Larian Studios
Posted By: EstherEloise Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 13/01/21 07:27 PM
I think level 15 should be better than level 10. Of course, level 1 to 20 would be much better, but I might settle for level 15 cap
Posted By: BraveSirRobin Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 13/01/21 07:55 PM
They have said 10 is no longer the level cap in some interview but haven't said exactly what will be, I expect 11 or 12 but time will tell.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 13/01/21 08:02 PM
Seems strange they'll cap so low, unless the game will be shorter than expected or they nerf xp gains. Feels like without the cap at 4 in the EA we could already reach 5 or 6 during or after the Underdark.
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Seems strange they'll cap so low, unless the game will be shorter than expected or they nerf xp gains. Feels like without the cap at 4 in the EA we could already reach 5 or 6 during or after the Underdark.

I couldn't agree with you more and that is why I'm surprised they have it capped at 4 right now. In my current playthrough, I've already hit the cap and I've not done any of the Underdark or the goblin camp.

Hoping in the next update that they not only fix more of the bugs but give us some new game play and raise the cap from 4 to maybe 7
Posted By: bababoo-E Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 14/01/21 08:02 PM
I agree that too low of a level cap is very concerning.

A favorite aspect (if not THE favorite) of RPGs for me is the process of advancing my character. A level up is my reward for solving the puzzles of combat, finishing quests, etc. Customizing the path of advancement my character takes is how they become "mine" and a major factor in what draws me into the game.

I experience a substantial drop in my interest in the game once I find out my character is no longer advancing. For example, as soon as I found out that I was at max experience in the early access I stopped playing. I still had tons left to do but I didn't want to do it if there was no possible increase in my character level.

All this is to say, that I'd strongly urge the studio to ensure that character progress can be made continuously throughout the game.

Also... can we maybe get the level 4 cap in the EA removed soon, please? Surely it will help you balance some to let level 5 or 6 characters wrap up Act 1?
Posted By: SacredWitness Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 14/01/21 08:18 PM
Post release DLC is still the plan right? They need to save some space to grow into. Even 3 levels and 2 DLCs takes us to 18 if MQ caps at 12.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 14/01/21 09:27 PM
That seems like way too low of a level cap. I know they said before they don't vision this as a 1-20 campaign but I would really rather they do have it as 1-20 as that gives a lot of flexibility in building characters and allows for there to be rewarding content.
Posted By: 1ul4 Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 15/01/21 11:49 AM
I would be really very happy if any computer RPG would implement level 30 cap and possible end with deification just like it's in pen and paper, not necessarily in the main campaign of course, but as default mechanics that doesn't need modding because community of modders will always do this wrong.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 15/01/21 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
They have said 10 is no longer the level cap in some interview but haven't said exactly what will be, I expect 11 or 12 but time will tell.
Yup.
We just know as a matter of fact that it's not level 10 anymore (and it has been repeated a million times already, which makes weird that a large part of this community still didn't get the memo), but beside that it could be anything from 11 to 20.

I'd be incline to bet on 13-14, but it's hard to tell.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 15/01/21 12:11 PM
First act 1-5, second act 5-10, third act 9-14-ish? Could make sense.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 15/01/21 12:39 PM
People should also keep in mind that level ups in D&D become almost exponentially slower the higher you go.
It takes almost nothing to get from level 1 to level 2, but it could easily take 10 hours or so to get from level 13 to 14.
Posted By: Evandir Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 15/01/21 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
People should also keep in mind that level ups in D&D become almost exponentially slower the higher you go.
It takes almost nothing to get from level 1 to level 2, but it could easily take 10 hours or so to get from level 13 to 14.

Yep, it's strange to see complaints that leveling is too fast. You can already start seeing the leveling curve happen between 3 and 4 compared to the first 3 levels.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
They have said 10 is no longer the level cap in some interview but haven't said exactly what will be, I expect 11 or 12 but time will tell.
Yup.
We just know as a matter of fact that it's not level 10 anymore (and it has been repeated a million times already, which makes weird that a large part of this community still didn't get the memo), but beside that it could be anything from 11 to 20.

I'd be incline to bet on 13-14, but it's hard to tell.
Really? This is the first time ever I hear anything that level cap could be higher then level 10 for the full release.

I am not fan of high level characters. I liked BG1 when level cap was level 7.

If level cap is not 10 then please not higher level then 12 level cap.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 16/01/21 09:00 AM
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
Really? This is the first time ever I hear anything that level cap could be higher then level 10 for the full release.
They probably confirmed it before the EA even began, or at very least around that time.
The claim was that they revisited the initial plans to cap at 10 because they realized they were preparing a lot more content than originally anticipated.

Quote
I am not fan of high level characters. I liked BG1 when level cap was level 7.
Well, I didn't.
Or to be more specific, I love to start from the low levels just because I find the initial "everything is dangerous and you are weak" thrilling, but at the same time it's from level 5 going up that I start to genuinely enjoy the mechanics and the variety classes offer, especially in combat.

Quote
If level cap is not 10 then please not higher level then 12 level cap.
it's not up to us to decide, since it will probably be tied to the amount of stuff in the game first and foremost, but aside for that, I'd be absolutely satisfied with a cap at 14. The range between 5 and 14 is precisely where most people think D&D shines.
Before that it's too scarce with tactical options etc, while above that range pretty much any class starts to become hilariously game-breaking in terms of power creep.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 16/01/21 09:54 AM
I'd love all the way up to 20 plus a sophisticated 20+ system for boons.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 16/01/21 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
I'd love all the way up to 20 plus a sophisticated 20+ system for boons.
Well, that's not going to happen no matter what, so a bit pointless to fantasize about it.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 17/01/21 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
I'd love all the way up to 20 plus a sophisticated 20+ system for boons.
Well, that's not going to happen no matter what, so a bit pointless to fantasize about it.

Level 20 is already possible with mods, so even if it won't happen officially it may always happen unofficially. It's the second part that really bugs me not existing.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 17/01/21 10:47 PM
Mods are always going to be half-assed implementations for this kind of stuff, but if you're happy with it good for you.
Posted By: Tzelanit Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 18/01/21 03:19 AM
Getting the feeling that Larian is going to start adopting shady DLC practices and they'll be saving level cap increases for paid expansions, ultimately ending at level 20 after 2 or 3 of those cash grabs.
Posted By: EstherEloise Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 18/01/21 05:46 AM
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Getting the feeling that Larian is going to start adopting shady DLC practices and they'll be saving level cap increases for paid expansions, ultimately ending at level 20 after 2 or 3 of those cash grabs.

DLCs are not cash grabs, though, and I wouldn't mind that.
Originally Posted by EstherEloise
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Getting the feeling that Larian is going to start adopting shady DLC practices and they'll be saving level cap increases for paid expansions, ultimately ending at level 20 after 2 or 3 of those cash grabs.

DLCs are not cash grabs, though, and I wouldn't mind that.


I fully agree with you but that is as long as they've got most of the bugs worked out of the game and the ability for mods as well
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 18/01/21 08:44 AM
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Getting the feeling that Larian is going to start adopting shady DLC practices and they'll be saving level cap increases for paid expansions, ultimately ending at level 20 after 2 or 3 of those cash grabs.
What is so shady about DLC? O_o
I mean ... if there is enough content, story, races, classes, spells or simmilar stuff ... i would happily payd for ti, so no shady business.
And if there is not ... i would simply not buy it, so once aggain no shady business at all.

True, it may seem sometimes like some developers created open story just to sell DLC with closure afterwards to complete it, but i dont think that is common rule.
Posted By: Starshine Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 18/01/21 08:59 AM
level caps are for a reason so like, if its 10 then 10 is the CR of the endgame, if the cap is increased that'd mean like, rewriting the whole end section to be harder/higher level? Like I get so far we only have the prologue to play with but presemable they've already done plenty work on the end and the rest, with lvl 10 in mind for it?

Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Getting the feeling that Larian is going to start adopting shady DLC practices and they'll be saving level cap increases for paid expansions, ultimately ending at level 20 after 2 or 3 of those cash grabs.

like bg2 did... ?
If an expansion/DLC increases lvl cap then its increasing stakes and encounters CR too so you need it no?
Posted By: AceVentura Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 19/01/21 12:49 PM
Solasta's max level will also be 10. mainly because the devs say a lvl20 game would make the story far longer...

Why are game devs so lazy nowadays?
Posted By: Nyloth Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 19/01/21 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by AceVentura
Solasta's max level will also be 10. mainly because the devs say a lvl20 game would make the story far longer...

Why are game devs so lazy nowadays?

Maybe they will add more lvl later with DLC?
It is silly to call people lazy for them to focus on a more managable level range. I rather have them focus on this and expand on it later, if needed. (BG1 also had a level cap, with BG2 moving on from that). Quality over quantity.

A level cap rather than rushing to the max level just means a more detailed story and content as well as the possibility of an expansion that continues with the characters from the initial game.
Posted By: Black_Elk Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 19/01/21 07:41 PM
I think BG and D&D's basic concept of experience and levelling has become pretty antiquated in the era of computer and video games, since it really doesn't fit that well with the kind of granular expectations of char progression adopted and bequeathed to us by most other non-D&D cRPGs. You know, where hitting lvl 50 there is on par with hitting lvl10 in D&D, and the player is being constantly rewarded with level ups.

In D&D the near exponential levelling curve is supposed to be supplemented by other intermediate forms of character progress, like gear progression, or spellbook progression, or party/follower progression. So the player can remain engaged with a sense of "progress," even when there's no chance of hitting the next level anytime soon. Or better yet, where the story and character reveals are so engaging, that you don't even care if its not giving you xp or gold, because the story is just that good lol

One of the issues with D&D is that rewards and reward scaling are left largely up to the DM's discretion, so how quickly a character is meant to grow (growth along whatever dimension) is pretty divergent and largely up to the gamemaster.

I think a starter campaign that jumps you from lvl1 to beyond lvl10 is probably a pretty poorly designed low level campaign. It means that the DM couldn't find more creative ways to scale their player characters' sense of progress and had to resort to treasure or xp overloads for the hurry up.

Then again many people gripe about D&D being painfully boring at lower levels, and that has been going on forever. So not too surprising that people aren't satisfied with the idea of a game capping at say lvl4 or even lvl10, because it doesn't feel like that's going to be enough room to make the thing fun. I see that as more a problem in how they've crafted their treasure/gear/story progression to fit D&D's draconian and rather dusty levelling scheme.

The sweet spot for this one should probably be the same as BG1, basically where you hit lvl 7-9 at the tail end (2e had separate XP tables by class but lvl9 still a good cut off point). That way the follow up campaign can take you from lvl 10-16. After which point you are into epic level territory, where everything has to scale up for demigod type characters to even make sense in the traditional D&D scheme.

A good low level D&D campaign is a unique challenge, where the trick is to make it seem novel, even though its been done a hundred times before and kind of ubiquitous by now.

A good epic high level campaign, weirdly has to address similar problems at the other end of the spectrum. Just subsituting "kill the rats" with "kill the dragon," but still a similar challenge not to have it feel all tired and played out.

Mid-level D&D campaigns are the sweet spot. Simpler and more adaptive for a whole host of reasons that tend to make them more memorable. Though I think they work much better in a serial or modular format, rather than in a massive connected campaign. BG is one of the few games to pull off a connected campaign for all those tiers in a way that felt largely satisfying for at least most of the ride. I'm not sure it can really be replicated without just being rebooted. Its hard to know where they want to go with it. If this is going to be a Saga game with an obvious expansion/sequel, or if the Tav vs tadpole campaign ends in some other way.

The gold boxes and BG and Neverwinter teased an overarching concept of serial/modular continuing adventures, where the Character was independent of any specific Game... but then failed to deliver on it long term. Instead we got a bunch of reduxed game engines and sequels which, for lack of a better word, didn't have backwards compatability. Then they just abandoned the idea altogether to pursue MMOs. And of course in those we need 100 lvls, because that's just how those games work I guess hehe.

I wish Wizards could find a way to commit to like a 10 year plan and multiple games for the Realms under one roof. To actually bring Faerun to the computer in a serial way. One that is integrated with their PnP products for a more timely release... You know, so we could just have one edition of the rules at once, instead of these games always coming out on the cusp of a transition from one edition to the next or .5 of whatever. Instead of doing stand alone big ticket entries with different developers, or MMO pay to play models, to do an actual continuing series for the single player/small party. I'd like that.

NWN tried for it, but then they had to up and change studios and lost all momentum. Ditching backwards engine compatibility, balkanizing the content creating community they had just set up, and stalling out so we could have a NWN2 that was better looking at the time but harder to use, and sort of defeating the initial purpose. You can't really do a serial presentation without some fairly serious comittment to continuity.

I don't know why, but its like they couldn't figure out that D&D would obviously make a better show than a movie. So instead of a Game of Thrones on HBO that holds the world in its iron grip for half a decade, we end up getting some quick trash cash in like...


Summon Trailer is hella deadly magic, not to be used by low level mages without exercising extreme caution.
Honestly level 10, 11 or 12 or something is perfectly fine. The characters are very powerful and you don't end up with stupidly overpowered and ridiculous scenarios, and they don't have to implement spells like Wish, which doesn't really work in a computer game right now anyway.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 19/01/21 09:49 PM
I wonder why is this topic so long? O_o

OP asked for something ...
First reaction corected him that was allready promised ...
Everyone happy!
What is happening after? And why is it happening? laugh
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 19/01/21 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I wonder why is this topic so long? O_o

OP asked for something ...
First reaction corected him that was allready promised ...
Everyone happy!
What is happening after? And why is it happening? laugh

People started discussing the ramifications of what we were promised and what it could mean, essentially a discussion of the broader topic of what the level cap might be/should be. And what it could mean for how the game could turn out.
Posted By: Ferros Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 20/01/21 05:01 AM
I agree, I think lvl 14 is most likely where they should put the level cap. A lot of classes get some of their core abilities at that level, and it would also prevent Larion from having to add 8th level spells to the game, since lvl 14 spell casters can still only cast up to 7th level spells. While it's possible they will cap it at 12 just to avoid adding 7th lvl spells to the game, I think that would be too low for a level cap given how much experience we are already receiving in Act 1 alone. As mentioned above, we probably could have reached lvl 6 in Act 1 alone if there wasn't the EA lvl cap in place. It would be more fun to continue leveling as we play, and get to use some of the 14th lvl class abilities, rather than just be stuck at lvl 12 for 20 or 30 hours worth of content at the end of the game.
I actually prefer lower levels. The 5e ruleset is pretty solid to about around level 11-12 and then it gets pretty wild.

Level 11 is a good spot to end since it’s a hallmark level for all classes. Perhaps one more level so players can play with their new abilities for one more level. But I’d prefer the game be somewhat grounded.
Posted By: Lilybun Re: Would you reconsider level 10 cap? - 20/01/21 09:02 AM
Originally Posted by Ferros
As mentioned above, we probably could have reached lvl 6 in Act 1 alone if there wasn't the EA lvl cap in place. It would be more fun to continue leveling as we play, and get to use some of the 14th lvl class abilities, rather than just be stuck at lvl 12 for 20 or 30 hours worth of content at the end of the game.
XP rates are always adjustable and it may very well be the case that the act 1 xp gain was overtuned so we don't need to explore every nook and cranny to try lvl4 stuff out, leaving more stuff for the casual testers to find at the full release. At least I purposefully avoided certain things so I would have fresh content on release even in act 1 but maybe that's just me.

Also I'm fairly certain you only end up spending hours at the level cap if you absolutely minmax and game the xp system the whole way through ie. pass speech checks for xp, do quests for xp, then kill the npc anyway. That's pretty much what you had to do to be capped out well before the end in original sin 2, along with completing every quest your character could progress.

Another way they could go about the issue of grinding act 1 especially is the classic fallout method of inevitable game over if you dont get the worm out of your head fast enough. Doubles as a limit on how many long rests you can take! Now I doubt a modern game would ever do this but it's fun to think about, I would certainly enjoy the actual urgency of the mission. Lae'zel approves.
© Larian Studios forums