Larian Studios
The title should be pretty self explanatory.

Dear Larian, I appreciate in principle your design philosophy about how the players are allowed to attempt to kill *any* NPC or creature in the game, even when plot relevant, but "allowed to attempt it" doesn't mean you should make it easy for them.

If we have a meeting with a creature that is supposed to be far too powerful for our level range, let it be so. Don't scale that creature down to our level to accommodate our ego.

Just make it clear that it's a bad idea to even try.
And don't be afraid to put a "level 20" encounter as long as we are not supposed to face it in combat.

Also, as we are on topic: there's absolutely no need to show us the level of every NPCs or monsters we meet just under their name, to begin with.
"Checking before starting a fight if our levels match" is not the feeling that adventuring in D&D is supposed to give.
I agree. Killing a lvl 5 mindflayer so early def felt like a stretch....
No lvl 2 party should be able to kill a mindflayer. I wouldnt have minded seeing it at lvl 10. and us fighting it at lvl 4 or something

side note... where did you fight the dragon???
+1
+1
Originally Posted by Prunk44
I agree. Killing a lvl 5 mindflayer so early def felt like a stretch....
No lvl 2 party should be able to kill a mindflayer. I wouldnt have minded seeing it at lvl 10. and us fighting it at lvl 4 or something

side note... where did you fight the dragon???


North of the map, Risen road. If you don't engage into the cutscene, you can fight the dragon right away.
Originally Posted by Prunk44
I agree. Killing a lvl 5 mindflayer so early def felt like a stretch....

Well, I think this is a bade example.
That mind flayer was a dying one with 3HP remaining and crushed under a boulder. Not exactly a fair duel between your party and the poor bastard.
And he can still put you in mortal danger if you give it a chance, as he absolutely SHOULD.
Originally Posted by Tuco
The title should be pretty self explanatory.

Dear Larian, I appreciate in principle your design philosophy about how the players are allowed to attempt to kill *any* NPC or creature in the game, even when plot relevant, but "allowed to attempt it" doesn't mean you should make it easy for them.

If we have a meeting with a creature that is supposed to be far too powerful for our level range, let it be so. Don't scale that creature down to our level to accommodate our ego.

Just make it clear that it's a bad idea to even try.
And don't be afraid to put a "level 20" encounter as long as we are not supposed to face it in combat.

Also, as we are on topic: there's absolutely no need to show us the level of every NPCs or monsters we meet just under their name, to begin with.
"Checking before starting a fight if our levels match" is not the feeling that adventuring in D&D is supposed to give.



I love how Tuco saves me the work of putting my thoughts into words.
Thank you.

+1
Interestingly, the stats of the red dragon, HP, armor class, etc. are exactly like in D&D 5E. Only the fire immunity is obviously missing
https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering...s-chromatic/dragon-red/dragon-red-adult/

That you can kill it only shows how broken Larians combat system is (or rather the barrels you are likely using to blow him up).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSGQiFuZ8Kc
Originally Posted by Ixal
Interestingly, the stats of the red dragon, HP, armor class, etc. are exactly like in D&D 5E.
https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering...s-chromatic/dragon-red/dragon-red-adult/

That you can kill it only shows how broken Larians combat system is (or rather the barrels you are likely using to blow him up).


I don't doubt. I'll take your word for it.
And to be honest I didn't even check the stats nor I attempted personally to fight/kill it, because that's not really the point.
The issue is precisely to have everything "leveled" to your range (leaving aside if the number is sincere or misleading as in this case) and, as I said, I find questionable the very fact that a level number is showed explicitly to begin with.
Also, I'm admittedly being introduced to 5th edition just recently, but as far as I know in past editions monsters in D&D weren't supposed to have "levels" at all, just a vague difficulty rate.
Originally Posted by Ixal
Interestingly, the stats of the red dragon, HP, armor class, etc. are exactly like in D&D 5E. Only the fire immunity is obviously missing
https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering...s-chromatic/dragon-red/dragon-red-adult/

That you can kill it only shows how broken Larians combat system is (or rather the barrels you are likely using to blow him up).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSGQiFuZ8Kc


I wouldn't say it was broken since the dragon itself just disappeared. Normally this number of barrels shouldn't kill him.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Ixal
Interestingly, the stats of the red dragon, HP, armor class, etc. are exactly like in D&D 5E.
https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering...s-chromatic/dragon-red/dragon-red-adult/

That you can kill it only shows how broken Larians combat system is (or rather the barrels you are likely using to blow him up).


I don't doubt. I'll take your word for it.
And to be honest I didn't even check the stats nor I attempted personally to fight/kill it, because that's not really the point.
The issue is precisely to have everything "leveled" to your range (leaving aside if the number is sincere or misleading as in this case) and, as I said, I find questionable the very fact that a level number is showed explicitly to begin with.
Also, I'm admittedly being introduced to 5th edition just recently, but as far as I know in past editions monsters in D&D weren't supposed to have "levels" at all, just a vague difficulty rate.


But what does the level number actually effect? The stats are just like in the Monster Manual and there it is a level 17 challenge.
Of course, Larian has inflated the HP of everything they want you to fight by a lot so the dragon with its normal HP will look puny compared to them. And its missing its fire immunity and all other abilities (and not only dragons. Imps should also be fire immune and resistant to a lot more).

But leaving aside the specifics, the OPs general question or observation still stand. At this point of the game there should be no way that the party can fight the dragon and survive. Will Larian really implement things on the map the party can't kill or will they tone down everything so that the party can kill them?
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Ixal
Interestingly, the stats of the red dragon, HP, armor class, etc. are exactly like in D&D 5E.
https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering...s-chromatic/dragon-red/dragon-red-adult/

That you can kill it only shows how broken Larians combat system is (or rather the barrels you are likely using to blow him up).


I don't doubt. I'll take your word for it.
And to be honest I didn't even check the stats nor I attempted personally to fight/kill it, because that's not really the point.
The issue is precisely to have everything "leveled" to your range (leaving aside if the number is sincere or misleading as in this case) and, as I said, I find questionable the very fact that a level number is showed explicitly to begin with.
Also, I'm admittedly being introduced to 5th edition just recently, but as far as I know in past editions monsters in D&D weren't supposed to have "levels" at all, just a vague difficulty rate.


But what does the level number actually effect? The stats are just like in the Monster Manual and there it is a level 17 challenge.
Of course, Larian has inflated the HP of everything they want you to fight by a lot so the dragon with its normal HP will look puny compared to them. And its missing its fire immunity and all other abilities (and not only dragons. Imps should also be fire immune and resistant to a lot more).


Yeah, the missing fire immunity is the most hilarious thing.
Agreed.
Agree that we should not show levels. Let the players learn from their mistakes if they attempt to fight an Archdruid or Red Dragon or Beholder or Mind Flayer. I know there has been some concern that combat is hard, but that should be the case especially when dealing with these special chars.

Getting one shot from these characters should serve as a reminder that you can't just murderhobo everything even if you wanted to. This can also serve as a way to ensure the games integrity in a sense that important powerful NPCs really can only be dealt with via the Plot. Example taking out Kagha as level a group of level 2 instead of having the support of the Tieflings which results in heavy casualties.
Originally Posted by Ixal

But what does the level number actually effect?

Immersion, for one.
And that's assuming the level displayed is *actually* the only change. Which is debatable (as you and other people are already pointing fire immunity as an example).

+1
+1
If you are asking for a difficulty setting where you can hide the level, I can see that as a viable game difficulty option for hardcore types, but requesting that the level is hidden by default for most players I am fairly certain would never fly, heh smile It's important so that you know if you are ready or not for some set difficulty/encounter. No level and just letting players get destroyed without so much as a hint would make for a pretty awful and frustrating experience. As if we didn't quick save/load enough already. For example, In EA you can access the underdark early on if you stumble across an entrence, but everything in there is like 2 levels higher vs when you would typically discover it.

But like a difficulty setting a player can set - yeah totally.

Also as far as "Immersion" goes, I would say right now the entire game is Immersion-breaking since you can somehow rest under the moonlight while venturing through the udnerdark. So some of the other stuff that may not make sense pales in comparison to the "camp" idea. Give me back my tavern!
I suspect Larian is using levels for all the RPG gamers out there who need to know how awesome they are for having beating a level X creature. The creature levels do not match with their D&D CR, so it's pointless information, even more when they buffed certain creatures anyway.

For example, Haslin is not a level 5 druid. He can cast spells while transformed into a bear, that means he is at least level 18th. His HP match a level 18 druid too. You can take have him as a temporary companion to clear the goblins. I suspect many people would complaining if he read Level 18 or CR 18 instead of just level 5.
Creatures have CR level, not level. So its already not D&D. But I have to say - I DM a lot, and I've been in a few games of D&D; DMs do this stuff all the time for parties. Instead of scratching yams out of the dirt on your peasant farm and watching a Nautilus crash, you were on it, in Avernus, with Red Dragons and Gith attacking. Is that reasonable? No. Was it more fun? Yes. Why did the Gith ride off on the red dragon at the fallen bridge instead of just incinerating you? Because its an encounter and I can TPK you any second I want to, that isn't fun. I wanted it to be a Gith fight.

The only thing I would say is that creatures using correct CRs from MM and other source would be simpler for everyone and right now they might just be throwing the MM out the window and doing whatever they want. That same red dragon in 6 levels will have 2000hp, who knows? So, without rhyme or reason, we can only say that they are doing what they think is fun. The Arch Druid thing would make the grove storyline impossible, they'd be too powerful. If it was a D&D campaign and I was running it, yeah there wouldn't be an arch druid - thats the hook, its the noobs running it doing stupid stuff.

Conceptually, everything they did is fine. Divorcing it from the MM is annoying and the composition and titles of the NPCs could probably be better arranged so when you run into an actual max level arch druid it means something. You shouldn't have different levels of Arch Druid. A level 6 druid is running the place in place of Halsin, a Level 10. Everyone else is level 4. The watchers were level 5 shadow druids. There, now theres a lot of power swings depending on who you woo and its more dynamic.

Ultimately, they aren't approaching this like a DM and it shows.
Agreed. Given the Lore of the game the encounter is reasonably likely; the level certainly is not.

That said creativity as well as realistic stats both need to be equally encouraged. If i can outsmart the game within its lawful perameters then i deserve the red dragon scales.
I see 2 options:

1.) There are enemies we come across that we can't feasibly kill at our current level. I prefer this option. However, in this case the enemy "level" needs to be labeled, at least for the standard difficulties, as cgexile said. Otherwise there will be an overwhelming amount of complaints from people getting into fights with enemies they can't beat without knowing they couldn't win beforehand.

2.) If we follow the default playthrough, ~every enemy we come across should be beatable. (boring). In this case, enemy "level" is basically irrelevant and could be hidden.

Red dragon: For single monsters, there's a big discrepancy between CR and what level party can beat it. Venomfang, a young green dragon in LMoP, is technically CR 8. However, a level 5 party could probably beat it with ~50% chance. I've heard stories of level 4 parties killing him. So, if the red dragon in BG3 is actually a young red dragon, combined with the buffs BG3 gives PCs through height/jump/etc, a "level" rating of 5 or 6 is probably appropriate which is not that far off from the listed level 4...
This is a thing I've seen show up in D&D video games since about Demon Stone. Levels of various monsters being modified to allow for appearing in the plot as is appropriate. D&D tends to be designed that you start off with relatively minor local affairs and build up to the epic things, but a lot of computer game writing is counter to this with the idea of throwing the epic stuff in right at the beginning to see and then put you in lower level stuff until you can work your way up to dealing with that epic stuff.

I'm kind of okay with it in a tutorial because it allows for the epic opening they wanted. I'm also semi-okay with it for titles like "Archdruid" because I get a bit ehhh over titles being tied to a meta-statistic like level. If there's a druid grove it will have an archdruid and if the highest level person is level 4, so be it.

As for a 4th level red dragon... If the "levels" are more equivalent to "CR" from the tabletop, that would be a hatchling. Which would be medium...too small to ride. I think the dragon we see is large or huge so it would be Young or Adult...which would be CR 10 or 17.

But I imagine they are going for the dramatic conclusion to each chapter. I again think this comes from the difference in story pacing video game writers are used to as compared to the tabletop game is designed for.

Black Isle, Bioware, Oblivion, SSI and the like feel like they were designing toward tabletop pacing more than typical video game pacing. Where as the studios that have been designing D&D RPGs since then are more like they're coming from the video game side to the D&D projects. I don't particularly care one way or another. Either can work and I drop a lot of expectations for video game adaptations anyway.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I see 2 options:

1.) There are enemies we come across that we can't feasibly kill at our current level. I prefer this option. However, in this case the enemy "level" needs to be labeled, at least for the standard difficulties, as cgexile said. Otherwise there will be an overwhelming amount of complaints from people getting into fights with enemies they can't beat without knowing they couldn't win beforehand.

2.) If we follow the default playthrough, ~every enemy we come across should be beatable. (boring). In this case, enemy "level" is basically irrelevant and could be hidden.

Red dragon: For single monsters, there's a big discrepancy between CR and what level party can beat it. Venomfang, a young green dragon in LMoP, is technically CR 8. However, a level 5 party could probably beat it with ~50% chance. I've heard stories of level 4 parties killing him. So, if the red dragon in BG3 is actually a young red dragon, combined with the buffs BG3 gives PCs through height/jump/etc, a "level" rating of 5 or 6 is probably appropriate which is not that far off from the listed level 4...


I disagree, there should be visual cues that the enemy is very strong (a cutscene in which is easily incinerates a squad of soldiers for example), but not big red button saying do not attack.

About the red dragon, the stats and size make it an adult one which is listed as a challenge for level 17 parties (note, challenge means beatable with about 20% resource usage but not in danger of dying). So a level 13 or so party could still kill it but it would be a close call.
A level 3 or 4 party killing it only shows how screwed up Larians combat system is.
Originally Posted by Ixal


About the red dragon, the stats and size make it an adult one which is listed as a challenge for level 17 parties (note, challenge means beatable with about 20% resource usage but not in danger of dying). So a level 13 or so party could still kill it but it would be a close call.
A level 3 or 4 party killing it only shows how screwed up Larians combat system is.

Is it supposed to be an adult red dragon? If so, it's kinda lame. This is how a red dragon should look like-
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IbnQ2UhjgqQ/hqdefault.jpg
I agree wholeheartedly with the people here. I was really looking for a D&D game because I didn't want to have to deal with level scaling.

Please don't be afraid to try and change it now. It's one of the biggest issues for me.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Ixal


About the red dragon, the stats and size make it an adult one which is listed as a challenge for level 17 parties (note, challenge means beatable with about 20% resource usage but not in danger of dying). So a level 13 or so party could still kill it but it would be a close call.
A level 3 or 4 party killing it only shows how screwed up Larians combat system is.

Is it supposed to be an adult red dragon? If so, it's kinda lame. This is how a red dragon should look like-
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IbnQ2UhjgqQ/hqdefault.jpg


It is.
When you examine the dragon you see its statistics (also something that should not be possible) and they match the statistic of an adult red dragon exactly. Also it is huge sized, both in its statistics and in the cutscene which only adult red dragons are.
Thats also not correct, only young dragons work for the Gith, but that would be only as large as horses so Larian probably upgraded them for looks.
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Ixal


About the red dragon, the stats and size make it an adult one which is listed as a challenge for level 17 parties (note, challenge means beatable with about 20% resource usage but not in danger of dying). So a level 13 or so party could still kill it but it would be a close call.
A level 3 or 4 party killing it only shows how screwed up Larians combat system is.

Is it supposed to be an adult red dragon? If so, it's kinda lame. This is how a red dragon should look like-
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IbnQ2UhjgqQ/hqdefault.jpg


It is.
When you examine the dragon you see its statistics (also something that should not be possible) and they match the statistic of an adult red dragon exactly. Also it is huge sized, both in its statistics and in the cutscene which only adult red dragons are.
Thats also not correct, only young dragons work for the Gith, but that would be only as large as horses so Larian probably upgraded them for looks.

Yeah that's why I was surprised you said it's an adult. When I first saw the cinematic trailer I didn't understand how come the gith are riding red dragons (my only experience with red dragons was my encounter with firkraag in bg2 and he seemed like a guy who will never let anyone use him as a horse) so I did some extensive reading about it in the fr wiki.
I agree with OP 100%.

A change Haslin fight would have to happen. He very well could get "hurt, poisoned, insert crippling ability here." All he can do to help the party is summon a low level bear for his abilities.... possible.
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I see 2 options:

1.) There are enemies we come across that we can't feasibly kill at our current level. I prefer this option. However, in this case the enemy "level" needs to be labeled, at least for the standard difficulties, as cgexile said. Otherwise there will be an overwhelming amount of complaints from people getting into fights with enemies they can't beat without knowing they couldn't win beforehand.

2.) If we follow the default playthrough, ~every enemy we come across should be beatable. (boring). In this case, enemy "level" is basically irrelevant and could be hidden.

Red dragon: For single monsters, there's a big discrepancy between CR and what level party can beat it. Venomfang, a young green dragon in LMoP, is technically CR 8. However, a level 5 party could probably beat it with ~50% chance. I've heard stories of level 4 parties killing him. So, if the red dragon in BG3 is actually a young red dragon, combined with the buffs BG3 gives PCs through height/jump/etc, a "level" rating of 5 or 6 is probably appropriate which is not that far off from the listed level 4...


I disagree, there should be visual cues that the enemy is very strong (a cutscene in which is easily incinerates a squad of soldiers for example), but not big red button saying do not attack.

About the red dragon, the stats and size make it an adult one which is listed as a challenge for level 17 parties (note, challenge means beatable with about 20% resource usage but not in danger of dying). So a level 13 or so party could still kill it but it would be a close call.
A level 3 or 4 party killing it only shows how screwed up Larians combat system is.

Some type of "enemy danger indicator" is a must, especially for people not familiar with d&d and typical monster difficulties. I agree that this doesn't necessarily have to be a level indicator. But I worry your suggestion could be difficult to implement...could you tell the difference between a level 7 vs 17 fighter from a cutscene?

Red Dragon: I didn't check the stats, but do you know if the in-game Red Dragon have legendary actions? An Adult Red Dragon without legendary actions is probably closer to a CR 10-12, as it has gone from having 6 attacks per round (3 on its turn, 3 legendary actions) to only 3...But yes, if this is an Adult Red Dragon then it should NOT be level 4.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I see 2 options:

1.) There are enemies we come across that we can't feasibly kill at our current level. I prefer this option. However, in this case the enemy "level" needs to be labeled, at least for the standard difficulties, as cgexile said. Otherwise there will be an overwhelming amount of complaints from people getting into fights with enemies they can't beat without knowing they couldn't win beforehand.

2.) If we follow the default playthrough, ~every enemy we come across should be beatable. (boring). In this case, enemy "level" is basically irrelevant and could be hidden.

Red dragon: For single monsters, there's a big discrepancy between CR and what level party can beat it. Venomfang, a young green dragon in LMoP, is technically CR 8. However, a level 5 party could probably beat it with ~50% chance. I've heard stories of level 4 parties killing him. So, if the red dragon in BG3 is actually a young red dragon, combined with the buffs BG3 gives PCs through height/jump/etc, a "level" rating of 5 or 6 is probably appropriate which is not that far off from the listed level 4...


Level 4 can easily depending on the group, Ive had parties take it. Also in Tomb of Annihilation there is a Young Red - Tinder - that I added 2AC and another 200hp to and 5 level 5s took it down in 4 rounds. 5e parties are stronk
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

Some type of "enemy danger indicator" is a must, especially for people not familiar with d&d and typical monster difficulties. I agree that this doesn't necessarily have to be a level indicator. But I worry your suggestion could be difficult to implement...could you tell the difference between a level 7 vs 17 fighter from a cutscene?

I strongly disagree. Let the context suggest which characters should be a poor idea to cross. And let the player pay the price if he goes out of his way to ignore the warning signs.

It worked flawlessly for years. Not sure why D/D would now suddenly need to flag enemies by levels.
It might just be a temporary issue with the level cap being 4. Like it's just not in the code yet for anything to be above 4 in EA
My wish is they remove all the level indicators on monsters, but I guess there's a lot players who never played DnD and casual players so some kind of indicators is designed for QoL.
I mean. I don’t recall levels being displayed in the original games ? As you mentioned, there is already an easy to use save / load feature and there is also a ridiculously accessible short rest / long rest option. So far I don’t see a permanent death either, I guess unless you shove the gith off the ship ?

Lore should fill in the blanks for monsters that you’re unfamiliar with, but may encounter in a combat situation. Maybe your character uses one of his skills to roll against to consider the threat of an enemy - like history, lore, arcana, idk.

I don’t love seeing total hitpoints numerically either, though. These numbers - levels - hitpoints - whatever, it’s all going to be available in the game files and easily accessible on the internet anyway.

Playing without those numbers available to you means that you’re going to play differently, and that’s ok.
Originally Posted by Redacted
I mean. I don’t recall levels being displayed in the original games ? As you mentioned, there is already an easy to use save / load feature and there is also a ridiculously accessible short rest / long rest option. So far I don’t see a permanent death either, I guess unless you shove the gith off the ship ?

Lore should fill in the blanks for monsters that you’re unfamiliar with, but may encounter in a combat situation. Maybe your character uses one of his skills to roll against to consider the threat of an enemy - like history, lore, arcana, idk.

I don’t love seeing total hitpoints numerically either, though. These numbers - levels - hitpoints - whatever, it’s all going to be available in the game files and easily accessible on the internet anyway.

Playing without those numbers available to you means that you’re going to play differently, and that’s ok.


Advice like checking stats on the internet is not a good option in a computer game.
First of all: "Level" isn't something that monsters/enemies in DnD used. DnD 5e uses Challenge Rating, which isn't the same. A CR4 is considered a medium challenge for a medium sized party of level 4. "Level" in BG3 is something similar, but not the same.

A Young Red Dragon is CR10. My experience is depending on party and players you can take on single targets of quite higher CR than their average level. I pitted my current group up against a Young Black Dragon (CR7) when they were 5 level 3 characters. Sure I nearly killed one player, but they didn't have too hard of a time.

So I think it's doable.

Now the Red Dragon we see the Gith riding looks bigger than a "large" creature, which is what Young Dragons are. A horse is Large, so is an Ogre. So you could ride a Young Dragon for sure.


----

Sometimes you want to have a monster at just the right time, and be a decent challenge. As a DM that's when you homebrew things. If you need bigger draggons, just make the Young Dragon Gargantuan, problem solved. People really shouldn't be married to the Monster Manual, not as table top gamers, or as video gamers. The MM is great for DMs, because we can quickly make an encounter, but when we want that little something extra we make our own.

---

For reference a Mind Flayer is CR 7, having one being "level 5" isn't too far from reality. Again: Home Brew works best when you need to tell a story.
Originally Posted by Redacted
I mean. I don’t recall levels being displayed in the original games ? As you mentioned, there is already an easy to use save / load feature and there is also a ridiculously accessible short rest / long rest option. So far I don’t see a permanent death either, I guess unless you shove the gith off the ship ?

Lore should fill in the blanks for monsters that you’re unfamiliar with, but may encounter in a combat situation. Maybe your character uses one of his skills to roll against to consider the threat of an enemy - like history, lore, arcana, idk.

I don’t love seeing total hitpoints numerically either, though. These numbers - levels - hitpoints - whatever, it’s all going to be available in the game files and easily accessible on the internet anyway.

Playing without those numbers available to you means that you’re going to play differently, and that’s ok.


Totally agree with the OP and with you, aside from one thing. You can permanently kill companions, you can either fight them before they join your party AND you can attack them in camp when they aren't part of your group. They will become unresurrectable.

Also, aside from barremancy and surfaces being a big problem, there is also another creative way to kill that particular dragon and githyanki group...

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...ncy_is_a_dead_meta_use_hoardermancy_for/

Either way, I don't think killing that dragon should be possible. Via barrelmancy or ... hoardermancy. wink

Originally Posted by Nicottia
[quote=Redacted]

Also, aside from barremancy and surfaces being a big problem, there is also another creative way to kill that particular dragon and githyanki group...

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...ncy_is_a_dead_meta_use_hoardermancy_for/

Either way, I don't think killing that dragon should be possible. Via barrelmancy or ... hoardermancy. wink



As I said, it shows how screwed up Larians combat system is, but I doubt they will change it because its their special snowflake thing they want to advertise.
HAHAHAHA that video is hilarious!
Originally Posted by Ixal


As I said, it shows how screwed up Larians combat system is, but I doubt they will change it because its their special snowflake thing they want to advertise.

Think that's a little on the extreme. I think it's fair to say this kinda stuff will most definitely be fixed.

That said I agree with Tuco, I don't need levels, though i am happy enough if players want the option in settings totoggle them on/off. As for finding out like i ye olden days. I mean I killed the Ankheg bugs on the farm in BG1 at level 2 and Drizzt shortly after. Oh many a reset and playing with necromancy etc for extra bodies, but it was fun and the rewards were massive. However due to the RtwP nature of it, it was fast, so failure didn't cost you an hour, hence I could see why some form of indicator might for some be helpful.
Originally Posted by Riandor
HAHAHAHA that video is hilarious!
Originally Posted by Ixal


As I said, it shows how screwed up Larians combat system is, but I doubt they will change it because its their special snowflake thing they want to advertise.

Think that's a little on the extreme. I think it's fair to say this kinda stuff will most definitely be fixed.

That said I agree with Tuco, I don't need levels, though i am happy enough if players want the option in settings totoggle them on/off. As for finding out like i ye olden days. I mean I killed the Ankheg bugs on the farm in BG1 at level 2 and Drizzt shortly after. Oh many a reset and playing with necromancy etc for extra bodies, but it was fun and the rewards were massive. However due to the RtwP nature of it, it was fast, so failure didn't cost you an hour, hence I could see why some form of indicator might for some be helpful.


How do you want to fix that? This is an ingrained part of the entire system in BG3 which depends more on environmental effects and barrels than actual D&D combat.
I love how this forum is showcasing the inability of people of going over their own personal and limited (because is personal) point of view.

Most of the times just watching something from a single point of view.

I hate levels but not because it makes me feel wowed because my main toon has killed whoever it is. (by the way congrats if you are so skilled to go through the game getting easily rid of any mob you encouter). In my playthrough it was frustrating to see level one mobs killing my party over and over (not only i'm not awesomily skilled but I have a lot of bad luck when it comes to dice rolls, give a game of pure strategy and whether I try until I get the right one or i datamine the internet to find the best strategy to use, give me dice rolls and I will have to reload times and times again until I get not so many critical misses lined up).

Also I, and I'm pretty sure that the bigger part of players side with me, want to have fun, not to apply the same efforts and energies I put on my work, my social life, my chores in my house.

Furthermore maybe I was distracted but I didn't noticed the fact that the levels were always present I had the impression they appeared after you engaged (willingly or by bad luck) the mobs.

Again what Larian could do is add more options in the Gameplay tab so that players can personalize the difficulty, that is addinf options for level tags, fog of war, hitpoints, xp gained, switch of/on advantage/disadvantage for heights and stealth, and number of oil/firewine/grease/water barrels accessible.

This way the game would be able to satisfy both players who want it to be hard and those who want it to be moderate or easy (I love RPG for the story not for the realistic coherence or the battles, that is why I usually play choosing story or easy difficulty).

On the mindfliers I was able to kill the one in the nautiloid, and found that quite weird, ok the him was fighting the demon lord, that I bombed him with the nautiloid barrels, that I procrastinated the battle to allow enough fire damage, still it was weird, the other nautiloid well him was at the edge of death.

Other level 3-4 I met I wasn't able to kill even using barrels and surprise attacks, the minotaurs killed my party many times, the Girth leader tooke damege from an ambush but still was able to run, and his lieutenant gave my party an hard time.

I have a question: what happened to the storyline? If you kill the dragon the Girth can not use it to flee away thus it became possible to kill it. (One of the reasons why I think it's an error or something the programmers didn't considered).
Originally Posted by Bufotenina
I love how this forum is showcasing the inability of people of going over their own personal and limited (because is personal) point of view.

Well, unless you have something specific to complain about with someone in particular, I'd say you can spare us this smug and vaguely allusive condescension.


Quote
Also I, and I'm pretty sure that the bigger part of players side with me, want to have fun, not to apply the same efforts and energies I put on my work, my social life, my chores in my house.

...Still no idea where this is going, because it hardly seems to relate to the topic at hand.

Quote
This way the game would be able to satisfy both players who want it to be hard and those who want it to be moderate or easy

...We aren't really discussing difficulty levels, though? This is about consistency and immersion.

Your entire tangent is missing the point by a country mile.
The issue I have is not specifically if you will be able to fight the dragon or not, it's a more general dislike with this idea of labeling enemies upfront with an arbitrary level tag.


I never like explicit leveled opponents. That's almost universally true regardless of the ruleset.
Let the context suggest to the player what is too much to handle and be CONSISTENT across the entire adventure.
A wolf should always be a wolf, a troll should always be a troll. None of this crap about having a level 5 troll and then a level 20 one 15 hours later in the game.
I want to feel like a monster's threat level depends of what it is, rather how it's scaled to match my progression curve.

And no level 4 druid should ever be an "archdruid" by the very rules established by the setting and license the game is using. At best "Acting archdruid" would sell the idea better.
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Riandor
HAHAHAHA that video is hilarious!
Originally Posted by Ixal


As I said, it shows how screwed up Larians combat system is, but I doubt they will change it because its their special snowflake thing they want to advertise.

Think that's a little on the extreme. I think it's fair to say this kinda stuff will most definitely be fixed.

That said I agree with Tuco, I don't need levels, though i am happy enough if players want the option in settings totoggle them on/off. As for finding out like i ye olden days. I mean I killed the Ankheg bugs on the farm in BG1 at level 2 and Drizzt shortly after. Oh many a reset and playing with necromancy etc for extra bodies, but it was fun and the rewards were massive. However due to the RtwP nature of it, it was fast, so failure didn't cost you an hour, hence I could see why some form of indicator might for some be helpful.


How do you want to fix that? This is an ingrained part of the entire system in BG3 which depends more on environmental effects and barrels than actual D&D combat.


If you choose to use barrels and environmental effect. I'm lazy and unorganized and distracter so a lot of times ended up fighting face to face (that means D&D rules were full in controll). Larian don't force the players to take advantage of heights (that by the way in what would conflict with D&D except if we interpret the D&D background as something where being clever, that is making the most from the battleground, just like you know a lot of very famous war generals in History did, you know people like Hannibal, Gengis Khan, the Russian generals that twice defeated big armies just letting winter, a delicious environment tool, do its deed, or the Vietnamites that used at their advantage the tropical forest they knew very well, or the Afghanis that used the mountain environment to cripple the attacks from the Russian army first and now that of the Staters, or the measles infected stuff used by Europeans to weak the autoctones populations defences, is frowned up because I don't knowI can't get a serious explanation on the reasons, if you consider D&D a background with races, cities, politics, cultures, economy, classes and so on to have freedom of choice on how you want to do a battle (strategy or brute force and frontal attacks), where you have enemies hard to fight because of numbers and hp (that are not so enflated).

And seriously, snowflake? From the complains I'm not sure on wich side is the one rilled with snowflakes because I see and I read too much of something easily resumed by the phrase "I like things in this way, I think things are this way you producer have to give exactly what i want as I want it and i fyou don't you are a bad producer. That is. A bad producer who prefers another approach other than the only and rightful rightest one that is mine and mine alone!!! Who cares if you crate a game that should be enjoyable by thousands. Mine and only mine is the rightful rightest way to create a game! Because i played since loong time/I'm very skilled/I know better and other players are just spoiled and snowflaky ones!That is. I said it".
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Riandor
HAHAHAHA that video is hilarious!
Originally Posted by Ixal


As I said, it shows how screwed up Larians combat system is, but I doubt they will change it because its their special snowflake thing they want to advertise.

Think that's a little on the extreme. I think it's fair to say this kinda stuff will most definitely be fixed.

That said I agree with Tuco, I don't need levels, though i am happy enough if players want the option in settings totoggle them on/off. As for finding out like i ye olden days. I mean I killed the Ankheg bugs on the farm in BG1 at level 2 and Drizzt shortly after. Oh many a reset and playing with necromancy etc for extra bodies, but it was fun and the rewards were massive. However due to the RtwP nature of it, it was fast, so failure didn't cost you an hour, hence I could see why some form of indicator might for some be helpful.


How do you want to fix that? This is an ingrained part of the entire system in BG3 which depends more on environmental effects and barrels than actual D&D combat.


Part of me alsmost doesn't want to fix it, it's funny and resourceful, at least in this one example. But no seriously, killing a dragon this way feels totally a cheese move. How to fix it? Well for one you could make the Dragon at this juncture woundable but unkillable, triggering the Gith to flee or the conversation to go differently. I am not saying that is the best way to do it, structurally I think there are more fundamental fixes to be made, but in this one example it would be "a fix".
Originally Posted by Riandor


How do you want to fix that? This is an ingrained part of the entire system in BG3 which depends more on environmental effects and barrels than actual D&D combat.


Part of me alsmost doesn't want to fix it, it's funny and resourceful, at least in this one example. But no seriously, killing a dragon this way feels totally a cheese move. How to fix it? Well for one you could make the Dragon at this juncture woundable but unkillable, triggering the Gith to flee or the conversation to go differently. I am not saying that is the best way to do it, structurally I think there are more fundamental fixes to be made, but in this one example it would be "a fix".[/quote]

The dragon is just a more extreme example, but the problem is the system itself which depends more on environmental effects than actual D&D combat. You might fix it for the dragon, but then players will just do this cheese to something else. The problems are the barrels, the falling objects, the puddles, etc.
This is divinity people not dnd. Dragons and mind flyers are trash monsters
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Riandor


How do you want to fix that? This is an ingrained part of the entire system in BG3 which depends more on environmental effects and barrels than actual D&D combat.


Part of me alsmost doesn't want to fix it, it's funny and resourceful, at least in this one example. But no seriously, killing a dragon this way feels totally a cheese move. How to fix it? Well for one you could make the Dragon at this juncture woundable but unkillable, triggering the Gith to flee or the conversation to go differently. I am not saying that is the best way to do it, structurally I think there are more fundamental fixes to be made, but in this one example it would be "a fix".


The dragon is just a more extreme example, but the problem is the system itself which depends more on environmental effects than actual D&D combat. You might fix it for the dragon, but then players will just do this cheese to something else. The problems are the barrels, the falling objects, the puddles, etc.[/quote]

Yep
Originally Posted by Ixal

The dragon is just a more extreme example, but the problem is the system itself which depends more on environmental effects than actual D&D combat. You might fix it for the dragon, but then players will just do this cheese to something else. The problems are the barrels, the falling objects, the puddles, etc.

There would be plenty of ways to fix the opening for these exploits AND keep the systemic rules consistent in context IF Larian cared one bit about doing so.

For instance one eye to "realism" would suggest that no one should be able to move and throw around full barrels that should weight several quintals each as if they were paper holders. And for sure no one should be able to carry several in a backpack.
So they could have their "fun" explosive barrels placed in specific places, without the exploit deriving from amassing large quantities of these. AND make the setting more believable/consistent in the process. Killing two birds with a stone, as they say.

The problem is, I'm afraid, that on the contrary they seem to be rather fond of their "cheese" and perceive it as some endearing selling point that doesn't need to be addressed to any extent.


Ahhh, I mean it would be nice to have the option of my party members being killed in combat alongside me. It doesnt feel dangerous enough currently.
Originally Posted by Redacted
Ahhh, I mean it would be nice to have the option of my party members being killed in combat alongside me. It doesnt feel dangerous enough currently.

Mh?
Haven't reached a dragon yet but it would be insane dumb if u went against a red dragon (the strongest of chromatic dragons) at level 4. Or even at level 10
Originally Posted by Lightzy
Haven't reached a dragon yet but it would be insane dumb if u went against a red dragon (the strongest of chromatic dragons) at level 4. Or even at level 10


You don't really "fight" any red dragons. If you are talking on the ship, that dragon just smashes up the ship, it isn't actually fighting or attacking you.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
Haven't reached a dragon yet but it would be insane dumb if u went against a red dragon (the strongest of chromatic dragons) at level 4. Or even at level 10


Technically tiamat is
Originally Posted by Lightzy
Haven't reached a dragon yet but it would be insane dumb if u went against a red dragon (the strongest of chromatic dragons) at level 4. Or even at level 10

You are not supposed to fight it, It's just there to look intimidating and then fly away after a cutscene unless the player attacks first.

The problem is that it's hard to take seriously the fact that the game labels him as a level 4 creature.
Then again if you target the red dragon in the prologue he's labeled as a level 1 creature, so it could be worse for the former, I guess.
I 100% agree. Being able to take on such ridiculous odds so early is not very D&D. I can understand it if its some one off side game instead of a serious campaign, but this game is obviously trying to set up a campaign, so to any actual D&D player this just feels disingenuous and kind of insulting. As for the archdruid thing, i can kind of see them get away with it if it was just some arrogant druid running off at the mouth and not actually being an archdruid in reality. This would be especially feasible if they were a shadow druid. But they totally lost me at being able to take on mind flayers at level 2. Seriously? Mind flayers are feared across the multiverse and here are a small group of level 2 nobodies defeating one right out the gate. Its cool that the encounter is allowed to happen, what isn't cool is being able to defeat it so effortlessly.
The dragon I get. Early editions of D&D (back in the TSR days) only went up to level 3, so there were level 3 dragons. But by the time there were druids, there were 20 levels, and an "archdruid" was at least level 15. I'm thinking Halsin isn't an "archdruid" in that traditional sense though, more like he's the best one they have.

Still, Larian does seem to be playing fast and loose with the idea of a level system. It would be better if they either stuck with levels being meaningful, or ditch the leveling system entirely. Personally, I feel an open-world game benefits from a level-less approach, but this is hardly an open world at this point. Maybe it will be after early access is over.

Still, devils, mind flayers, ogres, a hag, a dragon, and a beholder all before level 5? This feels more like a level 10 starting point than level 1.
So the fight with Kaga will be impassable?
Dragons okay, but interfere with the passage ..
I agree that there should be some battles that most likely (but not impossible!) Cannot be won, as is the case with the demon commander on the ship. But players will still try to do it, some will even succeed. The game should take this into account.
[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
So the fight with Kaga will be impassable?

Kagha simply shouldn't be labeled an archdruid. "Acting archdruid" or "regent" at best.
Halsin as the "proper" archdruid of the area on the other hand surely shouldn't be a level 5.

Power tuning aside, in any case, the point is that the level shouldn't be a label clearly readable on characters (especially not monsters, that aren't supposed to have levels to begin with) but if we really HAVE to (because as the time goes it seems that Larian hates everything that's good design, somehow) at least that level should make sense in context and be consistent.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
So the fight with Kaga will be impassable?

Kagha simply shouldn't be labeled an archdruid. "Acting archdruid" or "regent" at best.
Halsin as the "proper" archdruid of the area on the other hand surely shouldn't be a level 5.

Power tuning aside, in any case, the point is that the level shouldn't be a label clearly readable on characters (especially not monsters, that aren't supposed to have levels to begin with) but if we really HAVE to (because as the time goes it seems that Larian hates everything that's good design, somehow) at least that level should make sense in context.



The player will still know the level and amount of hp when trying to attack. Why complicate the task?
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
The player will still know the level and amount of hp when trying to attack. Why complicate the task?

Because it's a matter of presentation and of internal coherence. Not of "knowing" or not.

Why is a level 1 red dragon flying across the sky in Hell and why is a level 4 Red Dragon escorting the Gith patrol? What next? A level 8 Red Dragon in the next area and then a level 14 Dragon that you will actually have a chance to fight later on by the end of the game?
Is it really too much to ask for some internal consistency?

Is the point that are trying to make that everything we'll ever see will be constantly labeled in the same level range of the area we are exploring? Then what do we need these (misleading) levels for, exactly? To gratuitously break our immersion in the setting?
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
So the fight with Kaga will be impassable?

Kagha simply shouldn't be labeled an archdruid. "Acting archdruid" or "regent" at best.
Halsin as the "proper" archdruid of the area on the other hand surely shouldn't be a level 5.

Power tuning aside, in any case, the point is that the level shouldn't be a label clearly readable on characters (especially not monsters, that aren't supposed to have levels to begin with) but if we really HAVE to (because as the time goes it seems that Larian hates everything that's good design, somehow) at least that level should make sense in context.



The player will still know the level and amount of hp when trying to attack. Why complicate the task?

Not if you remove that information. That information is a relic of divinity mechanics, hence part of the problem. If they were being truly faithful to baldurs gate we would have no information on them beyond what gear we can see on their person, the hp percentage and their name.
Originally Posted by Tuco
[quote=Bufotenina]

And no level 4 druid should ever be an "archdruid" by the very rules established by the setting and license the game is using. At best "Acting archdruid" would sell the idea better.


To be fair, archdruid is a title. Not a power level. Not every grove is going to have an 20th level druid amongst them to fill the role of Archdruid. That would be insane. Especially not such a small grove that is so far out of the way in the middle of a territory that seems to mostly deal with goblins. If the most powerful druid they have is only 4th level they aren't going to just not have an archdruid until someone levels up enough first.
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid

To be fair, archdruid is a title. Not a power level. Not every grove is going to have an 20th level druid amongst them to fill the role of Archdruid. That would be insane. Especially not such a small grove that is so far out of the way in the middle of a territory that seems to mostly deal with goblins. If the most powerful druid they have is only 4th level they aren't going to just not have an archdruid until someone levels up enough first.

Not sure if the fifth edition changed something, but in D&D it used to be that level 12 was the minimum requirement to even consider taking the role of ArchDruid.
Originally Posted by Tuco

Not sure if the fifth edition changed something, but in D&D it used to be that level 12 was the minimum requirement to even consider taking the role of ArchDruid.


Which edition did this rule come from? It sounds like something from 2e or older.

I can't find anything about a level requirement to be considered an archdruid online.
I dont like this detailed information being always shown without being dependent on my characters at all. Its a meta feature put there to make things easier for general mass audience convenience.
Since it was the same in DoS games and they didnt want to remove it there i doubt its going to happen and there is always enough players complaining against removing it, crying about it.

But - it could be disabled on some sort of "hard core" difficulty level, it could be an option in game options.

Even better if it was tied to character skills like Arcane knowledge and Nature lore. Discovering actual lore info in the game itself, either through discovering books and through dialogue, or by fighting a specific creature which if successful would reveal such specific info about that class of creatures. Right now our Nature skill does already serve a similar purpose in some few rare moments, such as Kuo Toa encounter, but to make it fully implemented in that way would require some deeper work by the devs.
And im pretty sure they wont do that.

As an alternative, simply removing that meta info for a specific difficulty level would be relatively easy to implement. And special early encounters should definitely not be scaled down at all.
The shown level is probably some remnant of the Divinity engine. It doesn't correlate with monster stats from what I've seen. But seeing every goblin be level 2 or 3 undermines character progression.

The power level of creatures absolutely must make sense in the context of Forgotten Realms. No up or downscaling anything. Archdruids need to be very powerful. If you want players to be able to murder them they need to fight dirty of face them in a weakened state.

BG3 needs similar bestiary that Pillars of Eternity, Solasta and many other RPGs have. Learn more details about creatures by trial and error, with Investigation skill or from reading books. It is now the expectation and BG3 has the biggest budget so missing this feature would look rather strange. PC's having omnipotent knowledge makes the world feel less real and threatening.

And... having seen the enemy stats, most seem to have a rather even spread of mid-rangey attributes at worst, like Wis 12 on some random ogre or humanoid. Would be nice to find some low stats like Wis 6 or 8 to exploit sometimes and slam down a Hold Person that actually works.
Its not a matter of a game engine. Its an intentional design decision.

During DoS development Larian devs seemed to fail for a specific type of players that are best described as crying and throwing hissy fits quite often and those decisions are the result of it. Its a whole industry problem.
Although it doesnt have anything to do with how successful any game turns out to be.
The Party we need when attacking the Kagha now: Laezel, Shadow Heart, Astarion, MC
The Party we need after the update:
[Linked Image]
You arnt even supposed to target the dragon....

And cant fight it without massive cheese

Kagha isn't a true arch druid, she just usurped Halsin's title, even Halsin clearly is only archdruid in title only.
Originally Posted by Surface R
Its not a matter of a game engine. Its an intentional design decision.

During DoS development Larian devs seemed to fail for a specific type of players that are best described as crying and throwing hissy fits quite often and those decisions are the result of it. Its a whole industry problem.
Although it doesnt have anything to do with how successful any game turns out to be.



Oh great, that means we are getting Real Time with Pause, and more or less just a graphical resin of BG1and2 by the end of Early Access.
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
You arnt even supposed to target the dragon....

Who gives a shit? That's not the point.
The point is that we already have two red dragons in the game so far respectively flagged as a level 1 and level 4 one. And we'll possibly have more at different level tiers across the game if someone doesn't stress to Larian that it feels... inappropriate.

Quote
Kagha isn't a true arch druid, she just usurped Halsin's title, even Halsin clearly is only archdruid in title only.

"Clearly" because it's a convenient excuse, but making excuses doesn't help anyone to make the game better.
Will this end up like DOS 2, with level tags "railroading" players across the entire game? We'll see even rabbits and mice become "level 12" by the late game?

It's honestly weird that people defend this crap as some sort of unavoidable necessity of videogames, when no D&D-based game never felt the need for this type of immersion-breaking visual cue before.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
You arnt even supposed to target the dragon....

Who gives a shit? That's not the point.
The point is that we already have two red dragons in the game so far respectively flagged as a level 1 and level 4 one. And we'll possibly have more at different level tiers across the game if someone doesn't stress to Larian that it feels... inappropriate.

Quote
Kagha isn't a true arch druid, she just usurped Halsin's title, even Halsin clearly is only archdruid in title only.

"Clearly" because it's a convenient excuse, but making excuses doesn't help anyone to make the game better.
Will this end up like DOS 2, with level tags "railroading" players across the entire game? We'll see even rabbits and mice become "level 12" by the late game?

It's honestly weird that people defend this crap as some sort of unavoidable necessity of videogames, when no D&D-based game never felt the need for this type of immersion-breaking visual cue before.


Dude... you arnt even supposed to target them, there levels dont even matter...

Halsin was captured by a band of, granted absolute buffed, goblins hes not a fully fledged arch druid not even close.
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire

Dude... you arnt even supposed to target them, there levels dont even matter...

Except it does, PRECISELY because it's there.
If "level tags" for Larian are a fanciful misleading addition for the sake of it, it makes their existence even more inappropriate in terms of vibe, presentation and immersion.


Quote
Halsin was captured by a band of, granted absolute buffed, goblins hes not a fully fledged arch druid not even close.

But the game doesn't tell us that Halsin is stronger but crippled by the context.
It tells us he's a level five and if anything when he joins us his fighting capabilities are even subpar for the the expectations this would set.
Hell, the poor Christ can literally die after you freed him and he's "going back to the grove" because he turns into a mouse with 1 HP or so, walks on a fire surface and *PUFF*: here's a druid corpse and a failed quest.
I understand why they did this and I'm not a fan of this either. I would say having an option to hide those levels would be good indeed.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire

Dude... you arnt even supposed to target them, there levels dont even matter...

Except it does, PRECISELY because it's there.
If "level tags" for Larian are a fanciful misleading addition for the sake of it, it makes their existence even more inappropriate in terms of vibe, presentation and immersion.


Quote
Halsin was captured by a band of, granted absolute buffed, goblins hes not a fully fledged arch druid not even close.

But the game doesn't tell us that Halsin is stronger but crippled by the context.
It tells us he's a level five and if anything when he joins us his fighting capabilities are even subpar for the the expectations this would set.
Hell, the poor Christ can literally die after you freed him and he's "going back to the grove" because he turns into a mouse with 1 HP or so, walks on a fire surface and *PUFF*: here's a druid corpse and a failed quest.


But again you arnt even supposed to see those level tages, you only do if you cheese it. and if were talking about immersion levels should be hidden entirely.

He wouldn't have been captured in the first place if he was stronger. Hes clearly not a powerful apex druid, especially considering how messed up the grove is. We can see from he notes he called for help but no one came, and he lie to Kagha about the tadpoles because he was afraid of the reaction, he and that entire druid circle are weak, its why the grove is soo messed up when we get there.
I have the impression that the levels aren't doing anything at the moment. They might as well be removed.
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire

But again you arnt even supposed to see those level tages, you only do if you cheese


Oh, sure, at least if we count "clicking on it and seeing what the GAME UI CLEARLY TELLS YOU" as "cheese".
I feel like you are being petulant for the sake of it and purposefully ignoring what the problem is, frankly.
You also seem to assume we can happily ignore this because it's not a problem that will repeat itself over and over across the entire game (if not addressed immediately) which is highly unlikely.

If it's there at the beginning chances are it will be everywhere else in the game. Unless they acknowledge it now.
You know, that old argument about how problems become more costly to fix the longer you ignore them.
This issue alone really makes me question whether they ever even played dnd. Dragons are end game encounters not trash mobs
Originally Posted by wpmaura
This issue alone really makes me question whether they ever even played dnd. Dragons are end game encounters not trash mobs


Have you ever played DnD? Dragons Endgame encounters?! Don't make me laugh.

Ancient Dragons are around CR20. Even that isn't endgame content alone. (Well maybe in BG3 if they have a level cap at around 10)

Adult Dragons are around CR15. This is something I'd pit against a party of around level 6-10.

Young Dragons are around CR10, and perfect bosses for parties of level 3-5.

Wyrmlings are around CR5 and not uncommon to encounter at lvl 1 or 2. (Even in official DnD Modules)



So no, Dragons aren't supposed to be a rare thing you only fight at the end of the game. The game is called Dungeons and DRAGONS, you are meant to encounter dragons.
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by wpmaura
This issue alone really makes me question whether they ever even played dnd. Dragons are end game encounters not trash mobs


Have you ever played DnD? Dragons Endgame encounters?! Don't make me laugh.
Ancient Dragons are around CR20. Even that isn't endgame content alone. (Well maybe in BG3 if they have a level cap at around 10)
Adult Dragons are around CR15. This is something I'd pit against a party of around level 6-10.
Young Dragons are around CR10, and perfect bosses for parties of level 3-5.
Wyrmlings are around CR5 and not uncommon to encounter at lvl 1 or 2. (Even in official DnD Modules)


So no, Dragons aren't supposed to be a rare thing you only fight at the end of the game. The game is called Dungeons and DRAGONS, you are meant to encounter dragons.

Considering that level 10 was supposed to be the level cap of this game (and just recently they said it will probably go above that, but we don't know to what extent) I'd say that you just made his argument for him.
Facing adult red dragons is *exactly* supposed to be "end game" stuff.

Anyway, arguing about the specific level tier ideal for a single encounter is a bit beyond the point of this thread, so not sure why are we even moving in that direction now.
First of all, +1.
I completely agree that several existing creatures and their respective level make no sense whatsoever. Showing the levels is also dumb. Even the HP I think should not be visible, or the stats for that matter. At most hp and stats could be made known to the player after some sort of nature check or whatever appropriate skill. An example of this is finding the hag in the middle of the thiefling camp. "oh look, a brittle old lady that has 10 times the amount of hp of everyone else here...".

It's pretty clear at this point that Larian is just doing what they did in their previous games which is completely inadequate here. It's sad and it shows a lot.
Originally Posted by azarhal
I suspect Larian is using levels for all the RPG gamers out there who need to know how awesome they are for having beating a level X creature. The creature levels do not match with their D&D CR, so it's pointless information, even more when they buffed certain creatures anyway.

For example, Haslin is not a level 5 druid. He can cast spells while transformed into a bear, that means he is at least level 18th. His HP match a level 18 druid too. You can take have him as a temporary companion to clear the goblins. I suspect many people would complaining if he read Level 18 or CR 18 instead of just level 5.

No, no. level 18 is when you can cast spells while transformed by beer. Otherwise spot on.
You arnt supposed to click on them, you can only do it if you deliberately intend too, you are supposed to run in blindly like you don't know what's coming and let the in game cinematics play.
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
You arnt supposed to click on them, you can only do it if you deliberately intend too, you are supposed to run in blindly like you don't know what's coming and let the in game cinematics play.


If you aren't intended to click on them, then why have the level info on there? Info that is shown, is shown so that it can be seen. Simple logic. If you aren't intended to know the level of a monster, don't put it there to be seen. We don't need to know the levels anyway, especially if the level is ridiculous like it is here.


Githyanki ride young red dragons, not adults, but it still seems very out of place to see low level dragons. They're supposed to be these epic monsters after all.
Because they have to be placed into the game to be in an in game cinematic,
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
Because they have to be placed into the game to be in an in game cinematic,


You misunderstand. Why is the _level_shown, if it isn't intended to be seen? The monster being placed into the game is great, showing a way too low seeming lvl number for it isn't.
He'll just tell you again that it's your fault and you are "cheesing" the game if you are targeting a monster on screen. That appears in the game twice. At different levels every time.
So much cheese.

Basically we are goin to play r/Baldurgate3 and throw on the table any sort of stupid excuse, ranging from "it doesn't really matter" to "it's actually YOUR fault for looking" rather than admitting that MAYBE Larian didn't really think this through and they probably should address it for consistency.
I think it is fine - I often tweak monsters to fit the level of the party. Either to make a fun encounter or to fit the theme in the campaign.

Maybe not a dragon - but even then you can always throw an "injured" one for the party to fight. Because why not have a early party fight a creature that is in the game name.

Not every high CR enemy needs to be a BBEG for the party, sometimes you just want to give them a cool fight.
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I think it is fine - I often tweak monsters to fit the level of the party.

I don't think it is and I would despise my DM for condescendingly giving me a fight with a dragon at level 4 (or 6) just to make me feel good about myself, but then again giving the players a fight is not exactly the point of the thread.

The issue is the consistency of the presentation. Every time you have an adult red dragon in the game, it should be an adult red dragon, period. It shouldn't come in a dozen of scaled variants to fit whatever level the party is at a given moment.

And yes, crippling a monster to make it less challenging than it should be on the contrary can be a legitimate idea for an encounter, as long as the game acknowledges the difference explicitly and I don't have to make up a shitty fanfiction in my head to justify it.
I see someone has never played Forge of Fury
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I think it is fine - I often tweak monsters to fit the level of the party.

I don't think it is and I would despise my DM for condescendingly giving me a fight with a dragon at level 4 (or 6) just to make me feel good about myself, but then again giving the players a fight is not exactly the point of the thread.


Why condescendingly - I do it to make a fun and interesting encounter. I'd suggest you try it some time - it really makes the game more fun and also helps avoid metagaming if you have players that are prone to doing that. Just last week I threw a modified Shambling Mound at a first level party which was a lot of fun for everyone involved.

Originally Posted by Tuco

The issue is the consistency of the presentation. Every time you have an adult red dragon in the game, it should be an adult red dragon, period.


I am not sure what you mean. If you are saying that every adult dragon should have the same stat block then I disagree - frankly it makes little sense considering dragons gain power throughout their lifetime. I'd rule that an adult dragon aged 101 is weaker than 800 year old.
Originally Posted by Eugerome


I am not sure what you mean.

I mean that unless you have an exceptional anomaly at hand, (which at that point should be clearly marked as one), a notable outlier (i.e. a magically mutated troll, way bigger and stronger than normal for plot reasons), creatures of the same type should have the same range of threat and be consistent across the game.
And there's a name for considerably older adult dragons, anyway, which is ancient dragons.

The idea that you can cross the same type of creature all across a campaign, all the way from level 2 to 20, and it keeps appearing buffed to match your party is garbage in terms of immersion and mechanics.
Conversely, even without meaningful stat changes, the idea that every time you move in a new area all creatures and critters are labeled with the level of that area (something that DOS 1 and 2 did in spades, with even rabbit and mice ranking level 17 outside of Arx) is also garbage.
"Bu-but level 17 rabbits and mice still had very few HP and died with a single hit". Precisely, which makes the fact that they had level tag even more pointless. A shitty, immersion-breaking, "gamey" expedient to railroad the player and break the illusion of being in the middle of a true adventure, rather than in a crappy level-gated MMO starting area.




Originally Posted by Lightzy
Haven't reached a dragon yet but it would be insane dumb if u went against a red dragon (the strongest of chromatic dragons) at level 4. Or even at level 10


LOL.. might want to check your monster manual. Red Dragons come in CR4 (medium) and 10 (larg) varieties. Meaning they are a speedbump encounter for a party of that level, and easily handled below that with some prep. D&D has always been like this. Check out the low HP on a 1st edition dragon then imagine it getting wailed on by a fighter for 3d6+strength+magic+specialization at 2+ attacks per round and tell me they are "end game". DragonS (plural) are mid to endgame.
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by Lightzy
Haven't reached a dragon yet but it would be insane dumb if u went against a red dragon (the strongest of chromatic dragons) at level 4. Or even at level 10


LOL.. might want to check your monster manual. Red Dragons come in CR4 and 10 varieties. Meaning they are a speedbump encounter for a party of that level.


I think he means that out of the chromatic dragon types, Reds are the highest CR of the 5. So, if youre looking at all ancients, the Reds are the harder ones.

That being said, its a pretty minor difference and not particularly worth noting as any young is killable by a level 4 party and the Gith don't fly adults. So its a reasonable dragon to have. Its just leveled to 4 and has weird stats, which is the more annoying issues. People tend to inflate the danger of ANY dragon. Theyre tough, and definitely a "fuck, I have to fight a dragon" moments, but by level 5 you can take one without worrying too much. 4 is pretty hard to do, but it is technically possible depending on the group.
Originally Posted by Tuco

The idea that you can cross the same type of creature all across a campaign, all the way from level 2 to 20, and it keeps appearing buffed to match your party is garbage in terms of immersion and mechanics.


I am pretty sure you would be ok fighting humanoid NPC both at level 2 and level 20. Why aren't you ok fighting monsters that scale.

Hell, we even have monster races in 5e - there can be a goblin/kobold/etc PC that is way beyond the level of any Monster Manual counterpart.

Why can't the same apply to monsters?
Originally Posted by Eugerome

I am pretty sure you would be ok fighting humanoid NPC both at level 2 and level 20. Why aren't you ok fighting monsters that scale.


Because playable humanoid races are SUPPOSED to cover the entire range of power in the scale, from the common villager to the legendary hero or the ascending demigod, while monsters are supposed to have their own consistent level of threat and that consistency is important for the believability of the setting.

Also, there's a reason if the thread opens mentioning the bad examples of one... well ,no, actually TWO under-leveled archdruids: because consistence between what you tell to the player and what you put in front of them is important even for humanoids.
Don't bring the Big Bad and Dark Lord down to level 3 so my party can face him early in the story. Give me the brigand leader as a villain appropriate to my presumed level of competence and leave the Dark Lord for when I'll be badass enough.

...Which are all things we already discussed, by the way. But since the same objections keep being made I think it's my right to repeat myself to answer.

Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Eugerome

I am pretty sure you would be ok fighting humanoid NPC both at level 2 and level 20. Why aren't you ok fighting monsters that scale.


Because playable humanoid races are SUPPOSED to cover the entire range of power in the scale, from the common villager to the legendary hero or the ascending demigod, while monsters are supposed to have their own consistent level of threat and that consistency is important for the believability of the setting.


Who said that monsters are "supposed" to be consistent? Even the monster manual says that "you can do with these monsters what you will" - the stat blocks are clearly more of guidelines that set in stone truths.

I for one think not modifying monsters detracts from the believability - so the party's fighter can hit the gym hard enough that he can take on a Fire Giant one-on-one, but not a single Fire Giant can go above or below his stat block in the Monster Manual?
I'd be fine with same enemies of different power levels if there were visual differences between them.

An example that's been discussed is Young (CR 10), Adult (CR 17), and Ancient (CR 24) Red Dragons. In reality, these are all the same monsters: a Red Dragon. The only difference is age. I could easily see adding a couple more categories between those listed (Baby, Young, Mature, Adult, Elder, Ancient) for CRs 3, 6, 10, 14, 17, and 24.

Give a 10-year old Young Dragon (adjusted to be CR~6) less spikes, make it smaller, give it a less intense color of red along with its lowered stats.
Give an 70-year old Mature Dragon (CR 10, same stats as MHB's Young Dragon) bigger wings, sharper features, and change it's name to "Mature Young Dragon" or "Adolescent Dragon" or something like that.

For humans, it is much harder to make humans look different, especially since human power doesn't perfectly scale with age. A 30-year old human can easily be a Commoner or a Level 20 Barbarian. For humans, titles are much more important and I agree that we shouldn't find level 4 and 18 "Archdruids"
Originally Posted by Eugerome

Who said that monsters are "supposed" to be consistent

I'm saying it, OK?
Since at this point you clearly just want to be fastidious and petulant I'll feel in the right to be dismissive about it.

And I'm saying it because that consistency is important in making them believable. When my party will spot for the first time a couple of trolls, I want to know that these are real trolls, not their gimped parody. And every time I'll fight trolls after that, I want a finger on the pulse of what I can expect. Up until the point my men will walk through them as if they were barely a worry. Bbecause that's what makes them feel like part of the fictional world rather than some World of Warcraft autoscaled bullshit that keeps appearing from level 1 in the newbie area up to level 100 in the epic expansion.

And I don't want to fucking see a single level tag, because when I see "troll" or "Direwolf" or "Golem" I want to know what it means by first hand experience, not numbered tags.
That's how the old games always sold the illusion of playing a D&D campaign in a computer game, why this one should feel the need to be the one that changes things?

Quote
I'd be fine with same enemies of different power levels if there were visual differences between them.

That's a different story. A visual difference, or a plot reason to be different than average, makes them effectively different monsters.
Which is acceptable... if done with moderation and not abused (i.e. there are only so many types of wolves of increasing difficulty you can digest before being fucking fed up with them).







Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Eugerome

I am pretty sure you would be ok fighting humanoid NPC both at level 2 and level 20. Why aren't you ok fighting monsters that scale.


Because playable humanoid races are SUPPOSED to cover the entire range of power in the scale, from the common villager to the legendary hero or the ascending demigod, while monsters are supposed to have their own consistent level of threat and that consistency is important for the believability of the setting.


Who said that monsters are "supposed" to be consistent? Even the monster manual says that "you can do with these monsters what you will" - the stat blocks are clearly more of guidelines that set in stone truths.

I for one think not modifying monsters detracts from the believability - so the party's fighter can hit the gym hard enough that he can take on a Fire Giant one-on-one, but not a single Fire Giant can go above or below his stat block in the Monster Manual?


So, the arguments that quote the book saying that the rules dont dictate the game, there are guidelines, and DMs are ultimately in control of the world are not justifications for pushing the books off the table, placing Han Solo and Chewbacca on the table and say that youre running a modified version of 5e that more closely resembles Edge of the Empire than D&D because, hey! the book said DMs can do that!

Its usually better to just debate the merit of keeping or changing the rules than gesturing vaguely into the sky and saying "change is technically ok, so..." and then trailing off without a real point.
Originally Posted by Tuco

And I'm saying it because that consistency is important in making them believable. When my party will spot for the first time a couple of trolls, I want to know that these are real trolls, not their gimped parody.


So you are saying only WotC can decide how strong trolls are in all DnD games are and deviating from that is bad?
Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by Tuco

And I'm saying it because that consistency is important in making them believable. When my party will spot for the first time a couple of trolls, I want to know that these are real trolls, not their gimped parody.


So you are saying only WotC can decide how strong trolls are in all DnD games are and deviating from that is bad?


Are you saying that anyone can decide how strong trolls are in all D&D games and that deviating them from is good? Make a point man, quit setting up straw man arguments.
Originally Posted by Eugerome

So you are saying only WotC can decide how strong trolls are in all DnD games are and deviating from that is bad?


I'm saying that once you define what is a troll, that should be consistent across the entire game.
Sticking faithfully to the official source is not a concern of mine, but then again if you are going to make arbitrary changes about it, better to have a fucking good reason.


Anyway, I'm honestly starting to wonder if you even have a proper point or if as I said you are just being petulant for the sake of it.

What's your end game exactly? Do you have ANY good reason to defend the two aspects criticized here? Which as a quick reminder are respectively:

1) inconsistent representation that leads to an incoherent mismatch between what the game tells and what the game shows
2) unnecessary transparent numbers that feel "gamey" and serve virtually no purpose aside from breaking immersion (and apparently mislead people, too).

Mh?
Do you? Because if that's the case I haven't heard it yet.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by Tuco

And I'm saying it because that consistency is important in making them believable. When my party will spot for the first time a couple of trolls, I want to know that these are real trolls, not their gimped parody.


So you are saying only WotC can decide how strong trolls are in all DnD games are and deviating from that is bad?


Are you saying that anyone can decide how strong trolls are in all D&D games and that deviating them from is good? Make a point man, quit setting up straw man arguments.


I am saying that as a DM I can scale trolls whichever way I like in a 5e game, and I don't see why Larian shouldn't do so in BG3.
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I am saying that as a DM I can scale trolls whichever way I like in a 5e game, and I don't see why Larian shouldn't do so in BG3.

In your games, do you include trolls that you've adjusted to be CR 1 and trolls that you've adjusted to be CR 10 in your game, without changing how you describe such a troll to your players?

As a player at very least I'd want a different description: "This troll is much larger than you faced, standing 3 feet taller, has bigger muscles, and better armor compared to past trolls you've faced." Else I would be very surprised when a troll that once did 1d8+7 damage is now doing 3d8+15

Similarly, if Larian wants to include red dragons for us to face at party levels 4 and 10, they should distinguish them by more than just HP.
Originally Posted by Tuco

What's your end game exactly? Do you have ANY good reason to defend the two aspects criticized here? Which as a quick reminder are respectively:

1) inconsistent representation that leads to an incoherent mismatch between what the game tells and what the game shows
2) unnecessary transparent numbers that feel "gamey" and serve virtually no purpose aside from breaking immersion (and apparently mislead people, too).



1) I don't see that there is a problem with inconsistent representation, because I don't agree idea that once a monster stat block is defined once it cannot be changed.
2) They do feel "gamey", but they serve a purpose to indicate the threat the enemy poses. Particularly to people who never played DnD 5e and don't want to read the Monster Manual to figure out if they should start a fight with a group of monsters.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I am saying that as a DM I can scale trolls whichever way I like in a 5e game, and I don't see why Larian shouldn't do so in BG3.

In your games, do you include trolls that you've adjusted to be CR 1 and trolls that you've adjusted to be CR 10 in your game, without changing how you describe such a troll to your players?

As a player at very least I'd want a different description: "This troll is much larger than you faced, standing 3 feet taller, has bigger muscles, and better armor compared to past trolls you've faced." Else I would be very surprised when a troll that once did 1d8+7 damage is now doing 3d8+15

Similarly, if Larian wants to include red dragons for us to face at party levels 4 and 10, they should distinguish them by more than just HP.


Yes, I do describe them differently, but for me this comes at no extra cost. If I had to spend money to create new textures/models for each monster I mod I would resort to levelling monsters, which is exactly what we see.
Originally Posted by Eugerome
1) I don't see that there is a problem with inconsistent representation, because I don't agree idea that once a monster stat block is defined once it cannot be changed.
2) They do feel "gamey", but they serve a purpose to indicate the threat the enemy poses. Particularly to people who never played DnD 5e and don't want to read the Monster Manual to figure out if they should start a fight with a group of monsters.



1) Oh well, then we have literally nothing to agree on, because I will die on this hill and I will always despise a master/game designer breaking this internal consistency.
2) I simply can't accept excuses like "they serve the purpose" or "they are a necessary evil" or whatever bullshit variation on the theme, because they all simply ignore the fact that we have more than 30 years of computer adaptations for D&D that never made this a necessity.

If we were taking a stab in the dark, wondering what could work and what not... But we are not. We have countless examples of games that did not mark levels on their creatures and they were all better for it.








Originally Posted by Eugerome
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
In your games, do you include trolls that you've adjusted to be CR 1 and trolls that you've adjusted to be CR 10 in your game, without changing how you describe such a troll to your players? *snip*
Yes, I do describe them differently, but for me this comes at no extra cost. If I had to spend money to create new textures/models for each monster I mod I would resort to levelling monsters, which is exactly what we see.

Reasonable point: it does cost resources. Then my preference would tend toward just using different (already modeled) monsters for that encounter. Instead of an under-leveled troll, they use gnolls or an ogre or some other creature they've included somewhere else in the game.

Failing that, at the absolute minimum, I'd like different names. (Troll Commander, Young vs Old Mindflayer, etc). That would add more memorability to encounters than "level 10 troll"
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Eugerome
1) I don't see that there is a problem with inconsistent representation, because I don't agree idea that once a monster stat block is defined once it cannot be changed.
2) They do feel "gamey", but they serve a purpose to indicate the threat the enemy poses. Particularly to people who never played DnD 5e and don't want to read the Monster Manual to figure out if they should start a fight with a group of monsters.



1) Oh well, then we have literally nothing to agree on, because I will die on this hill and I will always despise a master/game designer breaking this internal consistency.
2) I simply can't accept excuses like "they serve the purpose" or "they are a necessary evil" or whatever bullshit variation on the theme, because they all simply ignore the fact that we have more than 30 years of computer adaptations for D&D that never made this a necessity.

If we were taking a stab in the dark, wondering what could work and what not... But we are not. We have countless examples of games that did not mark levels on their creatures and they were all better for it.



The only changes I make when I am DMing is kobolds are throughout the region but youre leveling at the same time. I'll just add 1d6 poison or something to their attacks and you'll start finding they use poison or fire, and the AC / HP may have been bumped but its clear youre in a new region, new tribe, they look different and wear leather instead of just being bare chested, stuff like that. Overall, though, it is what it is and changes are made from the base and it's clear when its an uber troll for a boss. CR Tables are just generally used as they are more than adequate to handle necessary increased in enemy lethality. If the entire campaign is kobolds that makes it hard. I, however, have NEVER run into a situation where I was unable to use the MM et al to create justifiable environments and inhabitants in full accordance to the books and players can metagame if they want, its still going to be a hard fight. Making a habit of modifying creatures is unnecessary work and your efforts are usually better spent dedicated to make the encounter interesting as opposed to giving a troll 50 more hp to drag it out longer.
+1. Also why level 5 Druid can cast spells in wild form if that is level 18th druid trait. So is it level 5 druid or 18.

This game is so messed up. It's not DnD at all.
Feel like I fall somewhere in the middle here. I definitely believe there should be a sense of progression and accomplishment, and thus just "down-leveling" every monster to be able to be killed by the party at any time feels a bit like a cop-out. Nothing has made me bored with RPGs (e.g. TES4/5, ME, Dragon Age, so on) quicker than feeling like every battle is the same but with palette-swapped enemies. Occasionally the story can override that feeling, but I don't think a party-based RPG will ever be so immersive that combat can be mostly ignored in that way.

Beyond that, I feel it kind of sucks because it takes away some of the potential variety in a playthrough. If you're immediately fighting all the "cool" and showy late-adventure monsters, what really do you have to work up to? It seems like the MM is large enough to circumvent this, but it is a thought that crossed my mind given how horrendously this has been applied to other examples in the genre. I also don't love the barrelmancy/hoardermancy stuff. There's way too much dependency on surface and environmental effects and it really does make BG3 too "game-y" by a half. For comparison, I was playing Solasta today and even though it's a lot rougher in terms of the shiny stuff, I found combat to be a lot more enjoyable.

That said, I also don't think things should be made difficult for the sake of it. The reason QoL adjustments have been so prevalent across the video game world is because gaming is now a mainstream hobby/interest. Most people don't want to go diving through manuals or the internet to figure out the minutia of a system like I did 15-20 years ago. And, honestly, sometimes I don't really want that either. The problem becomes how to balance QoL and a sense of challenge and "discovery," so to speak. Naturally some things will be sacrificed. If you balance/design the game around the fact that players will know creature levels beforehand, then it doesn't make a bunch of sense to plow resources into making sure every encounter has enough visual/cinematic cues to make it apparent (to people who are just casual gamers/don't have the background D&D knowledge) what is and isn't a challenging encounter. If you design it the other way, you're naturally going to be losing something somewhere else.

I'm also not sure that there is a perfect marriage of the two. If you make level indicators toggleable, it's quite likely you'll be sacrificing some of the work on visual cues and so really it'll just be a tacked-on feature for the hardcore set. I find myself gravitating toward this option but I also hate features that are just plopped on top of a finished product instead of carefully designed to fit with the rest of the game.

This feels rambly, but yeah. I think it'll be interesting to see if Larian can find a happy medium or if this is going to end up being a case where by trying to satisfy too many preferences you end up with something that's not great for anyone.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

Some type of "enemy danger indicator" is a must, especially for people not familiar with d&d and typical monster difficulties. I agree that this doesn't necessarily have to be a level indicator. But I worry your suggestion could be difficult to implement...could you tell the difference between a level 7 vs 17 fighter from a cutscene?

I strongly disagree. Let the context suggest which characters should be a poor idea to cross. And let the player pay the price if he goes out of his way to ignore the warning signs.

It worked flawlessly for years. Not sure why D/D would now suddenly need to flag enemies by levels.



100%
Originally Posted by Ole Draco
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

Some type of "enemy danger indicator" is a must, especially for people not familiar with d&d and typical monster difficulties. I agree that this doesn't necessarily have to be a level indicator. But I worry your suggestion could be difficult to implement...could you tell the difference between a level 7 vs 17 fighter from a cutscene?

I strongly disagree. Let the context suggest which characters should be a poor idea to cross. And let the player pay the price if he goes out of his way to ignore the warning signs.
It worked flawlessly for years. Not sure why D/D would now suddenly need to flag enemies by levels.

100%

Yo that quote is like 4 pages old. Since then I've become more convinced that an "enemy danger indicator" isn't necessary (on low difficulties it probably should be there: why not?)

BUT. A level indicator is necessary if there are no graphical differences between a "level 4" red dragon and a "level 15" red dragon. If, as I said in more recent posts, stronger red dragons look different and/or have different names, then that's enough of a signal to the player.

Again, D&D works because the stats of monsters don't change between encounters, and if they do, the DM tells you "this monster looks stronger, meaner, etc"
© Larian Studios forums