Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Are Three Levels Enough for Any CRPG or RPG?

>Spelljammer twitch stream
i dont think thats a particulary good source for ADnD.
I know people that regulary play ADnD and theyre of the level 1 human male fighter only final destination type.

BG2 is a sequal. With a tighter story.
Thats why poeple loved it.
Most people that obsess over high level wizard stuff learned it from BG2, not the other way around.
its associated with BG2.

>WOTR
a campaign specifically about this.
you forget that kingmaker started you at level 1 fighting bandits a lot.
most RPG players enjoy a growht in power, which comes from starting low.

DnD has a lot of measures for how fast your character can grow. Pathfider kingmaker is a much more systematic game than BG3 is. the encoutners are repeated and the game taeksplace over a long (in universe) timeframe.
Thats why you can reasonably hit a high level without the game artificially inflating your XP gain.

>Stronger spells stronger enemies stronger...
Yeah. Stronger.
i fail to see the reason why this is supposedly better.
Unless you care about high level wizard wank which i dont.
I care about mid level DnD where the party has to work together.

Your entire argument builds on the assumption that someone else enjoys exactly that kinda gameplay you do.

Which most people agree. BG2 has better user and game journalists reviews in all platforms.

NOTE : 90s/earlier 00s journalists aren't the retarded 2020 journalists;



This is the most boring racial/class combo. According to pools that I saw, the most popular 2e class is Paladin.



But if you are soloing or with a small party, you can reach mid level on chapter 1. And the game becomes better when you start fighting trolls and exponentially better when you start fighting undead cyclops.



And 5e high level spells are trash. Compare Finger of Death which can OHK enemies on 2e/3.5e with the awful 7d8 + 30 necrotic damage in 5e FoD in a game where monsters has dozens of more hp than 2e...

However, the same applies to enemies. Liches are no longer a threat to even a mid level party.

the point about ADnD i was making is that anecdotal evidence isnt sufficint proof of anything.
>when pathfinder becomes good
exactly, mid game.
and then it becomes tedious on the very high levels.

>Spells are trash, numbers
and i fundamentally disagree with you. Your opinion isnt a fact.

Finger of death is a crap spell in either edition. its boring, its tactically irrelevant.
Ill take any Battlemaster maneuver over any iteration of this, or several other high level spells.

You seem to enjoy D&D as a war gaming, not as a role playing game. The power to end someone's life exists in so many works of fiction, including Harry Potter. What is the problem of a game trying to replicate spells from literature into game mechanics to have save or die spells?

Roleplaying comes from interactions with the world.

I can also end someones life by stabbing him in the guts.

Doing so in a way that is mecahnically interresting is far more stimulating to be than a diceroll or the lack of one.

I think you misunderstood. I am not interested in debating which one is better.

My "even so" was aimed at @SorcererVictor. Meaning: "Even if BG2 is the better one (which is up for the debate, in which I have no interest of having though personally I prefer BG2) it builds on BG1 in many more ways, then just having a higher level cap".

Some Low level adventures I played were fun if they give you plenty to do with the skills you have at your disposal at your level: options to roleplay, interactions with the environment, opportunities for caster classes, sneaky classes, diplomatic classes, or brawling classes to shine, lands to explore, loot to find, etc.

Honestly the only campaigns we reached epic levels in D&D or we used mythic paths in PF we started at high levels already or they`re oneshots just to kill a Tarrasque or be wiped out by a Great Old One in PF, with high-level, fully equipped characters.

People I know, we all go for low-to-mid level stuff.

It´s different in videogames, of course. Sandbox-y games would have to rely a lot in level progression and looting because you have little to do besides combat and follow a story to tie the combats. But I do not think that would be the case of BG3

Right now we know we could use stealth, speak with the dead, use animal handling, summon an improved familiar, destroy walls, use fire, etc... So I think there´s going to be lots of things to do that do not rely on your level, so I think the game could be fun for low-level character progression.

D&D never had good martial rules. However, a assassin can dish a lot of damage on his backstab.

That said, I would prefer a WoD approach over a 4e approach to the caster/non caster imbalance. What I mean by WoD approach? Simple. Mages and Werewolves are extremely stronger than Vampires. So, there are campaigns for vampires, campaign for mages(mage the ascension) and campaigns for werewolves. Tremere, the vampires which are the closest to magicians are still extremely weaker mainly when separated from their clan if compared to a mage. Is not a perfect solution, but is far less awful than 4e approach IE - everything is just a reskin of fighter.

Making iconic spells based on Jack Vance's novel very lackluster is sad too. And note that back on 2e, the most popular class was Paladin. Not mage, nor fighter. And Paladins on 2e only start to be able to cast spells at lv 9.



In video games, almost everyone prefer BG2 over BG1. Almost everyone prefer HotU over NWN1's OC. Almost everyone prefer MotB over NWN2 OC.

And note that on OC of nwn1/2, you reach lv 10 in a mater of few hours.

Fair enough. I am of those who prefer BG1 (and I know Im not alone) because of that sense of danger of being a new adventurer, with little ressource and always having to be careful (as demonstrated by Sven) and the fear that you can die at the hands of gibberlings. Everything you find, every bit of XP, that shiny new +1 weapon, the first time you get a plate armor, you know it counts. Thats what I loved about BG1, the beginning of a grand adventure. It looks like Larian is going for that and, from the looks of it, I think they will nail it.

Cheers

Yes, the first set of plate mail in BG I was a milestone ... then you have to decide who gets it, Jaheira or Khalid?

I just checked on eBay, and you can get a set of plate for about $700. It comes from India, but fortunately shipping is free. Things are so much easier now than they were back in the Sword Coast days.

Bah! Unless, it's magical I am not interested.

All true. Cash is tight at start so every pelt counts. Like yourself I think both games express each stage properly. BG1 breaking weapons and open areas are fun for low level (encountering actual hostile party of adventurers feels like a challenge), while BG2 magical gear, more adventurous adventures and less traveling more heroing works for more experienced and established party. Being mostly story guy, I just found BG2 more engaging, especially that companions talk more.

I used to hate the idea of the level cap being only ten but from what I have seen of the talk with the dead spell I have no problem with BG3 having a cap level of ten so long as we get more spells like talk with the dead you won't get any complaints from me

And you start BG1 killing rats on Candlekeep. BG2, you start escaping a mad scientist dungeon.

On 2e, Necromancer specialized wizards only gets animate dead at lv 9. Invoker mages only get fireball at lv 5. I an not talking about wish/stop time/chain contingency/meteor swarm. I an talking about the signature low/mid level spell for those specialist mages. Nobody picks necromancer specialization on BG1, however, on BG2, a lot of people pick and IMO is the best specialization to solo on Legacy of Bhaal(EE only).

That´s true, but generally speaking low level characters in previous versions of D&D (2e, 3, 3.5...) were less effective. In 5e you get several useful abilities and pick your subclass at levels 1-3 that would add even more.
You do not have a narrow weapon choices, you also add your proficiency to your attack rolls and you add your dex to ranged weapons` damage , so you do not rely on the enchantment of your weapons and could deal steady damage. Low level characters in 5e are pretty strong in comparison so maybe a low-level campaign would not be a problem.

Is not only old school D&D who has amazing spells.

M&M 8 Gran Master dark magic spell.


Even the most basic Dark Magic spell, which every necromancer starts, Toxic Cloud, deals 25 + d10 damage per skill level and a high level lich can cast it 10 times per rest. Dragon's Breath, a master dark magic spell deals AoE d25 / skill level damage. Sharpmetal throws 9 fragments at gran master level, each one dealing d6 damage / level. Reanimate can reanimate even dragons at end game to serve you. And this only looking into dark magic. Water magic can teleport, recharge wands, allow you to walk on water, air magic allow you to fly and become invisible, and this looking only into utility of elemental damage.

VtMB Thaumaturgy/Blood Sorcery allow you to not only OHK enemies but also deal colossal damage on nearby enemy by transforming the enemy into a blood grenade



Even Gothic 1, a game which many people say that is hard to be a magician, has relative strong spells. But not as D&D/M&M exactly because Gothic is a lower magical setting. Not low magical setting like Conan BTW



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

With lv 4 is not that you will not see amazing spells like above. Is that you will not even see a single fireball. The most iconic D&D low level spell. Can you imagine if on Fallout New Vegas, you could only use a .38 special revover?

"no, but is only EA, on final game you can get a 556 rifle, but we will not include the coolest firearms in the game because we don't wanna someone with anti materiel rifle + explosive rounds blasting armored robots at 300m+ while a guy with a katana has a hard time, for the sake of balance, everyone needs to have only boring options"

I hear you. I'm way more of a story guy myself and companion interactions in BG2 are way better thats true. But I found the story of BG1 better and also liked Sarevok better than Irenecus, even if way less powerful. His visuals, his voice, the fact that he kills your father, you finding out that he's your brother. Everything is more personnal in BG1. While BG2 story is really good too, it is basically just a very powerful guy and his sister trying to steal something from you. The endgame is you trying to stop his scheme, wich has nothing to do with the bhaalspawns, from coming to fruition. Still cool, just less personnal.

I don't have anything against Sarevok himself, but I felt we don't see enough for him to really leave an impact. Similarly, the bhaalspawn reveal comes a bit too late into the story to be properly explored in terms of it's impact on our character.

As such, while our heritage might be a McGuffin for Irenicus it is not for us. And our relation with our heritage is explored further. As we get to see Irenicus act throughout the entire length of the game, he is properly set up, his character development foreshadowed, explored and payed off. As such he made a far more engaging villain with his own tragedy and motivation, while his actions allowed for our character to be explored (and he very much pushes our character to do so). Pressure Irenicus puts on the protagonist is far more substancial. I found capture of Imoen far more impactful then death of Gorion - afterall, Gorion's only job is to die, while Imoen is a party member, and returning character. As well as seeing what Irenicus is capable off and seeing his plans proceed was more effective to me, then dude in armor slashing grampa to bits and then disappearing for the majority of the game.

Again, none of it is a problem, as both games put side by side make a good continuation. Maybe pacing in BG1 could have been a bit better, but then again - debiut title. It seems to be an issue in nearly every freshman RPG - even by more experienced studios then Bioware was at the time.

Hey @Gt27mustang, between these two posts it's like you are a mirror image of me!
I completely agree. But unlike you, I'm not at all convinced Larian will get this right.

https://youtu.be/Tim5nU3DwIE