How high is yet to be determined, but Swen says unequivocally that it has been moved up. I’m stoked about this news. There is a lot of great info in this interview.
Of course it will be moved up. On Deadfire you barely ship past Tutorial Island™ and have already leveled up like five times -- all the DOS games have you going from level 1 to godlike -- this is the gaming age of insta gratification and level ups around every even numbered hour at the least.
Wonder whether somebody will stand up how this is nothing like BG here too (nor part 2 base game).
Of course it will be moved up. On Deadfire you barely ship past Tutorial Island™ and have already leveled up like five times -- all the DOS games have you going from level 1 to godlike -- this is the gaming age of insta gratification and level ups around every even numbered hour at the least.
Wonder whether somebody will stand up how this is nothing like BG here too (nor part 2 base game).
I would say something if it were actually like that. EA is still only to level 4, and we're not going to level 20. For all we know the level cap will be 12, or 14, which is a perfectly reasonable cap for a video game adaptation of 5e.
Agreed, even if it´s only one level those are good news, plenty of cool abilites at level 11, like the improved divine smite for Pallys, fighter´s 3rd extra attack, monk´s 2nd monastic tradition ability (including the "sharpen the blade" for kenseis or extra element for element monk), rogue´s reliable talent or relentless rage for barbs.
...and the level 6 spells for full casters and warlocks. good stuff
Of course it will be moved up. On Deadfire you barely ship past Tutorial Island™ and have already leveled up like five times -- all the DOS games have you going from level 1 to godlike -- this is the gaming age of insta gratification and level ups around every even numbered hour at the least.
Wonder whether somebody will stand up how this is nothing like BG here too (nor part 2 base game).
Are you expressing a cynical dissatisfaction with an increased level cap?
Good news, Im old school i've worked for everything I have, so the insta gratification argument ,,, Meh , I do like God like power. Epic level creating a God character, good times. I have no expectaitons that BG3 will go that high, but it is nice to be able to access some more feats and abilities / spell. Looking forward to sept 30th already have steam money to spend.
Yeah, they say explicitly that we won’t go to level 20. I’m thinking 12 or 14 sounds about right. Hopefully they do a follow up DLC in the style of an old school expansion pack that takes you all of the way to 20.
I think the level 20 will come with the second game, since D&D is capped at 20. At least I hope so. I like games where you pick your character from the previous games, like BG2 or PoE2 =D
now lets hope this isnt to the detriment of the game. It certainly wil be to the detriment of the lategame balance.
I don't know what gives you the idea that a cap slightly higher than 10 is going to somehow destroy balance. Seventeen, items notwithstanding, is when balancing a game around a full party of equal XP (or in a milestone game) gets tricky without throwing narrative directly out of the nearest window.
Of course it will be moved up. On Deadfire you barely ship past Tutorial Island™ and have already leveled up like five times -- all the DOS games have you going from level 1 to godlike -- this is the gaming age of insta gratification and level ups around every even numbered hour at the least.
Wonder whether somebody will stand up how this is nothing like BG here too (nor part 2 base game).
Are you expressing a cynical dissatisfaction with an increased level cap?
There are some people who prefer to play dungeons & kobolds instead of dungeons & dragons.
Originally Posted by Sordak
congratulations you got what you wanted.
now lets hope this isnt to the detriment of the game. It certainly wil be to the detriment of the lategame balance.
He din't said that the lv cap will gonna be 20. My guess is 12 or 13. And fun > balance. Is not as if 5e is even balanced. Sure, in higher level, the difference between a Wizard/Druid and a Ranger/Monk is much bigger on lv 20 but is not as if that difference doesn't exist on lv 6.
One rule which I loved on 2e is that more complex classes required way more XP to level up than simpler ones.
Quote from the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide by E. Gary Gygax: "Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)."
It is thus parenthetically established that 6th level is unthinkably high compared to the abilities of a commoner, should so it should be a sufficient limit for the first installment of BG III, as there is little difference between 1E and 5E at 6th level. Or at least, ahh, I don't know of any significant differences. There could be something I missed. Missed ... mist ... by Leira's heart, I am not sure of anything anymore.
Regarding kobolds versus dragons, we should note that a dragon's difficulty level scales with its age. It is quite possible for a party of 1st-3rd level characters to succeed in an encounter with a very young dragon. I am surprised this has not been done before in the BG series. In fact, there was a chapter in the Great Book of the Unknowing that I read concerning a young dragon ... er, well, maybe there wasn't. I don't know.
I really like their slow leveling design. It gives alot of weight to your abilitys that you achive with every level and even if its just a "poor" masterwork item you wil find in the early game, it will serve its role as power up and stand for its name. Actually a strong item instead of beeing something you casualy skip in other games. Beeing level capped in game with a slowed down progression helps you alot to find more intresting playstyles. Where you have to be forced to find ways arround certain enemys or big hordes of goblins. Rather then just blasting the heavy wooden door that leads into the castle with your fireball and then blast the group of goblins with your fireball and then blast the magical treasue chest with the fireball.
I think the level 20 will come with the second game, since D&D is capped at 20. At least I hope so. I like games where you pick your character from the previous games, like BG2 or PoE2 =D
Well it depends. If this games takes you up to 14, leveling up only 6 times in the sequel might feel as if there isn’t enough of a progression curve for a full sequel. I could see 12 to 20 working, though.
Quote from the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide by E. Gary Gygax: "Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)."
It is thus parenthetically established that 6th level is unthinkably high compared to the abilities of a commoner, should so it should be a sufficient limit for the first installment of BG III, as there is little difference between 1E and 5E at 6th level. Or at least, ahh, I don't know of any significant differences. There could be something I missed. Missed ... mist ... by Leira's heart, I am not sure of anything anymore.
Regarding kobolds versus dragons, we should note that a dragon's difficulty level scales with its age. It is quite possible for a party of 1st-3rd level characters to succeed in an encounter with a very young dragon. I am surprised this has not been done before in the BG series. In fact, there was a chapter in the Great Book of the Unknowing that I read concerning a young dragon ... er, well, maybe there wasn't. I don't know.
Source??? I believe that 6th magician is the minimum to teach magic to someone. I don't think that someone capable of casting a single fireball per rest and if is a necromancer unable to raise a single skeleton, if a paladin, unable to cast a single cleric spells is "unthinkably high level". Not in a game series with magicians like Karsus(lv 41, who LITERALLY becomed a God casting a 12th circle magic). Only in Netheril, there are thousands of high level magicians.
In fact, if you look to 2e domains of dread book, on page 96 mentions that in life Strahd was a magic user of mediocre skill, of 5th level and the time spend on the domain of dread allowed him to reach lv 16. And the book uses "accomplished" to describe his as a 16th level necromancer. Not crazy high level. A direct quote.
Even Gothic which is a much lower magical setting than D&D(not low setting as Conan or GoT for EG), the most powerful magicians like Saturas, Pyrokar and Xardas can make rain fire, create ice golems and do other cool stuff. Being a mage in Gothic is far harder. Mainly on gothic 2. I an playing returning 2.0 at moment.
As for dragons, only a baby dragon can die to a low level party.
IMO what Larian needs to do is just port many 3.5e tome of battle powers into a 5e game. So marital classes will have cool stuff to do. And note : In Gothic martial classes has cool stuff. Returning mod added cool combos and magical weapons like Claw of Beliar exists even on vanilla.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I think the level 20 will come with the second game, since D&D is capped at 20. At least I hope so. I like games where you pick your character from the previous games, like BG2 or PoE2 =D
Well it depends. If this games takes you up to 14, leveling up only 6 times in the sequel might feel as if there isn’t enough of a progression curve for a full sequel. I could see 12 to 20 working, though.
You are assuming that will be a BG4. And I don't think that Larian wanna become a forgotten realms studio.
Why? You become too dependent of a third party. ToB was rushed due the 3e and licensing stuff.
Larian wouldn't raise the level cap if they felt it would unbalance the game or if they couldn't provide sufficient additional content for those extra levels Dungeons and Kobolds was a great visual; I, very much, want to play Dungeons and DRAGONS This is 5E D&D revised/edited by Larian to fit into a video game. When you play EA, and you will, make sure to click the button that allows Larian to gather data from your gameplay.
You are assuming that will be a BG4. And I don't think that Larian wanna become a forgotten realms studio.
Why? You become too dependent of a third party. ToB was rushed due the 3e and licensing stuff.
Im sure that Larian doesn’t want to abandon their own IP, but this is a huge break for them. They are going from a AA studio to working on their first AAA project. If they were to make 2 or 3 successful BG games it would dramatically improve and expand their resources. Plus, it does seem like they have having a genuinely good time working on this game. I will be surprised if they make BG3, it is a success, and then they just walk away without a follow up.
I've seen people point towards Larian saying they are looking forward to getting back to Divinity after BG3 as indication there likely won't be a follow-up. I suspect they're developing BG3 without the intention of carrying your save forward, otherwise things like level cap would probably be more set in stone and less prone to adjustment as the game continues to be developed. At the very least, it's probably the safest expectation to set.
My best guess is itll be based on spell level since they dont want level 9 magic due to some of it being world breaking or godlike so best guess is 10(if spell level ends at 5) 12 (if its ends a 6) 14(if it ends at 7) and 16 (if the spell level stops at 8th level)
I think the level 20 will come with the second game, since D&D is capped at 20. At least I hope so. I like games where you pick your character from the previous games, like BG2 or PoE2 =D
Well it depends. If this games takes you up to 14, leveling up only 6 times in the sequel might feel as if there isn’t enough of a progression curve for a full sequel. I could see 12 to 20 working, though.
You are assuming that will be a BG4. And I don't think that Larian wanna become a forgotten realms studio.
Why? You become too dependent of a third party. ToB was rushed due the 3e and licensing stuff.
They already said that they plan to make another BG game after this one ( except disaster happens)
My best guess is itll be based on spell level since they dont want level 9 magic due to some of it being world breaking or godlike so best guess is 10(if spell level ends at 5) 12 (if its ends a 6) 14(if it ends at 7) and 16 (if the spell level stops at 8th level)
Completely wrong. Godlike spells are above what even 3.5e epic magic can do. 3.5e epic magic is like spell lv 9.9 but still weaker than the Netherise 10/11th tier spells. Unless you are playing as a lv 25+ character in a Netherise campaign, you will not see one of then. And even then, require high cost and are rarely used. Tolodine's killing wind drains your own caster level but can slay an army. Saying that 5e 9th level spells are godlike is DOWNPLAYING gods... To become a lich, you need to be able to cast 9th tier spells and strike a deal with Orcus. Orcus still weaker than any deity.
Second because Casters can cast way less high level magic on 5e and most powerful 5e spells like wail of the banshee got removed. Stop Time is nowhere near powerful as on 2e.
I don't think that lv cap = 20 will gonna work. However, going to lv 11/12/13 will not give us the powerful spells.
The Vecna reborn module from 2e has you starting at lv 8 and the module said that the focus should't be to defeat Vecna as even a lv 20+ party will have almost no chance against Vecna... And note that Vecna is a DEMI power. Any lesser deity is far stronger.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
(...) They already said that they plan to make another BG game after this one ( except disaster happens)
I cited my source, 1E Dungeon Master's Guide. Here is some more information: Page 39, left side, under the title "Acquisition of Magic User Spells". That's enough for me, 6th level is a high level according to the great Gygax, who has played more hours of D&D than probably all of us put together. Does it make you wonder why would he make a statement like that? Could there be an underlying wisdom that Gygax gained from all those hours playing the game?
When I played ToB, I found the transition between level 20 and 21 to be much less consequential than, for example, between levels 5 and 6 (which we now know is a high level) in BG I. And the excitement between levels 27 and 28 was even less notable. I'd rather just start a new game, were it not for the story needing to conclude. I think Frodo Baggins ended up around 6th level or so when he returned to the Shire.
I cited my source, 1E Dungeon Master's Guide. Here is some more information: Page 39, left side, under the title "Acquisition of Magic User Spells". That's enough for me, 6th level is a high level according to the great Gygax, who has played more hours of D&D than probably all of us put together. Does it make you wonder why would he make a statement like that? Could there be an underlying wisdom that Gygax gained from all those hours playing the game?
When I played ToB, I found the transition between level 20 and 21 to be much less consequential than, for example, between levels 5 and 6 (which we now know is a high level) in BG I. And the excitement between levels 27 and 28 was even less notable. I'd rather just start a new game, were it not for the story needing to conclude. I think Frodo Baggins ended up around 6th level or so when he returned to the Shire.
Again, can you mention where he mention that a mage capable of casting a single fireball per day is "crazy high level"? Mainly cuz he took Vance's novel as inspiration and magicians in Vance novels are FAR from a guy which can cast few magic missiles, then a fireball and be worthless for the rest of the day...
I posted the domain of dread sourcebook direct line, here a lv 16 necromancer is just accomplished...
Come on, lv 6 high level? A lv 6 ranger can't even hunt a bear...
And you din't liked leveling ToB, but the most popular BG is BG2, which is most mid level(and when I mean mid level, I mean lv 7~15). Nobody would write modules like throne of bloodstone nor rules for epic level if D&D was meant to be kobold slaying in sword coast...
Come on, lv 6 high level? A lv 6 ranger can't even hunt a bear...
And you din't liked leveling ToB, but the most popular BG is BG2, which is most mid level(and when I mean mid level, I mean lv 7~15). Nobody would write modules like throne of bloodstone nor rules for epic level if D&D was meant to be kobold slaying in sword coast...
Huh? A level 6 ranger could easily dispatch a bear. Even a polar bear only has 12 AC and 40 some health.
BG2: SoA is popular, Throne of Bhaal is quite possibly the worst received of the entire bunch, even including IWD2.
I checked the Dungeon Master’s Guide. It’s actually:
1 - 4: local heroes 5 - 10 - heroes of the realm 11 - 16 - masters of the realm 17 - 20 - masters of the world
Heroes of the realm is described as:
By the time they reach this tier, adventurers have mastered the basics of their class features, though they continue to improve throughout these levels. They have found their place in the world and have begun to involve themselves in the dangers that surround them.
Masters of the realm:
By 11th level, characters are shining examples of courage and determination — true paragons in the world, set well apart from the masses. At this tier, adventurers are far more versatile than they were at lower levels, and they can usually find the right tool for a given challenge.
The later sounds much more to me like high level than the former.
This actually got me thinking, what level would Frodo be? With milestone leveling, this seems to be the most likely to me:
1 - leaves Hobbiton 2 - arrives at Bree 3 - survives Weathertop / awakens in Rivendell 4 - survives Moria 5 - escapes Boromir 6 - meets Faramir 7 - enters Mordor / survives Shelob 8 - throws The Ring into Amon Amarth
You could maybe squeeze another level or 2 in there, but 8 - 10 sounds about right for Frodo. Give Sam a few extra levels for being the true hero of the story.
[ BG2: SoA is popular, Throne of Bhaal is quite possibly the worst received of the entire bunch, even including IWD2.
ToB is hated by being rushed due licensing stuff. Not by being high level. HotU is more loved than nwn1 and nwn2 motb is far more popular than base game. And note that both neverwinter nights has you at lv 3 after the tutorial and is possible to reach lv 10 on the first chapter.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
I checked the Dungeon Master’s Guide. It’s actually:
1 - 4: local heroes 5 - 10 - heroes of the realm 11 - 16 - masters of the realm 17 - 20 - masters of the world (...)
That is my BIGGEST problem with 5e. They did rules only for the typical sword coast adventure. A lv 11 guy in lower dark or in the 666th layer of the abyss is far from "masters of the realm", is probably weaker than a "local hero". Shadowfell is also a non threatening place on 5e. 2e and 3.5e was a edition that can be easily adapted to low magic settings, to horror settings, to survival settings and so on. 5e doesn't work well on D&D multiverse.
Can you imagine a campaign in 5e set in the Netherese city who survived Karsus avatar and is now in shadowfell?
If any notorious mage from Netheril : the Empire of magic with all powers is transported to 5e Faerun, the war would be like the video bellow(i know that he can't cast tier 10 spells anymore, but an just supposing)
[ BG2: SoA is popular, Throne of Bhaal is quite possibly the worst received of the entire bunch, even including IWD2.
ToB is hated by being rushed due licensing stuff. Not by being high level. HotU is more loved than nwn1 and nwn2 motb is far more popular than base game. And note that both neverwinter nights has you at lv 3 after the tutorial and is possible to reach lv 10 on the first chapter.
NWN got popular more for its persistent world scene than for any mechanical or individual module basis. Without PWs, it was a terribly middling game. Even when the EE came out, it was all anyone cared about facilitating at the end of the day.
Reaching high level hasn't been the success nor failing point of a D&D game. Further, these comparisons I always see to either older editions or official Netherese stuff from earlier editions don't make sense in the context of 5e. The ruleset changes, the lore does not - a 20th level character is still of incredible power relative to those around them, as before.
That is my BIGGEST problem with 5e. They did rules only for the typical sword coast adventure. A lv 11 guy in lower dark or in the 666th layer of the abyss is far from "masters of the realm", is probably weaker than a "local hero". Shadowfell is also a non threatening place on 5e. 2e and 3.5e was a edition that can be easily adapted to low magic settings, to horror settings, to survival settings and so on. 5e doesn't work well on D&D multiverse.
Can you imagine a campaign in 5e set in the Netherese city who survived Karsus avatar and is now in shadowfell?
If any notorious mage from Netheril : the Empire of magic with all powers is transported to 5e Faerun, the war would be like the video bellow(i know that he can't cast tier 10 spells anymore, but an just supposing
I really don’t understand what your actual objections are here. That a level 11 character isn’t as much of a big shot in realm of demons as she is in the prime material plane? Isn’t that how it is supposed to be?
I’ve designed a 5E campaign that takes place largely in the Shadowfell. There is no issues with that setting.
5E gives you all the freedom you need to make a setting, like Shadowfell, be as dangerous as you want/need it to be for your level. 5E is leaving more creative and imaginative freedom to the dungeon masters.
Reaching high level hasn't been the success nor failing point of a D&D game. Further, these comparisons I always see to either older editions or official Netherese stuff from earlier editions don't make sense in the context of 5e. The ruleset changes, the lore does not - a 20th level character is still of incredible power relative to those around them, as before.
Not truth. Do you know that on the module " The Throne of Bloodstone" introduces a city called "city of liches"? Being able to cast 9th tier spells is just one step towards lichdoom.
As for rules X lore, in a good game the rules are aligned with the lore. This is why Mistra dies a lot. They need to re write the magic system a lot...
Originally Posted by deathidge
5E gives you all the freedom you need to make a setting, like Shadowfell, be as dangerous as you want/need it to be for your level. 5E is leaving more creative and imaginative freedom to the dungeon masters.
This is not truth. Did you played Oblivion? On high level, combat becomes tedius due the way that the damage/hp scales.
To pick an example, imagine two lv 1 warlocks. One warlock with eldritch blast CAN OHK another WLK with 8 hp in 20% of the time. However, a lv 20 warlock even maximizing the rolls can't 3hk another lv 20 warlock; each lv up, the damage goes up a little and hp a lot. Compare it to 2e where you gain almost no hp after lv 10 and CON bonuses are very tiny. Even deity avatars and ancient dragons rarely goes above 200hp.
Poisoned arrows are a really nasty stuff on 2e. On 5e, are a minor inconvenience.
Shadowfell on 5e will not have the same lethality than on 2e. Dark Sun too. Dark Sun also has the political aspect. In a world where even Orks are problematic, having all dark themes like slavery being treated in a game would not be good.
Even I who LOVES epic campaigns realize that 5e will just not work past lv 15. The difference is that for me is due "oblivion effect", not balance or ultra powerful spells. Because lets be real. Everything that a PC can cast, a NPC can cast. And is not just my opinion. Descent to Arvenus, an adventure which ends up on literally the Hell has your party going from lv 1 to 13. IDK any module for 5e which goes above 15th level. Pathfinder 1e is different. A lot of modules end up around lv 17.
Lichdom isn't necessarily an increase in power, it's a way of extending your life. Cheating mortality. There are plenty of living casters that are more powerful than the vast majority of liches - in the canon lore of FR and D&D's megaverse as a whole.
Lichdom isn't necessarily an increase in power, it's a way of extending your life. Cheating mortality. There are plenty of living casters that are more powerful than the vast majority of liches - in the canon lore of FR and D&D's megaverse as a whole.
Well, immunity to diseases, cold(only resistance on 5e), attribute bonuses, magical abilities including fear aura is a huge increase in power. On pathfinder, if you apply the lich template to a creature, his CR goes up by +2 ( https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/lich/ )
Even on 5e which nerfed a lot of powerful creatures, things like Legendary Resistance (3/Day), Legendary actions and etc are pretty nasty abilities ( https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Lich#content)
They are good abilities, but they aren't indicative of an increase in narrative power, which is what I thought you were getting at? Or is this just one of those situations where you'll decide whether you care about only 5e, only 2e or only the lore based on whether it fits a vague argument against capping the level before 20?
If this was a sandbox, an rpg or a combat focused game, I will be inclined to agree, but in this game they seem to offer a lot of things to do at lower level, like sneaking stuff, talk to the dead, animal handling, flame arrows, Sandman-kill sleeping enemies, diplomatic options, tadpole force powers, etc... and 5e offers some interesting abilities at low level so a higher level is not that primordial like in other games based in other editions.
Originally Posted by Annyliese
BG2: SoA is popular, Throne of Bhaal is quite possibly the worst received of the entire bunch, even including IWD2.
I think that title goes to Siege of Dragonspear, for a long margin...
you always had the freedom to do whatever you wanted, id wager the majority of DMs do homebrew worlds. What 5e does is pump out worthless content thats just rehashed from older edition. Case in point: the eberron book. Basically a reprint from the 4e one, the entire new "content" was player character options.
They are good abilities, but they aren't indicative of an increase in narrative power, which is what I thought you were getting at? Or is this just one of those situations where you'll decide whether you care about only 5e, only 2e or only the lore based on whether it fits a vague argument against capping the level before 20?
5e is not good as 2e but is not bad. Mainly considering that 5e aims to be accessible as possible and is undeniable a success in that regard.
And I an not suggesting lv cap = 20. I mean, an Elder Brain CR is 14. LV cap = 12/13/14 would be more manageable.
I think I'm just super confused about the discussion, then. Personally I don't think an Elder Brain is our end game enemy, I don't think the illithid are the puppet masters in this play - but I do think 12-14 is a good range for the size of campaign they seem to want to make.
I think that title goes to Siege of Dragonspear, for a long margin...
Granted, and agreed actually. I wasn't considering it when I posted that.
I disagree. SoD is far from being the turd that everybody makes it out to be. In fact, I've found ToB, for what it's supposed to be (the conclusion of an epic saga) to be less satisfying than SoD, and way more rushed.
Your character is not a character until level 3 IMO. I think you should finish the tutorial at 3.
Honestly, I'm okay with fast-tracking levels 3 and 4 to get to 5. Low levels are fine for storytelling, but character options are so limited is not that much fun from a gameplay standpoint.
I think that title goes to Siege of Dragonspear, for a long margin...
Granted, and agreed actually. I wasn't considering it when I posted that.
I disagree. SoD is far from being the turd that everybody makes it out to be. In fact, I've found ToB, for what it's supposed to be (the conclusion of an epic saga) to be less satisfying than SoD, and way more rushed.
For what it's worth, I agree that ToB was less satisfying than SoD - but I also feel like SoD added next to nothing to the depth of the tale itself. For something meant to bridge the gap between BG2 and BG1, it missed its mark for me. I totally understand valuing SoD higher than ToB.
I'm not particularly fond of either of them, though.
I think the criticisms of ToB are valid, but I still had a lot of fun with it. Even if it was a bit rushed, for me it feels like everything is rapidly escalating towards the big final climatic encounter, so thematically it works. There are also some really fun encounters.
I haven't tried SoD yet. I am not sure if I ever will. I don't need an interim chapter between BG 1 and 2. I have had so long to head canon that period of my Bhaalspawn's life, I don't really want anything that contradicts that.
If Beamdog ever made a completely new, unrelated FR series using the Infinity Engine, I would almost certainly buy that instead. That would actually be pretty cool. I am generally not into retro gaming, but I find that the IE games have aged well. I could play a new one.
1 - ToB was rushed and a lv 18+ campaign should't happen in the "realms of humans", they should made a demon who wanna ascend to godhood luring every bhaalspawn to his layer on abyss and a campaign where you need to deal with a demon lord and other bhaalspawm. That would be amazing.
2 - Larian is talking about raising lv cap a little, to maybe 12 or 13. After DLC's, maybe 15. Not to 20. And unless Larian raises the lv cap to 20 AND homebrew rules similar to epic levels(3.5e) or mythic paths(pf1e), any mention to ToB is irrelevant. Hell, probably Shadows of Amn will have a far greater lv cap than BG3.
3 - I get why so many people who prefer low level are disappointed. We don't have a low level focused D&D adaptation to PC since ToEE. Pathfinder Kingmaker was except by the first chapter not a low level campaing. And now, we will gonna get a even more epic campaign where the PC's can even become a Lich(wrath of the righteous). But Solasta will maintain the lv cap = 10 and be turn based 5e. Is just not a official D&D game. Only uses D&D rules.
I think the criticisms of ToB are valid, but I still had a lot of fun with it. Even if it was a bit rushed, for me it feels like everything is rapidly escalating towards the big final climatic encounter, so thematically it works. There are also some really fun encounters.
I haven't tried SoD yet. I am not sure if I ever will. I don't need an interim chapter between BG 1 and 2. I have had so long to head canon that period of my Bhaalspawn's life, I don't really want anything that contradicts that.
If Beamdog ever made a completely new, unrelated FR series using the Infinity Engine, I would almost certainly buy that instead. That would actually be pretty cool. I am generally not into retro gaming, but I find that the IE games have aged well. I could play a new one.
I disliked ToB, but it was precisely for the reason that I very strongly prefer lower level games and not because of any quality issues with ToB. I just simply start losing interest in a game once the characters in the game (PC, companions, NPCs) become god-like (and this has been true for all games: the DA games, TES games, Witcher, everything).
As a sidenote for you, Beamdog has very strongly ruled out making any new games using the IE because they don't see the point of using an engine that is a serious coding pain in the ass to work with and when there are other engines that are so much better (their words). They do currently have a new unannounced game they're working on, for which they have confirmed that it does not use any existing IP and that it uses the Unreal 4 engine.
If i was a betting person i would say the level cap will be level 15
I would say 13 in final game and maybe 15 after DLC's.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
[quote=Warlocke](...) I disliked ToB, but it was precisely for the reason that I very strongly prefer lower level games and not because of any quality issues with ToB. I just simply start losing interest in a game once the characters in the game (PC, companions, NPCs) become god-like (and this has been true for all games: the DA games, TES games, Witcher, everything).(...).
Again. You will not gonna see ToB/MotB style lv 30 characters!!!! 5e doesn't even have this types of rules. And a high level character is far bellow any deity. On 2e, you need like a party of 8+ lv 20+ guys to maybe take the weakest demigod.
I think the criticisms of ToB are valid, but I still had a lot of fun with it. Even if it was a bit rushed, for me it feels like everything is rapidly escalating towards the big final climatic encounter, so thematically it works. There are also some really fun encounters.
I haven't tried SoD yet. I am not sure if I ever will. I don't need an interim chapter between BG 1 and 2. I have had so long to head canon that period of my Bhaalspawn's life, I don't really want anything that contradicts that.
If Beamdog ever made a completely new, unrelated FR series using the Infinity Engine, I would almost certainly buy that instead. That would actually be pretty cool. I am generally not into retro gaming, but I find that the IE games have aged well. I could play a new one.
I disliked ToB, but it was precisely for the reason that I very strongly prefer lower level games and not because of any quality issues with ToB. I just simply start losing interest in a game once the characters in the game (PC, companions, NPCs) become god-like (and this has been true for all games: the DA games, TES games, Witcher, everything).
As a sidenote for you, Beamdog has very strongly ruled out making any new games using the IE because they don't see the point of using an engine that is a serious coding pain in the ass to work with and when there are other engines that are so much better (their words). They do currently have a new unannounced game they're working on, for which they have confirmed that it does not use any existing IP and that it uses the Unreal 4 engine.
I do enjoy me some Dungeons and Kobolds. I’ve probably played BG1 twice as often as 2 for that reason. I do like the process of taking a character from a wet behind the ears greenhorn to a weathered veteran, but there is something special about the early part of the adventure. Every encounter carries more risk and danger. I always hate when DMs decide to start an adventure at level 4 or 5. I’d rather start off as a nobody and grow my character organically.
That makes sense about Beamdog and the IE. I’m excited to see what they are cooking up. There aren’t enough RPG studios. I’m worried since Obsidian is making their second first person RPG in a row, that might be their new thing. I had issues with PoE, 2 more than 1, but I’m more interested in party based RPGs than strictly FPRPGs.
If i was a betting person i would say the level cap will be level 15
I would say 13 in final game and maybe 15 after DLC's.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
[quote=Warlocke](...) I disliked ToB, but it was precisely for the reason that I very strongly prefer lower level games and not because of any quality issues with ToB. I just simply start losing interest in a game once the characters in the game (PC, companions, NPCs) become god-like (and this has been true for all games: the DA games, TES games, Witcher, everything).(...).
Again. You will not gonna see ToB/MotB style lv 30 characters!!!! 5e doesn't even have this types of rules. And a high level character is far bellow any deity. On 2e, you need like a party of 8+ lv 20+ guys to maybe take the weakest demigod.
Oh I agree. I'm not arguing against you. My comment was just about ToB and not anything to do specifically with the debate about BG3 levels.
I think the criticisms of ToB are valid, but I still had a lot of fun with it. Even if it was a bit rushed, for me it feels like everything is rapidly escalating towards the big final climatic encounter, so thematically it works. There are also some really fun encounters.
I haven't tried SoD yet. I am not sure if I ever will. I don't need an interim chapter between BG 1 and 2. I have had so long to head canon that period of my Bhaalspawn's life, I don't really want anything that contradicts that.
If Beamdog ever made a completely new, unrelated FR series using the Infinity Engine, I would almost certainly buy that instead. That would actually be pretty cool. I am generally not into retro gaming, but I find that the IE games have aged well. I could play a new one.
I disliked ToB, but it was precisely for the reason that I very strongly prefer lower level games and not because of any quality issues with ToB. I just simply start losing interest in a game once the characters in the game (PC, companions, NPCs) become god-like (and this has been true for all games: the DA games, TES games, Witcher, everything).
As a sidenote for you, Beamdog has very strongly ruled out making any new games using the IE because they don't see the point of using an engine that is a serious coding pain in the ass to work with and when there are other engines that are so much better (their words). They do currently have a new unannounced game they're working on, for which they have confirmed that it does not use any existing IP and that it uses the Unreal 4 engine.
I do enjoy me some Dungeons and Kobolds. I’ve probably played BG1 twice as often as 2 for that reason. I do like the process of taking a character from a wet behind the ears greenhorn to a weathered veteran, but there is something special about the early part of the adventure. Every encounter carries more risk and danger. I always hate when DMs decide to start an adventure at level 4 or 5. I’d rather start off as a nobody and grow my character organically.
That makes sense about Beamdog and the IE. I’m excited to see what they are cooking up. There aren’t enough RPG studios. I’m worried since Obsidian is making their second first person RPG in a row, that might be their new thing. I had issues with PoE, 2 more than 1, but I’m more interested in party based RPGs than strictly FPRPGs.
Yes exactly. That feeling of vulnerability at low levels is what is a rush for me. Having to run away from a pack of wolves ... priceless. And yes, I also have replayed BG1 way more than BG2.
Re. Obsidian, I have a pretty good feeling Avowed will end up having a third person perspective option. Also, the game will apparently include companions in some form, and not necessarily in the way it was done in TOW. So too early to judge exactly what form that game will end up taking.
I do enjoy me some Dungeons and Kobolds. I’ve probably played BG1 twice as often as 2 for that reason. I do like the process of taking a character from a wet behind the ears greenhorn to a weathered veteran, but there is something special about the early part of the adventure. Every encounter carries more risk and danger. I always hate when DMs decide to start an adventure at level 4 or 5. (...)
But 2e maintain lethality even on crazy high levels. Karsus, the strongest magician who ever existed? A insanely powerful lv 41 arcanist, the highest of all genius magicians, of the most magic advanced magical kingdom ever who casted his first spell while a baby and the unique guy who casted a 12th tier magic ever, had just 74 hp. A polar bear probably can kill him in one round if he is in a antimagic field and can't use his powerful spells/magical items/contingency/etc.
An single poisoned arrow CAN kill you on 2e at lv 6 depending on your character. 2e also gives way less ho per level up, mainly after lv 10.
Many DM's love to start at lv 5 mainly on 2e and 3.5e cuz there aren't much things that you can do at lv 1/2/3. Hell, Paladins can only start to cast spells on 2e at lv 9. Necromancer specialized wizards only able to raise skeletons on lv 9 too.
I do enjoy me some Dungeons and Kobolds. I’ve probably played BG1 twice as often as 2 for that reason. I do like the process of taking a character from a wet behind the ears greenhorn to a weathered veteran, but there is something special about the early part of the adventure. Every encounter carries more risk and danger. I always hate when DMs decide to start an adventure at level 4 or 5. (...)
But 2e maintain lethality even on crazy high levels. Karsus, the strongest magician who ever existed? A insanely powerful lv 41 arcanist, the highest of all genius magicians, of the most magic advanced magical kingdom ever who casted his first spell while a baby and the unique guy who casted a 12th tier magic ever, had just 74 hp. A polar bear probably can kill him in one round if he is in a antimagic field and can't use his powerful spells/magical items/contingency/etc.
An single poisoned arrow CAN kill you on 2e at lv 6 depending on your character. 2e also gives way less ho per level up, mainly after lv 10.
Many DM's love to start at lv 5 mainly on 2e and 3.5e cuz there aren't much things that you can do at lv 1/2/3. Hell, Paladins can only start to cast spells on 2e at lv 9. Necromancer specialized wizards only able to raise skeletons on lv 9 too.
Hmmm, it has been a looooong time since I actually played AD&D 2E pen and paper, but in my recent 5E campaign where our party was all lvl 13/14 we were still having some pretty tense encounters. We had a boss fight where our tank (a half orc who is literally Santa Claus) was taken down to 2 HP in only two attacks (one was a really nasty crit) and the only reason we survived the encounter was because Santa was healed by electrical damage, and my lightning attuned monk/sorcerer was hiding behind him hitting him with shocking grasp over and over, or as like to call it, spanking Santa.
... God I love D&D.
So maybe it depends on the DM? I dunno. I’ve had campaigns that maintain the threat for the entire duration. I do get that 5E is a very different beast than 2E, and there is a lot of stuff that has made it easier, but I find it to be overall better designed. I’m having more fun with it than previous iterations.
Re. Obsidian, I have a pretty good feeling Avowed will end up having a third person perspective option. Also, the game will apparently include companions in some form, and not necessarily in the way it was done in TOW. So too early to judge exactly what form that game will end up taking.
I hope Avowed has a third person camera. I never find 1st person more immersive. I feel more apart of a fictional world if I can see the character I’m playing as, visually place them in the setting. I’m hesitant about Microsoft taking control of any studio, but I’ve always maintained that Obsidian could do great things with proper funding, so we will see.
And I did a complete play through of the BG series to get ready for BG3 EA, but now I want to fire up BG1, again. XD
Maybe I’ll just have some fun; 6 wizard part with perma death and see how far I get. I d that from time to time. Never made t through the Nashkel mines.
I disliked ToB, but it was precisely for the reason that I very strongly prefer lower level games and not because of any quality issues with ToB. I just simply start losing interest in a game once the characters in the game (PC, companions, NPCs) become god-like (and this has been true for all games: the DA games, TES games, Witcher, everything).
Pretty much how I feel too, though I didn't dislike ToB so much as I wasn't particularly moved by it. Also, 2e didn't scale particularly well at level 30+
Yes exactly. That feeling of vulnerability at low levels is what is a rush for me. Having to run away from a pack of wolves ... priceless. And yes, I also have replayed BG1 way more than BG2.
Regardless of low or high (>6) level, it comes down to the challenge of the encounters. One area where I think a lot of developers get trapped into the same old tropes is when they scale everything for high level characters. In ToB for example, suddenly every character you meet has >100 hit points, even the gate guards! Ridiculous. And that is probably also why all high level D&D adventures eventually end up in the Underdark, because there you can justify all sorts of high level characters walking around. I am not a fan of this kind of global level scaling as a means of creating a challenge. I liked the fact that in BG I your first level character has a chance to interact with a 15th level wizard (Thalantyr). I think I would also enjoy the converse, where perhaps my high level PC (>6) has to deal with a low level character, if the story was good!
I do enjoy me some Dungeons and Kobolds. I’ve probably played BG1 twice as often as 2 for that reason. I do like the process of taking a character from a wet behind the ears greenhorn to a weathered veteran, but there is something special about the early part of the adventure. Every encounter carries more risk and danger. I always hate when DMs decide to start an adventure at level 4 or 5. (...)
But 2e maintain lethality even on crazy high levels. Karsus, the strongest magician who ever existed? A insanely powerful lv 41 arcanist, the highest of all genius magicians, of the most magic advanced magical kingdom ever who casted his first spell while a baby and the unique guy who casted a 12th tier magic ever, had just 74 hp. A polar bear probably can kill him in one round if he is in a antimagic field and can't use his powerful spells/magical items/contingency/etc.
An single poisoned arrow CAN kill you on 2e at lv 6 depending on your character. 2e also gives way less ho per level up, mainly after lv 10.
Many DM's love to start at lv 5 mainly on 2e and 3.5e cuz there aren't much things that you can do at lv 1/2/3. Hell, Paladins can only start to cast spells on 2e at lv 9. Necromancer specialized wizards only able to raise skeletons on lv 9 too.
Hmmm, it has been a looooong time since I actually played AD&D 2E pen and paper, but in my recent 5E campaign where our party was all lvl 13/14 we were still having some pretty tense encounters. We had a boss fight where our tank (a half orc who is literally Santa Claus) was taken down to 2 HP in only two attacks (one was a really nasty crit) and the only reason we survived the encounter was because Santa was healed by electrical damage, and my lightning attuned monk/sorcerer was hiding behind him hitting him with shocking grasp over and over, or as like to call it, spanking Santa.
... God I love D&D.
So maybe it depends on the DM? I dunno. I’ve had campaigns that maintain the threat for the entire duration. I do get that 5E is a very different beast than 2E, and there is a lot of stuff that has made it easier, but I find it to be overall better designed. I’m having more fun with it than previous iterations.
If he goes down, he has 3 "saves" to get up. If was on 2e, "Santa Claus" would have far less hp. After lv 10, he would get little to no hp bonus. Even on "epic" high levels, most of your characters, martial guys included are on two digit hp range. On 2e, even your lv 20+ character can die in a single round. An squad of 9 crossbowmans with poisoned arrows can kill a lv 20 fighter relatively easy on 2e, if he is not wearing armor.
Most problems of tedious long encounters are lv 15+ on 5e. This is the main reason to why I don't wanna lv cap = 20. If a Elder Brain CR is 14, having a lv cap of 13 is fine. Taking a mindflayer ship is not that impossible for a mid level party
Originally Posted by Warlocke
I hope Avowed has a third person camera. I never find 1st person more immersive. I feel more apart of a fictional world if I can see the character I’m playing as, visually place them in the setting. I’m hesitant about Microsoft taking control of any studio, but I’ve always maintained that Obsidian could do great things with proper funding, so we will see.
I strongly disagree. If the game gives the option, I an playing on first person.
My first RPG was Might & Magic VII - For Blood and Honor. The game was in first person.
Regardless of low or high (>6) level, it comes down to the challenge of the encounters. One area where I think a lot of developers get trapped into the same old tropes is when they scale everything for high level characters. In ToB for example, suddenly every character you meet has >100 hit points, even the gate guards! Ridiculous. And that is probably also why all high level D&D adventures eventually end up in the Underdark, because there you can justify all sorts of high level characters walking around. I am not a fan of this kind of global level scaling as a means of creating a challenge. I liked the fact that in BG I your first level character has a chance to interact with a 15th level wizard (Thalantyr). I think I would also enjoy the converse, where perhaps my high level PC (>6) has to deal with a low level character, if the story was good!
This is a very good point with which I fully agree. I think this is part of a bigger issue in cRPGs and especially in recent years: the expectation that every single NPC or creature in the game is there for the purpose of giving the player something more to kill. It's bad enough that we now have people clamoring for the "right" to kill everyone and everything in a game. The next stage of this seems to be the demand that all those NPCs and creatures that one can kill should also be "challenging," so that one can pat themselves on the back for having done what they did "for the challenge of it" and not because of their psychosis. So when that god-level PC wanders across a puppy and they want to kill that puppy, the puppy had better be "challenging" so they can feel okay about killing the puppy.
Who cares about balance, this is not a MMORPG, just play with no items and hardcore mode or something. I want rule the world as a wizard god.
Even mmos got DESTROYED by ""balance"" cultists. Look to 90s mmos. Ultima Online, Dark Sun Online : Crimson Sands, an mmorpg with you ROLLING ATTRIBUTES, etc; and look to modern mmos, are all about managing cooldowns and farming stat stickie carnavalesque gear in a world with zero character individuality. Balance is good but not above role playing, fun, rule of cool, variety and etc.
Wanna make the game 100% balanced? You now can only be human ranger at lv 8 and will be a human ranger at lv 8 for all the game. No imbalance among player choice. Fun? No.
Who cares about balance, this is not a MMORPG, just play with no items and hardcore mode or something. I want rule the world as a wizard god.
This conversation has been about challenge, not balance. Balance is making sure different classes and abilities have appropriate costs and drawbacks so nothing is so overly powered that it eclipses other classs and abilities. Challenge is making sure that the game is appropriately difficult throughout from start to finish. You shouldn’t need to artificially impose a lot of restrictions on yourself in order to find a satisfying challenge. I say this as somebody who regularly ascribes myself rules to increase or alter the difficulty of the games I play.
I hope people understand that higher levels means we're giving-up something else because: LIMITED RESOURCES.
There's no way to prove or disprove 'limited resources'. They could either stand pat with the amount of developers/etc they have now, or they could decide to hire more if needed, as far as that goes.
You're also forgetting the other variable in play, for which none of us know any set-in-stone value involved, and that is simply time from now till 1.0 release. Everyone has conjecture that it'll be around a year from now, but it could be longer - or shorter than that. Bottom line...the presumption you're making there is by no means a given fact at this point.
Who cares about balance, this is not a MMORPG, just play with no items and hardcore mode or something. I want rule the world as a wizard god.
This. My second character that I rolled in the 5th grade was a wizard, I really enjoyed going from hiding behind the rest of the party to being able to alter reality. First character was a clone of Elric who had blackrazor and could walk through level 15+ without fear of death.
Valid point. In that case the cost is delaying the release date and the trade-off/question becomes:
... would most people be willing to wait X additional months for Y number of additional levels?
The decision has already been made. If that particular design choice is the variable that will delay the release of the game then we are going to wait whether we want to or not.
Who cares about balance, this is not a MMORPG, just play with no items and hardcore mode or something. I want rule the world as a wizard god.
I really dislike this argument, and I see it a lot. Balance is still important in a single player RPG. A game that isn't challenging also isn't as rewarding. It's why there are difficulty options - but balance is just the first step to that. Just stacking numbers higher doesn't make a game feel harder so much as it makes it feel tedious.
Who cares about balance, this is not a MMORPG, just play with no items and hardcore mode or something. I want rule the world as a wizard god.
I really dislike this argument, and I see it a lot. Balance is still important in a single player RPG. A game that isn't challenging also isn't as rewarding. It's why there are difficulty options - but balance is just the first step to that. Just stacking numbers higher doesn't make a game feel harder so much as it makes it feel tedious.
I feel just the opposite. Too much balance makes things bland. While PoE1 had one of the best -- if not the best -- stories to appear in an RPG the rules were bland and combat was a chore. And the ruleset was bland because of an excess of balance. There was no one class that stood above the rest, no race or background that stood out. The story of DOS2, on the other hand, was, well present but the ruleset allowed you to become a demigod that could beat the toughest enemies -- youtube is full of suggestions on how to build the strongest possible demigod.
Which doesn't necessarily equate to less challenging -- after figuring out the DOS2 ruleset I focused on beating the hammer twice and getting both of her hammers. After figuring out BG2 I tried to do it again with a solo character.
In D&D more levels means more options -- the wizard who only had and handful of things to do at level 1-5 now has a dozens of options.
Who cares about balance, this is not a MMORPG, just play with no items and hardcore mode or something. I want rule the world as a wizard god.
I really dislike this argument, and I see it a lot. Balance is still important in a single player RPG. A game that isn't challenging also isn't as rewarding. It's why there are difficulty options - but balance is just the first step to that. Just stacking numbers higher doesn't make a game feel harder so much as it makes it feel tedious.
Challenge and balance are not the same thing.
Look to Dark Souls 2. A naked guy with a club will have a much harder time than a Chaos Rapier Hexer. Probably the strongest build since it has fire and dark damage, a quick attack on close quarters and powerful long range spells. But the game is fun and challenging with both builds. On Gothic 2, mages has way harder time than paladins but this doesn't means that the game is not fun or challenging as a paladin. A dwarf who wanna be a magician on Arcanum has a way harder time than an Elf. This doesn't means that is not a interesting character concept and run. Low int runs on FL 1/2 aren't optimal but are fun.
Balance is some times AGAINST immersion and variety. Pick vtmb for eg, the game is not hard, but Nosferatus has a way tougher time in that game compared to a Tremere for eg. If the devs had removed the clan from the game, killing a little of variety, the game would become more balanced. But better? And if the clan curse was nerfed and the deformity played just a -1 dot for seduction. It would kill the clan identity but would make the game more balanced.
Most amazing RPG's are umbalanced. VtMB? Arcanum? PF:KM? Might & Magic VI - Mandate of Heaven? All imbalanced.
While you're right that they're not synonymous, challenge is a part of balance. Balancing a game also isn't just making sure everyone is on an even playing field. Specifically in an RPG it's making sure the player isn't being hit with ridiculous difficulty spikes or sections of the game that are incredibly too easy. For a co-op game it's also making sure everyone can play their build and feel like they contribute.
Balance NEVER hurts an RPG. There is always more choice than just 'remove what's strong'. Your example doesn't show balancing, it shows outright removal of a mechanic. Nerfing something or shifting its numerical values does not inherently change the identity of anything, for the second half of that. There are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak.
The problem of low level campaigns it was not the challenge or balance, It´s that low levels were plain boring.
In 2e-3.5 the first 5-6 levels you are basically autoatacking every enemy you see with your preferred weapon if you play a rogue or a warrior of any kind, because you do not have much more to do than that. Rogues, even if you can do some sneaky stuff you´re so bad at it that you usually fail a lot. Mages and sorcs have spells to choose but you could only cast them twice or thrice a day...
Newer TT games usually give the players much more things to do at lower levels and some class features that made the game more enjoyable from the start.
I hope at least they don't balance the game for low level characters like WotC does. Cause sometimes you wonder who tests their campaigns internally. Having a captain brute with 2 attacks per round and 65 HP accompanied by 7 brutes against level 1 characters in Descent into Avernus is certainly not what I call balance.
While you're right that they're not synonymous, challenge is a part of balance.
No, is not. If I wanna play VtMB as a Nosferatu, i expect that the deformity of the clan will make do most quests extremely harder. Because it makes perfectly sense.
Originally Posted by Annyliese
Balancing a game also isn't just making sure everyone is on an even playing field. Specifically in an RPG it's making sure the player isn't being hit with ridiculous difficulty spikes or sections of the game that are incredibly too easy.
That i STRONGLY disagree. If you decided to enter in a great wryvn lair at lv 4, you will get a really hard time. Having points on the history where the PC can take a huge challenge in exchange for a huge reward or points where he can enjoy a "power fantasy" by killing hordes of enemies easily is not bad.
Did you played gothic 2?
You in chapter 2 are send on valley of mines to SCOUT!!! Not to try to be the hero and kill all orks. If you try that, you will gonna die. Even if you have the Beliar's Claw as a warrior, you have no chance. Your mage, able to cast only circle 2 spells too. Not much chance against then.
However, when later in the game, you enter the valley of mines, you can now easily kill everyone who gave a really hard time and you had no chance. That is so satisfying... Mods from G2 like returning 2.0 maintain this formula and being able to end an ork army... This is so satisfying. Mainly when you spended hours running from then and now can >
Even D&D 4e which puts balance above everything else, included the "minion" rule.
Originally Posted by Annyliese
Nerfing something or shifting its numerical values does not inherently change the identity of anything, for the second half of that. There are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak.
Wrong. See spells on nwn2. They are trash.
Nerfing summons from CL * 2 hit dice of undead to a single undead literally killed necromancy in this game. Cloudkill is worthless and so on. Yes, nerfing some things can KILL an playstyle. And balance is entire subjective. See how many people complain about shotguns on BF 1/BF5, literally the least used weapon ever. I play nwn2 with spell fixes.
--------------------------------------
Modern MMOs are trash exactly cuz they put balance above everything else. On 90s, mmos was like SP games. Ultima Online and Dark Sun Online : Crimson Sands are extremely umbalanced but extremely fun. Modern mmos are trash.I don't wanna that the same thing who ruined mmos, ruins SP games too.
The problem of low level campaigns it was not the challenge or balance, It´s that low levels were plain boring.
In 2e-3.5 the first 5-6 levels you are basically autoatacking every enemy you see with your preferred weapon if you play a rogue or a warrior of any kind, because you do not have much more to do than that. Rogues, even if you can do some sneaky stuff you´re so bad at it that you usually fail a lot. Mages and sorcs have spells to choose but you could only cast them twice or thrice a day...
Newer TT games usually give the players much more things to do at lower levels and some class features that made the game more enjoyable from the start.
I beg to differ about lower levels being boring.
I'm currently playing a low-level campaign and only just reached level 3 last night when my halfling cleric killed a werewolf with an onion.
You in chapter 2 are send on valley of mines to SCOUT!!! Not to try to be the hero and kill all orks. If you try that, you will gonna die. Even if you have the Beliar's Claw as a warrior, you have no chance. Your mage, able to cast only circle 2 spells too. Not much chance against then.
I don't quite understand the relevance of this example. It's intentional - and a great use of Leveling system. Nothing you mention here refers to balance. It would be, if for example, you were send to clear the area, and you could easily do it with mage, but not with warrior.
It's not uneven balance - it's game gating content and storytelling though use of high level enemies. That's good. Poor balance is bad.
We don't need to be able to beat every encounter in every moment of the game, with just perfect difficulty, with the exactly same resistance no matter what party we use. Poor balance is if certain encounters are unintentionally easy or difficult. Or if certain classes are simple overpowered or underpowered throughout the majority of the game. It is fine for them to both shine and underperform in various situations. That's balance as well.
You in chapter 2 are send on valley of mines to SCOUT!!! Not to try to be the hero and kill all orks. If you try that, you will gonna die. Even if you have the Beliar's Claw as a warrior, you have no chance. Your mage, able to cast only circle 2 spells too. Not much chance against then.
I don't quite understand the relevance of this example.
I thought it was a good example. Not to speak for SorcererVictor but I took his point to be that a tunnel visioned pursuit of balance works against the rule of cool and specifically against the "god among ants" playstyle.
Some of us just like building overpowered characters. For me that's part of the game, figuring out the cracks in the foundation of the ruleset and widening them. It's just fun to build an overpowered character to walk through battles -- especially battles that you once had to run from.
Take the BG1 kobalds vs the POE1 Xaurip. In BG1 the kobalds were a real challenge at level 1 but by the end of the game you could eliminate a horde of kobalds in a few rounds. A fireball, few arrows you've defeated enemies you once ran away from. In PoE1 the xaurips on the beach were a real challenge and later when you meet the xaurips guarding the drake . . . they turn out to be even greater challenge. For lovers of balance that just good design -- both encounters had equivalent challenge ratings. But I felt robbed -- I never felt the satisfaction of feeling stronger because my toons had leveled up.
For apostles of balance, players should never be confronted with encounters that don't challenge them. The rule of cool says sometimes absurdly imbalanced encounters are fun.
Having a captain brute with 2 attacks per round and 65 HP accompanied by 7 brutes against level 1 characters in Descent into Avernus is certainly not what I call balance.
I remember that fight, it was brutal. If it wasnt for our half orc barabarian soaking a ton of damage and our cleric keeping him alive, the whole party would have went down in its first ever fight
I haven’t played Descent Into Avernus, but is that fight mandatory? When I am DMing new players I always make sure to impress upon them that they don’t need to fight every encounter. They could run, surrender, use guile and deception, negotiation, or anything creative they think of to avoid tough fights.
Some of us just like building overpowered characters. For me that's part of the game, figuring out the cracks in the foundation of the ruleset and widening them. It's just fun to build an overpowered character to walk through battles -- especially battles that you once had to run from.
Fair enough. But not everyone feels this way. Some of us, myself included, actually hate exactly this, and find this way of building your character and playing the game to be stupid and pointless. [Note: I'm NOT calling you stupid. I totally respect your right to your preference.] But having said that, I also do agree that there is such a thing as going too far in the pursuit of balance. I prefer games took a 'happy medium' approach on this issue.
Some of us just like building overpowered characters. For me that's part of the game, figuring out the cracks in the foundation of the ruleset and widening them. It's just fun to build an overpowered character to walk through battles -- especially battles that you once had to run from.
[Note: I'm NOT calling you stupid. I totally respect your right to your preference.]
No worries. This is a video game forum -- the battles are so heated because the stakes are so low and all that.
I also don't think my tastes are all that uncommon -- it's just that most people don't say it out loud. Get onto various BG2 playthroughs on youtube and you will find solo mages with all the kewl stuff (staff of the magi, the one ring, ring of wizardry, robe of vecna ) defeating this boss or another. Same goes for DOS2. One of the reasons I'm cautiously optimistic about Larian is that they seem to understand that the rule of cool is the most important rule of all.
Take 5th edition -- compare to 2nd ed magic item are really de-emphasized. But people still have loot lust -- take one of the 5th edition stars Arkhan the Cruel : https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Arkhan . Hand of Vecna, unholy axe, Wreath of the Prism, orb of dragonkind, unique armor. And he's the chosen of a powerful god. So in the edition that continually stresses that the focus is on the PC and not the loot we find out that one of the stars walks around like a Christmas tree adorned with the most powerful items in the game. God level play is fun.
And that's the way it's always been -- the people who preach balance create power players. Gary Gygax always stressed the need to strip players of powerful stuff (that's why rust monsters exist) and he told DMs to mock players who wanted to build for power. But when he released the stats of Mordenkainen it was clear that his character was yet another power play build. I mean he carried a key that could open *any* door for crissakes.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
But having said that, I also do agree that there is such a thing as going too far in the pursuit of balance. I prefer games took a 'happy medium' approach on this issue.
I think we're largely in agreement. Let players get powerful and then give them a real challenge. Let players have all the loot and have it taken away from them. Or ban certain classes from co op play. But let balance lovers and power players play the game they like.
(...)It would be, if for example, you were send to clear the area, and you could easily do it with mage, but not with warrior. (...)
Well, be a mage in gothic 1/2 is far harder than be a melee class and guess what. It makes perfectly sense. A warrior can max out his physical strength and master his fighting style on about lv 15. Meanwile, a mage needs to find someone able and willing to teach him, Corristo, only accepts you on chapter 2 after you clean a mine of minecrawlers which is pretty hard if you are saving LP to be a mage, after it, you need to spend LP to learn magical circles and mana and only learning the basic circles costs more LP than maximizing a physical attribute and on gothic 2 is even harder since you also needs to learn runemaking and find the ingredients. You can't buy most runes.
And guess what. It makes perfectly sense. There are only one circle 6 guy in the entire G1 game, Xardas. All powerful magicians are really old, so taking far more time to become a might mage makes perfectly sense. Gothic is not high magic as D&D for eg and the game mechanics and narrative are in line.
And returning 2.0 made even harder. Now instead of a "generic" mage, you have the circle of fire, water, darkness and the gurus. Each one with a very limited spell selection. If you are a water magician, you will gonna have a really hard time against ice golems for eg and the ice dragons which is the strongest one on valley of mines. Dark magicians suffers a lot vs undead and demons and so on.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
(...) For apostles of balance, players should never be confronted with encounters that don't challenge them. The rule of cool says sometimes absurdly imbalanced encounters are fun.
Yep. Some people fail to realize that RPG's aren't "RTS" games. They should be more like fictional living breathing worlds.
When balance makes the game MORE fun, immersive and cool, is welcomed. When balance makes the game LESS fun, immersive and cool, is not welcomed.
But having said that, I also do agree that there is such a thing as going too far in the pursuit of balance. I prefer games took a 'happy medium' approach on this issue.
I think we're largely in agreement. Let players get powerful and then give them a real challenge. Let players have all the loot and have it taken away from them. Or ban certain classes from co op play. But let balance lovers and power players play the game they like.
Yes in a single-player game, you will not find a more vocal defender than me of the right of players to play their game however they want. Nothing steams me more than when someone tries to tell me how I should play my game, for example that my "save-scumming" or my "over-use of resting" or my wish to save anywhere anytime, etc., should be banned in the game. So if power-gamers like you want to power-game, that's fine with me. The problem on the "balance" issue specifically is that it isn't just the player that gains the freedom to play as they please. Too often the game devs themselves use/abuse power-builds to throw ridiculous opponents at the player, and this I don't care for one bit. And BG2 is a great, perhaps even a classic, example of this, where almost every single battle (especially in ToB) has one or more hyper-powerful wizards. Since when did Elminster-equivalent wizards become so commonplace? That's just ridiculous. And then what's even worse for me is that while wizards are ridiculously unbalanced (often even in an unfair way) towards being hyper-powerful, fighters are unbalanced in the opposite way towards being ridiculously under-powered and useless. So the game is engaging in favoriticism towards players who love wizards/spellcasting while screwing over players who love fighters/melee combat. How is that "fun" for me?
Take the BG1 kobalds vs the POE1 Xaurip. In BG1 the kobalds were a real challenge at level 1 but by the end of the game you could eliminate a horde of kobalds in a few rounds. A fireball, few arrows you've defeated enemies you once ran away from. In PoE1 the xaurips on the beach were a real challenge and later when you meet the xaurips guarding the drake . . . they turn out to be even greater challenge. For lovers of balance that just good design -- both encounters had equivalent challenge ratings. But I felt robbed -- I never felt the satisfaction of feeling stronger because my toons had leveled up.
I feel this is a bit different subject though, not related to balance. It's having a wide enough enemy roster to fill all the player levels with unique opponents. PoEs reuses Xaurips and such multiple times because they lack monsters to pit players against. I think that is a problem, but not necessary related to PoEs "balance obsessions". If for example, in BG we would keep fighting goblins in stead of hobgoblins that would be bad - unchallenging and boring. PoE chooses to reuse Xaurip assets and create "different Xaurips". Its unfortunate, but something I am willing to forgive. I was however suggesting myslelf if PoEs would be better if there were less gain in power - that oddly came from my suggestion that PoE is not being balanced enough with too much powercreep if one is a completionist. And yes, a big advantage of having enemy types stay constant in power, is that they become a clear indication of how far players have progressed. That effect is greatly dimished if, like you said, same enemies grow with us.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
For apostles of balance, players should never be confronted with encounters that don't challenge them. The rule of cool says sometimes absurdly imbalanced encounters are fun.
I mean it depends, if that encounter was meant to be challenging - what's the story of this encounter. In the same vain the game should present it's content with a coherent way - it's fine to run into too hard encounters, but if it's becomes too frequent and without perceivable logic behind it or is not properly communicated (cough Kingmaker cough) it becomes unengaging as well.
In the end it comes down to creating enjoyable content and story, and if player's possible power level can vary too greatly (and not due to roleplaying nor story reasons) then that becomes a problem.
(...) fighters are unbalanced in the opposite way towards being ridiculously under-powered and useless. So the game is engaging in favoriticism towards players who love wizards/spellcasting while screwing over players who love fighters/melee combat. How is that "fun" for me?
Tome of battle give a lot of cool stuff to fighter.
And is not just fighters vs wizards. Fighters are a boring class. Clerics are good. Druids are good. Psions are good(...) having no supernatural power in a high fantasy setting is a huge drawback. Like indigenous people of Americas when they faced the "conquistador" with cavalry and firearms.
What is the best solution?
A ) Make every class(druids, clerics, paladins, mages, wizards, psions, etc) like the most boring class with the less amount of options AKA everyone equally boring to play B ) Give more cool stuff for fighters.
Spoiler : The solution B involves changing an single class. Not all other classes.
And note : You can use magic on melee. Magus on pathfinder 1e, pact of the blade warlock on D&D 5e and a eldritch glaive focused warlock on 3.5e can be amazing on melee. Shapeshift druids too.
(...) fighters are unbalanced in the opposite way towards being ridiculously under-powered and useless. So the game is engaging in favoriticism towards players who love wizards/spellcasting while screwing over players who love fighters/melee combat. How is that "fun" for me?
Tome of battle give a lot of cool stuff to fighter.
And is not just fighters vs wizards. Fighters are a boring class. Clerics are good. Druids are good. Psions are good(...) having no supernatural power in a high fantasy setting is a huge drawback. Like indigenous people of Americas when they faced the "conquistador" with cavalry and firearms.
What is the best solution?
A ) Make every class(druids, clerics, paladins, mages, wizards, psions, etc) like the most boring class with the less amount of options AKA everyone equally boring to play B ) Give more cool stuff for fighters.
Spoiler : The solution B involves changing an single class. Not all other classes.
And note : You can use magic on melee. Magus on pathfinder 1e, pact of the blade warlock on D&D 5e and a eldritch glaive focused warlock on 3.5e can be amazing on melee. Shapeshift druids too.
Yes, so option B would be best. But D&D refuses to do this (though I will grant that 5e does a better job of it than previous editions). By contrast, PoE does make the fighter pretty good, with lots of good, cool abilities. And as such, in PoE, playing a fighter is not only as fun as any spellcaster class but also a class that can rival a spellcaster class in how much damage it generates. And the credit for all this goes to balancing. So, to repeat, balancing does have value, so long as it is not taken to an extreme where all classes become either equally watered down or else blandly the same.
In second ed I would say that strongest classes are mage > fighter > thief > druid > cleric and in 3.5 it's Cleric > Fighter > Thief > Druid > Mage (4th ed doesn't exist)
In 1-2 a level 20 fighter with the 20th level right equipment rules the game. Hand of Vecna + Blackrazor + Sword of Kas (dual wielding) + Ring of regeneration + Full Plate +5 + Amulet of Magic Resistance will beat in any other build. The way to make an interesting fighter is to give them interesting equipment.
On 3.0 it was neigh impossible for a mage to complete a spell -- everyone got free attacks of opportunity so the mage really become a glorified gunslinger. You spend all of your experience points making wands while the rest of the party continues to level up. Fighters have whatever options their feats grant them -- a fighter with a trip attack and a positioning feat will defeat any mage.
On 5th the weapons master has more options a mid level than does a mage.
I think the PoE fighter is the 3.5 fighter with a soupcon of 4th edition.
But, yeah, having said that I would never chose play a single class fighter with mundane equipment in any edition. Boring. I don't know why anyone would chose to play a single class fighter in any ruleset.
It's having a wide enough enemy roster to fill all the player levels with unique opponents . . . And yes, a big advantage of having enemy types stay constant in power, is that they become a clear indication of how far players have progressed. That effect is greatly dimished if, like you said, same enemies grow with us.
Well said. Yes, the lack of variety can separated from balance but I'm so used to seeing them together than I think of them as traveling together.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
In the end it comes down to creating enjoyable content and story, and if player's possible power level can vary too greatly (and not due to roleplaying nor story reasons) then that becomes a problem.
Again, that's well argued but I still get stuck where the rubber meets the road -- I just have more fun playing unbalanced games. BG2 and DOS2 were just more fun than NWN2, IWD2 or PoE1 (combat only -- everything in PoE was great, except combat)
Yeah, because arcane knights can cast spells he he Try single-class champions, that all their abilities are passives... I supposse some people would like to play using only the "I attack" button but I understand what @killerRabbit meant.
About playing unbalancing games.
That´s well and good in single-player games, because It does not matter how you want to play. Solo mage? Overpowered Kineticist? Useless halfling whip barbarian you have fun with? A party with 5 bards because you want it? Yeah, do it.
But since the game would have MP option the balance becomes more important. All players in the party should feel that they are doing something worthy whatever character they want to play. MP games with a party of ranged rangers with fighters or necros; or entire servers full of clerics and weapon masters builds and no high-level bards in sight does not attract players because those builds are so over others that if you try to play another class you are effectively hampering the other party members because they could not try greater challenges due to a weak link (Yeah, Dos2 and NWN, I´m looking at you).
In the end some classes or builds would be best in some roles or situacionally against some creatures or in a particular terrain, but at least it is expected that all of them would be competent and playable.
In 1-2 a level 20 fighter with the 20th level right equipment rules the game. Hand of Vecna + Blackrazor + Sword of Kas (dual wielding) + Ring of regeneration + Full Plate +5 + Amulet of Magic Resistance will beat in any other build. The way to make an interesting fighter is to give them interesting equipment.
You are assuming that the Wizard is a evoker trying to "throw bigger numbers". That is NOT how a high INT wizard would act. He would first, cast mordekainen's disjunction. All OP gear from the fighter will become mundane. And you are comparing a fighter with the best gear vs a "mundane" lv 20 mage which is his journey to lv 20 probably crafted a lot of powerful magical items.
As for attacks of opportunity, the mage in question if he is smart, he will avoid being hit.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
[ Again, that's well argued but I still get stuck where the rubber meets the road -- I just have more fun playing unbalanced games. BG2 and DOS2 were just more fun than NWN2, IWD2 or PoE1 (combat only -- everything in PoE was great, except combat)
Every amazing RPG which I played is extremely unbalanced. I don't know a single RPG which is balanced and I loved.
I don't know why anyone would chose to play a single class fighter in any ruleset.
I would, because melee combat is the most fun type of combat of all. And by contrast, casting some spell is what's truly boring. You're not really doing anything. Someone's written a "cool" spell for you, and all you're doing is pressing a button to "cast" it. BORING!!
I don't know why anyone would chose to play a single class fighter in any ruleset.
I would, because melee combat is the most fun type of combat of all. And by contrast, casting some spell is what's truly boring. You're not really doing anything. Someone's written a "cool" spell for you, and all you're doing is pressing a button to "cast" it. BORING!!
To each their own. If given the choice between being the badass with the sword who charges the dragon or the coward with the wand who hangs back and launches lightning bolts at the dragon I’ll pick the latter every time. 😁
I'm currently playing a low-level campaign and only just reached level 3 last night when my halfling cleric killed a werewolf with an onion.
Something you cannot do in a videogame, unless its made by LucasArts And you can kill a werewolf with an onion on level 20 too. That´s not level-related.
Not the case of this game, it seems they´re giving you plenty of things to that do not rely on your level ( animal handling, speak with the dead, sneak mechanics, Tadpole force powers, etc)
I don't know why anyone would chose to play a single class fighter in any ruleset.
I would, because melee combat is the most fun type of combat of all. And by contrast, casting some spell is what's truly boring. You're not really doing anything. Someone's written a "cool" spell for you, and all you're doing is pressing a button to "cast" it. BORING!!
To each their own. If given the choice between being the badass with the sword who charges the dragon or the coward with the wand who hangs back and launches lightning bolts at the dragon I’ll pick the latter every time. 😁
Absolutely. If that's what you enjoy, that's how you should be able to play. I'm perfectly happy that a game would provide for that kind of playstyle for you. So I cannot understand why people (not you) would get on my case for preferring a different playstyle.
Absolutely. If that's what you enjoy, that's how you should be able to play. I'm perfectly happy that a game would provide for that kind of playstyle for you. So I cannot understand why people (not you) would get on my case for preferring a different playstyle.
I'm also team coward with lighting bolts. And it's not just pressing button -- it's also pretty lights and such I mean necrofire just looks neat, right? Sorry if you feel put upon but I have no problem with you enjoying melee -- to each their own.
The ideal is that everyone is able to play the game they like. But that's not always possible, in practice you can't please all the people all the time. I usually feel like my favored style frustrated by devs who want to nerf, restrict, increase cool down time etc. These decisions are usually combined with readings from gospel of balance -- a creed that says my favorite playstyle is "stupid and pointless". And perhaps that's right -- but I don't care if it is. If I have fun imagining a barbarian throwing a hamster on an enemies face, I do. Sometimes dumb is fun. "Go for the eyes, boo!
Now best the way to give us both what we want is allow diplomatic solutions to problems. If you can talk your way out of any encounter the power players get to see the pretty colors if they want and the balance lovers don't feel obligated to power up to make it through the encounter.
The ideal is that everyone is able to play the game they like. But that's not always possible, in practice you can't please all the people all the time. I usually feel like my favored style frustrated by devs who want to nerf, restrict, increase cool down time etc. These decisions are usually combined with readings from gospel of balance -- a creed that says my favorite playstyle is "stupid and pointless". And perhaps that's right -- but I don't care if it is. colors if they want and the balance lovers don't feel obligated to power up to make it through the encounter.
On this note and though its preliminary, I'm excited to see the prospects of playing a rogue of any flavor or any character with stealth ability in this game...DDO's handling of sneaking/shadows/etc is the closest to ideal handling of stealthy play that I remember experiencing (been years though since I played any of that) in a computer based game, but what Larian has demonstrated thus far is encouraging.
The ideal is that everyone is able to play the game they like. But that's not always possible, in practice you can't please all the people all the time. I usually feel like my favored style frustrated by devs who want to nerf, restrict, increase cool down time etc. These decisions are usually combined with readings from gospel of balance -- a creed that says my favorite playstyle is "stupid and pointless". And perhaps that's right -- but I don't care if it is. colors if they want and the balance lovers don't feel obligated to power up to make it through the encounter.
On this note and though its preliminary, I'm excited to see the prospects of playing a rogue of any flavor or any character with stealth ability in this game...DDO's handling of sneaking/shadows/etc is the closest to ideal handling of stealthy play that I remember experiencing (been years though since I played any of that) in a computer based game, but what Larian has demonstrated thus far is encouraging.
That would be much more interesting/useful if we had day/night cycle and were able to plan when to sneak, instead of trying to sneak at noon.
Now best the way to give us both what we want is allow diplomatic solutions to problems. If you can talk your way out of any encounter the power players get to see the pretty colors if they want and the balance lovers don't feel obligated to power up to make it through the encounter.
The ideal is that everyone is able to play the game they like. But that's not always possible, in practice you can't please all the people all the time. I usually feel like my favored style frustrated by devs who want to nerf, restrict, increase cool down time etc. These decisions are usually combined with readings from gospel of balance -- a creed that says my favorite playstyle is "stupid and pointless". And perhaps that's right -- but I don't care if it is. colors if they want and the balance lovers don't feel obligated to power up to make it through the encounter.
On this note and though its preliminary, I'm excited to see the prospects of playing a rogue of any flavor or any character with stealth ability in this game...DDO's handling of sneaking/shadows/etc is the closest to ideal handling of stealthy play that I remember experiencing (been years though since I played any of that) in a computer based game, but what Larian has demonstrated thus far is encouraging.
That would be much more interesting/useful if we had day/night cycle and were able to plan when to sneak, instead of trying to sneak at noon.
Yeah, can't argue there. Of course, all outdoor sneaking should be done at night, since I don't think even the deepest afternoon shadow would actually suffice for sneaking around. But I do like what Larian is doing there (like the old Thief games, if memory serves).
Now, what this has to do with the level cap being higher than 10, I have no idea.
I don't know why anyone would chose to play a single class fighter in any ruleset.
I would, because melee combat is the most fun type of combat of all. And by contrast, casting some spell is what's truly boring. You're not really doing anything. Someone's written a "cool" spell for you, and all you're doing is pressing a button to "cast" it. BORING!!
To each their own. If given the choice between being the badass with the sword who charges the dragon or the coward with the wand who hangs back and launches lightning bolts at the dragon I’ll pick the latter every time. 😁
Absolutely. If that's what you enjoy, that's how you should be able to play. I'm perfectly happy that a game would provide for that kind of playstyle for you. So I cannot understand why people (not you) would get on my case for preferring a different playstyle.
Am I the only one here who always plays Cleric? 🙄 I can charge the dragon AND cast a spell with a wand!
Am I the only one here who always plays Cleric? 🙄 I can charge the dragon AND cast a spell with a wand!
I have played a cleric once and only once. And by once I don’t mean one adventure, I mean one session. I managed to fall into disfavor with my patron god almost immediately, became a fallen priest, was given the option to undertake a personal quest of redemption by the DM, and chose instead to retire and reroll. 😂
I am not a pious player. Give me wizards, warlocks, monks, and rogues (or some combination of these), and I’m good. I like druids as far as mechanics go, but have a hard time role playing them, as I don’t like being okay smelling bad.
Come to think of it, I’ll play literally any other class before clerics. I don’t even like having them in my party. Paladin? Sure. Cleric? I don’t trust them.
Am I the only one here who always plays Cleric? 🙄 I can charge the dragon AND cast a spell with a wand!
I started playing PnP D&D in the early '90s, and can honestly tell you I have never once played a cleric, even in a video game. Sorry.
In addition to fighters (which are often multi-classed with either rogue or wizard), I do play paladins sometimes and also like playing rangers. But you can obviously see there is always a melee-martial strain running through my characters.
That would be much more interesting/useful if we had day/night cycle and were able to plan when to sneak, instead of trying to sneak at noon.
Would it though? With unchanging enviroment stealth could be properly designed. As cool as "wait for right time of day, changes of guards etc" sounds, I am yet to see them be enjoyable.
In addition to fighters (which are often multi-classed with either rogue or wizard), I do play paladins sometimes and also like playing rangers. But you can obviously see there is always a melee-martial strain running through my characters.
I also have a very melee-oriented mindset. I used to dual class fitghters into clerics in 2e, add fighter level in 3-3.5e and play a war domain cleric, with a level or two of fighter, in 5e
My personal preference is somewhat slow leveling, where you feel you truly earned each level. Also, in D&D, I find low levels more fun for adventuring, risks, combat in general.
That said, the game content time and development time will decide really how many levels and how fast, but wanted to chip in my "vote".
That would be much more interesting/useful if we had day/night cycle and were able to plan when to sneak, instead of trying to sneak at noon.
Would it though? With unchanging enviroment stealth could be properly designed. As cool as "wait for right time of day, changes of guards etc" sounds, I am yet to see them be enjoyable.
Just a quick closure to this off topic matter :
I am not even implying day/night routines but the simply fact that creating a partial/total obscurity system would wonderfully match with D/N cycle (even binary) where you can actually take advantage of that.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/Q3RfYz5.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/HfXJVuZ.png)
I mean necrofire just looks neat, right? Sorry if you feel put upon but I have no problem with you enjoying melee -- to each their own. 