Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Level Restrictions in the Acts?

This is partially the fault of Larian for labeling enemies as having a "level" which we'd naturally relate to our character levels. But in D&D you're often supposed to go against enemies that are stronger than any individual member of your party, and have abilities that our characters don't get until higher levels. D&D enemies have different stats (typically more HP but much less flexibility) than PCs, whereas in DOS games typically enemies had similar abilities and were actually equivalent to player levels.

Take a Young Green Dragon, a monster that appears in a certain official D&D module. It is Challenge Rating 8. But realistically, four level 5 PCs should be able to take him down fairly with only moderate difficulty.

Or take the Thug, a CR 1/2 enemy. Should be incredibly weak, no? However, the Thug has 5 hit die and multiattack, things which a level-5 PC would have. Larian would probably label him as a "level 5" enemy, even though a party of level 1 can easily handle a Thug.

I'm not going to quote Ragnarok, but this is in response to his.

Games cannot balance around both those who speed run through it and those who are completionists. You balance the game around the expectation that most who buy the game will do main story quests and maybe a few side. If people are going to speed run, and thus be under leveled and the game becomes too hard, that's on them. If people are going to over level by doing everything, and the game's too easy later on, that's on them. This has been a common element of cRPGs for decades.

You don't balance the game around the expectation that people will speed run and then cap those who do everything. By doing so, you cut out character growth and progress, forcing characters to stall in their personal journey to become better. You also remove a major award system in an RPG.

Plus, once you hit the next area, suddenly all that XP you've been earning hits your character. Thousands of XP suddenly got your character, levelling them up possibly multiple times, if you've been doing everything. So, instead of slow progress through levels, you stall and then leap forward. That's weird and you don't even get to appreciate some of the levels your character went through.

Sure they can ...
That is main (and in many cases the sole) purpose of level caps!
Regular player gets to the power you expected and completionist will not get ten times stronger ... bcs there is cap.

Sure you can easily end in situation where even regular player hit the cap pretty soon ... but that can easily be result of that player doing much more side quests than you expected.

For example ... you said "before i even go to Underdark" ... or something like that ... but i ask what have you done so far.
I mean if you go right to the grove, missing the whole crypt ... then right to the Goblin camp (prefferably as Drow so you miss all those fight xp) ... and then if you side with Minthara your EA practicaly ended after you wipe the grove out ...
Dont tell me you would reach even level 5! Bcs i dont believe that.

Sure person who does WHOLE surface would reach it easily ...
But what motives have your party to explore it?
That is where we start talking about completionists.

And now, I am forced to resort to simple, emotional responses rather than logical reasoning.

Level caps are dumb and stupid and I HATE them. So far, the entire EA has been level capped at 4, and I've absolutely hated it. So have others. I've read the many posts. It's dumb. Stupid. Lame. Poor planning. Bad DMing. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid and dumb.

And lame.

Has ANY D&D campaign ever suggested to a DM that they should CAP their players? No. Why? Because they build the campaign so that even if you do EVERY encounter, you aren't over leveled.

But what if you're under leveled?

Go do a few side quests and gain a level. That method is WAY better than being punished for doing side quests by not getting any more XP.

DMing 101. Build the campaign so by the time they reach certain chapters, they are appropriately leveled. If your players are under leveled, give them a few more encounters to level them up. Random Encounters... Side quests... That is how you get them to the right level before they move on to the next part where they'll fight tougher monsters.

Bad DMing 101. Nerf enemies and level cap your players so aren't overpowered for the campaign.

You remember that "this is still Early Access", right ? I generally hate pulling out that card, but like many arguments that are often flawed, there are also situations where it applies. Level cap is one of those.

Firstly, and I feel I'm stating the very obvious here, Larian simply cannot raise the level cap to 5 (or 6, or 7 ...) so long as they have not implemented all class features and skills (spells included) for Level 5 (or 6, or 7 ...). I'm not sure where they stand internally, but Larian not letting us access Level 5 might simply be because Level 5 is not a thing yet.

Secondly, and more importantly, adjusting the Playtime-To-Level progression is probably the last thing that the devs should do, if they are worth their salt.

In order to do so, they will more or less need to have finished designing* all the encounters in the game, and have made a couple of full-playthrough tests. The first part is to know how much XP the game contains, the second is to know how long it takes to complete the game. (*Note that I said designing, not implementing. Tallying up all the XP sources of the game can (and should) be done in a spread sheet, so it can be done as soon as there is the guarantee that no new area/encounters will be added.) Once they have all the inputs, adjusting the progression can be done in an afternoon. But it should not happen too early, in my opinion.

Finally, and also quite importantly, the current ease of access to Level 3-4 is very good for testing purposes. I have spent a fair share of time testing various spells, and Level 3 is require to test level 2 spells. I like the fact that, whenever I need to create a new game/character, I can "rush" to Level 3 in 1h or so. In my view, Early Access is the time for testing the game, not playing through the game.

(To be clear, I'm fine with any feedback about the fact that "reaching level 3-4 happens to fast (and maybe feel undeserved)", or that "having reached max level makes the game less motivating". These are feedbacks that Larian can take into consideration, when they get round to adjusting the progression. What I find of very little value is holding the EA Level Cap and the concept as Level Cap Per Act as comparable.)

I would realy love to see how would you make this in VIDEO game where you CANT stich everything exactly for your party.

Ehm ...
This post is not about Early Acess level cap 4 ... but about possibility that there will be level caps in Act I. and II. in full release ...

Based on either Swens own leaking, or poor wording right here:

//Edit:
It certainly isnt thing yet ... just look at any level 5 NPCs ... they dont even have properly implemented Extra Attack.

Agreed ...
But i hope it dont get too leight adjusting ... since we could easily end in other bad situation, where get to level 3 (wich SHOULD be quite fast) would be long, boring and tedious ... wich would be really bad experience for many classes that choose their subclass (and signature abilities tied to it) on that level. :-/

Thats the problem with PC game based on DnD ...
You cant make exping too fast, nor too slow ... both ends up bad. :-/

Dude. I'm not talking EA. This discussion is about final release product. They're talking about how when the game is done they think level caps per Act are good. My opinion is HECK NO.

I totally get for testing. 100%. Cap for testing. Just don't cap me at like level 4-5 for final release so most of Act 1 I'm sitting at some dumb level cap for more than half the act because some people might not want to be under leveled if they speed run.

This is already IN BG3. Gith fight. You can literally get there at level 2 or 3. That's WAY under leveled. And, frankly, level 4 is still under leveled, in my opinion, for that fight. It would be much less brutal, and I'd have to save scum a lot less on that fight, if I could get to level 5.

You can also get to the Underdark before you reach level 4, and even level 4 us under leveled for the bulette and even the minotaurs. If I reach it at level 2 or 3, I'm doomed.

Solution? There are plenty of side quests and such that you can do BEFORE you reach those tougher battles. If you speed run to the Underdark at level 2 and can't beat those fights, well, maybe you went a little too fast, and you might need to reload from a place where you can go around and do some side quests BEFORE going to the really hard level 5+ dungeon. That's kind of an RPG 101 thing.

What isn't an RPG 101 thing? Building a campaign or adventure around those who want to speed run it and rush to places that they are WAY too under leveled to handle. A good DM provides enough encounters for his/her players so that they can build up their characters enough to handle the next challenges that they are about to face. A bad DM allows players to rush into encounters that are WAY too powerful for them, unless they are absolutely determined to do so.

In other words, you don't throw a RED DRAGON at players when they're at level 4. If you want your characters to face a Red Dragon at some point, you give them a ton of encounters so that they build up to an appropriate level to face it. If they cut corners and face that dragon too soon, even after you've warned them multiple times to slow down and maybe try to build their characters up more, if they die at that point, because they stupidly ran to the dragon, that's on the players, not the DM.

On the flip side, if a DM plans for a big boss to be a Goblin Captain, but they build the encounters so that you could beat the Goblin Captain by the time you're a quarter of the way through the story, then a Goblin Captain is a super dumb end big boss battle. You don't cap the characters at like level 2 when they're a quarter of the way through the story simply because you designed the story for your big boss to be a lowly Goblin Captain.

See? Here again we come back to encounter building being one of the major issues with BG3. You start with encounters that are WAY too high level for you; fighting imps and intellect devourers at level 1 and 2. Not just 1 but like 3 at a time. You gain tons of XP so that you're level 4 long before you reach the Underdark, and then they cap you. Granted, it's EA, so hopefully they'd at least let you get to 5 or 6 by the Underdark, but the point is that they have you fight these super high level monsters that are way out of your league, they nerf them so you can beat them, and then they level you up too fast. Then you reach a point where you are suddenly over leveled, so they have to cap you.

BAD encounter building - and the punishment for bad encounter building is that the players suffer by getting level capped?

No. Makes no sense to me at all. Sorry. Frankly, that's a dumb idea. Plain and simple. I don't typically like to flat out call something dumb, but that's just plain dumb. Totally, 100% think that level capping is BAD game design all the way around. There are SO many other ways to build encounters to avoid level capping. SO many.

a) Well, I wasn't 100% sure what you meant. Sure, I can see that the thread is discussing Level Cap Per Act. But it sounded to me as if you were saying "look, BG3 EA has a Level Cap ...". Which involves EA.

If the point you were making with this example is "... and thus I know from first-hand experience that I hate reaching Max XP before the end of the game (i.e. being Level Capped)", then fine.

If the point you were making with this example is "... and this is evidence that Level Cap is bad design", then I'm more on the disagreeing side of things. Because, in its present state, the Playtime-To-Level progression of BG3 EA is not indicative of much, in my opinion. As I detailed, this is partly because the current Cap might be more a matter of what's ready than a matter of choice, and partly because Playtime-To-Level progression is an aspect of the gaming experience that has not been tuned yet. Hence why I think that comparing the EA Level Cap and the concept of Level Cap Per Act is not fair and not convincing.

b) As for the fact that you are "sitting at some dumb level cap for more than half the act", what I was saying with my second and third point earlier is that the current progression speed is not indicative of much.

Even if Larian were to implement hard Level Caps Per Act (I hope not), and even if Act 1 was to have Level Cap of 4, there is no indication that we would reach Level 4 as fast as now. In fact, you might well have to 100%-complete Act 1 (including killing everyone and finding every secret) to reach Level 4 and start making noticeable XP progress beyond that level.

Adjusting the progression rate is quickly done by adjusting a handful of variables, and Larian will probably not do this before a while, but will almost certainly/hopefully get round to it before release. In my view, the progression rate we have now should be thought of as having "Placeholder Status", not "Preview Status".


(Two quick points before leaving.

- What I'm talking about here is the progression rate and only the progression rate. There are many other development areas (like the control scheme, the UI or the action economy) where improving things will take a lot more than simply adjusting a handful of variable in one relaxed afternoon. For these things, and especially given how long the game has been in development (even before EA) and how long is left before release, I don't think we can consider what we currently have to have merely Placeholder Status and not Preview Status.

- My opinion assumes that the Larian devs are worth their salt, as I said above. I'm clearly far from being first among the faithfuls here, as I have seen numerous reasons to doubt their skills. I'm also aware that Larian screwed the progression rate in D:OS2. So ... keep that in mind.)

Generally, I consider any obvious artificial limits in games to be an admission of failure, either for the system being implemented ( D&D 5e in this case ) or for the individual game design. If a game allows latitude in player behaviour through a more open world design, then I feel it is positive to accept the consequences, both for designers and players.

If I decide to hoorah-charge through a game, then I do expect difficult situations, just as if I scavenge every last resource and opportunity, I expect easier passage. Both are valid experiences that I might choose in a game, even if I will usually follow a middle path on first playthrough.


I am 100% certain that the Larian developers are considerably more capable at game development than the players who seem to enjoy criticising their abilities. The intellectually and developmentally complex elements within game programming are generally not the things that players complain about, with the exception of AI, which can actually be hard to do well.

The majority of the criticisms I have seen of BG3 amount to players not liking the choices Larian and WotC make. That is perfectly valid, of course, but has little to do with the devs ability.