Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jul 2017
G
geala Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Jul 2017
Is something known about wether there will be restrictions for levels in the Acts 1 to 3 in the release version of the game? Or will there be partly restrictions? Or will enemies later in Act 1 be changed when higher levels are possible?

Recently I tried a mod which removes the level 4 restriction in the EA, and, to be honest, after getting to lvl 5 for the first time ever I tried the Githyanki fight which I always had avoided. Despite starting from the dialog and not from a higher position (so they had the initiative and immediately gutted Lae'zel and took the highground themselves by teleport, these villains) and using only lvl 1 and 2 spells for the casters and one action for my Fighter and Barbarian, the fight was a bit but not very difficult. Maybe because of the higher lvl 5 hp and dice probabilities? Had I used lvl 3 spells and the second actions for my melees, the fight would have been a breeze. Maybe it is not supposed to be difficult.

Nevertheless I fear that fights could get a bit too easy with higher levels at the later stages of Act 1. However I also don't want overly hard fights where you have to chease with stealth, positioning only known through failure (I don't like Souls games ...) or surface and barrel gameplay. On "Normal" (the EA difficulty, I presume) fights should be hard sometimes but manageable from the game flow, aka when attacked as group after dialog or during exploration.

Last edited by geala; 26/03/22 12:24 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Online Confused
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
I can't be bothered to look for exact quotes, so take it all with a grain of salt, but if my memory serves me well:

1) Yes, like D:OS2, BG3 is an act based games. So once you reach the end of act 1 in BG3 (assumingly Moonrise tower) you will move on to a new area (Baldur's Gate?)

2) There might be a hard or soft level cap per act. When asked about level 5 in EA during one of the Panels from Hell Sven said (paraphrasing): "It is still not decided if level 5 will be in Act1 or not. Keep asking and it may happen". The question was about Early Access though, so it is not clear if he meant adding it into early access (which is act1 content) or if its apperance in Early Access depends on Larian allowing players to reach level 5 in act 1 in 1.0 release. I didn't pay much attention to level progression in D:OS2 but I think someone mentioned that game had soft caps per act. Same could happen in BG3 - it makes sense with rigid act structure, that way you don't have to do everything to progress, but completionist won't be overleveled for all future content.

3) In very early pre-Early Access interview Larian representative said that we will be able to pick and choose companions during act 1, but have to commit after that: that could suggest potentially lossing "spare" companions sometime around completion of act1, like we did in D:OS2.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Exact quote:

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
(time: 2:09:55)

You welcome. smile


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Keep asking and it may happen:

Pretty please can we have level 5 in act 1?

Even better please no level capping by act at all...multi-class characters often lag behind compared to pure class.

While I prefer pure class characters in 5e for this reason, this is not a strict 5e rule set.

I find myself wanting to try some multi class combinations.


If your worried about the game being too easy, just add custom difficulty settings and features that automatically raise the level of adversaries according to player level.

This path will probably give you the best player satisfaction.

Sooo...Level Capping Sehr Schlecht!!!

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Honestly, I feel the level restrictions make more sense if you are tied to one path in the final game. Like. Go through the underdark or over land. But you cant do both. That way you wouldnt (or shouldnt) get enough XP to even reach those milestones. It would also mean were more 'rushed' if you will, but in the grand scheme of the game it makes sense.

For testing purposes though I would love to be able to check out lvl 5. I want to see the insane power of fireball (which is designed to be OP in DnD so it should be :D), I want to check out multi classing, I want to see fighters (and other classes) with multi attack etc. etc.

If were meant to help with balancing I feel lvl 5 and up is also part of that smile

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
As one person pointed out at one point, if you cap characters at a particular level per Act, then it totally discourages exploring the entire map. If I will cap at Level 4 in Act 1, that makes me feel like, "Why am I even trying to complete the surface map? In fact, I should have just run straight through the main mission skipping everything else because, frankly, I can reach the cap BEFORE I even get to the Underdark - let alone Moonrise Towers."

Now, you might say, "What if they lift the cap to Level 8 or something?"

Same potential. By the time I reach the Underdark, I should actually be at Level 5 for sure and potentially even Level 6. So, there's not much room to go from there all the way to Moonrise Towers.

So I'm against level capping just because it feels like players are getting cheated out of rewards. One of the main things players love in D&D is to be rewarded with XP, level ups, items, gold, fame, etc. If you take away awards, you make players feel slighted and robbed.

Shoot! I already feel cheated in EA, and I know it's EA so it makes sense to cap at Level 5. But seriously, my motivation to even continue the game after I am capped at Level 5 starts to drop for me. I'm like, "Well heck. What am I building up towards now? I have a ton of items and weapons and equipment - the best in the game so far. So I don't really need any additional items. I've got WAY more than enough. And now I have nowhere to go with levels and increasing my characters' abilities." I can't even imagine if they did this kind of thing for final release.

Yeah. Capping characters is BAD gameplay mechanics if you ask me - almost as bad as limiting you to only the same 4 party members going forward after a certain point. It's worse than capping your party at 4 instead of allowing up to 6 party members. That's just how bad it is.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I dunno ...
I certainly feel clear difference in my power level between dinging level 4 and completing whole EA ...

But i gues if sidequests, stories, items, and potential wealth are not motivating enough for you ... run towards next Act as fast as you wish ... just dont complain then its too hard for you, if that would be ballanced for properly equipped player. laugh


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Online Confused
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by GM4Him
As one person pointed out at one point, if you cap characters at a particular level per Act, then it totally discourages exploring the entire map.
I don't particularly subscribe to this point of view - running on the hamster wheel and filling bars is not what I feel compelling about RPG - but there are definitely players you will agree with you.

Even if XP is capped exploration can be incentivised by items, consumables, gold, rare crafting materials (if such system exists). I also suspect that Larian doesn't expect players to do completionist playthrough of each act before moving on - they were saying how much of the content can be missed in one playthrough, and that doesn't really happen due to player choices.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I have a ton of items and weapons and equipment - the best in the game so far. So I don't really need any additional items. I've got WAY more than enough. And now I have nowhere to go with levels and increasing my characters' abilities."
I agree, but that's more of a problem of too generous economy, getting more junk that one can use/comprehend, and dodgy weapon design. Personally, I wouldn't think much of what we have in Early Access - that stuff can be completely overhauled and moved around in 1.0.

Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
I think a hard a hard level cap would be a bad call. It does have the potential to disincentivize exploration for sure, but I think the bigger problem is that once you hit the level cap, especially if you hit it too early, it will present a situation where if players hit a particularly tough fight, they'll feel inclined to just nope out entirely and never come back.

Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019
I’m a fan of a soft cap approach, act 1 rewards 15xp per kill, act 2 150 per kill, act 3 1500. Explorers/completionists may be a level above the ‘intended cap based on difficulty’ but that advantage would quickly disappear as you progress. The xp to level of course would need to be adjusted to follow suit, and this may anger some purists, but knowing your pushing against a brick wall trying to squeeze every bit of xp out of the content, you’re more than likely tempted to try out the lesser rewarded conversation/interaction options to speed up the other paths. You’d still hit the areas where you need gear, but choose stealth, mass charm or just agree to suck a guys toes and avoid a lengthy combat session.

Just like in real life with wages.

Last edited by macadami; 07/04/22 01:27 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Level cap wouldn’t bother me SO much if it was closer to the end of the act.

In other words, if they capped Act 1 at level 8 and I can't reach level 9 until I've almost completed Act 1, then whatever. That’s not so bad.

If they do like EA right now and cap you at 4 and you can reach 5 before getting to the Underdark, that's a problem.

Last edited by GM4Him; 07/04/22 01:41 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Do you remember that max level in whole game would be "somewhere slightly abowe 10"?

I mean if we would get aome level cap ...
We should also take under concideration that next Acts would contain some leveling aswell and even that should feel somehow consistent.

I highly doubt that first Act would ler us on level 8 ... since i expect max level to be 13 at best ... that would leave us 3 or 4 levels for next Act and 2 or 1 level for Grand Finale.
That doesnt sound too well to me. :-/

5 or 6 on Act 1 seem much more likely for this reason ... bcs then there is clear difference in players power in start and end of every Act.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Jul 2017
G
geala Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Jul 2017
In my opinion you should never be forced to fight underleveled. It should be possible to reach the level of the opponents if you follow the flow of the story without looking under every stone and press xp from everywhere. Who shortcuts or explores too much and faces spiders at level 2, bad luck.

We need lvl 5 before entering the Grymforge. With the current xp earn you can get to lvl 5 a good time before (spoken from experience with a mod that opens up leveling, so no guarantee how it will be in release).
In my easy-peasy uninspired no-explore rush-it playthroughs it is like this: Lvl 2 after the fight against the three misguided fishers, then the ruins, lvl 3 after the fight at the druid grove, lvl 4 after the fight against the first gnolls (after clearing the Blighted Village, the owlbear etc.). After getting to lvl 4 I fight the hag (unbelievably she wiped my party in my current playthrough the first trial, like in the very first fight against her; two of the four wipes I experienced in the whole game ever came from an old woman ...). After defeating the goblins in the temple, the Minotaurs and the Duergar in the Underdark village I got to lvl 5. That's maybe a bit too early, although it's a big help to be lvl 5 when fighting Bernard.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Indeed fighting underleveled sucks ...
But fighting overleveled sucks aswell.

I mean if you reach level 4 and get some decent gear ... even goblin camp is hardly a challenge ... its long and tedious (mainly bcs you have to kill them 1 by 1) but none of those goblins can seriously threaten your health and hardly any last longer than first hit. :-/

Now imagine you would have Fireball from level 5 ... or something even stronger from later levels ... :-/


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Let's level set. Pun intended. 🤪

Experience Points Level Proficiency Bonus
0 1 +2
300 2 +2
900 3 +2
2,700 4 +2
6,500 5 +3
14,000 6 +3
23,000 7 +3
34,000 8 +3
48,000 9 +4
64,000 10 +4
85,000 11 +4
100,000 12 +4
120,000 13 +5
140,000 14 +5
165,000 15 +5
195,000 16 +5
225,000 17 +6
265,000 18 +6
305,000 19 +6
355,000 20 +6

Remember that in D&D, the amount of experience you need to level up increases exponentially as you increase levels. It is it's own limiting factor. If you award XP appropriately as a DM, you don't need to cap players.

Playing Descent into Avernus, the game specifically tells you that by chapter 2 your players should be level 5. However, we are playing with a party of 6 and using appropriate XP split. The players also didn't do everything, didn't fight every encounter, so they're a bit under leveled by chapter 2. They're still only level 4. They also dropped a party member and are down to party of 5.

Are they in trouble moving forward? No. They have NPCs in the party to assist, and they aren't super under leveled.

Did I need a level cap? By no means. Why? XP is being awarded appropriately. Heck, I even threw in extra XP at various points because I added a few events and such to customize the story a bit around them.

The XP awards, appropriately done, would balance level ups. You don't need to cap it. And then, as you get to higher levels, it takes longer and longer to level up. That's part of the system.

It takes 7,500 XP to go from level 5 to 6. Minotaurs are 700 each. Bulette is 1800. "But dang!" You might say. "That's 2500 in 2 encounters."

Split it 4-6 ways and it's not a big deal. THAT'S how XP should be done to balance out the system. Then regardless of party size and so forth, you don't need level caps.

But here's the issue. Encounters in the Underdark, as of right now, are not really designed for level 5. The bulette is. Absolutely. The Hook Horrors, that could work at 5. Minotaurs? Only 2 would be GG Easy for 4 level 5 characters - and forget party of 6. But hey! Sometimes having some easier encounters is nice. They don't all have to be brutal. Or they could increase the number of minotaurs you fight once they lift the level 5 cap. Instead of 2, maybe 3 or 4 for level 5 party of 4-6.

But then there's the duergar. Super easy for level 5s. Same with Kuo-Toa and Arcane Tower encounters. Grymforge would be a cake walk at level 5.

So should they cap us at level 4 so the Underdark is more appropriately balanced for 4 level 4s?

No. Once they lift the level cap they should do just like Descent into Avernus did. Expect players to be level 5 at that point and rebalance most encounters for level 5 characters. Don't try to enter the Underdark before you're appropriately leveled. If you do, that's on you if you die. That's open world. Right? Shoot! That's FR lore.
You set certain encounters to be a certain challenge level and if players get there too soon they die. Come back when you're good enough.

Don't cap players just because they're enjoying the full game and completing all the quests. Set encounters appropriately and award XP right. It'll balance out just fine.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
You seem to still be missing core of the problem ...

If you have Group A who will do just main quest and tiny bit of exploration around ...
And Group B who will search every milimeter of whole world ...

Group B will naturaly come out stronger ...
Sure, if the difference is just "level 4 or 5" then its no biggy ... but im affraid the difference would be much biger.
For one, count out all equipment Group A will miss, since it isnt part of "their quest" ... and for two, the problem with completionist is that if you have route A and route B ... they go both ... so no matter how much you will be spliting XP rewards ... one group will be spliting 200.000XP per act ... but second group will be spliting 300.000-400.000XP per act ... therefore problem stays as it is.

For example, if you would play as Evil character, and would follow only main quest ... your game ended once you massacred grove, since then you are send to Moonrise towers, wich arent there yet, so we dont quite know what rewards are there waiting for us ...

So basicaly ...
If you follow just your road (read as: If you roleplay properly) ... aka if you are Group A player then:
- You either join Halsin, and therefore go to the Moonrise Towers through Underdark ... and never see Mountain Pass, or Shadowlands ...
- Or you join Minthara, who sends you to the Moonrise Towers through Mountain Pass ... and therefore you have little to none reasons to go to the Underdark ...
But if you are completionist ... aka if you are Group B player then:
- You simply explore all those options ... and logicaly you get rewards from every single one of them, no matter how little sense it makes from roleplay perspective that you get there. laugh

Of course there is also possibility that Larian actualy make all our paths to be deadends, and we would therefore travel through whole world anyway and our choices would only set order in wich we will wisit them ... but i hope they dont, since that would be lame as fuck ... even tho there are certain signs of such behaviour (yes, im talking about Nere's broken Lantern) ... so we can expect that just as Minthara send us to her minion, he would for some reason also unable to help us and send us to Nere for change ... we allready know from datamining, that situation in Creche would also be a little more complicated then Lae'zel presumes. laugh

And yes, i admit that in this case my whole point is void, bcs then players from both groups would be going exactly the same route (and therefore gets the same amount of XP and item rewards) ... just in little different order.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Apr 2022
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2022
I doubt there will be level caps in acts.

That defeats the purpose of true D&D - it´s up to the players how to play the game - some will meticulously look through everything, some will "speed run it", however, MOST will be somewhere in the middle.

Personally, I love games where you have access to foes that are way beyond your capabilities and you will have to return when you are equipped to manage them. It that way you get freedom to plan and play more freely, even in a linear game style..

Joined: Apr 2022
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Apr 2022
A friend bought the game for me, and I enjoyed the play until I realized that I was capped at 4, which I hit while killing the 3rd "true soul" in the goblin camp. Needless to say that killed alot of my fun right there.

Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
You seem to still be missing core of the problem ...

If you have Group A who will do just main quest and tiny bit of exploration around ...
And Group B who will search every milimeter of whole world ...

Group B will naturaly come out stronger ...
Sure, if the difference is just "level 4 or 5" then its no biggy ... but im affraid the difference would be much biger.
For one, count out all equipment Group A will miss, since it isnt part of "their quest" ... and for two, the problem with completionist is that if you have route A and route B ... they go both ... so no matter how much you will be spliting XP rewards ... one group will be spliting 200.000XP per act ... but second group will be spliting 300.000-400.000XP per act ... therefore problem stays as it is.

For example, if you would play as Evil character, and would follow only main quest ... your game ended once you massacred grove, since then you are send to Moonrise towers, wich arent there yet, so we dont quite know what rewards are there waiting for us ...

So basicaly ...
If you follow just your road (read as: If you roleplay properly) ... aka if you are Group A player then:
- You either join Halsin, and therefore go to the Moonrise Towers through Underdark ... and never see Mountain Pass, or Shadowlands ...
- Or you join Minthara, who sends you to the Moonrise Towers through Mountain Pass ... and therefore you have little to none reasons to go to the Underdark ...
But if you are completionist ... aka if you are Group B player then:
- You simply explore all those options ... and logicaly you get rewards from every single one of them, no matter how little sense it makes from roleplay perspective that you get there. laugh

Of course there is also possibility that Larian actualy make all our paths to be deadends, and we would therefore travel through whole world anyway and our choices would only set order in wich we will wisit them ... but i hope they dont, since that would be lame as fuck ... even tho there are certain signs of such behaviour (yes, im talking about Nere's broken Lantern) ... so we can expect that just as Minthara send us to her minion, he would for some reason also unable to help us and send us to Nere for change ... we allready know from datamining, that situation in Creche would also be a little more complicated then Lae'zel presumes. laugh

And yes, i admit that in this case my whole point is void, bcs then players from both groups would be going exactly the same route (and therefore gets the same amount of XP and item rewards) ... just in little different order.

You make a very good point which every game like this has to deal with. And really, the developers have to make a decision about how they're going to balance the game. I think level-capping when there's still a significant amount of stuff to be done in the game bothers me personally because it feels like a cop-out almost. They're in complete control of how much experience we get in the game, they can decide what we get XP for, and part of the point of awarding XP is to encourage the player to do certain things. By granting xp for exploration, they're incentivizing exploration. By providing XP for sidequests, they're encouraging players to engage with the game more and do stuff. They can and should figure out how they want players to progress. And I'm sure that's part of what they're doing here in early access, fine-tuning XP values seems like the kind of thing EA is good for. But Larian does have to decide which group, A or B, they're aiming for. I feel like nowadays most crpgs are designed so that you're expected to engage with some sidequests, but not that you necessarily have to be truly completionist, which I think is the sweet spot.

As for the Moonrise tower approach, I feel like it's likely that once you start going down one path, you won't be able to double-back and explore the other ones. I have no evidence of that necessarily, but it's just my gut feeling on how this sort of thing would normally be handled.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
part of the point of awarding XP is to encourage the player to do certain things. By granting xp for exploration, they're incentivizing exploration. By providing XP for sidequests, they're encouraging players to engage with the game more and do stuff.
True ...
But there is also that second part, where are other rewards.

You know, in DnD levels dont come as fast as in most other curent RPG games ...
You get first few really fast, but then its going to slow down like a lot ... and your main source of power progress is loot and other item rewards. :-/

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
But Larian does have to decide which group, A or B, they're aiming for.
I dont think they have the luxury of fully focus on one group while completely left out the other. laugh
They would be forced to search middle ground everywhere.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
As for the Moonrise tower approach, I feel like it's likely that once you start going down one path, you won't be able to double-back and explore the other ones.
I dont think you do ...
There certainly would be some points of no return ... no doubt about it, but concidering how the game looks right now, they seems to be rather in final parts of quests rather than starts. laugh


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5