e, ten levels doesn't make much sense. Unless, of course, they plan to use milestone leveling, though one notices XP being handed out in the demo for combat.

Most of the critics i've seen is about how unlike BG3 is to the BG series, and now that we have a level progression similar to BG 1 people start screeching and screaming blasphemy. It's funny how hard it can be to please people in general.

I agree with you.
BG1 was a great and also very large game where you ended up with lv 7-10, depending on your class.
You started very weak and you felt like experienced adventurers in the end, but not like being a god.

Don´t tell me low level spells are useless.
I have not played DnD 5E, but I have played Pathfinder Kingmaker.
- Web made any melee enemy useless, stinking cloud made every enemy useless unless they don´t breath or are immun to poison.
- There was no significant battle where you did not want to have haste.
- good luck trying to finish the game without leser/greater restauration, freedom of movement or protection from poison
- blur/displacement + mirror image was great for any tank

Plus there is a huge balancing problem at the other end of the spectrum.
Spells like wish, time stop or polymorph. Players will rightfully complain if they are not in but it will be hard not to break the game, especially if enemies can use them too.
Sure, BG2 had them, but if you really use the PnP rules some spells can really mess with the game.

I am worried about the next pathfinder game.
You get up to lv 20 plus having mystic powers of angels, demons or dragons when fighting demon lords.
I fear this will be hard to balance. Experienced PnP players will destroy everything as gods while new players will have problems to hit a demon lord at all and they get crushed in one round.

I think they were pretty clear that the cap is 10 for full release, not early access.

There is a level 20 cap but there are bonuses you get per every set of XP beyond that. Hope Larian takes it into account.

What are you talking about? Level cap is 10.

level cap of 10 is great.
a game the lenght of divinity os2 set entierly in the first half of the leveling expirience is exactly what i had wanted.
high level DnD gets completley nonsensical and basically turns into rocket tag with gods
1-10 is the perfect adventure expirience

On people who are complaining about the level cap:
The mask starts slipping.

Since Sven has basically dispelled all the lies by doom and gloom posters, they now have to start retroactiveley hating on BG1.

also theres concrete proof that a lot of this shit is just RPG codex making sock puppet accounts

Yes something like Fighter, barbarians or Paladins are usually stronger on lvl 1 but I don't think Wizard will be useless.
At lvl 1 something like a sleep spell or color spray is very powerful (no save in 5e for both) against something like a horde of goblins etc
The main point is that wizards get emptied pretty fast so got no endurance but you can always rest more often if the game does not force 5 encounters on you which goes against freedom of decision making anyway

With the systems BG3 is using and especially the high focus on verticality and overpowered bonus actions this makes some Wizards spells better than usual.

Lvl 1 Grease, Thunderwave, Find Familiar I can see being stronger than normal 5e
Lvl 2 Web is probably stronger, Ray of Enfeeblement is good against strong melees (half damage no save first turn) if you get easy advantage through more verticality

Fire Bolt Cantrip (as well as Mage Hand) will make you be able to easily interact with all that environment stuff that your overzealous level designers probably put everywhere to interact. High ground for advantage to hit well and it has nice 120 feet range.
When I GM DnD theres no barrels of explosive oil everywhere (and similar) that a wizard could easily interact with but I can assure you the density of that will be higher in this game.

At lvl 5 theres no problem anymore anyway because strong spells like Haste, Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern become available.

So its really only the first 4 levels that Wizard would have a problem and its not really the case because even then there are strong spells as explained above. Exact strength will depend on the precise implementation of all spells ofc and how often the game forces you to not be able to rest to get your spells back.

Sorry pals but the cap level is ten

Damn this sucks!
I knew something was up since Mindflayers are CR 8 enemies. But still, 5e was designed for players to reach max level sooner (I have one lvl 20 character on Pnp), so this might mean they'll mess with the progression system.
During the reveal I kinda had the feeling that the exp rewards were very small. I mean a CR 1/2 enemy grants you 100 xp, and those brain things are definitely stronger than goblins.

Well I think there are going to do the same thing as BG1 and BG2 with save importing otherwise it would not make much sense

It's rather disappointing to have to wait several years to finish leveling a character, but if it were the case that this story were to be broken into two games both the length of DOS2 with a shared leveling system, then that would relieve some of the disappointment.

For me a large part of RPGs is that sense of progression, building a character, etc. So I sincerely hope there's something beyond the 1-10 levels to add that sense of progression. I'm not too sure I'll be satisfied with the system as I imagine it being with the information we have.

I think with an adventure as long as this is supposed to be, I'll be bored with a lack of variety or progression of my PC.

Also for it to be done properly. It would have to be an expansion. If they are going to give us DM mode and a toolset to build upon. It would have to incorporate all the levels. If it is split up into two different games it would not work especially if they updated their engine to 5.0 for part 2.

If they do not do expansions as it has been suggested. To make this a complete game they would have to give us a 20 level cap game, DM mode and a toolset. Otherwise, it is just a demo game that becomes abandonware. (why do I feel like the fence is getting barbed wire and I will have to jump off).

I am always astounded by the level of hyperbole used when someone wants to make an argument for something they want. It is really odd.

A level cap of 10 can work fine with one game, a game with a sequel, GM mode or expansion(s).
And no, it doesn't mean it would be a demo game that would just be "a demo game that becomes abandonware".
(I thought I also wanted to make some arguments about how and why, but it seems kind of pointless)

The point is that it will take another game to have the full experience. Taking years to max out your character is not something that I look forward to.
All the recent CRPGS, including the Larian ones, allow for max level way before endgame.

I am astounded by people who always see the need to animadvert on someone's opinion about what they think about the game. But that seems to be the norm on these forums.

It seems to be a recent arrival and one I would like to see depart just as quickly. So as a note to everyone, let's not do that.

No that wasn't the point of the post I quoted. If it was, it would not have been overly dramatic.
You are trying to build your point on top of hyperbole, which doesn't really help.

BUT it is entirely possible to make one game, one story, that is limited to a certain "power level". This is done in writing, films and roleplaying games all the time.
Having a balance between the protagonists and antagonists is logical and make for a much better story than having the player characters being wastly more powerful than their enemies.
Insisting on a heroes journey that goes all the way to the most powerful can actually limit a story, because you will then have to expand this power on the opposite side also.

I am not sure if you thought about the effects on the story if you expand the levels to include lv 1 to 20.
The story is probably already laid out as we speak. They have the idea, they have a beginning and and ending and they most likely have a lot of what is in the middle.
If you want to expand the power level of the story, you will have to change a lot of it.
You can either make it twice as long and expect them to just add more and more to the story to fit your wish. Or you can ask them to change the whole story so it will fit with what you want.
I don't see either happening really. And I trust the people writing the game and the developers to have a good grasp of these things, so I am confident that the level range they have set isn't just some arbitrary numbers, but in fact fits with the story they want to tell.

Really?

Greatly exaggerated posts is a thing that promotes any kind of discussion?
I mean, I am sorry I called it out and all, but it really makes me want to go hang myself with barbed wires while my children are watching.

Exaggerated is... well, a thing, but not the one I was getting at. It's the rudeness and misrepresentation that have been recently problematic.

Also argh.

Alright, since your post before that must have been directed at me, I will say I did not intent to be rude. I did however intent to show my annoyance with the hyperbole since I feel it just sidetracks any kind of discussion.
I will try to be better at ignoring it.

I was talking about D&D rules ffs. Not the game.
Sad most high levels spells will be killed off.

Exactly I'm 99.9999% certain this means BG4. If that goes well maybe even a BG 5 if by then Larian and WotC have figured out Epic play rules. I think Myth Oddysessys of Theros might be a step in that direction with its Mythic Monsters.

Not killed off, saved for BG4, this is obviously part 1 of a 2 or 3 part story.

Maybe too soon for talking about BG4... pure speculation , but if i'd have to bet, i'll say maybe they saved it for DLC ( or expansions, call it like you want ) taking for "base" the same game ( BG3 so ) with each time a new level cap. ( Like MMO do it, even if it's not the same case, you 'll see the idea )

So, no fights against Liches, Dragons, Illithids etc right? B/c lvl 10 seems like David vs Goliath

Quite. I would expect another Divinity game beforehand and/or maybe something else (which is not an informed comment before anybody asks) so while the roadmap likely has the possibility of a BG4 pencilled in at some point in the future I doubt if there's much detail at the moment. Not while BG3 is still at a mid-point of its development.

Hi, I disagree.

Larian made the right choice with lvl 10 cap.

Gives room for future expansions.

Go Larian!

Agreed it is kind of pointless to talk about BG4 when BG3 has not even come out yet

oh no not the high level spells!
That means my wizard might not overshadow the entire rest of the campaign! ITs not fair casterbros NOOOOOO!

Im all seriousness we already know that Wish is in the game, stop beeing hyperbolic about this.
probably means high level spells are somethign story related. Which is good, nothing derails a Campaign faster than a Wizard casting Wish EVERY DAY.

>No fighting draogns, liches, illithids
t.no idea about dnd.
Mindflayers are CR.. 7? i think?
So youll fight one at level 10.
Maybe just not hundreds of em, Dragons come in variations of age last time i checked.
Liches are probably out unless they get nerfed, but thats alright, they arent the most fun antagonist to fight anyway

You do realize that you need to be at level 17 for a wizard to even cast the wish spell you should really check your facts first before trying to be clever all you have done is make yourself like stupid

Will level cap means that reaching level 10 will be very quick? I am hoping the game will last 200hours or more double the length of DOS2!

Yeah I made myself stupid

When Larian CONFIRMED the wish spell.
Check your own facts Doomer poster

I did but that does not mean you will be able to cast the wish spell there are other ways to get a wish have you ever hard of the deck of many things but even with the deck of many things you have to go thought the other cards to get to the wish card

The level cap is insignificant. As long as the game is balanced right it doesn't matter what the level cap is.

However I do find it a bit amusing that a supposedly centuries old vampire would be a level 1 rogue, hah.

Huh? Wish was confirmed?

I mean if he does not have most of the characteristic traits of a vampire spawn is he really a vampire spawn?
No resistance to nonmagical weapons, no regeneration, no spiderclimb on walls, no weaknesses (sunlight, water, ,,,). OK in Larians defense you can't really do it otherwise in a still balanced way.

Only occasionally drinks blood (no strong animalistic urge can easily decide against) and occasionally has sharp teeth.
If you take all characteristic things away then vampire is just a word.


I guess he is a Twilight Robert Pattinson vampire

Level cap of 10 is In line with most D&D adventure modules, Decent into Avernus is 1-13
The only published adventure I’ve ever done that’s spanned 1 -20 was the temple of elemental evil
I have 800+ hours into BG1 on steam and only half the achievements no idea how many hours I would have put into it when I was swapping discs
BG2 is much the same 950+ closer to 75% on achievements

As long as the story is well-written, and the gameplay is rewarding, I'm not sure the level cap matters much to me. Many D&D video games in the past have had either sequels or expansions soon after, so it woulld be a surprise if there no further plans at all.

But first, BG3 has to be well received and make money, otherwise there is little prospect of higher levels, toolset or DM mode. At this point, most of their decisions look like they are aiming towards their core audience rather than any massive expansion of appeal, and I would expect them to sell well to those that already like them.

The second part of This ^

He doesn't get out much

In the monster manual, There is an option for Vampire Players. Larian probably just use that option for a Vampire Spawn at 1st level.

I read that as "it's in the Monster Mash". I think my insomnia is getting to me, I need a lie down.

And a pretty weak one at that. Only 15 Dex?
Seems like he hasn't trained in 500 years.

content removed by user

If he was not a vampire than why does he need to sock blood than? vampires can be thralls to you know lets say you are a greater vampire when you make a vampire he or she will be your thrall

If they make future expansions, I am happy about the level cap. For that all, we need to do is buy the game.
Later they might add "legendary" classes ect.. if they need new content.

They said that he is a Vampire Spawn (a kind of lesser vampire minion created as servants by real vampires) which does not really fit with their powers:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/vampire-spawn

Its ofc just a story element without any stats giving a lvl1 char regeneration etc would be too OP. But as I said a vampire without his characteristic traits is not really a vampire.

I mean, if a tadpole bored into your brain, you might lose some experience and motor function, too.

BG1 felt pretty "complete" by the time you got through it and 1-10 can be quite fun, though obvioulsy the COOL stuff comes at higher levels.

If it means the plan is to add stuff later though DLC or a sequel then I am fine with that. As a stand alone, sure that would be a little dissapointing.

I can't find it now, but in one article from folks who were present on one of the exclusive presentations actually raised concern, that the leveling progress might be too slow.
It came with a statement like 'they skipped to somewhere like 10 hours in the game, and we were just level 3' and I remember it as objective observation followed by a 'could that be to slow'-like generalized question.

With that in mind, reaching level 10 too quick is probably nothing to be concerned about.

Personally I wouldn't see slow leveling progress necessarily as something bad, since that gives more meaning to each gained level and the longer the game lasts, the better.

I mean, I know it won't be one for one, but it took like two years of gaming 5+ hours a week for my main group to reach level ten in the pen and paper. You'd be SHOCKED how much content you can squeeze into there.

I realize this was a joke, but they're actually going with the tadpole making the characters stronger. Makes no sense.

As for the 10 hours for level 3? That won't be a problem for a lot of people used to it, but for those (like myself) who are used to a variety of different games, that's a rough progression. I definitely think they should have different progression systems such as one for levels 1-10 and something to run alongside of it to add some more frequent stuff.

there is actually an interresting case for the levels of characters regarding to age.
Pathfinder i think has a table for t.
a level 1 fighter might be a 16 year old lad. A level 1 Wizard is probably at leas tin his 30s

Will level cap make the game shorter?

I remember the TOEE videogame has a level cap of 10, and it is really short (mainly because it´s based on the module of the same name) and the original bg also has roughly the 10 lvl cap and it´s a far larger game, so I think level cap is not necessarily related to the length of the game.


They promised in some interviews a larger game, larger than DOS2....

Seeing a fair amount of assumptions on how spells function in 5e, which is pretty different than 2e (ADND). In 5e, you can cast spells you have at a higher level, which enhance them. So this idea that circles 1-5 are garbage and only start getting good later is grossly mistaken. You can slot a fireball as a 6th level spell and deal 11d6 damage in a 20 foot radius. You can slot ray of sickness, a level 1 necromancy spell that deals 2d8 + makes the enemy poisoned (disadvantage) on attacks, slot it at level 6 and deal 8d8 damage + poison from 60 feet away. So before you begin to criticize the power curve, you may want to revisit some PNP as that is ultimately the base/foundation they are using for this game. Circles 2-5 are quite good, and while 5e doesn't have the broken spell mechanics of 2e, it's quite powerful none the less. But 5e is much more centered around a party and creates synergy around them far better than previous editions, especially 2-3.5, where it was much more about acute min/maxing of each character as a separate entity and less how they contributed to the overall strategy of the party. Druids are also much much better than 2e, in my opinion. Clerics are roughly the same minus the blunt weapon requirements, channel divinity and domains are much better and more versatile than 2e did. Not to mention, school specialization is finally good in 5e, and schools that were once garbage--looking at you divination--are actually awesome now due to portent, they all have unique class abilities that create the differentiation rather than you get this and you give up all this other stuff from the spell list.

PS: a 5e paladin is also 1000000000x better than a 2e paladin, the burst damage they can deal is insane

The level cap is right into what we get in most D&D 5e campaigns though. They bring you at the highest from 1st to 12-13th level and that's it. So level 10 sounds quite the normality to me.

Problem is not it in number of lvl ups itself, but in the fact, that it is low lvls, what limits all - less variety of spells, equipment, enemies. It's fine for tabletop campaign to usually not get above 10 lvl because the main fun comes from good GM and live communication of players in the party, it may even turn out badly when you get high levels and too wide pool of abilities - need too much controll to not turn a game into the mess. But it's not the case in CRPG where most of calculations and control over system performed automatically by program. When you play CRPG as singleplayer game (most of such games played as single, no matter how good multiplayer is) more variety is always a bless. BG2 SoA also has ~10 lvls of progression, but you start not with lvl 1, you already have 7-8 lvl and have a nice pool of abilities to experiment with. Also it's more enjoyable to get a gear worth to change for the whole playthrough, like from normal to +4\5 in BG2. In BG1 it was awful to get +2\3 easily and soon (in the 2-3 chapters just by exploring areas near Nashkel and Beregost) and realize that you wouldn't find anything better then you already have.
You may tell that 10-20 lvls are for the godlike characters in d&d but what if so? Just let us to face with enemies with comparable strength. BG2 did it and there was a great variety of unique enemies and great battles with them. In BG1 battles with the same groups of low lvl creatures with no unique attacks or properties which demand to use different tactics were really dull.
Well, i didn't like progression from D:OS2, where you can get x1.5\2 dmg boost just for 1 lvl up, but progression of low lvl characters in d&d game will be even worse cause of boring. I know, it's obvious that Larian wants to keep high levels for the sequel, but having an example of BG1 and BG2 makes me want to wait BG4 instead of BG3.

try not playing a caster for once and the progression wil feel exactly the same as from 11 to 20 :^)

realy progression doesnt feel satisfying if you dont start at level 1.
And a 1 to 20 campaign would mean a LOT of level ups fast.

The only way to do this , without the DM giving you XP for everything, is to have a VERY combat focused campaign.
by which i mena somehting like ToEE where youre constantly beeing thrown enemies to fight

Experience is given for using skills, as well as combat, puzzle riddles, conversations.. overcoming a obstacles. Just my opinion and how I ran my pnp games.

but thats what youre supposed to do anyway.
my group has been playing the currentl campaign for about a year and we just hit level 5

I really don't know what to say to that,.. Sorry?

I can see achieving lv 5 in one year, if you played a few hrs a year. I have not played Pnp In years but I do have decades of memories, my groups got down to buisness rather quickly, level 5 would be achieved with in a couple weekend sessions.

It all depends on the DM.
Remember that the Rulebook is a guideline, not a holy bible. If you want to give your players a level per session; do it! If you want them to only gain a level after every milestone you set in your deep story; fine! If you want to give out EXP exactly as listed in the book; that's good, too!

There's no set rule that says 'If you're players don't hit level 5 by session 10, you're doing it wrong'.
Maybe Sordak is/has a DM that gives out less EXP?

The point of D&D is to have fun and enjoy playing with friends, not level up as fast as possible.

Your right, cant argue with house rules. Match point

I think he WAS a Vampire Spawn, but with a Tadpole in his head, he is something else now, part Undead Vampire Spawn, part living creature, and that mutates both his abilities, but also his vulneriblities, such as the fact that he can now day walk.

I want them to cap it at 7 and have 3 dlcs that raise it. From reading a lot of these comments I really dont think people have every played dnd or bg. while mages were very weak in 2nd edition in the begining but even starting at lvl 3 they started to get some punch then by 18 good loord watch the hll out. 5th mages can be very useful from the get go especialy with how spell memorization works.

5e isn't 2e, cantrips are at will in 5e, so a Mages doesn't have to rely on a sling or crossbow. And some spells can be cast as rituals, which doesn't take up a slot.

So a level 1 Wizard could have Minor Illusion, Fire Bolt, and Friends cantrips that he can cast at will, and Find Familiar (ritual), Charm Person, and Unseen Servant (ritual) aa 1st level spells for example, two of which can be cast as ritual which increases casting time, but doesn't burn a spell slot.

If Human this wizard can also take the Ritual Caster (Cleric) Feat, to get a Ritual Book with 2 first level Cleric Rituals in it (with scrolls he can add all the Cleric rituals to the book eventually).

And spellcasters get fewer spell slots.

I haven't really looked at 5e spell casting yet, and it does sound quite interesting.

But what you say didn't quite mesh with Swen's video. At one point he used fire bolt on a water surface to show off environmental interaction, and a few moments later could not set a grease spell alight because he had used his fire bolt.That suggests at least a need for a short rest between using cantrips, I would think. I think Larian have also said that rituals are not in the game at this point, but I'm not sure about that.

If you meant the gameplay fight against the bandits outside the ruins, you cannot cast more than one spell that uses up a standard action in the same round (in normal conditions, you can cast a bonus action spell, like healing word or shield of faith, and a cantrip, for example) so I think the mage just used up his action casting grease so he cannot cast another spell until later. As far as I know cantrips have unlimited uses, and the MC casted mage´s hand several times.

PD: The confirmation that ritual magic are not available in bG3 was a big hit, indeed. =(

I have read the players handbook:

- A char can cast only 1 spell per round (exception: quicken spell meta magic, some spells can be used as reaction)
- Cantrips have unlimited uses, some of them get stronger as you level up.
- All other spells cost spell slots. You can cast many spells with a spell slot of their base level or with the spell slot of a higher level to increase the effect, like buffs work on more allies or spells cause more damage or healing.
- Spell slots of different classes are added. So a cleric5/sorcerer5 can cast as many spells per day as a single class lv10 cleric or sorcerer, he knows just half as many different sorc spells as a pure sorc and half as many cleric spells as a pure cleric.
Some classes with spells add only 1/2 of their levels to spell slots, like paladins.
- Many spells with a duration require concentration. You can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time. This was done to avoid endless pre buffing. So one char could not cast haste and bless for the party at the same time. Concentration can break if you take damage (constitution saving throw)

result:
- Many low level spells remain useful over the whole game.
- Many low level spells have been buffed. e.g. bless gives a bonus of 1d4 for all rolls, not just 1
- You have to think carefully which buffs you learn as you cannot use all at once. Though you mage will probably remain a haste bot.

question:
The handbook says that your attacks and movement does not break your concentration.
Can you cast a spell that does not require concentration while concentrating on another spell?
So could a mage throw fireballs while concentrating on hastening another party member?

Can mages still learn all spells from scrolls?

How does CC feel in dnd 5? In bg1-2 CC lasted ridiculously long time, if it landed, mob was effectively dead, is it still the same?

I am not an expert for DnD 5E, but I know that for many CC spells the target has to make a saving throw every round to escape the effect, so the better your DC the higher the chance that it lasts long.

In DnD 2E the spell did not depend on stats of the caster, which means the chances of success got worse over time as powerful enemies have better saving throws.
You only had to make repeated saves for environment effects like clouds or entangle.

It was that fight, but Swen seemed to use his fire bolt on a water surface while out of combat, around the time he also showed off feather fall, and then his talk track suggested he didn't have a fire bolt to set light to to his grease spell. Maybe I misunderstood and he just meant he had to wait a round, but did not get the chance as he was downed quite quickly

Yeah, he couldn't set Grease on fire because Gale had both spells for the combo and can only cast 1 per round. He did say "I already used my Firebolt" but it was still available until he burned the Grease spell.

Yes, your only limitation is not to cast two concentration spells at once. Concentration kinda makes imperative that casters do not buff themselves, since one hit from a higher level enemy will cancel it.

The same is true for 5e anyways. Yes, your proficiency bonus increases saving throw DC, however most high level monsters have ridiculous modifiers to saving throws, and most dragons have legendary resistance that makes them succeed at will. So CC spells only work against humanoids with stats capped at 20.

'It's almost like the world is imposing some arbitrary balance between those of us who can reshape reality with our will, and those who can't.' - Vesuvius, Sorcerer.

To clarify this, most dragons have 3 "auto-succeed instead of fail" saves per day (vs any failed save). They do not, however, have Magic Resistance as they did in 2e. Things that do have Magic Resistance (usually) only have advantage on the saves of your spells, not a chance to be immune to it.

Most enemies with magic resistance are some sort of caster themselves, such as liches. Most high level enemies are however immune to nonmagical damage.

Many are resistant, but a few are immune. Even a Balor takes 1/2 damage from non-magical weapons.

You'r right, is resistance in most cases.

I think when your party wants to fight very powerful enemies that all of them have magic weapons.
Who would attack a demon when you are only equipped with regular swords?

Just to be sure: DnD 5E makes only a difference between magic and non magic, right?
DnD 3E had resistences like 5/cold iron, 10/magic and so on.
In BG you need a macig weapon+1 for many enemies, some require+2, +3 is enough for almost everything and +4 was needed for the most powerful ones. (Kangaxx, Demigorgon, . . .)

For the most part, but there are exceptions. For example, a werewolf is immune to nonmagic attacks unless they are made with a silver weapon.
In 5e, most things are 1/2 damage or immune to damage (the feat Heavy Armor Master is -3 damage while using heavy armor).

Yep. Immunity to slashing/piercing/bludgeoning is extremely uncommon. Even a completely incorporeal creature like a Ghost only has resistance to normal weapons. For challenges up to level 10 I seriously doubt we'll run into anything that's immune to standard weapon types.

Level cap of 10 is a good idea...not a bad one. Most games have a stupid high level cap and when you level up it doesnt mean anything because you level up very often, Having a level cap of 10 means every time you level up, even from level 1 to 2 it is very meaningful. At least thats my reasoning, anyway.

I agree, it seems like a good starting point and actually allows some more experimentation with multiclassing with different typical dips. 5/5 dips and 6/4 dips are more viable since you don't have to worry about missing out on 10+ level class feats and such.

I hope not. A long game is not necessarily a good game.
ESPECIALLY true for RPG's when you get so much padding and 2475 fights thrown in along every step of the way.

I like it that its a large game with level 1-10.
BG1 was the same and it was great.
Every magic item you find and every level up feels importent.

BG2 was also a great game but:
- You spend a long time pre buffing to kill powerful enemies fast, without buffs they can destroy you. Maybe that is reduced now with concentration mechanic.
- Any balance is gone. Casters become gods with some high level spells, while fighters can still only hit things with a weapon, just like lv1.

ToB I finished only once, it became boring when I wanted to play again.
The game throws epic items and epic encounters at you all the time, but you destroy everything anyway. One level more or yet another epic items make no difference, you already rush through everything like a god.

This made me wonder (if it hasn't been mentioned already) how difficult it might be to balance a game for too many levels. It seems to me a common experience for an RPG to start out challenging only to enter god-mode at some point at higher levels. Hopefully the 10 level limit can help prevent this.

As i've said many times FU** the balance.

Balance is completely against immersion and variety. Look to VtMB. If the game devs decided to remove nosferatu who is the hardest clan to be played or nerfed his deformity to a minor seduction penalty instead of making the deformity a harsh curse in a highly social game, do you think that the game would be better? In some settings like Dark Sun, by lore reasons, arcanists are hated with passion. I expect to have a much harder time being a Arcanist on a dark sun adaptation than in a baldur's gate adaptation. The game mechanics needs to reflect the game world. After i finish another PFKM run, i will purchase dark sun on gog and i expect to have a much harder time using arcane magic.

Note that :

• You can find really powerful items on bg2
• There are magical immune creatures that require Tenser's transformation + melee even for casters
• Now on 5e, spells above tier 5 are far more limited
• On 3.5e and 2e, be a arcane caster is a pain in the *** until you hit lv 5/6
• Enemies can dispel your buffs. nwn1's Klauth is an example
• Magic is far weaker on 5e. Finger of Death no longers OHK on failed save for eg.
• People compare arcane casters with fighters on 3.5e BUT never with clerics. Clerics can do everything that a wizard can do, in armor, with better WILL save, weapon proficiency, better BAB, healing capacity, better hit points and don't even need to buy scrolls.

I an trying to beat(again) spawn of rovagog on pathfinder kingmaker. He is insanely hard even for a lv 20 MC with high level companions. Unless you are "Ao", there are always a bigger fish...

If you want an example of an over-balanced RPG, look at Pillars of Eternity (the first). IT's levelling and difficulty curves are parallel and linear.

If there was one major flaw in the Pillars design, that it is. It was what I think lead to people finding the combat stale - you were always the right level for the combat in front of you.

PoE is boring exactly by being very balanced. Everything fels the same. See D&D 4e to have a TTRPG example.

Never understood why people think this of PoE. There are many extremely powerful items, though not motherfucking broken like the ones from BG (and I really prefer these) that grant you +4 to stats or knockdown on hit.
My Rogue was very OP by endgame, capable of 100 dmg per hit and hitting 2~3 times per second, this in a game where the most powerful enemies won't go over 800 hp.

PoE2 is FAR worse in terms of being too balanced, but because there are so many multiclass options you can get away with some pretty powerful shit.

of course you're OP by end game.

but as you levelled up ... the challenge was 1:1.

I played PoTD difficulty and thought the difficulty peaked at around level 5. Aside from some difficulty spikes in the first DLC, end game was way easier than early game.
I always thought the same about BG, but because of the absolute broken shit you can get, endgame is a joke. Not that I dislike this, I like feeling like a demigod after a rough start, specially when you literally are one.

@SorcererVictor

I agree that DnD is unbalanced it it will always be, but I still think that you should not ignore balance completely.
Those games are complex as hell and it takes a long time to understand the system.
Expert players will enjoy this but new players get completely lost.
I have played P:K and it was very hard for even though I played many RPGs before.
If you do not look for a guide in the internet it is really hard to find out which class/spells/feats are usefull.
You have a guy in heavy armor and shield: lol, most powerful enemies will use touch attacks.
You do not know what freedom of movement does: lol, there are groups of enemies and each one tries to paralyze you every round.
BG3 would be my first game with the DnD5E system and even though I read the players handbook there will probably be lots of situations where I do not know whats going on.

You said clerics are better than mages, I say: It depends

In NWN2 I had a favoured soul as main char and it was better than a fighter in every way, mostly thanks to persistent spells. Cast some spells in the morning and bash enemies all day long. I agree that a cleric is way better than a fighter in this game.
But in BG2 powerful mages were almost impossible to beat without having a mage youself. Protection spells and the removal of those spells were almost a game in itself.
With spell triggers and contingencies they were gods and then came ToB with improved alancrity+robe of vecna to boost your power beyond any limits.
In P:K they can make most enemies helpless with stinking cloud and in all games its always good to have somebody cast haste.

Stinking cloud is an OP spell in every DnD game, just cast it and snipe enemies from afar. Apparently P:K mantained tradition (bought it recently but didn't play it yet).

I like the character system of PoE2.
You have many options but its relatively intuitive how to build the char you want.

And yes, there are massive differences in power between several chars when you select the right classes, abilities and equipment.
There is only a handful of players who have beaten the ultimate challenge in this game,
but most players should have little problems to finish the game on normal if they do nor cripple their char intentionally.

This goes for normal. Now PoTD in PoE2 is a different beast. It is the hardest RPG I have ever played by far, to the point of some parts making me rage quit and stop playing for days.
Apparently when the game came out some masochistic douches complained that PoTD was "too easy".

I think this has something to do with the way communication works.
In game forums you will probably find more "nerds" than "normal players".
Not because there are more of them, but because they are more active in forums.
No matter how hard a game is, some players will always say its too easy because they found a way to beat the highest regular difficulty without problems.
Some players (not me) think that the highest difficulty is the only acceptable way to play a game.
In online forums you will probably always find more players saying its too easy than those who say its too hard.
And when somebody complains its too hard then come the expert and says: "You are an idiot noob. Learn to play."

When PoE2 was released it was way too easy (on normal). You could just auto attack everything without problems.
The devs admitted that it was too easy and that they did not listen to the players who said it is too easy because of the stuff I wrote above.
Then they made it harder until the players who played PotD stopped saying its too easy.

Feedback is great when there are consesus or a large majority. But I find it hard that most players liked the state of PoTD. I only finished the game, all DLC and all mega bosses because I got butthurt and wanted to show that I could. But it wasn't fun at many points.

Are mindflayers much nerfed on 5e? Because on BG2 i had problem dealing with then with high level party members. How they plan to have a low level game with such powerful creatures?

In the unmodded original BG2 they can be very easy.
They can dominate you and they can AoE stunn with mind blast and then eat your brain.
Use one character with immunity to mind effects (e.g. Lilarcor equipped) as bait and when they go after him the others attack from far away.
When you can cast mind blank on the party they become completely harmless.

I love how everyone wants an accurate D&D translation... until the actual D&D rules start getting applied.

I totally agree

PS: We need a like button.

Since intellect devourers are CR7 creatures that are considered by most DMs as party killers and in the gameplay, a party of two just killed three of them easily (and the Intellect devourers did not use any of the nasty psionic powers they have and made them very dangerous in PNP) I will assume that many creatures are de-levelled and nerfed in BG3 (The devs announced that the game will have a level cap of 10).

https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering...type/aberrations/intellect-devourer-3pp/

Like with Temple of elemental evil? The best and most faithful D&D adaptation ever?

I an not against Larian making rule alterations. As longs it remains OPTIONAL.





Nice point. Good to mention that the party was a LV 1 party. If they wanna nerf monsters, they could write "LESSER monster X"

On NWN1, a game where you exit the tutorial at lv 3, a single intellect devourer on chapter 1 that i fought at lv 6 was a pretty tougth enemy

5e is a terrible edition so why are you surprised
its a horrible gold standard for anything and i dont think ive seen 5e played even once without houseruling

5e is by far the best edition created by far, only 3.5e and in some ways 4e even come close, on most things previous editions were a mess.

>5e
>best edition
how. its third edition only more barebones

3e was kinda exaggerated with the amount of skills and fetas. The combat innovations in 5e are great, maybe it just needed some more skills since many from 3.5 were merged.

>combat innovations
such as? not beeing able to charge anymore?
or maneuvers that are basically tome of battles only worse?

5e is a streamlined version of 3.5e.

My concern is how much nerfed enemies will gonna be due the lv cap = 10.

Combat timing with action, bonus action and reaction. Advantage is cool as well.
I think there is a feat that allows you to charge, and you can also shield bash.
But for those that want to stick with 3.5 there is always Kingmaker.

Uh, you already have that. It was called swift actions, free actions, ready actions, and standard actions. You also had different bonuses and penalties, but they were made using numbers, not a mish-mash for everything called advantage/disadvantage that does not stack.

Shield bash and charge do exist, but those require a feat that you have to take and let me remember you that in 5e you have to choose between a feat and improve your stats, and you do not have feats until level 4 (unless you play a variant human, which is banned by many DMs).

Most combat maneuvers are now pointless. Knocking someone down only takes away half of their movement, so he can get up, move and attack as always; and stand up does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You can also cast spells surrounded by enemies without provoking. You can disarm someone and he just takes the weapon from the ground in the next turn and attacks without penalties. Flanking is now optional, and some DM´s do not use it. Heavy armour is only useful for a character that has negative dexterity, etc

Those are only a few examples you named before.

5e it´s fun to play, but the mechanics are too simplified for my taste. What I meant by simplified is that they took away lots of features just not to "complicate" things. I usually homebrew some of this stuff just to get back some of them.

none of these things were invented by 5e.
And the 5e versions of them are all incredibly toned down (like only one reaction per turn, rather than one reaction per ENEMY turn)

I'm looking forward to when the D&D hardcores realize how many changes Larian has actually made to the system to make it work for a video game, because Larian - like Bioware - knows that you cannot 100% translate PnP to a PC game.

I have not played a 5E game yet, but from reading the PHB I like it more than 3E.
I have played played lots of computer RPGs and I think DnD 3E was the ruleset that was most difficult to understand.

I will use Pathfinder Kingmaker as example, since I consider pathfinder as DnD 3.75 and it was relatively close to the PnP rules, as far as I understand them.
I had problems in this game and often my head was smoking when I tried to understand stuff.
The char I made was not good even though I did lots of reading before.
- You have free actions, swift actions, standart actions, full round actions, move actions and maybe more. It was not always clear to me what I can do.
In 5E each round I can move x feet and I have one action, one bonus action and one reaction.
- Stacking bonusses was not easy. For every buff you had to remember if it is a morale, luck, enhancement, sacred, profane, . . . or whatever bonus. Buffs of a different type stack, buffs of the same type only apply the strongest effect. Some stuff from equipment does not stack with spells. I had to write down which spells work together with which other spells or which equipment. Stacking buffs is needed, combat is very hard without. I am sure I was not as efficient as I could have been because some of my spells got suppressed or I did not use others which would have worked but I thought they don´t.
- Same thing for armor. There are many kinds of armor (dodge, deflection, natural, armor, enhancement, dex bonus, . . .), I guess except dodge nothing stacks with itself, some of those worked not against touch attacks or when flat footed. Having a warrior in heavy armor and a huge shield was often useless when enemies used touch attacks. Looks like the best way to avoid being hit is to be naked, collect defensive bonusses from different classes and having wizard buffs. I am still not sure how to be a good tank, most enemies hit me most of the time.
- Personally I prefer the 5E idea behind classes. You start with a base class and then you specialize into a subclass of this class. For me this looks better than the prestigue classes of 3E or adding tons of new classes that are a mix of 2 other classes. In 3E sometimes you had to select useless feats or skills only to qualify for a specific class.

I admit that the system of D:OS2 was too simple for me, though my main reason why I disliked it were inflating numbers and I get flooded with completely random items.
I am not against complexity, but it makes no sense to make things complicated just for the sake of being complicated. No, DnD was never a realistic simulation of anything and will never be.
I have studies physics engineering and one main rule for constructing things was: " As simple as possible, as complex as needed. "
RPGs are one of the most complex type of games and thats one of the reasons why we like them, but the devs should not try to deliberately confuse players with complicated rules.

The character system I like most is the one from PoE2. The basics are easy to understand ( hit chance = acc - defense +1d100, passive effects stack, active effects do not stack ), you have lots of options and the forum is full of different builds and discussions how to make a better char. Only the double inversion ruins an intuitive understanding of most rules. ( The devs have made up a system where the numbers are hard to understand if you combine bonusses and penalties. So a bonus of +20% and a penalty of -20% will not result in zero effect. The system is fine from a mathematical point of view, but players and even some devs have problems to understand it.)

Say that to the devs of Temple of Elemental Evil... The most faithful D&D adaptation.

All deviations from the core rules lead to a worst gameplay. Not only to complete disregard to rules like sword coast legends. Look to nwn1. Pale masters are useless on nwn1, arcane archers too. On NWN2, warlock without warlock reworked mod is useless too. Despite loving Baldur's Gate and NWN1, BG 1/2 would be far better if was a faithful adaptation like ToEE.

I honestly would rather they not including a class than including in a ultra nerfed state(warlock on nwn2 for eg)

This is how D&D adaptations needs to be

Sorry Victor, I own TOEE ( got it for free on gog ) but I will probably not play it.
Almost all people say: Combat is fantastic, the rest is a desaster.
I have played IWD1 but I have never finished it. Not because it was too hard but because I became bored.
The combat was good, but there was not much else.
In a spectrum where IWD is on one end, BG in the middle and PST at the other end, I am a fan of PST ( or Disco Elysium as example of a great new game).

While combat is an importent part in RPGs, its not everything.

Two of my favourite games are PST and arcanum.
Both have poor and rather easy combat, but PST has one of the best stories ever and arcanum is great for immersive role playing when NPC react different to a beautiful charismatic elf lady than to an idiot ulgly half orc.
The dialogues of my idiot orc were some of the funniest things in my history of games.

I hope that BG3 has good combat AND story/characters/setting.
But IF I cannot have both, good story/characters is more importent to me than combat.

BG 1/2 is a better game overall BUT ToEE is a better D&D adaptation. My point on mentioning it, Madscientist is that a CRPG CAN adapt with a faithful degree, the P&P rules. ToEE is a more hack & slash module. Baldur's Gate being faithful as ToEE was would be the perfect game in every aspect.

But if Larian wanna maintain lv cap = 10 and throw nasty mindflayers, they will need to nerf those monsters

Neverwinter nights and IWD2 also made a good videogame without making a perfect representation, but you recognize D&D and get the feel of playing. Pathfinder Kingmaker also did it well. Also VTM: bloodlines made a great and very fun game also implementing VTM ruleset to a videogame, It was not perfect, but it was a great videogame with a great story and a cool world to explore.

I think the worst games based in tabletop games are the ones that do not even try, like Sword coast legends and the like; at least that was what happened in the past years.

Well, this games aren't perfect; pale masters, necromancer specialized wizards, arcane archers and rangers(one of the weakest 3.5e class) are useless in this game due they not following the rules. Warlocks on nwn2 and arcane casters too. Spell fixes are a mandatory mod for anyone who wanna play as a arcane caster on nwn2.

Pathfinder Kingmaker has broken sneak attack(not following the rules) and i saw some guys doing more than 1k damage with arcane trickster and bows with multiple damage sources can be broken and the lack of range for certain spells means that amazing P&P spells like Horrid Wilting can't be used without expensive metamagic rods that allow you to hit enemies without destroying your own party.

To be fair, some deviations from rules can be good; dragon disciples on BG/BG2:EE who doesn't exist on core rules are a fun class to play. But those who doesn't wanna, can just don't select the SUB-class. I an all for OPTIONAL rule alterations but less non optional deviations means a better overall game.

Yeah, Blackguards and Shadowdancers were fun to play in BG EE too, the latter even better because you got the sneak attack too unlike in PNP. And technically they were made by WOTC so...

On Kingmaker was worst because hellfire ray for eg, 3 rays, half fire half unholy means that the sneak attack is applied 6 times. If you have 6d6 sneak, you can deal 24d6 + the spell damage... This not mentioning a goblin companion that can attack like 8 times per round with dual wielding weapons and a decent BAB.

Anyone knows how sneak works on 5e?

In short, same as in the pathfinder videogame, you can deal sneak damage if you have advantage or the enemy is engaged in melee combat with anyone and you do not have disadvantage.

The difference is that you can only make the damage dice of SA once per turn, you cannot do the Nok-Nok trick of SA 6 times in the same turn, even if you are dual-wielding. You can use a finesse weapon, or ranged attacks to deal SA.

I read that you have only 1 sneak attack damage per turn but sneak damage gets multiplied on a crit.

I also read its once per turn, which means you can add sneak damage only once when you attack on your turn, but you can add it on another characters turn. Some classes have an ability that allows another party member to make an attack or enemies provoke AoO. Of corse you still need to have advantage or an ally stands close to the enemy.

You MUST have a ranged or finesse weapon, it does not work with other weapons.
A ballista is a ranged weapon, right

So basically Pathfinder was 3E but they tweaked a few rules like with the Sneak Attack? and its still a decent game imagine that.

I have played NWN2, but only OC, MotB and SoZ and I do not know the PnP rules.
Why do you say warlocks and other arcane casters are bad?

Warlocks can use a few spells infinite times and their eldritch blast gets 1d6 damage every odd level. You can upgrade the blast to cause AoE damage and cause additional damage or cause additional effects.
It is a touch attack and it can ignore spell resistance (the SR part is complicated, but it can be ignored).
So they do exactly the same as kinecticists in PK which you called very powerful.

Sorcerers are considered one of the most powerful classes in NWN2.
All of them use the arcane scolar prestigue class for more meta magic. The default epic caster is 26 sorc, 3 blackguard and 1 lv in another class.
The epic version can cast all spells in plate armor and shield, the normal one can still make himself immun to most effects and disable or blast all enemies.

No, pathfinder kingmaker changed the sneak rules.
In PnP you apply sneak attacks when the enemy is flanked or the enemy cannot see you or cannot defend himself.
The importent part is how flanked works.
In PnP a character is flanked when 2 characters engage an enemy in melee AND IF YOU DRAW A LINE FROM ONE CHAR TO THE OTHER THE LINE MUST GO THROUGH THE ENEMY.
The enemy is only considered fanked for the characters who engage the enemy in such a position.

In PK an enemy is considered flaked WHEN HE IS ENGAGED BY 2 CHARS AND THEN IT IS CONSIDERED FLANKED FOR ALL CHARS:
So when an enemy is attacked by 2 melee chars (including pets or summons) all characters can add sneak damage with any attack, including ranged attacks and spells.

example: E = enemy, M = melee chars, R = ranged character

E R PnP: nobody is flanked, PK: enemy is considered flanked for all chars
MM

MEM R PnP: enemy is considered flanked for both melee chars only, PK: enemy is considered flanked for all chars


Edit: The text ignores several space in a row. In the first example 2 melee chars attack the enemy from the same side while the ranged char is far away.
In the second example The melee chars attack the enemy from opposing sides and the ranged char is far away.

Well, the Eldritch Blast DC is bugged making enemies far more likely to resist. Kineticists on Pathfinder aren't nerfed, they just have way less things to choose from. But what makes then very good is that Wings can't make you immune to the effect of certain infusions like Deadly Earth(contrary to P&P where you can fly)

About Warlock Look to what Warlock reworked fixed on warlock https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g

• Fixed Warlock to have the right save DC on eldritch blasts (10 + half-level, shape level or essence level whatever is higher + Charisma modifier)
• (...)
• The Dead walk now works as DnD. It animated 1*Caster level (max 20) of undead and put them under your control for 1 minute. You can cast it as many times you want but you cannot control more than 2*Caster Level HD of undead. Those in excess will be removed from your control.
• Flee the Scene is now a teleport spell
• Word of Changing is now an hostile polymorph spell that change creatures to 1 HD ones if failed save
• Retributive Invisibility last 1 round/level as it should
• Chilling Tentacles changed with a proper Grapple routine and it now works as DnD
• Tenacious Plague works as DnD now, it doesn't stack with itself and it's more powerful.
• (...)

This are the most important things that the mod corrected. Chilling Tentacles is one of the most powerful invokations on P&P and on nwn2 is useless. Due the lack of grapple. As for sorcerers, is too hard to detail everything, but here is a big list https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/script/spell-fixes-and-improvements

To mention just two of my favorite spells





Sorcerers have d4 hit points on 3.5e and had to talk to a boss before they got all defenses dispelled and start the combat on melee. That with the spell nerfs made my sorcerer run at highest difficulty pretty hard.

I can understand that you like the PnP rules.
But this would make powerful classes even more powerful.
When I look at the NWN2 build maker, warlocks and sorcs are very popular classes, together with bards.
Only one build mentioned that it has a chance to beat a sorcerer (cleric, stormlord 10, dragon disciple10, becoming a storm elemental and being lv10 RDD gives immunity to some powerful sorc stuff)

Warlocks can cause AoE damage that causes additional effects every round without spending resources.

Sorcerers have many powerful spells and they can chose to use meta magic whenever and however they want.

Making them more powerful would ruin any remains of balance more, and game balance in DnD is already bad.

Playing a game at the highest difficulty is supposed to be hard.
Games are usually designed to be played with a full party at normal difficulty.
When you have problems on the highest difficulty (maybe even solo) than everything is fine.
If you had no problems, either your class is totally OP or the game design is really bad.

Balance is a thing that kills immersion, variety and replayability. Imagine a FPS, if everyone is using only M16, the FPS is very balanced, if everyone can use every weapon mass produced since black powder discovery and the game has realistic ballistics, the game can't be balanced. D&D is a game where you play as archetypes of many things present on fantastic literature. Of course a druid gameplay needs to be different than a warlock gameplay.

That said, on NWN2, Martial > Divine > Arcane. On P&P : Divine > Arcane > Martial. A boss that took like 8 minutes to my sorcerer kill, a warrior could kill in about one minute



Look how many times he hits 200+ damage in a single round. Not even epic spells can reach that Look to the weapons that some warriors can get mainly on MotB. Like +5d6 elemental weapon which means that if you have 4 attacks per round, and hit all, it is +20d6 damage.

Many offensive spells are not only nerfed compared to D&D but also compared to NWN1

For example, in nwn1 Evard's black tentacles get 1d4 tentacles + 1 / caster level (maximum 20)[1] tentacles, in nwn2 only 1d4[2]. If each tentacle can do 1d6+4, at lv 20 you can do 1d6+4*24 max damage in nwn1 and in nwn2 you can do only 1d6+4*4, 6x more damage in nwn1, is a very useful spell against spell immune creatures, but is useless against creatures with high DR. Other problem with NWN2 implementation of tentacles is that there are no grapple on NWN2. So they can't be used to deal damage, can't be used to prevent opponent move, can't be reliable used against high SR enemies, so what is the point of having a spell so nerfed that has ZERO use????

Other example : Horrid wilting, damage up to 25d8 in nwn1[3] and 20d6 in nwn2[4] and note that there are a lot of undead creatures in nwn2 OC.

sources :
1 : http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Evard%27s_black_tentacles
2 : http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Evard%27s_Black_Tentacles
3 : http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Horrid_wilting

---------------------------------

TL;DR - Even if balance is something important, invocations that nobody picks like the dead walk who only creates a single minion that dies in one round and was one of the most popular P&P invocations is NOT balanced. Having archers outDPSing your warlock eldricht blast by many times because the DC of his eldritch blast is bugged is NOT balanced.

Forget the balance thing. Forcing balance down the throat might lead to boring gear as in PoE2, probably the worst gear I've seen in any RPG.
BG is a timeless classic because of the crazy shit you can do. Hell, is there anything more fun than finding bizarre combos with UAI?

What is UAI?

Maybe some nerds like this stuff.
Players who are not experts for super complex PnP rules will get totally lost.
Either you look in the internet for a guide to make a powerful build and what spells/abilities to use then or you will likely crate total crap.
Pathfinder Kingmaker was very hard for me and the char I created was bad even though I spend lots of time reading the rules. It was my first pathfinder game ever.
At one point I gave up and finished the rest of the game on story mode difficulty (started on normal).
The game was good, but the rules are complex as hell and I did not want to start with a new char after playing for so many hours. I do not have infinite time for playing.

BG1+2 were fine, after reading the manual I was good enough to finish the game on normal with a full party.

NWN2 was also fine. My first char was a martial one with a huge sword. He was good enough to finish the game on normal with a full party, but he was not very good.
Later I played it again with a favoured soul and a full party on normal and this was much better. With persistent spells ( or spells that last long anyway) you buff yourself once and bash enemies all day long.

Once again, I play games on normal difficulty with a full party and without mods.
When I play for the first time I try to do it without a guide.
Back in the old days games were released with a huge manual that explained all game mechanics and some lore.
BG1+2 and arcanum had a manual that had a list of all spells and all abilities THAT ARE IN THE COMPUTER GAME!
For PK I had to look in the internet for the PnP rules and guess what of it gets changed for the computer game.
I have the feeling that devs expect players to look at guides in the internet today, which I consider bad.

Well, that's the thing. I think that this kind of complex game REQUIRES some reading, at least to have a basic understandment of the mechanics. I hate this conception from AAA studios that every game is for "everyone" and everything should be streamlined and easy to understand. Just compare Destiny with Borderlands to see how much some complexity and customization can elevate a game compared to a similar one.
I always read guides, and I also have way more fun when I start understanding how the game works and using it in my favor. A well placed spell in BG can make an impossible fight into a stupidly easy one.
And UAI = Use Any Item, HLA from Thiefs that can yield some hilarious results.

I like a manual that makes digging in to the game easy and approachable, with resources available for when im ready to dig in to the weeds.

RTFM 4 Life.

I like reading too.
Like I said, BG 1+2 were perfectly fine.

One of my problems is that many new games are released without having a manual as good as the one of BG.
When you get a game with complex rules the devs should also give you a manual that explaines these rules.
The devs of PK have said that they wanted to improve on how they explain the rules to the player in their next game.

As for use any item: I have finished ToB with a thief holding blackrazor on one hand and crom fayr in the off hand, together with gloves that give more attacks per round.
But spike traps killed everything anyway.

Even the Pathfinder creator had problem on Pathfinder Kingmaker. On my first run, i failed on Pitax due a bug(silver draconic sorcerer), but din't had to lower the difficulty or look to solutions online. I just carefully read the spell descriptions.

After some bug fixes, i finished as a sorcerer of undead bloodline. As for playing without mods, i generally only play my first time with bug fixes, my second, third, fourth, run i generally use mods to EXPAND the options of the game and some times, make the game more hard. I love Gothic but the inability to become a Guru on G1 made me install Golden mod. On NWN2, after i saw that most of my favorite spells was useless(normal, unmodded), i installed spell fixes mod for my second run. On Gothic 2 i finished 3 times before i installed RETURNING mod who mades the game exponentially harder and allow you to be a Xardas apprentice, something that i missed from Original game.

Skyrim i played normal but can't play with deadly dragons and other mods. I wanna fear dragons, not steamroll then with apprentice spells like firebolt + dual casting + impact perk. About manual, i was playing Dark Sun Shattered Lands and the lack of detailed explanations on manual made me pick awful spells. One class that i love is necromancer and in most games, it *****. So i have to use mods on most games.

EDIT : I DON'T recommend Sorcerer for starting players in any D&D 3.5e/Pathfinder 1E games. Sorceres can't switch spells, so if you picked a awful spell, you are stuck for the rest of the game.

EDIT 2 : See at 32 min here; he is playing on NORMAL >

And isn't this badass? If Josh Sawyer had designed BG you could forget about UAI and Spike Trap, two of my favorite things in the game.

When you create an RPG game (being tabletop or a videogame) with several options to customize your character, it´s understandable or even normal that some builds, weapon choices or party formations are more effective than others, some against some type of enemies or the setting of the campaign, others as overall all-rounders.

But a little balancing is always good because BG3 would be also a Role-playing game, so you may want to be able to play any class-race-background combination you want to play.

I mean, If I want to play a Half-orc artificer wielding a whip in the purest Indiana Jones-style I know it´s not going to be an optimum build but I least expect it to be playable. That´s even more important in MP games because you could be "forced" to play certain builds and discard others that you find fun.

I remember in NWN high-level servers you can find almost only multi-classed weapon masters of several kinds in the melee department because they are so over any other build that playing other thing is stalling your party members in high-level parties (and I am not even talking PVP here, because engaging a weapon master with another build is suicidal at best) and you seldom see a bard or a ranger of high level. I would like to be able to play without having to roll a fighter mage dual-wielding katanas or a cleric-ranger with flails or hammers because most of the weapons are subpar in comparison (and I do not want to be forced to play in story mode because I want to roll a particular character I want to roleplay that is not a power-play choice).

I can understand your point, but I should add that I remember this char because it was the only time I finished ToB.
There are a few tricks that can kill any enemy in a few seconds which I considered boring after doing it a few times.
Thanks to the HLAs you are a god who destroys everything.
This is one of the reasons why I liked BG1 way more than ToB.
In BG1 every char started weak and got more powerful over time.
In ToB some classes or abilities are gods while others feel totally useless in comparison.
Thats why I think that balance is importent, not in a sense that everyone is equally powerful, but at least all classes should feel viable and not completely useless compared to some others.

To be fair BG1 did one bad thing: It ruined the bard class for me as my bard was the most useless char there, Jack of all trades, master of non
- They can cast spells, but only when naked. Armor prevents casting and only mages can wear robes. Only late in BG2 comes an armor that allows casting.
- They can use most weapons, but they have only 1 attack per round, no specialisation and lower hit chance than warriors. Rogues have the same hit chance but their backstab makes them very useful.
- They can pickpocket. Well, this means the party rogue can spend more points on other skills.
Maybe I should try playing a bard in BG3 to overcome my hatred, they seem quite useful now.

I agree with you, this is the reason why balance matters.
It makes no sense to have 100 classes and races in a game when 90 of them feel totally weak compared to the other 10 and everybody either uses one of the OP characters or you have the feeling that your char sucks completely.

> In ToB some classes or abilities are gods while others feel totally useless in comparison.


The games who changed P&P rules for "balance sake" din't changed that. Only made some beloved classes useless; i rather NOT having warlocks on nwn2 than having it with invocations that lasts 3 rounds contrary to one round / level(P&P), only one summon with the dead walk, tentacles that won't grapple, a eldritch blast that has his DC bugged and thus deals far less damage than my archer companion...

Note that on P&P, is expected that you and the DM will make/allow characters that makes sense story and theme wise. So a MP server banning multiclass(Except prestige class) will not be a huge problem. But on SP, let people have fun with their pun-pun builds if is what they like.

Keep in mind that this weapon masters would't be a problem if i disjunction was like P&P and could suppress his gear enchantments

If the wizards have disjunction or baleful polymorph and the warlocks could cast infinitely 5d6, 10d6, 15d6 eldrich blasts, targeting touch armor with your ranged attacks from 600 ft away (using eldrich spear and spell sniper), leisurely sitting on a chair 2 blocks away as in PNP.... instead of having servers full of weapon masters we will have servers full of warlocks and wizards. The thing is making all classes playable and fun, and the wizards are very good even without those spells so I do not think that´s a priority. Rangers are, for example.

But, the butchery they did with the warlocks in NWN2, I absolutely agree...

Anyway, to balance things you do not have to mandatorily cripple classes or change most rules. You need to work with loot, setting and enemies too.
In the BG, you only have 2-3 decent slings in the entire trilogy even tho it is the only ranged weapon allowed to all the divine classes besides the shaman, So making a slinger halfling cleric of Yondalla could be fun but you will not be as effective as a melee cleric because slings in those games are not very good in comparison and there are plenty of characters whose only ranged option are the slings (All divine and pure arcane casters besides bards) and you will be competing for the same weapon.

Or in the OC NWN2 campaign, where 60-70% of the time you are fighting undead creatures ( immune to crits, SA and enchanting spells) so your bards and thieves will pass the time looking pretty while the others are busy destroying the living dead. (which is another good reason to let Grobnar stay in the camp all the time, but that´s not the point).

__Vic__, Warlocks on 3.5e are limited to 250 feet. And that fighters with a longbow can hit far away and they have better BAB. And you are saying that "wizards are fine" but are NOT. Mainly necromancer specialized wizards and Pale masters. On Both NWN games; on NWN1, lose stop time and disjunction(even disjunction being far worst than on P&P since it can't dispel GEAR enchantments, it is the best SR lowering spell). And pale masters doesn't even give +caster level. Meaning that one level in wizard is better than 10 levels of pale master. On NWN2, undeads are immune to OHK spells like finger of death and only one summon limit removes the two best things from necromancers on P&P. OHK capability and multiple summons.

Imagine taking out all non fire based evocation spells in a campaign in the plane of fire with tons of fire immune enemies. That would kill a evoker wizard. Look to Pathfinder Kingmaker. Spawn of Rovagug is a nightmare for sorcerers/wizards, not because they nerfed their spells BUT because the Spawn of Rovagug has 36 pts of spell resistance.

That means that my lv cap sorcerer with great spell penetration(24 spell penetration) has like 40% of chance of hitting him(roll 12 or more) with any spell who allow SR. And since is a massive creature with good saves, even if i made him inside my Ice Prison spell, he will break the ice. My sorcerer was only attacking his minions while my martial classes was nuking him.

Jabberwocks also has like 31 SR and you fight a lot of then on end game.

-------------------------------

TL;DR - We have 95%+ weapon masters on servers and 5% of divine casters due the butchery that they did with arcane casters and ludicrous OP weapons who deals 666d6 elemental attack per round and can't be dispelled by disjunction

Yeah, sadly the thing about weapon masters is the same in all NWN servers I know of, even in non-pvp servers.

Larian could consider raising the lv cap at least to 11/12. Because many iconic cantrips only get a upgrade on lv 11(eldritch blast and fire bolt) and getting at least one slot of a 6th tier spell... Imagine the warlock getting to lv 5 and then, never getting a eldritch blast upgrade forever...

One more thing about high level magic.

Fireball deals up to 10d6 damage(cl = 10 - tier 3). Cone of cold, deals 15d6(cl = 15, tier 5) and Meteor Swarm deals 20d6 damage and is a 9th tier spell. Going from tier 3 to 5 gives +5d6 damage. From 5 to 9, +5d6 damage. Is a huge bonus but is not game breaking like some people portrait.

And on 5e, they reduced the difference between high tier and mid tier spells by far Cone of cold deals 8d8 damage and fireball, 8d6. Also limited the usage of high tier magic, so a lv 20 sorcerer can no longer cast 6 reality shaping wishes in a row. Increasing the lv cap to 11/12 will not going to be a problem.

There is no spell scalling also. Low level spells lose their usefullness unless you cast them using higher spell slots, which creates a tradeoff since doing that you can't cast more high level spells.

I don't mind the level cap, though I would have preferred it to offer the full 1-20 experience.

Seriously though, name a single D&D campaign .. EVER .. where you level up from 1 through 20 in a single story arc.

I thought you guys wanted authentic D&D?

One to 20 IDK BUT.

Most Dark Sun adventures recommend starting at lv 3 because lv 1 PC's has ZERO chance of surviving outside of cities
Descend to Arvenus is a lv 1 to 13 adventure. And if there is a continuation, it would be probably lv 14-18 or even 20.

so, none.

almost as if D&D isn't meant to be a power trip from level 1 to 20.

almost as if y'all only want "authentic" D&D when it tickles your fancy.

Dude, please chill with the passive-aggressive stuff.

Gamers these days are used to a game being self-contained. So if D&D goes to level 20, they automatically expect a D&D game to go to level 20. Many people aren't really even thinking about it; it just makes sense with how large games can be these days.

Larian, however, is telling a story and, as the DM (so to speak) has decided that level 10 is the strongest level the players will need. Maybe they already have ideas for BG4, which will go from levels 10 to 20, and BG 3 & 4 will be it's own full story arc.
Maybe they'll bring back importing for BG4, so you can bring your dude straight from 3.

Heck, if I'm at all close, it'd be cool if they had a 'Companion' system where you can share your character files, and be an NPC in someone else's game in BG4.

But that's way off in the future. As it stands, BG3 is levels 1 to 10. There may be little need to grind overmuch, and 10 may feel either a bit stronger than needed to win, or just strong enough. We will have wait and see.

it's funny how differently you behave on various forums.

You going to actually discuss on the forums? Or just attack people, like you did 'on various forums'?

if you search my name on this forum you'll see plenty of discussion.

If we're talking table top D&D, indeed, almost never. If we're talking video games, Neverwinter Nights 2's official campaign included progression from 1st through 20th (typically rarely hit the cap, usually tapered off between 15-20, but it was available and functional).

I'm fine with this game capping at 10, but it is fun to be able to go into those high levels with a video game since it's, as you say, pretty darn rare to table top.

Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Besides that, a video game may not necessarily be based on any campaign, or be based on several.
Also in most modern games even those based on Pnp rules allow maximum level.

i dont get the point.
Why would you want the game to go to level 20?

You wont more CONTENT that way.
it means that the levels will be cheaper and less content in each level bracket overall.

Having more focus on fewer levels means a lot more detail.
not to mention that low level is where dnd works ebst anyway

On Video games :

- Dark Sun Shattered Lands was lv 1 to 9
- Dark Sun: Wake of the Ravager was 7 to 15.
- ToEE was 1 to 10
- BG1 was 1 to 9
- BG2:SoA Was 8 to 17
- BG2:ToB was epic level
- NWN1 was 1 to 20 and HOTU was epic level with lv cap = 40 (considered the best expansion BTW)
- NWN2 was 1 to 20 and MotB was epic
- Pathfinder Kingmaker was 1 to 20 (adapting many books)
- Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous will gonna be Mythic level(similar to D&D epic but different)

Keep in mind that if a module has lv cap = 10 and there are less players than recommended, the DM generally allow PCs to reach higher level.

> not to mention that low level is where dnd works ebst anyway


I disagree. Look to the most popular mods for ToEE; all of then raises the level cap.

On 5e, the difference between low to high level is much smaller than 3.5e or 2e.

A lv 20 sorcerer on BG2 with spell sequencer and 3 skull traps, can dealt 60d6 damage in a instant. 5e has no OHK spells, high level spells has his usage far more limited and the most iconic 3rd tier evocation on 3.5e and 2e deals 10d6 damage at lv 10. The most iconic 5th tier magic deals up to 15d6(cone of cold), on 5e, the difference got reduced to 6d8(fireball) VS 8d8(cone of cold).

With warriors, a lv 1 ranger compared to a lv 20 has only 4 base attack bonus (or proficiency bonus) less than a level 20 ranger. 4! This is the difference between a mortal who has reached the pinnacle of mortal achievement and a baby faced newbie who can barely hold a weapon is just 20% more chance to hit...

Because high level characters with high level gear are cooler.

What makes high level 5e boring is that chars has way too much hit points and is not like 2e/3.5e where one failed save from a finger of death trap can insta destroy your character and enemies can deal a lot of damage...

5e lacks any tension on combat...

It depends on the campaign, the party level and the enemies.
Hags are so ugly that their spells can kill frightened players, intellect devourers have the "body thief" ability that allows them to substitute the brain of the PC and take the body of the character, and there are enemies that can deal you Massive damage that can kill you instantly. (When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum), some spells like "power word: kill", "Phantasmal killer" or "disintegrate", etc

But yeah, in general terms, it´s harder to die in 5e due to several tricks and the rules about death and dying.


Sc: https://5e.tools/bestiary.html
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells

A level 13 cap would of worked better for me, and some build ideas I have. But I understand people's frustration with only 10 levels in 100 hours of gameplay. For me it's fine, levels will mean something. I'm in it for the adventure. Yeah I like to level, but if it's too much, then it's meaningless. I tried to play Neverwinter Online, and quit after a half an hour. Level 70/ 80 characters really???

And btw, BG1 was based on the second edition rules. In the PHB, which I'm looking at right now, classes capped at 20, not 10.

You say this but I have Tabaxi a Rogue with 12 CON that dropped once per battle. :P

I was giving him battle scars based on the attack that downed him + how badly it had to hit him to down him. The plan, if he survived the campaign, was to buy art of him, a before/after of him at level 1, untouched and fresh-faced VS him at level whatever, with all his scars.

The campaign went on hold when life slapped me around, and now it's permanently on haiatus, and I can't afford said drawing. Ah well.

Rogues always had low survivability. On 2e/3.5e, your character would be dead so quickly... But a lv 20 Barbarian(which has great survivability) on 2e and on 3.5e can be taken out by a single finger of death(if he fails the same of course), on 5e, they can take like 5 FoD before reaching negative HP using average hit dices...

One thing that 2e did right is that after lv 10, takes a eternity to level up in XP requirement(btw, on bg2 you gain 10x more xp for killing the same mob) and each level up after 10 gives very little HP.

When i soloed as a sorcerer, using dice to determine level up instead of max hp in every level, i reached lv 20 with 47 HP (btw, i din't re rolled my stats on char creation, had like 76 in total, only putted max int and cha sacrificing dex, wis and dex in the process)

But i an re playing BG2, this time as a dragon disciple and here is how much lethality BG2 has. I can kill end chapter 4 enemies with a single tier 5 spell.

If you play a villain correctly there is a lot of tension.

A villain using his multi-attack on the same PC. PC goes down with the first attack and then Villian strikes the PC for the second attack causing a double failure on the death save. A villain doesn't always go to the next PC to attack. Remember it is a 6-sec decision.

Then the live PC have to scurry about trying to save their party member.

A spellcaster cast magic missile at a PC, the first magic missile causes the PC to go to zero, and the other two missiles hit him. Because of the extra attacks of the magic missiles, the PC by rules as written is dead.

>muh fast character death
as if dying to random dicerolls was fun
Save or suck is pure unadultered bullshit

> Save or suck is pure unadultered bullshit


No, was not. Spells that transform enemies into toads exists in all of literature. There are no better way to portrait then than with this mechanic. Same with deadly poisons and other things. And this is not only a D&D thing. Finger of Death exists on a lot of games like M&M VI and enemies can use it vs the party too.

A lot of people believe that high level D&D is bad because they try to make high level gameplay on middle of Sword Coast... Wanna a high level(14+) adventure? Go for frozenfar, underdark, in a elemental plane, in far realm, feyworld, or something similar.

Most TTRPG adaptations that goes for high level have you spending a lot of time in this regions. nwn1 Hotu after a short introduction has you going to the underdark and then to the 8th layer of hell. nwn2 MotB you even visit the wall of faithless. BG2 campaign end by you facing your arch enemy in HELL. On ToB you gain a hellish pocket dimension in literally the second place that you visit. And most of conflict on the "material plane" is caused by other Bhaalspawn, Pathfinder Kingmaker has you visiting and dealing with creatures from feyworld a lot.

Yeah and save or suck is still a stupid mechanic.
It existing in othe rmedia is not an argument.

its a stupid mechanic relying entierly on RNG, and the worst kind since it exclusiveley depends on the score of one character.

later editions solved the situation much better.
such as a basilisks stone gaze first slowing you, then paralyzing you and THEN if you fial a third time turning you to stone for good, giving your allies an actual chance to save your dumb ass.

A lot of games uses this mechanics. Might & Magic VI~VIII had enemies that can insta erradicate your party members. Just use protection from petrification or in worst case, stone to flesh.

I can't say that I agree with a cap at level 10. I get the whole part of 5E being of a faster progression. However what I hate about 5E is the fact that customization of the character has ben taken down to bare bones. Also the fact that 5E has for the most part killed the fun and wonder of multiclassing. Yes I admit I'm a staunch supporter of 3.5 and all of it's various ways you could customize a character and the different routes you could take it. I understand that 5E sought to streamline everything with it's subclass/specialization system for each class. Yet at the end of the day to me it seems rather lackluster and very underwhelming. So then if the cap in this game is at 10 then those of us who enjoy multiclassing are going to be very hindered in the game. Even in Pathfinders PC rpg there was a level 20 cap and multiclassing was very much evident as was the prestige class system. Granted I understand that was using Pathfinder 1st edition which was written under the OGL same as 3.5, but this is why I say things have been watered down to much in regards to 5E to the point for more experienced players (those that I've spoken with personally), it's taken the enjoyment out of the game.

The level cap has since been raised from 10. It has not been stated what the new cap is, only that it is less than 20.

Any guesses? My guess is lv 13 and after all DLC's, 15 or 16.

I’d say 12 to 14 seems like a safe guess. I hope that they release an expansion to take us all the way up to 20. We will see.

No DLC's; Larian has never done a DLC afaik

My guess would be the new cap is 12th level, which allows a few fun things including a third feat, but stops before 7th level spells, which include several tough-to-program/balance items like Etherealness, Plane Shift, Reverse Gravity, and Simulacrum.

Useful higher level spells like Resurrection can be given on a limited basis through scrolls or items (which they’re already doing—Speak With Dead is a third level spell, even though EA caps at character level 4), but unlimited access to 7th level spells introduces a lot of complications, potentially more than they’re willing to deal with for “just” one more character level.