Will the game be level 25 in the multiplayer? (Baldur's Gate 3)
The developers said that the maximum level in the game will be 10-12 levels.But I'm just freaking out when I saw in the multiplayer, in the settings of the type of adventure you can choose the level of the squad 15-20 levels, as well as 25 levels.
As a player who has played most day games on the comp, I consider level 20 to be the standard and was very disappointed when I learned about the maximum level 10. This means that the game will not feel epic and complete. I hope these multiplayer settings exist for a reason and one day the missing levels will be added to the game.
I don't care if it's hard for them. It's the work of the developers to solve such difficulties, they get paid for it. The developers of all the previous DayD games have solved this complexity, so Larian also have to do it.
I don't care that in the desktop DD rarely reaches epic levels, because we do not have a table day, we have games that come out too rarely, not to reach epic levels. The game should be all-inclusive.
Judging by the first act - 10 levels clearly will not (there the developers are cunning). I suppose that in the end by the final of the game will be - 15 levels. Another 5 levels (and possibly epics) will remain on DLS
St_Slave
And in my opinion, just 12 levels and it turns out. 1 act - feels like a third of the game, which means there will be 3 acts of 4 levels in each. Can make 4 act, which will be the shortest and represent just a way to the main boss without much forks.
Well, I guess they want to repeat the same trick that was in the first part (where the max level was seventh) and then continue in the next part.
Angmar87
I'm counting the experience right now. Family and work will not allow to finish early access. :-) So far 4000 experience to level 6 - not enough (if it was unlocked). And half of the Anderdark isn't followed.
I expect that if you cut all living - then 6 level can be taken. (For example, the druid grove of the tiflings is n.h. for 1000 experience... So far, the only ones left alive)
AntyLaky wrote:
Well, I guess they want to repeat the same trick that was in the first part (where the max level was seventh) and then continue in the next part.
The people are spoiled, they won't.
St_Slave
Considering how easy the experience goes, there are quiet 20 will be, if not fix of course.
Angmar87 wrote:
But I just went nuts when I saw it in multiplayer, in the adventure type settings, you can select the squad level of 15-20 levels, as well as 25+ levels.
Level 20 is very high for DnD 5. Most of the official adventures for the desktop original are designed for levels 1-10, so high-level characters should have their own castles and servants. Plus powerful abilities, for which it is difficult to come up with adequate interesting adventures.
Angmar87 wrote:
As a player who has played most of the DND games on a computer, I consider level 20 to be the standard and was very disappointed,
Agree. Limiting the maximum level to 10 is not about anything. I will add that for the player it will be very bad to feel the character progression, the growth of strength, etc. I was very surprised when I found out that in the SOLASTA Crown of the Magister game, which also uses the DND system, the maximum level is only 10. At the same time, in ancient games such as: Never winter nights 2, the maximum level is 20.
Cpazmatikus wrote:
Level 20 is very big for DnD 5. Most of the official adventures for the desktop original are designed for levels 1-10, because after 10 the characters get too strong and many mechanics work in strange ways.
So let the developers solve this problem, in general, ideally, the player should feel that the hero is getting stronger until the end of the game, and not like that, he passed 75% of the game and the remaining 25%. Persian does not swing.
Cpazmatikus wrote:
Level 20 is very big for DnD 5. Most of the official adventures for the desktop original are designed for levels 1-10, because after 10 the characters get too strong and many mechanics work in strange ways.
I constantly hear this from those who know dnd from board games. Say, lvl 20 is already a character-god (in the literal sense), an ascended creature with almost limitless power and capable of demolishing the entire city with a snap of his fingers. Therefore, 10 lvl is the norm and approx.
But for some reason such people do not take into account the fact that in pc games there are completely different rules. Here, none of the NPCs considers your character in relation to the level - you can go through the game with 1 lvl and still at the end of the game everyone will look at you as a deity and the savior of the world, while in the tabletop lvl 1 is a bum and everyone spits in his face ... In pc games, there are no board skills from high levels of the type of desires that allow you to turn the world upside down. All that will give you lvl 20 here is some horrid wilting, which is slightly more damaging than a fireball and a more powerful version of the skeleton from necromancy - but the enemies by this moment are getting stronger and the fireball will just scratch their ears. And people like me who played nvn / bg2 / pf have long been accustomed to such skills, therefore for us this is not a small minus.
You just don't need to look at the PC game through the prism of a board game - this is just an adaptation in which lvl 20 is the standard and does not make your Persian the ruler of the world.