Has the XP cap any sense?

gorgonzola

Has the XP cap any sense?
Imo the answer is no.

From the perspective of the role play I see no sense in having Charname and NPCs getting XP and levels doing some things and then suddenly reaching a static status where they can not improve at all. It break the immersion.

From the perspective of the FR lore even with the XP cap they can reach a level that their races should not be able to reach, a godlike level.

From the perspective of the balance seems to have some sense as a way to have them not too OP compared to the enemies. But it is true?
No, a solo Sorcerer can reach the cap in BG2 chap.2, where is the balance?

That is why I almost always play with an XP cap remover.
I think that there are better ways, like the mods that reduce the XP you get from quests and/or killings.

The only thing of the XP cap that I don't like, but of which I see the sense, is that it prevents the triple class multi to reach lev9 mage spells and HLA spells. Who can stop a FMT with IA, BBoD, TS and CC?

OlvynChuru

You should try playing Planescape Torment. Although the game has an XP cap, it's so ridiculously high that you'll probably never reach it; the cap is 999,999,999 XP.

Dee

On a personal level, I've never understood the concept of XP caps. It's much more intuitive, to me, to cap levels instead--and to do so by simply not implementing higher levels.

Kurona

The real problem is that combat XP should be like quest XP, not divided between the party members. It would avoid the nonsense of solo characters becoming much more powerful than full parties. As for a cap, it's very arbitrary, the Challenge Rating system used in IWD2 makes a lot more sense. Though it's abusable by simply not leveling up so YMMV on this.

dunbar

Yes, replace XP caps with level caps and replace gold rewards with specialised items/rare scrolls for the late game encounters where you already have more than enough gold and nothing left to spend it on.

Fardragon

There is an xp cap because when BG1 first came out higher levels where not implrmented. There was only one fifth level spell for example.

The reason that it is xp that is capped rather than levels is that in second edition levels in some classes where considered more powerful than others. A level of mage is worth more than a level of thief. It is also supposed to limit duel and multiclassed characters from being far more powerful than single classed.

DJKajuru

Also, in pnp levels don't always come automatically with XP. The DM may have the paladin do something really special before gaining a new level even if he's got the xp, or the mage may have to get a mentor to teach him more about high level spells. That way it could also male sense that you have to save the sword coast before reaching a new level of power.

gorgonzola

Kurona said:

The real problem is that combat XP should be like quest XP, not divided between the party members. It would avoid the nonsense of solo characters becoming much more powerful than full parties.

True. I think that the developers implemented the combat XP the way we have it to compensate the loosing power if you go solo or with a small party. It was a false assumption, now we know that a soloer or a party of 2-3 people is more powerful than a party of 6 for most of the game. But in the hints that appear in the loading times is stated to use a party because solo you have no chance.

But giving the combat XP in the same way of quest XP (reducing the XP to 1/6) would lead to a situation where running a small party becomes really hard and many solo classes in a modded game impossible.

I prefer a way where the player can set the amount of reduction to compensate the too fast leveling of a small party.

Raduziel

I think that XP caps makes sense because of the game's balance and XP distribution between evil/good choices.

Without it a good-oriented party would always be more powerful than a evil-oriented one. And we would be tempted to do metagaming and forget about RP. It would break immersion.

I don't give a damn about XP cap TBH. The first thing I do everytime I install BG is remove it. But it does makes sense.

OlvynChuru

Kurona said:

The real problem is that combat XP should be like quest XP, not divided between the party members. It would avoid the nonsense of solo characters becoming much more powerful than full parties.

I disagree. I really like how XP is divided among party members. The whole fun of soloing is that you become really powerful. It adds replay value: one playthrough you can use six party members, and in another playthrough you can use one party member, and it's an different experience either way.

The_Cheeseman

There's an exp cap in this game? Oh, right... Been so long since I played with it still enabled, I guess it slipped my mind. ;-)

No, but seriously, the level cap ruins my enjoyment of the game. I mostly enjoy playing RPGs to experience different playstyles and see how different builds react to any given situation. That's why I prefer to solo: it allows me to focus on just one character and test its limits. But I also get bored when things get too repetitive--I like steady level-ups that add new options for me to explore. That's why I adore sorcerers, I can play the same class multiple times and have a totally different experience by choosing different spells.

The level cap is just too low for me to really enjoy soloing. I already know that I can beat everything in the game, it hasn't really been a challenge for nearly a decade. Instead, I like beating the game in unique ways, and setting my own level of difficulty by choosing what order I tackle the given challenges (which BG1's open-ended style perfectly enables). Some builds are fun, but need a bit of extra help in certain situations (I made a sorcerer once that relied entirely on charm and crowd control spells, which made many encounters quite difficult due to immunities). Also, with a level cap, much of the content in BG1 is just pointless for a solo character. If there isn't any useful loot, and you aren't earning any exp, killing enemies just feels like a chore.

Also, sometimes it is just fun to be super-OP. Gotta get your power-fantasy jollies somewhere!

GreenWarlock

@Dee - the xp cap makes more sense than a level cap in 2E, where classes level at a different rate, and are intended to be at different levels at different parts of the game. An xp cap should impact all classes evenly, where a level cap will unfairly benefit slow leveling classes like Sorcerers, Paladins, and Fighter/Mage/Clerics, at the expense of faster leveling classes like Thieves and Bards.

3rd Edition finally did away with this by making all classes level at the same rate, but I really liked the uneven progress of 1st/2nd Edition that let different classes shine in their own way.

Dee

I don't dispute the importance of an XP cap in a game where each class levels differently, I just think the idea of an XP cap in general is a little troublesome.

If the cap happens too early, it conveys to the player that they've done everything they need to do, which leads to players not exploring the world. For a lot of players, that cap comes so early (Chapter 5 or even earlier) that the motivation to finish the game, especially at a point where you suddenly have this enormous city to explore, is diminished by the knowledge that you won't get anything for your effort. On the other hand, if there is no cap, there's so much XP in the game that a player might accidentally overlevel just by completing quests, so that they get to the final encounter and breeze through it.

So I wouldn't advocate removing it from this game--it serves an important balancing function, and removing it could easily ruin the experience for a lot of people--but speaking generally, I'd much prefer to see a game where your only limitation is what's actually been implemented, e.g. if there is no Level 10, your character can't reach Level 10.

DJKajuru

Dee said:

I don't dispute the importance of an XP cap in a game where each class levels differently, I just think the idea of an XP cap in general is a little troublesome.

If the cap happens too early, it conveys to the player that they've done everything they need to do, which leads to players not exploring the world. For a lot of players, that cap comes so early (Chapter 5 or even earlier) that the motivation to finish the game, especially at a point where you suddenly have this enormous city to explore, is diminished by the knowledge that you won't get anything for your effort. On the other hand, if there is no cap, there's so much XP in the game that a player might accidentally overlevel just by completing quests, so that they get to the final encounter and breeze through it.

So I wouldn't advocate removing it from this game--it serves an important balancing function, and removing it could easily ruin the experience for a lot of people--but speaking generally, I'd much prefer to see a game where your only limitation is what's actually been implemented, e.g. if there is no Level 10, your character can't reach Level 10.

On the other hand, new players rarely explore everything and rarely reach the xp cap on their first game.

JumboWheat01

DJKajuru said:

On the other hand, new players rarely explore everything and rarely reach the xp cap on their first game.

They must be very, VERY new players indeed. Video Game 101 includes "When told to go right, go left."

gorgonzola

I see good points in everything that has been told before. RP a good party give more choices and xp, soloing or running a very small party, thing that should give more challenge, lead to a too fast leveling and too powerful party, the balance between the party and the enemies should be preserved.
Imo both xp cap and lev cap are not good solutions, I perceive them as not natural and immersion breakers, with the party growing in power at a certain rate, then stopping for no reason. And they don't really solve the problems as until the lev or xp cap is reached the balance issues remain.

Reducing the XP gain, leaving to the player the choice of how much is reduced, seems to me a better way as it gives a smooth growing instead of the step growing of the cap approach.
A player who is running a solo Sorcerer can choose to have it gaining xp and levels at the normal rate (so 6X compared to a full party), at an 1/3 rate, making him more powerful but not OP like is in the game as it is now. or maybe choose a 1/6 rate, making the solo run very hard.
Going with a FMT a different rate can be choose, as the xp is split between 3 classes.
And so on.
In this way a smooth curve is obtained avoiding too fast periods followed by periods of stasis and the player can set how steep is the curve according to the party that he is running and his own ability to beat the game (taking also in account the mods that he uses.

FinneousPJ

In Dark Souls you can reach level 792 or so in theory (all abilities at 99), but in practice that would mean weeks of grinding. What this means is you gain levels throughout the game, and even consecutive NG+ cycles. It works really well.