Hey just thought I would see if anyone felt the same as me about the max level of this game? I was very exited to be playing this game as I am a great fan of the original. I was blown away by the vast variety of choices in class, prestige classes, races and not to mention the whole new aray of feats and spells to choose from. However what almost ruined the game for me was the fact that despite installing both expansion packs that the max level was still restrited to 30!!! This is a grave error in my view as it seems the logic is that the more choice you are given the more restricted you are by leveling. I do hope this issue is addressed in the future as I believe that with that with the new content in this game the max level should have been raised not lowered from the original game. PLEASE bring bak the level 40 character or even better a level 50 character to accomadate the new content.
NO LEVEL 40!!!!?
Débuté par
Hanius Creed
, août 23 2012 09:09
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 23 août 2012 - 09:35
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 240 messages
On the other hand, you get 4 classes, which means you have more choice, since NWN1 was limited to three classes stock.
You're pretty godlike at level 30 if you follow the story. Level 40 doesn't change that, and the second expansion is a new story, not a continuation of the OC-1st expansion player character. I saw a youtube video of a level 650 NWN1 character.
The community has also provided level 40. It's implemented on some servers (it needs NWNX), despite level 30 being hardcoded. I can't find the link to it, but I know for a fact the DungeonEternal pvp server has it.
You're pretty godlike at level 30 if you follow the story. Level 40 doesn't change that, and the second expansion is a new story, not a continuation of the OC-1st expansion player character. I saw a youtube video of a level 650 NWN1 character.
The community has also provided level 40. It's implemented on some servers (it needs NWNX), despite level 30 being hardcoded. I can't find the link to it, but I know for a fact the DungeonEternal pvp server has it.
Modifié par kamal_, 23 août 2012 - 10:03 .
#3
Posté 23 août 2012 - 10:47
Dann-J
-
- Members
- 3 161 messages
Indeed - the game becomes so easy at level 30 that any further levels would be pointless. Unless you're fighting against gods, tarrasques, or prismatic dragons (which might provide an hour or two of gameplay).
#4
Posté 24 août 2012 - 01:04
Arkalezth
-
- Members
- 3 188 messages
More doesn't imply better. There's 30 levels, but the game is much better without the last 10 IMO. Trust me, you can do a lot of things with 20 (or even less) levels.
#5
Posté 24 août 2012 - 04:19
Luminus
-
- Members
- 458 messages
...This is not Diablo or WoW where you can get your characters to level 80. In NwN1, you couldn't reach level 40 even if you played all campaigns with the same character. Maybe even if you did it twice.
Elminster is one of the most powerful mortals in the Realms and he is level 35 and more than 1000 years old.
Larloch, an ancient lich, that is 2000+ years old and one of the most powerful, non-divine beings is level 32. Some say around 40.
Mystra, the goddess of magic, one of the most powerful gods, is level 55.
Most gods are around level 40.
And you want your random dude to be level 50 and just derping around? I guess you want +20 weapons too? Because it follows the same logic.
More is not better, it has to be in a context and the plot should support it.
And I am really happy the cap is 30. It just gets stupid above that and serves no purpose, except to cater to overpowered PWs and modules where everyone is level 40.
Elminster is one of the most powerful mortals in the Realms and he is level 35 and more than 1000 years old.
Larloch, an ancient lich, that is 2000+ years old and one of the most powerful, non-divine beings is level 32. Some say around 40.
Mystra, the goddess of magic, one of the most powerful gods, is level 55.
Most gods are around level 40.
And you want your random dude to be level 50 and just derping around? I guess you want +20 weapons too? Because it follows the same logic.
More is not better, it has to be in a context and the plot should support it.
And I am really happy the cap is 30. It just gets stupid above that and serves no purpose, except to cater to overpowered PWs and modules where everyone is level 40.
#6
Posté 26 août 2012 - 06:17
Tchos
-
- Members
- 5 042 messages
This is a very interesting article that argues that the most exceptional and powerful real-world humans would be no more than level 5 under these rules, and that level 6 and higher are literally superhuman. The author argues that most great heroes of fiction would have been no more than level 5, and that a level 10 character would be sufficient to challenge a god's skill in a contest.
http://thealexandria...-expectations-2
After having played MotB with its "epic levels" (anything above 20 is called an "epic level", for which D&D has special rules to even make such a thing playable), I can say that I don't care for epic levels, and think they're over the top.
In my game, I consider any character that has reached level 20 to be "transcended", and no longer viable for play, because they're just too powerful to have any fun with. Time to retire.
http://thealexandria...-expectations-2
After having played MotB with its "epic levels" (anything above 20 is called an "epic level", for which D&D has special rules to even make such a thing playable), I can say that I don't care for epic levels, and think they're over the top.
In my game, I consider any character that has reached level 20 to be "transcended", and no longer viable for play, because they're just too powerful to have any fun with. Time to retire.
#7
Posté 27 août 2012 - 01:03
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 240 messages
Off topic, but that's a failing of the skill check system and some of the ways he's thinking about it.Tchos wrote...
This is a very interesting article that argues that the most exceptional and powerful real-world humans would be no more than level 5 under these rules, and that level 6 and higher are literally superhuman. The author argues that most great heroes of fiction would have been no more than level 5, and that a level 10 character would be sufficient to challenge a god's skill in a contest.
http://thealexandria...-expectations-2
"+2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them" An apprentice doesn't make the result better, or they would be the master. An apprentice makes the results worse (whatever they work on is not the quality of the full professional), but the work is produced faster and cheaper.
+3 from skill focus. You can safely assume that not all professionals have skill focus in their skills, just like the real world.
That's why he thinks the first level blacksmith can craft masterwork quality items all day by taking 10. There's a reason they're called "masterwork", and not everyday stuff.
"The average blacksmith’s Craft (blacksmithing) skill looks like this:
+4 skill ranks
+1 Intelligence bonus
+3 Skill Focus
+2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them"
It's more likely +1-4 skill ranks (likely 3-4), +0-1 intelligence bonus, -2 from an apprentice. Not everyone gets skill focus, just like not everyone gets Craft (blacksmithing) as a class skill. Most smiths churn out household items and generic weaponry without exceptional skill. It's simply like perform in nwn2, most classes can't do blacksmithing to begin with.
Skill checks should also be on some kind of bell curve and not the flat curve straight d20 gives.
Modifié par kamal_, 27 août 2012 - 01:04 .
#8
Posté 27 août 2012 - 02:36
Tchos
-
- Members
- 5 042 messages
Mm, an interesting discussion, and unfortunate that it's a bit of a tangent. 
; But I think the argument is that it's possible at level 1, not that every blacksmith does it. I see it as a reaction against level inflation. Possibly going too far to the other extreme in an attempt to reach a balance. As extreme as it may be at level 1, I think it just shows that level 2 would be more than enough for the task.
As for the apprentice argument, yes, I have experienced a reduction in quality and/or speed by having an inexperienced helper "aid" me in reality as you say. In fact, I think the author may have made a mistake with that example, because the SRD says that "you can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another," (so in many cases that bonus wouldn't occur) and "in many cases a character’s help won’t be beneficial" (so maybe the apprentice could never provide that kind of bonus, but since they do have some training, I think it's fair to say they'd have a chance). At any rate, I think you'd probably need to be at least level 2 or 3 for the example given.
; But I think the argument is that it's possible at level 1, not that every blacksmith does it. I see it as a reaction against level inflation. Possibly going too far to the other extreme in an attempt to reach a balance. As extreme as it may be at level 1, I think it just shows that level 2 would be more than enough for the task.As for the apprentice argument, yes, I have experienced a reduction in quality and/or speed by having an inexperienced helper "aid" me in reality as you say. In fact, I think the author may have made a mistake with that example, because the SRD says that "you can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another," (so in many cases that bonus wouldn't occur) and "in many cases a character’s help won’t be beneficial" (so maybe the apprentice could never provide that kind of bonus, but since they do have some training, I think it's fair to say they'd have a chance). At any rate, I think you'd probably need to be at least level 2 or 3 for the example given.
#9
Posté 27 août 2012 - 03:33
Lugaid of the Red Stripes
-
- Members
- 955 messages
I haven't really thought out the math, but I figure that with everything based upon a d20, it makes sense to have level 20 be the upper bound for the system. Any more than a 20-point difference between AC and attack, and you're just limited to hit or miss on a natural 1 or 20. Extra levels don't really change the dynamics of the game, just the kinds of monsters you can defeat effortlessly. Of course, what really happens is that the game becomes more about equipment and magic, and less about dice rolls.
#10
Posté 27 août 2012 - 12:52
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 240 messages
The persons article says the legendary real world blacksmith was level 5. Someone points out that. sourcebooks say a city should have at least one level 10 blacksmith. It gets to what Lugaid mentions, the expectation that in a d20 system level 20 is "human pinnacle" once in a generation type talent. To me it seems likely that the level 20 pinnacle assumption is correct and the rule crunching is misaligned (since it's easier to mung up rule crunching than a decision on theoretical levels).
Hit points are mentioned, but I never think of them as pure physical ability to take damage. He argues that Einstein has 10 HP in his system. Even that would be unreasonably high, he's saying that Einstein can physically take as much or more damage than your typical guard (level 1 expert, possibly fighter, in his assumption). I always just assume a good chunk of the HP (doubly so beyond the first 10-20 or so) represents something other than pure physical prowess, perhaps a sense of battle flow that prevents the character from being hit when a lesser person would be. "HP" damage being the battle flow becoming less subtly predictable by the character until the last batch of HP, when the character starts getting actually hit. In that case the HP represent the character being mentally worn down by the stresses of battle. Makes more sense than assuming Aragorn (his 5th level melee example), can take 5 maximally damaging hits with a longsword. And that if a pc/npc never sees combat or receives any training, they simply can't get more than their starting HP.
Hit points are mentioned, but I never think of them as pure physical ability to take damage. He argues that Einstein has 10 HP in his system. Even that would be unreasonably high, he's saying that Einstein can physically take as much or more damage than your typical guard (level 1 expert, possibly fighter, in his assumption). I always just assume a good chunk of the HP (doubly so beyond the first 10-20 or so) represents something other than pure physical prowess, perhaps a sense of battle flow that prevents the character from being hit when a lesser person would be. "HP" damage being the battle flow becoming less subtly predictable by the character until the last batch of HP, when the character starts getting actually hit. In that case the HP represent the character being mentally worn down by the stresses of battle. Makes more sense than assuming Aragorn (his 5th level melee example), can take 5 maximally damaging hits with a longsword. And that if a pc/npc never sees combat or receives any training, they simply can't get more than their starting HP.
#11
Posté 01 septembre 2012 - 03:38
Luminus
-
- Members
- 458 messages
I believe the thread is slightly derailed.
It doesn't matter if any 20 level character could exist in real-life, or ever existed. That is not the point of this thread.
What matters, is that levels over 30 that are out of context, and I mean to actually make sense how someone became so powerful, are pointless.
*Spoilers*
In Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal, my Paladin got to level 32 after doing every single quest. In the end you fought ancient beings, dragons, demons and a demi-goddess. Finally you could chose to become a god.
*Spoilers End*
That is epic. Those levels were important. The story supported those levels.
But NwN1 had nothing that supported anything above 30. I remember in HotU, that my Sorcerer got to level 27-28 by the time it ended.
The only reason the creators gave you 40 levels in HotU, was because they wanted people to make modules to continue the story, like Sands of Fate. Though I have not finished that module.
In Mask of the Betrayer, the story of the Shard-Bearer comes to an end, I believe. I have not finished that either, unfortunately. And I don't think I have seen any modules that continue that story.
Storm of Zehir is a brand new campaign that starts you at 4th level, with ECL +0. I think it is impossible to go over 20 with a full party, unless you grind a lot.
So there was no point to raise the cap. Why would they raise the cap for low-mid level content? Unless you haven't played SoZ and thought that it expanded on MotB.
New content is there to give you more variety and more choice, not so that you can make a character with 10 maxed classes that does everything.
Like the above example of a character that was 650 level. That is stupid, lore-wise, plain and simple.
You should ask for better stories and games, not more levels. That is the mentality of someone that plays MMOs and wants more levels to pwn everyone and everything.
If lack of levels 40-50 ruined the game for you, then it is the wrong game for you.
NwN2 is the worst game for that kind of gameplay.
It doesn't matter if any 20 level character could exist in real-life, or ever existed. That is not the point of this thread.
What matters, is that levels over 30 that are out of context, and I mean to actually make sense how someone became so powerful, are pointless.
*Spoilers*
In Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal, my Paladin got to level 32 after doing every single quest. In the end you fought ancient beings, dragons, demons and a demi-goddess. Finally you could chose to become a god.
*Spoilers End*
That is epic. Those levels were important. The story supported those levels.
But NwN1 had nothing that supported anything above 30. I remember in HotU, that my Sorcerer got to level 27-28 by the time it ended.
The only reason the creators gave you 40 levels in HotU, was because they wanted people to make modules to continue the story, like Sands of Fate. Though I have not finished that module.
In Mask of the Betrayer, the story of the Shard-Bearer comes to an end, I believe. I have not finished that either, unfortunately. And I don't think I have seen any modules that continue that story.
Storm of Zehir is a brand new campaign that starts you at 4th level, with ECL +0. I think it is impossible to go over 20 with a full party, unless you grind a lot.
So there was no point to raise the cap. Why would they raise the cap for low-mid level content? Unless you haven't played SoZ and thought that it expanded on MotB.
New content is there to give you more variety and more choice, not so that you can make a character with 10 maxed classes that does everything.
Like the above example of a character that was 650 level. That is stupid, lore-wise, plain and simple.
You should ask for better stories and games, not more levels. That is the mentality of someone that plays MMOs and wants more levels to pwn everyone and everything.
If lack of levels 40-50 ruined the game for you, then it is the wrong game for you.
NwN2 is the worst game for that kind of gameplay.
#12
Posté 03 septembre 2012 - 09:27
Merlex
-
- Members
- 309 messages
Tchos wrote...
This is a very interesting article that argues that the most exceptional and powerful real-world humans would be no more than level 5 under these rules, and that level 6 and higher are literally superhuman. The author argues that most great heroes of fiction would have been no more than level 5, and that a level 10 character would be sufficient to challenge a god's skill in a contest.
http://thealexandria...-expectations-2
After having played MotB with its "epic levels" (anything above 20 is called an "epic level", for which D&D has special rules to even make such a thing playable), I can say that I don't care for epic levels, and think they're over the top.
In my game, I consider any character that has reached level 20 to be "transcended", and no longer viable for play, because they're just too powerful to have any fun with. Time to retire.
There was a P&P module way back, that had Conan in it. He was in his 30s and had a 16 Strength, and was level 12 (i think).
#13
Posté 04 septembre 2012 - 05:12
The Fred
-
- Members
- 2 516 messages
I read a discussion on the WotC website involving that particular article. I don't quite agree with everything he says and all his interpretations, but I think the general thrust is right. I always think back to BG which had a level range of 1 to... 8-9, with the expansion - and you never got that high with a full party anyway.
The problem with D&D is really spellcasters, IMO. Spellcasters are already often better than non-spellcasters, but for there to be any semblance of balance between them, Fighters need to keep getting bonuses to match the new shiny spells Wizards get. In reality, I would think they might get more feats and a few skill points, but far less extra health (why can a L10 Wizard be hit more than a L1 Fighter?) and things. Things like fatigue probably make far more difference than a couple of levels, in real life.
That's kind of the problem with making a game, though. In reality, sure, a well-trained Fighter would almost always beat a low-level assailant. However, it would probably only take one crit to kill him (oops, Mr. High-Level Fighter, you slipped and I accidentally knifed you through a vital organ). A game where there's always a tiny chance of being one-hitted by anyone wouldn't be much fun, though, because eventually you would just die, regardless of your level of skill.
Side note: I think the point with the Aragorn example was not so much saying "Aragorn IS L5", but rather that he doesn't need to be any higher than L5. Likewise, his sword is probably just a +1 Longsword or something (we gather it's probably magic, and in the film at least he can harm or at least parry the King of the Dead, which chimes with it bypassing the DR/magic that he probably has). On the other hand, Sting is at least a +1 sword, and I think even the daggers the other halflings pick up are, so maybe it should get to be a +2 (+1 = magic, +2 = has its own story and background).
The problem with D&D is really spellcasters, IMO. Spellcasters are already often better than non-spellcasters, but for there to be any semblance of balance between them, Fighters need to keep getting bonuses to match the new shiny spells Wizards get. In reality, I would think they might get more feats and a few skill points, but far less extra health (why can a L10 Wizard be hit more than a L1 Fighter?) and things. Things like fatigue probably make far more difference than a couple of levels, in real life.
That's kind of the problem with making a game, though. In reality, sure, a well-trained Fighter would almost always beat a low-level assailant. However, it would probably only take one crit to kill him (oops, Mr. High-Level Fighter, you slipped and I accidentally knifed you through a vital organ). A game where there's always a tiny chance of being one-hitted by anyone wouldn't be much fun, though, because eventually you would just die, regardless of your level of skill.
Side note: I think the point with the Aragorn example was not so much saying "Aragorn IS L5", but rather that he doesn't need to be any higher than L5. Likewise, his sword is probably just a +1 Longsword or something (we gather it's probably magic, and in the film at least he can harm or at least parry the King of the Dead, which chimes with it bypassing the DR/magic that he probably has). On the other hand, Sting is at least a +1 sword, and I think even the daggers the other halflings pick up are, so maybe it should get to be a +2 (+1 = magic, +2 = has its own story and background).
#14
Posté 05 mai 2013 - 05:13
Thraxfyl
-
- Members
- 1 messages
I don't think the problem is the level cap, so much as all enemy encounters seem to scale with level.
As a test, I cheated and leveled my character to a ten in sorcerer and ten in red dragon disciple. Overall, due to various stat bonuses I had 27 strength and was doing 50+ damage per hit with a +2 Bastard sword.
In the first game, simple town guards and such would have exploded into chunks if they fought someone who did that much damage. Instead however, they were taking three to five hits more often than not.
So I think that the problem is not so much the level cap being reduced, as the value levels have being reduced.
As a test, I cheated and leveled my character to a ten in sorcerer and ten in red dragon disciple. Overall, due to various stat bonuses I had 27 strength and was doing 50+ damage per hit with a +2 Bastard sword.
In the first game, simple town guards and such would have exploded into chunks if they fought someone who did that much damage. Instead however, they were taking three to five hits more often than not.
So I think that the problem is not so much the level cap being reduced, as the value levels have being reduced.
