In 1e, not only monks and assassins had caps, but druids (raised in Unearthed Arcana) and bards as well.
The to-hit and saving-throw tables also topped out, and there was (unlike in OD&D) no suggestion that spell-casting ability (in terms of number prepared) could improve beyond the listed levels. Those limits helped to make the classes with hard caps, and non-humans, competitive longer (although by design not in perpetuity).
When the only built-in difference between a 30th-level character and a 100th-level one is a lot of hit points (and probably more spells in a magic-user's grimoire), I think the other game parameters are less likely to get out of whack. That makes a hard "ultimate limit" perhaps even theoretically unnecessary.
In practical terms, if it takes about a year to get a character to "name" level, and only a couple more levels per (real-life) year are added thereafter, then one might attain something between 25th and 30th level after a decade of play.
Even before considering level drains, that's beyond anything I have ever experienced.
In Legends and Lore (Deities and Demigods, less the Lovecraft and Moorcock), Babylonian Girru casts fire spells as if 40th level. At least a couple of other deities (Odin being one) have 30th level in a class or two. Otherwise, I think 25th (e.g., Zeus) is high among the gods. Asmodeus and Demogorgon (in the Monster Manual) have hit points equivalent to 44 monster hit dice. One might take that sort of thing into account when considering what's reasonable. Should a PC be allowed to exceed Odin (or whatever may be the equivalent in your campaign), and if so then by how much?
With 3E and 4E, much more rapid advancement seems the assumption, yet at the same time it looks to me as if 30th level might be stretching the game system's ease of playability. If one wants to play characters longer, then slowing the attainment of levels up to a manageable maximum might be better than extending beyond that point.
The to-hit and saving-throw tables also topped out, and there was (unlike in OD&D) no suggestion that spell-casting ability (in terms of number prepared) could improve beyond the listed levels. Those limits helped to make the classes with hard caps, and non-humans, competitive longer (although by design not in perpetuity).
When the only built-in difference between a 30th-level character and a 100th-level one is a lot of hit points (and probably more spells in a magic-user's grimoire), I think the other game parameters are less likely to get out of whack. That makes a hard "ultimate limit" perhaps even theoretically unnecessary.
In practical terms, if it takes about a year to get a character to "name" level, and only a couple more levels per (real-life) year are added thereafter, then one might attain something between 25th and 30th level after a decade of play.
Even before considering level drains, that's beyond anything I have ever experienced.
In Legends and Lore (Deities and Demigods, less the Lovecraft and Moorcock), Babylonian Girru casts fire spells as if 40th level. At least a couple of other deities (Odin being one) have 30th level in a class or two. Otherwise, I think 25th (e.g., Zeus) is high among the gods. Asmodeus and Demogorgon (in the Monster Manual) have hit points equivalent to 44 monster hit dice. One might take that sort of thing into account when considering what's reasonable. Should a PC be allowed to exceed Odin (or whatever may be the equivalent in your campaign), and if so then by how much?
With 3E and 4E, much more rapid advancement seems the assumption, yet at the same time it looks to me as if 30th level might be stretching the game system's ease of playability. If one wants to play characters longer, then slowing the attainment of levels up to a manageable maximum might be better than extending beyond that point.
Last edited:
