Larian Studios
Posted By: Creslin321 Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:33 PM
So I’ve played EA for I dunno maybe 8 hours or so, and I’m already level 4. Progression speed feels pretty good.

But I know I’ve heard Larian say that level 10 would be the max level. And I’m thinking, if I’m already level 4 after like 8 hours, then that means there won’t be much progression at all for the majority of the game.

I really feel like it may be better to push max level past 10...I feel like having only 6 levels of progression in 50-60 hours of gameplay is going to feel really sluggish.

Thoughts?
Posted By: Vekkares Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:36 PM
I think they said its going to be 11 now, which is a Tier 3 character. That is a perfect place to end until DLC or expansion. 3 hit dice for each cantrip, 3 attacks for fighters. Level 6 spells for most spell casters.
Posted By: Creslin321 Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:40 PM
Originally Posted by Vekkares
I think they said its going to be 11 now, which is a Tier 3 character. That is a perfect place to end until DLC or expansion. 3 hit dice for each cantrip, 3 attacks for fighters. Level 6 spells for most spell casters.


Nice, level 11 is definitely a big level, so much better to end progression there than at 10. I guess as long as they allow you to progress in terms of items and other abilities in between levels, it will feel okay
Posted By: DrunkPunk Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:41 PM
They mentioned the level cap has been raised above 10 but have not yet mentioned what that is, I suspect they're still trying to figure it out.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:43 PM
They have not mentioned what the new level cap is. I don’t know where people are pulling these numbers from. All we know is more than 10 and less than 20.
Posted By: Blade238 Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:46 PM
My concern is that I don't really feel any different between level ups. I don't know if this is because it's EA or if that's how 5E is, but it just feels like an HP bump and not much else. Combat and leveling hasn't felt very fulfilling for me so far.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:48 PM
Very low - I want all those sweet lvl9 spells and boons
Posted By: QuietCountryCafe Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Blade238
My concern is that I don't really feel any different between level ups. I don't know if this is because it's EA or if that's how 5E is, but it just feels like an HP bump and not much else. Combat and leveling hasn't felt very fulfilling for me so far.


It really depends on the class you're playing, but the biggest early game "power bump" for most classes is level 5, which isn't available in EA.

Fighters get multiple attacks, casters get level 3 spells (Fireball!).

Level 3 is a small bump for some classes when they get their subclass, you'd probably mostly feel it on fighter and rogue right now.

--

I'd really like to see at least to 11. Level 9 spells would be...a lot to make work within a videogame.
Posted By: DrunkPunk Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Blade238
My concern is that I don't really feel any different between level ups. I don't know if this is because it's EA or if that's how 5E is, but it just feels like an HP bump and not much else. Combat and leveling hasn't felt very fulfilling for me so far.


I really think the level in EA should have gone to 5 to help with that. It really does depend on the class in a lot of ways, like wizards clearly get more powerful while fighters or thiefs can feel a bit weirdly lacking between levels.
Posted By: Creslin321 Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 08:59 PM
Originally Posted by Blade238
My concern is that I don't really feel any different between level ups. I don't know if this is because it's EA or if that's how 5E is, but it just feels like an HP bump and not much else. Combat and leveling hasn't felt very fulfilling for me so far.


It really depends on what class you’re playing, but generally 5E levels are pretty impactful. Here are some examples:

Full casters get a new level of spells at any odd level.
Fighters get action surge (can take two actions in a turn once per short rest) at level 2
Warlocks get invocations at level 2, agonizing blast invocation greatly increases eldritch blast damage.
Most classes get an archetype at level 3 which is huge.

There’s a lot more than that, you probably just don’t notice this because you’re not familiar with the system.
Posted By: Slapstick Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 09:16 PM
Level 12 would be ideal. It's enough for another ability score or feat, giving you 2 feats and ability increase (or vice versa). Still leaves plenty of headroom to go from 12 - 20 in BG 4
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 10:19 PM
I'd agree with level 12 being much more ideal if Larian would consider that.
Posted By: BrianDavion Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 11:23 PM
10 as the cap seems suprisingly low given I can't see the DLC raising the cap more then 5 levels
Posted By: Ricardanilevs Re: Max level 10 too low? - 12/10/20 11:42 PM
Cooperative filter in main menu tells that u can filter even 25+ lvls

Don't forget about multiclassing u can be like 10/5/5/5 in diffrent classes.
Hope they don't crash the game totally... more than now
Posted By: Alrik Re: Max level 10 too low? - 13/10/20 01:40 AM
Originally Posted by DrunkPunk
[quote=Blade238]I really think the level in EA should have gone to 5 to help with that. It really does depend on the class in a lot of ways, like wizards clearly get more powerful while fighters or thiefs can feel a bit weirdly lacking between levels.


Then we probably would have had to wait until December or even 2021. I prefer having the game now and playing it without level 5 over waiting any day.

Larian was really really fast with their development of BG3. Can't complain.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Max level 10 too low? - 13/10/20 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by Vekkares
I think they said its going to be 11 now, which is a Tier 3 character. That is a perfect place to end until DLC or expansion. 3 hit dice for each cantrip, 3 attacks for fighters. Level 6 spells for most spell casters.

I think they just said it's not 10 anymore because it turns out that they were making too much content to stick with that limit,but I have yet to hear any confirmation of it being 11 now.
If there's anything official I'd like to ask for a link to it.


Still, I can't imagine it going too much above that. If it's not 11 it could be 12, maybe even all the way up to 14 AT MOST. More than that is extremely unlikely.
Posted By: kathi1212 Re: Max level 10 too low? - 13/10/20 05:08 PM
The level progression is a bit too fast as of right now, I think. It doesn't quite follow the 5E rules. I had 2,300 XP and was lv. 4, usually you advance to lv. 4 at 2,700 XP. I don't know if they will change that still or that it has to do with balancing. I think the lv. 10 cap has to do with spells. At lv. 11 characters gain access to lv. 6 spells and maybe they were unsure about whether or not to include those. If they do, I think, we can expect the new level cap to be lv. 12.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Max level 10 too low? - 13/10/20 05:40 PM
Originally Posted by Slapstick
Level 12 would be ideal. It's enough for another ability score or feat, giving you 2 feats and ability increase (or vice versa). Still leaves plenty of headroom to go from 12 - 20 in BG 4


Please let's not even talk of BG4. I want this one completed and allowing a great experience.
Posted By: Vekkares Re: Max level 10 too low? - 13/10/20 06:34 PM
I think the 12*-20 is going to be in DLC and expansions. I dont see them making us wait the 3-5 years it will take to make a sequel.
Posted By: Takamori Re: Max level 10 too low? - 13/10/20 06:38 PM
Depends 1-11 you have this hero journey where you still keep some "normal" aspects to it, you aren't considered a super entity yet. 12-20 is basically you becoming a super saiyan, like a hero that cities will recognize from beyond. So I guess they want to keep the normal standard hero adventure mood for the first part?
Posted By: Van'tal Re: Max level 10 too low? - 15/10/20 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by Ricardanilevs
Cooperative filter in main menu tells that u can filter even 25+ lvls

Don't forget about multi-classing u can be like 10/5/5/5 in diffrent classes.
Hope they don't crash the game totally... more than now


5e multi-classing is a little different than the bg2 3.5 era.

A multi-class 10/1 needs the same amount of experience as an level 11 character.
Posted By: Vexor Re: Max level 10 too low? - 15/10/20 10:22 PM
After seeing how Firebolt works I am extremely excited to see what a Fireball can do in this game. Also slightly terrified of enemy wizards getting those spells without having a party formation to fall into at combat start.
Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 15/10/20 11:08 PM
The only turn off I have about BG3 is the level cap.
This is due to the fact I already play table top a lot and am sick to my back teeth of levels 1-14. I have seen high levels in table top only a handful of times, due to various reasons.
Those times where I've gotten to a high level have been the most fun I've had in D&D with the least amount of drama among the players cause we were all badass and were powerful enough for the DM's to go to town on the story throwing what ever he wanted in. From Barbarian invasions to terrask egg babysitting (long story) it was amazing.

I was hoping BG3 would be my opportunity to have an adventure in D&D that allowed me to play how I wanted, to a high level...
If we don't get 20, so be it, but I am hoping we at least get to 20 at some point via a DLC if it is not there at launch.

That all said, every one enjoys the game differently and I aml just glad to have a D&D game with the 5e ruleset.
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by Vexor
After seeing how Firebolt works I am extremely excited to see what a Fireball can do in this game. Also slightly terrified of enemy wizards getting those spells without having a party formation to fall into at combat start.


Dont forget to use grease!

Two wizards can alternate using grease and firebolt, that makes 8 fireballs at level 4!

Or 10 if you take the extra level 1 spell slot feat.

But that needs two wizards for a fireball every turn before level 5.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 07:28 AM
I really hope we can get all the way to max level, ngl.
Posted By: OneManArmy Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 07:32 AM
We need to pump Shadow Heart to level 30 so that she can finally kill Selune personally
... in our fantasies
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 07:33 AM
Old news, bad news. The level cap won't be 10. They are reevaluating the levels. So it will be just like a normal D&D 5e campaign, around level 12-13. Descend into Avernus is 13 for instance.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 08:46 AM
The first few hours of game combat could of been a lot more interesting if we got to start at level 3 , as in BG2 (game starts at level 6-7 ). Starting at level 1 feels completely out of place with the characters being introduced...
Posted By: Abits Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 08:54 AM
I don't understand dnd beyond playing BG games but I don't really get this criticism. BG 1 max level was 7-8 and it was fine
Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't understand dnd beyond playing BG games but I don't really get this criticism. BG 1 max level was 7-8 and it was fine

Was it? I remember playing it back then and feeling cheated. Dont get me wrong, I loved the story and game play but we didnt have the internet and communication we do today. 22 years ago, when I was 13, I still remember going into a game store (electronic boutique I think) to pick it up.
Quite a few of my friends who played D&D in after school clubs were discussing it and saying they wanted to be higher level. We got our wish exactly 2 years later (bg2).

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it will severely hamper the game if we dont get to levels 10+, I am just saying that I would LOVE to not have the same old tired progression I currently get with table top.
Lots of previous games have had little to no trouble implementing high levels, I cant see why BG3 cant do the same.
Posted By: Eddiar Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 05:23 PM
Do you need to level up to get more skills and spells?

Are can you still use tomes, artifacts and other gameplay mechanics to keep growing your character?

Some part if me kind of likes that as players dont become too godlike while on the other hand I want more spells and specializations to play around with.
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Starting at level 1 feels completely out of place with the characters being introduced...


It's true they're all grown adults with backstories, but I don't have a problem hand-waving the starting level at 1 as this being their first real "Adventure" in D&D terms. It's the adventuring that drives the level-ups, and none of the companions/Origin characters in this game have ever faced this kind of thing before. Something like that.

It's better than some of the other tropes that game designers use to start players at level 1, like the tired "amnesia" bit, or a farm boy venturing out of his village for the first time.
Posted By: vageta31 Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 05:56 PM
The variance of answers in this thread illustrates exactly why games like this can never be "perfect". Everyone wants and expects different things so no one can truly be happy. Some think starting at lvl 1 sucks, others want to hit lvl 25, etc.. This is Larian's first D&D game and it's taking place 100 years after BG1/2, why in god's name would we start at anything but level 1? I get that some that play a lot of low level campaigns would like to play higher levels but a lot of people have never even tried D&D of any sort so starting off at higher levels makes zero sense from that perspective. New players should be introduced at low levels to grasp the mechanics and also experience the growth of the character properly. Starting off characters at level 3 and forcing sub-class choices before they even get a chance to understand what ground zero feels like doesn't make a lot of sense.

Level 10-12ish seems like a fine ending point for the standard campaign and if the game does as well as everyone is hoping I don't see how we wouldn't be getting some form of DLC to allow us to play even higher.

Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 06:18 PM
I would agree starting at level 1 would be ideal when starting a new adventure, especially in a video game. But I would humbly disagree 10-12 is an ideal "end of adventure" point. I am not saying you are wrong, and level 12 nets a lot of classes some nifty features, but I just dont see why you wouldn't use the full range of levels available to you. Especially when we are talking
going to the underdark, fighting against an organisation with reach(cult of the absolute), going into the hells ect
.

As you said, stopping at level 10-12 leaves room for a DLC/Expansion that takes you to higher levels but DLC could easily be new adventure packs/races/subclasses and the like so we can have other (perhaps smaller) adventures via DLC/mods. In my mind, not having the full range of levels available from the start (even if the campaign ends at level 10-12) is diminishing the potential of the game and its longevity.

I dont mind giving Larian my money, but leaving out content from the original source just so you can add it in a DLC feels.....well....very Electronic Arts. I'd prefer the DLC be classes/races/new adventures rather than "WE RAISED THE LEVEL CAP".

Ofcourse, this is just my opinion and I am quite bias lol.
Posted By: Trabeldor Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 07:24 PM
I agree that the ideal will be starting the campaign at level 1 and ending it at 20.
Ending the campaign at level 12-13 is also ok as long as level 20 content is still in the game (up to level 9 spells, feats abilities and such) for the later mods and campaign builders that hopefully we will get..?
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by Dinvan
I would agree starting at level 1 would be ideal when starting a new adventure, especially in a video game. But I would humbly disagree 10-12 is an ideal "end of adventure" point. I am not saying you are wrong, and level 12 nets a lot of classes some nifty features, but I just dont see why you wouldn't use the full range of levels available to you. Especially when we are talking
going to the underdark, fighting against an organisation with reach(cult of the absolute), going into the hells ect
.

As you said, stopping at level 10-12 leaves room for a DLC/Expansion that takes you to higher levels but DLC could easily be new adventure packs/races/subclasses and the like so we can have other (perhaps smaller) adventures via DLC/mods. In my mind, not having the full range of levels available from the start (even if the campaign ends at level 10-12) is diminishing the potential of the game and its longevity.

I dont mind giving Larian my money, but leaving out content from the original source just so you can add it in a DLC feels.....well....very Electronic Arts. I'd prefer the DLC be classes/races/new adventures rather than "WE RAISED THE LEVEL CAP".

Ofcourse, this is just my opinion and I am quite bias lol.


Bioware did it tho. As did Obsidian.
Posted By: Eddiar Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 08:13 PM
Aren't level 20s like gods or something?
Posted By: macadami Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 08:35 PM
I would guess 10 would be basic max, with 12 or 13 maybe as full completionist max. BG4 or DLC or whatever will finish up to 20, probably ending with a God theme similar to Throne of Bhaal im BG5 or 6.
Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 10:14 PM
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem


Bioware did it tho. As did Obsidian.


They gave us a full 1-20 adventure, then raised the level caps to 40 (in nwn) and 30 (nwn2) in expansions. 3.5 had epic rules that supported higher levels.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Aren't level 20s like gods or something?

Not even close. Incredibly powerful, but far from gods, demi gods or other powerful beings.
An avatar of a god is around CR 30, which would need a group of level 17-20 adventurers to defeat unless they have some sort of plot protections like in the rise of Tiamat.

If we go into combat in BG3 with anything near the power of an avatar, we would 100% need to be near level 20 to do so (unless they have some plot device to stop us getting stomped)

Posted By: Blade238 Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by Creslin321

Most classes get an archetype at level 3 which is huge.

There’s a lot more than that, you probably just don’t notice this because you’re not familiar with the system.

I played as a fighter and as rogue, but didn't feel all that different. I think a big part of it is that it isn't a system I'm familiar with like you said. Hopefully I'll get used to it more with time.
Originally Posted by QuietCountryCafe


I'd really like to see at least to 11. Level 9 spells would be...a lot to make work within a videogame.

Yeah I've been trying to read some of what comes with higher levels and later spells seem.. too much for a video game to capture.
Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 16/10/20 11:55 PM
There are only 2 9th level spells I can see being difficult to implement, astral projection and wish. That is it. Even them two could be done with limited functionality.
The rest either deal damage, turn you into something else (like true polymorph and mass polymorph) heal you(mass heal) or give an effect like invulnerability(literally called invulnerability) for 10 mins, give you advantage on every roll while giving your enemies disadvantage(foresight) ect

Some of these spells have already been implemented in previous D&D franchises and pathfinder (which is D&D 3.5 basically). They worked fine there, I dont see why Larian cant do the same.

But by all means, please do list the spells you feel would be hard to implement? I am very curious.


Posted By: AnonySimon Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 12:27 AM
Originally Posted by Dinvan
There are only 2 9th level spells I can see being difficult to implement, astral projection and wish. That is it. Even them two could be done with limited functionality.
The rest either deal damage, turn you into something else (like true polymorph and mass polymorph) heal you(mass heal) or give an effect like invulnerability(literally called invulnerability) for 10 mins, give you advantage on every roll while giving your enemies disadvantage(foresight) ect

Some of these spells have already been implemented in previous D&D franchises and pathfinder (which is D&D 3.5 basically). They worked fine there, I dont see why Larian cant do the same.

But by all means, please do list the spells you feel would be hard to implement? I am very curious.




True Resurrection (how would you make it worth casting over regular Resurrection); But honestly, most of the harder spells to implement I think are actually level 6-8 (not level 9).
Posted By: SorcererVictor Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by Vekkares
I think they said its going to be 11 now, which is a Tier 3 character. That is a perfect place to end until DLC or expansion. 3 hit dice for each cantrip, 3 attacks for fighters. Level 6 spells for most spell casters.


This "tiers" of characters in 5e is nonsensical. I mean, a lv 17 guy in the city of liches on one of the deepest layer of the abyss can be the weakest non slave caster of the entire city, not even an "local hero", but 5e cosnider him a "hero of the world". An Lich can't be a trouble to a simple village. He needs to put the entire world at peril. That is far more limiting than helping DM's to prepare adventures.

Originally Posted by vageta31
BG1/2, why in god's name would we start at anything but level 1?



Cuz lv 1 is too boring. NWN1 and 2 had you starting on 3 after the tutorial...


Originally Posted by Dinvan
There are only 2 9th level spells I can see being difficult to implement, astral projection and wish.




BG2 did a wish list.
Posted By: Buttery_Mess Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 01:12 AM
I recently ran through the game finishing every encounter I could find, and I had no idea there was a level cap, so it felt like it was just taking a really long time to get to 5...

Anyway you can hit 3 within a few hours, walking into the grove gate. It's a bit stingy to only give us a level 4 cap considering how much content there is to chew through after this part. My main concern is that at level 4, nothing thereafter is particularly challenging... Quite a few reloads might be required with the Spectator, a few reloads with other encounters, but nothing where you bang your head against the wall.

If these encounters were buffed, you'd expect higher exp rewards and faster leveling, but it already feels like my characters ought to have hit 5 or 6... I think a cap of 10 would be hit too quickly, with acts 2 and 3.
Posted By: Trabeldor Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 07:28 AM
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Originally Posted by Dinvan
There are only 2 9th level spells I can see being difficult to implement, astral projection and wish. That is it. Even them two could be done with limited functionality.
The rest either deal damage, turn you into something else (like true polymorph and mass polymorph) heal you(mass heal) or give an effect like invulnerability(literally called invulnerability) for 10 mins, give you advantage on every roll while giving your enemies disadvantage(foresight) ect

Some of these spells have already been implemented in previous D&D franchises and pathfinder (which is D&D 3.5 basically). They worked fine there, I dont see why Larian cant do the same.

But by all means, please do list the spells you feel would be hard to implement? I am very curious.




True Resurrection (how would you make it worth casting over regular Resurrection); But honestly, most of the harder spells to implement I think are actually level 6-8 (not level 9).


But... you can find a scroll of true ressurction, already in the game...
It brings a companion back to life at full hp while revivfy brings them with 1 hp.

Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 08:51 AM
Originally Posted by AnonySimon


True Resurrection (how would you make it worth casting over regular Resurrection); But honestly, most of the harder spells to implement I think are actually level 6-8 (not level 9).

True resurrection can bring you back from deaths revivify cant. Like having your head chopped off. All you need is a tiny piece of some one with true res. OR like it already does, it just gives you full HP on casting.

Again, there are about 50+ spells and I see only about 4? maybe 5? That would be difficult to implement, and as some one already pointed out, there are option like with wish.
I am sorry, and I truly mean no offence by this, but you dont seem to have knowledge of what you are talking about.

They have successfully implemented spells in other games, Icewind Dale series, NWN series, BG series ect ect and I STILL can not see ANY reason they can not do it here.


Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 10:13 AM
I mean, wish was actually implemented in BG2...
Posted By: AnonySimon Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by Dinvan
Originally Posted by AnonySimon


True Resurrection (how would you make it worth casting over regular Resurrection); But honestly, most of the harder spells to implement I think are actually level 6-8 (not level 9).

True resurrection can bring you back from deaths revivify cant. Like having your head chopped off. All you need is a tiny piece of some one with true res. OR like it already does, it just gives you full HP on casting.

Again, there are about 50+ spells and I see only about 4? maybe 5? That would be difficult to implement, and as some one already pointed out, there are option like with wish.
I am sorry, and I truly mean no offence by this, but you dont seem to have knowledge of what you are talking about.

They have successfully implemented spells in other games, Icewind Dale series, NWN series, BG series ect ect and I STILL can not see ANY reason they can not do it here.




So in 5e, there are a number of spells that can bring the dead back to life, they are:

Raise Dead (5th level spell) - Returns creature dead for no more than 10 days back to life with 1 hp.
Reincarnate (5th level spell) - Returns creature dead for no more than 10 days back to life, but as a different race.
Revivify (3rd level spell) - Returns creature dead for no more than 1 minute back to life with 1 hp.
Resurrection (7th level spell) - Returns creature dead for no more than 100 years back to life with full hit points (requires a dead body to touch).
True Resurrection (9th level spell) - Returns creature dead for no more than 200 years back to life with full hit points (no dead body required).

My point is, that making the Resurrection spell distinct from the True Resurrection spell could be difficult, because in-game they would effectively be the same.
Posted By: Dinvan Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 11:17 AM
Difficult is not the same as impossible, as has been pointed out with wish.
My point being, they really dont need to implement all of them. Again I point to previous D&D games for examples.

The different res spells can be used for for different deaths. Disintegrate(level 7 spell) for example would needed wish/true res(level 9 spell).

I am sorry if I sound combative, it is not my intention. As you can tell I feel quite passionate about the level cap being higher lol.

Edit note. Some spells specifically say you need X type of resurrection to be brought back also.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 11:22 AM
I hope it's at least 12. I can understand why they wouldn't want to do 13, they'd have to add a bunch of 7th level spells to the game. But 12 wouldn't require adding much, and would let everyone get one last feat or ability score improvement.
Posted By: Grieg Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 11:27 AM
I just hope for Level Cap Remover to be as an option, I tend to allow myself being overpowered as long as I have earned it by gaining the experience point in normal manner, it's good to be boss myself since I have worked on getting to this point, you know?

In my playthrough we have already capped max level and there is still quite a bunch of content to be experienced.
Posted By: Zarangek Re: Max level 10 too low? - 17/10/20 11:37 AM
Okay so it's going to be 11 or 12. I honestly will be happy with any of those.
© Larian Studios forums