No wonder you could always have a reference on any given topic. Thanks for the answer :)

Whatever suits the game I'm playing best. Levels don't matter in and of themselves. What matters is what is most fun in the game. If gaining levels gives you more abilities that make a difference then I would go with Char 2 but if I'm playing the game long term I would go with char 1.

Am simply against level caps, so that settles it.


And also, laughing at the OP being downvoted. Downrepped for no other reason than some forumers simply anonymously expressing "i don't like you in general and i want you gone". The gog community is such trash, such details are what makes it such a perfectly shiny turd.

Christmas, weee.

+1
I compulsively complete games that I begin (unless they lose my interest), so I would scope out the game first with the second character. Once the (obsessively meticulous) reconnaissance has revealed the parts of the game that are difficult because they are unexplored, then I can plan the character and gameplay. Hence, the disadvantage of slower progression (less powerful per game minute) would be countervailed by omniscience (obviating the "difficulty-by-obscurity").

Usually I don't mind to grind a bit, so I might initially pick char 1 and level up to 30 before even attempting the real challenges.
Then again I did that a lot and got disappointed if there wasn't even a hint of a challenge later on. Oh noes! My perfect skill synergies, the thought through build and gear I spent so long to attain! All wasted -.-

Most RPGs have you end up with way overpowered superheroes anyway, even w/o an actually good build. I can't be bothered to grind on if my char is already overpowered. It's boring and pointless imo. The only Bethesda game I ever finished was (the newer) Fallout - because I skipped on any and all sidequest, blew up Megaton as soon as I left and rushed the main plot, fully aware of Bethesda boring me to death if I postpone the main quest in the slightest...
Bethesda is an extreme of course. Kind of a pity they refuse to challenge players, but at least you know what you get :p

Thus faster levelling would be stronger in most (single player) RPGs and I'd pick that one for all playthroughs after the first. Perhaps even for the first as well. Level godlike+5? That's mere cosmetics to me. Unless of course there's that extra-hard mode that definitely needs level 30 and a really good build to finish (like solo'ing party RPGs, ideally uncertain whether it is even possible): That would be the best!

Disclaimer: I play for fun and certainly respect it if other people enjoy to play solely for the perfect character. Only that I personally don't enjoy that approach if there's no challenge ahead to justify it.

Speaking of solos, it is sometimes not possible to solo a game not because of difficulty, but rather because the game has a part that requires multiple characters. For example:
* Ultima 4 (except the NES version): If you reach the end of the final dungeon without all 8 characters, the game kicks you out. (A work-around is to recruit everyone and just let everyone but the main character stay dead.)
* Bard's Tale 3: You need an Archmage in an area that requires a Chronomancer to reach. I believe you also need a Rogue and one of Warrior, Paladin, or Geomancer to make it through the final dungeon (you need to use class-restricted items to proceed).
* Wizardry 8: Can be technically soloed, but only if you have a way around the event that causes one of your party members to go missing, and that's not going to happen if it's your first playthrough.
* Final Fantasy 6: The final dungeon requires you to split your party into 3. (It's possible to win with 3 singleton parties, but that still requires 3 characters (which happens to be the fewest you can reach the final dungeon with, anyway).)

Also, there are some games that are very solo unfriendly, like SaGa 2 (must create a full party, and death wears off at the end of each battle).

In games with unconventional growth systems, it can be fun to try and max out characters, or at least get them to a certain point. I enjoy Final Fantasy 2 for this reason, and I just maxed out two characters in Ultima 4 NES (except for armor, level (stayed at level 4 to avoid strong overworld enemies), and the lack of avatarhood).

I would go with option 2 and then remove the level cap with some mod. Level caps suck.

With all due respect, I think your OP premise is poorly made (unless I'm misunderstanding you). It seems like you're saying that both chars wouldn't even reach L20 by the end of the game, meaning that the level cap is irrelevant, and thus the 2nd char is clearly better due to reaching a higher level. Obviously L19 > L15.

IF the choices were A reaching L30 by the end of the game and B maxing out maybe halfway through, THEN you have a viable quandry: more power sooner in exchange for a power cap, OR a slower growth with more potential. However, assuming the devs made the game possible for a L20 to finish, that means that the L30 potential for char A is unnecessary and thus not that desirable, other than making it easier to "pwn dewds". It seems like the game might be too hard for A in the beginning and then too easy at the end. Neither are all that fun, to me anyways.

As to Bard's Tale 3, I was very upset with that game. After doing BT1 with a party, you could import those high level chars to BT2, play that, and then import them again to BT3, a fun and novel option at the time. It added a strong sense of continuity and connection to your chars. HOWEVER, BT3 added a thief class, and made it mandatory to have one at the final boss fight. I got to the end of BT3 and discovered I couldn't finish without one. What's more, you can't just add on a L1 thief, you have to have a high level one. That means I'd have to do the whole game over again AND choose one of my party to delete, just to make room for a thief with which to finish the game. That broke the continuity and connection, made it feel like the devs were demanding I break up my party and "kill" someone just to take someone they demanded I include, because that was so much "fun".

After playing through the entire series I was prevented from finishing the final boss fight, so I gave up and never finished. Terrible design decision.

As far as what I was thinking when the topic was originally made, that is indeed what I was thinking.

The thing is, there are some players who like to reach max level because it's there, and will spend hours leveling up well past what is necessary to make the final boss trivial (assuming that boss is a challenge at typical levels); for such players such a high level cap does matter.

For example, in Final Fantasy 1 (PSX), I once got a monk up to level 99 just so I could see how much damage would be dealt at that level. (Answer: 8000+ damage to normal enemies, 6000+ to the final boss (who has 4000 HP), 3980 (exact) to flans, and, with Haste and 26 Giant's Glove uses, 50976 (exact, even got the exact same amount twice) to a Frost Wolf (0 defense, doesn't run away).)

I believe the final boss can be realistically killed without a thief, if you can get there without one. (Of course, you should cast Divine Intervention at the start of the battle, regardless of the version you're playing (even if it doesn't heal you in 16-bit versions).)

For 8-bit versions:
* Cast Preclusion to prevent the boss from summoning more enemies, kill the minions (Earth Maw and the Deathhorn help here, or you could just spam nukes until enough of the enemies die). Then, just advance, as the boss is now powerless thanks to that Preclusion spell you cast.

For 16-bit versions (I saw this on video):
* The final boss is unable to summon due to a bug, so just kill all the lesser enemies. There's one enemy group that's basically immune to magic, but I think Earth Maw might still work. (Who cares about experience at this point?) Otherwise, you might need to just attack, and I hope you have a Hunter in your party (only way to instant kill an enemy without magic because, you guessed it, a bug).

In which case the issue is the player's quirks, not the game per se.

I remember actually wanting a cap in Morrowind because the whole game became too easy after a point, and I heard that there was a cap originally (L20 maybe?).

I remember trying for a while and getting nowhere. This was back on the Commodore 64 IIRC. There was no internet, no help, just endless waves that I couldn't bypass and no way to figure it out. This was decades ago, so I don't remember much.

You didn't try using Preclusion? After the Brilhasti fight, and with the manual's description of that spell, I figure any player would at least *try* using that spell.

Depends on the difficulty curve of the game and how long a run I'm planning. If I'm doing a completionist run and character 2 would cap out long before the end, that's not appealing. Especially if chararacter 1 does better in the endgame with the extra levels. If it's like New Vegas with a rock-hard final boss and I want shorter run, character 2 might be more appealing. Kind of how like, in that game, the exp boosting perks and magazine perks are somewhat unappealing if you're doing a comprehensive run but nice if you want to do hard content earlier.

I would choose character 2 because
1. I would have to really love the game to fool with postgame stuff. Unless I somehow know that at the start, I'd rather play the one that gets me thru the game efficiently.
2. As was said earlier, if I want a second playthrough I can use character 1.