Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General So how's this going to work?

Is the entire world open to be travelled back and forth from, or will the game be divided into self contained maps like DOS2? It's very difficult to judge whether or not something is balanced when you don't know this. Take for example, Gnol Hunters. At level 4 they're barely doable. It takes extraordinary care, patience and no shortage of luck to survive the encounter because each has three attacks per turn, each attack doing between five and ten damage which means they can wipe your party out in a single round. But is this OP or is it designed that I'd head back this way at a higher level with better gear in the full release? Without knowing how this will work it's problematic making reasoned arguments for any feedback I'd want to pass back.

Everything past the bridge and in the underdark would probably be way more doable at level 5.

Considering you'll usually reach level 4 at the end of the goblins/druid/tiefflins quests, I guess that's how it's designed to be.
But to be honnest I think those encounters will be very easy at level 5^^

This will be hard to manage all along the game but it could become less a problem at higher level.
It will takes way more time to level up so we'll probably clean "a map" map with 2 or 3 levels rather than 5. This, only if they don't increase xp rewards to make us level up faster.

Yeah I think almost everything along the Risen Road is above the level we're able to reach in EA but have Larian indicated how the map will work? Is it open world of self contained maps, or do we not know that yet?

I understand that ACT I will be contained away from Act's II -IV - so you have to make some choices in ACT I and you don't return to that area after the fact.

However, everything is subject to change, but I think past the moonrise towers it will be hard to return to the earlier areas.

This is a fairly standard Larian design feature going back forever. That's not to say it won't change (and personally I hope it does; I like being able to go back to where I've been, even if "just because") but I would anticipate that's how it'll be.

Yes, I would like to be able to go back too. Even after being a bit worn out of the first area after my 10 or so playthroughs

I agree, I'd like them to reconsider that because it's an antiquated game design, it's all about open worlds these days. The problem is as I've said, the encounters must reflect the level you're likely to be when encountering them, so this then begs another question, if not for the cap, would it be possible to achieve higher than rank 4 in Act 1? There's no point in encounters that ideally need rank 6 or 7 to successfully combat if you can't revisit the area, but if, however you can achieve rank 6 before you leave then it makes sense. There needs to be clarification on this point because as I said, it makes feedback difficult. Are Gnolls OP or are Gnolls OP only because of the level cap, as an example? If Larian want us to provide detailed feedback we really need to understand the structure of the game.

Locking acts early on is a terrible idea; it creates a linear feel where you experience each ‘ride’ in the themepark and then move on, leaving behind an empty, lifeless world.

If you save a settlement for example, it’s nice to be able to revisit should you wish if only for RP reasons, such as with Trademeet in BG2. It makes the game world feel alive.

Yeah, sometimes it's important for RP, sometimes you want to go back and look at something you've forgotten, sometimes it's just fun. It's not even about grinding to "artificially" level up (scare quotes because it's like the objections to "save-scumming" in a single-player game - edit: and I know BG3 isn't strictly SP before someone points it out...) because that was already dealt with way back in Divinity 2 over 10 years ago, with memories of torrents of 0XP when I'd go and roast a bunch of annoying goblins as I was flying through the fjords. I'm still sore about Broken Valley and want to see Mended Valley, but I guess this is not the place for me to complain about it!

I think there are some parallels to be drawn with a common critique about World of Warcraft which currently has a level scaling feature so that all enemies are the same level as you, more or less. If you can't grow to out-level and overpower enemies, and go back to reflect on your growth, then growth becomes meaningless. Or at least feels less impactful. So I appreciate the dream of being able to return / travel in reverse in that sense, as it amplifies that RPG sense of growth and progress as a character. That'd be the argument I'd pitch anyway, if I was trying to convince someone.

It reminds me of the difference between Oblivion and Morrowind, which I played in reverse order. Oblivion's design took on board the criticism of Morrowind and did pretty rigorous level scaling and as a result was pretty accessible other than the "difficult teens", but ultimately it felt pointless for the reasons you stated. Morrowind had fixed (ish) levels and playing it after Oblivion I found out why there were complaints after getting pwned by the bad guys in the cave outside Seyda Neen, the rats at Balmora and so on and sulked about it for months. The Right Wayâ„¢ was somewhere in the middle which is what FCOM did to Oblivion, as I always end up prattling about as it really did change things for the better. I mean except for that time a witch somewhere around Lipsand Tarn chased me halfway across Cyrodiil before I managed to shake her off. Nutter.

But I mentioned Divinity 2 just now which I think did it right. Though I appreciated the rebalancing in DKS, the original release I think still holds the record for the number of times I've been pwned.

I certainly hope we will be able to get back ...
And i certainly hope our apsence will be noticeable.

For example:
If we decide (as good Githyanki, or as simple flat-nose sympathizer) to follow Lae'zels advice, and rush to the Creche ... meaning we will not helping Gobins, nor Tieflings, nor Druids in their conflict ...
I would like to get back later, and see some effect ... no matter, if Goblins will massacre the Groove without us, or if Druids will finish their evocation, or if Tieflings will now control whole area since they defeated both sides.

I just wish to see some consequences of our desicion to "stay out of it".

Is it really? Out of the few Larian games I've played, this was only a thing in DOS:2. You were allowed to go back to previous areas in D:OS1, and you also could in Divinity 2, although the earlier areas in the latter game became completely altered and couldn't be crossed on foot later on.

Whether it happens in BG3 or not is probably going to be a byproduct of the story progression and setting. DOS2's plot was anything but self contained, with transportation between all of the acts being done by boat. Right now, BG3 seems up in the air in comparison. Yet the idea that there are three distinct paths to get to Moonrise Tower (that are very likely to be mutually exclusive, I imagine progressing too far in one will cause certain events in the other paths to progress to a point where you're locked out of them), and that the only accessible path thus far forces us to take a boat in a very heavily implied 'point of no return' kind of way seems to suggest that we're most likely following a DOS2-style structure.

This isn't really a bad thing, so long as there's an actually good reason for it. Pathfinder WotR for instance has a lot of points of no return (more like you can't re-visit the end of chapter dungeons).

I'm fully expecting every one of the three major acts to be basically a self-contained "open world" isolated from the others.
Standard Larian design, basically.

Well this is sad.

BG3 Act 1 ends the same way the Act 1 of DOS2 ended. Dialogue box, ready check, advertisement.

The fact that Larian already said the Origin characters you do not take with you after Act 1 will not be playable after you leave for Moonrise (similar to DOS2), also confirms this. Once you depart for Moonrise, you will not return to this area and you will not be able to swap out to unused Origin characters.

Honestly, I really really really hope they change their minds about companions. It was the one thing I loathed in DOS2, them all dying cause they were not in my party at an arbitrary moment. And it'd be even worse with the party limit of 4 and if we do not get non-origin companions (which I really hope we do get non-origin companions that are not just the merc system of DOS2). The not being able to return to Acts thing I would be fine with except it goes against the design of BG cause the previous ones you could return to many locations or even use a location as your hub, so I hope in this one you will be allowed to return to past locations and travel through areas.

Has that been absolutely confirmed? What an awful decision if so.

Why take on one of the most lauded RPG series of all time if only to dispense with so much of what made those previous games so memorable.

I really, REALLY hope they reconsider this decision. They have spent so much time writing the origin companions, I have come to care about them and enjoy their developing stories, and look forward to all their personal quests. I wouldn't want to lose them past an arbitrary point-of-no-return! Especially if they die with no good explanation

Can you please link us to anything?
Since i have seen this speculation litteraly thousand times around here allready ... but never any source. O_o
And i was unable to find any on my own.