I prefer not having level boundaries affect gameplay the way it does in Morrowind/Oblivion. Thing is, in those games, if you want ideal stats, you need to micro-manage skill increases, and getting an increase in the wrong skill can be bad. SaGa games don't have these sort of issues. (They're not without issues, like if you want max possible in HP, you need to reach 998 HP exactly and use a potion for 40 more (which will trigger a bug in the Game Boy version that makes stats harder to rise (but Esper skills easier to get), but at least that doesn't happen until the end.)

I prefer the way SaGa games handle it, where there are no levels, and having the wrong stat increase isn't going to cause problems (SaGa 1's bugs aside, bu SaGa 1 works differently, and this concern doesn't affect Humans due to the way their stat growth works (but does affect Espers).)

Incidentally, it's worth noting that, in TES, Stamina and Magicka are pure functions of the character's attributes, any Fortify effects that apply, and (in Morrowind and earlier) Magicka Multiplier. Level doesn't enter into it (though it affects spell scaling in Arena/Daggerfall and spell costs in Arean).

In the case of Restoration, you could base the gain on the Magicka cost of the spell. More expensive spells are more difficult to cast, so the reward for doing so should be greater.

(Dungeon Master is like that. Then again, Dungeon Master also adds a couple multiplicative factors; one based on dungeon level, and one if you've been attacked within the last certain number of frames, so making potions gives you more Priest XP if you do it while screamers are attacking you than if you do it in a quiet spot.)

Here's the thing:
* In TES, if you want to play a mage, your choice of race may give you some benefits for this playstyle (particuarly if you're a High Elf or Breton), but they way you develop your character isn't dependent on race.
* In SaGa 2 DS, on the other hand, any race can be a mage, but the way you make such a character into a mage is race dependent.

Here's how that works, just to give you an example:
* Human: To cast a spell, a human needs a spellbook or staff. A basic elemental or Cure spellbook costs 6800 kero (a lot early on, but not so bad later) and has 30 uses (which can't be restored). To increase magic power, the human needs to use the spellbook, and then they will get a chance of a magic power increase at the end of combat. I find that Humans make excellent casters in the long run, as spellbooks are more powerful than special abilities, Humans get magic power faster than Espers, and Humans also have the options of equipping Venus Fans (+10 magic power) in some of their 8 equipment slots. (There's also a couple items that provide a human +15 magic power, but they use body slots (one being chest armor, the other being shoes) so you can't just equip them in all of the character's empty slots.)
* Esper: They're similar to humans, albeit with lower stat growth, and one major difference; the ability to learn special abilities. Right off the bat, an esper will have an ability that hits all enemies at once with a magic attack, and will soon learn abilities that hit just a group, but harder. The basic abilities are weaker than comparable items (but note that you don't get any all enemy hitting items for quite a while), and have only 15 uses, but going to the inn restores them. The downside is that each ability an Esper knows (maximum of 4 before the bottom one starts getting replaced; note that you can re-order them) takes up an ability slot, so eventually an Esper has only 4 slots for items.
* Robot: Robots use items like humans; 7 slots (the 8th is permanently filled with immunity to most status ailments (petrify excluded) that can be filled with items. To get magic power, the robot needs to equip special magic circuits, each of which provides 8, 16, or 24 magic power. Meanwhile, robots only get half uses from items, but such item uses recover at the inn, so you only need to get one of the item and can use it for a long time. There's a trade-off of how much circuits versus how many spellbooks/staves you equip. (Note that Venus Fans and those other items that give magic power for humans won't for robots; however, robots are exempt from body slot limitations, so you could equip one with 7 suits of armor if you really want to.)
* Monster: If you have a chart of monster transformations, you can plan a meat-eating route to transform a monster into one with good spellcasting abilities. Their abilities are similar to the ones Espers get (some are even the same; a new Baby Dragon starts with the same Flame attack that a female Esper starts with), but are entirely replaced when changing forms. Get a Sprite early, and they will have a Thunder spell that does a lot of damage to an entire group. It's easier to get good stats on a monster than it is for other races, but meat could change one into a weaker form, and a player willing to invest a lot of time can get better stats on a Human or Esper, eventually. (Monsters, however, are ideal for speedruns and quick casual playthroughs, as are robots, for that matter.)

I don't consider this a positive trait; I prefer games where character roles can be more fluid.

One approach is this:
* For a linear game, the further you are in the game, the stronger the bandit encampments get. This means that a character will be of an appropriate level of power by the time they're encountered, as long as the player doesn't fall behind in power.
* For a non-linear game, bandit encampment strength can be based off how close they are to the starting point. Go further away, and they'll be stronger. Alternatively, give the player some other hints about how strong the enemies will be in an area; the original Dragon Quest uses bridges as an indicator of where enemies get stronger (and the manual mentions this IIRC).

I learnt this year I really don't like lots of levels, Lords of Xulima was the one that really made it obvious my guys made it to level 57 but because of the game design leveling is boring you just put points into the same skills constantly before switching to new ones and be honest who is going to come up with interesting skills for say 40 levels x how many classes.

The other game that helped me work out why is Tyranny, although my character it to a line of levels in the midteens, Tyranny is a very short game so you are constantly leveling up and it also throws bonus skills at you all the time. What I realised I missed is you never get an extended opportunity to test your tactics and strategy with specific skill sets because you are leveling up every second battle and constantly being given new shiny. Sometimes I wonder if its a cover-up for poor quality combat.

It really depends on the RPG for me. If it's a shorter RPG or a tactical RPG, then I don't have a problem with level caps if they're implemented correctly. That way, it really causes the player to think about their decisions, to not just choose skills because they sound interesting in the present but may not be useful later. It's also best when those sorts of games include the ability to reroll or change around your skills at a certain point in the game.

However, if an RPG is more along the lines of a sandbox RPG, or at least has basic sandbox elements, I prefer to not have classes or level caps. Those sorts of games exemplify and promote the concept of player freedom and level caps really remove that sort of freedom. Examples of this are, say, Skyrim. Like that game or not, its lack of classes and level cap allow the player to literally do whatever they want. Sure, it removes some elements of the replayability aspect but those types of games typically don't need to rely on classes or level caps for replayability anyways.

So yeah, it's kinda hit-or-miss for me. As long as it doesn't hinder the enjoyment of creating and progressing your character, I don't mind it but sometimes, they do get in the way.

Well put. Now, like I said, I dislike them, and restrictions on character development in general, in any situation, but in open world games they are particularly... unfitting.
So...
Definitely.
Very much disagree with that, and much prefer games that allow and reward ending up a master of all, which should be achievable with enough dedication and some planning.

Well i care to disagree with that too but , i have to say, the Grand Magician trait unlockable in heroes of might and magic IV was pretty cool and actually quite hard to obtain since you needed to have the luck of drawing all the magical classes with every level up. Well not exactly every level up but the ones familiar with heroes know what i mean

I am trying to do a similar thing in Mass Effect Andromeda at this moment. Here, like in many other action minded rpg's you always have the jack of all trades class that do provide bonusses

( sorry for the color in the screenshots, playing in HDR )

Wasn't it Archmage? Or you're referring to a different one?
The HoMM level up system is fundamentally flawed though, just because the options are random.

Speaking of random level-ups, I think they're only OK if one of these conditions are met:
* You're guaranteed to max your stats by the time you reach the level cap. (I think Final Fantasy 3 Famicom does this or at least gets pretty close; I believe the DS version and other versions based on it are not so nice (also note that HP is the only stat where there's any randomness).)
* Stat growth is not tied to levels, or at least there's a way to gain stats without gaining levels. (I can cite Dragon Quest 3's remakes here (in original DQ3, the only way to gain MP is leveling up; the remake adds a seed item for MP just like the other stats have), as well as Ultima 4 with its orbs as an alternate way of increasing stats.)
* There's no cap on levels; ideally, no level cap in the first place. This is where Final Fantasy 2 and most SaGa games fall. (Not where SaGa 3 on the Game Boy falls; human/esper HP/MP gains are random, and you can only go to level 99; if the game actually enforced a 999 cap on human/esper HP/MP, then the problem would almost be solved, with human MP, I believe, still not guaranteed to be maxed out.)

I ended up quitting Lords of Xulima, not because of the number of levels (I've played Disgaea 1 and 2 and enjoyed them), but because of the skill point system.

That's actually the game that made me realize that I don't like skill point systems, and that I really don't consider them good game design for a few reasons.

You shouldn't have to re-load level ups.

(This is an issue that also affects the Wizardry series, with the exception of Wizardry 4 and 8.)

you should be able to accept chance
yea your right, archmage

you scare me though, fundamentally flawed because of the rng

Why even roll for HP rather than have it just based off level and Constitution?

Also, I've never liked how, in D&D, you roll for stats at character creation and those are the character's stats forever. I much prefer how Wizardry and Bard's Tale handle it, where stats eventually max out, so your initial rolls aren't your character's destiny.

Seems the forum ate the post. Was saying that it doesn't even make much of a difference whether you can increase them later. Rolling for stats is an awful concept. I'd just stay there rolling thousands of times till I'd get all of them at max, probably never starting the game since that's so unlikely. So count it as a dealbreaker, if I see that idea in a game, no way, regardless of anything else.

Rolling for stats isn't so bad if it's a temporary, rather than permanent, factor.

For example, I don't mind it too much in Bard's Tale, where you will eventually max all your stats, or in Dragon Quest 3, where your initial stats are dwarfed by level up stat bonuses. It's when you *can't* increase them, or when the initial roll affects your final stats, that it's a problem.

Gotta selectively snip to allow the post to post. You'll likely have to do the same since it's mostly my own text.

I would agree: i don't particularly like the idea of stat changes on level up to begin with. However, it's a step in the right direction. I only ever played.. I think it was 3, maybe (this was back when it was still called "Final Fantasy Legends")? And it was over 15 years go, so i don't remember it much. The only thing i remember was not understanding it well, and having trouble, especially, controlling how my mutants morph. Yeah, in some ways TES has improved, in other ways it has gotten worse. It certainly has room for improvement, but i think that overall it is certainly one of the best among the ARPGs. Then you get things like Terraria that seem good at first, until you realize only health and mana are character attributes and the rest comes from equipment, meaning there's no character growth. I don't think that's necessarily true, unless you consider the idea that "holding mana" itself is challenging, at which point you have to ask why mana isn't it's own skill or why we have separate schools of magic. Certainly, this will be my approach: all skills will have their own levels, and mana will be an attribute to be trained and atrophied. Which makes sense: you're trying to do it under more duress. I don't think i'll be going as far to implement that mechanic, though, because trying to prevent exploitation via "an open window" or something like that would be hard. Just look at some of the sneaky iron golem farms in minecraft.

Like i said, you're obviously not playing at the right difficulty level. TES provides equality of opportunity, which makes sense because most races aren't as different from each other as they are in SaGa. The idea is, you should find it painful to change classes, because you should be reliant on what the game gives you (this is sort of universal in games). If you told me that you played Bravely Default and used a Monk as your primary spellcaster (by making black magic his/her secondary skill), I would tell you that you are clearly over leveled and are doing something seriously wrong. If you don't feel like you are using your best tools, you're clearly not under pressure. Of course you're going to have that sort of manifestation. Well, that sounds to me like RPGs are not for you. If you have something that you're good at, you should be using that unless it's ineffective. Otherwise, you're clearly not under any sort of threat, at which point, it becomes reasonable to ask why a battle is even happening. That wouldn't be realistic, though. I do plan on something, though: you'll be able to see enemies and look at them from afar and might get some round-about info about them: if they are heavy with armor, it might note the type of armor and how much it's clanging. If they are unarmored but very strong, it might note that they are really buff. A high level archer might have a really strong bow that stands out when you look at them. If they have alot of loot around, they're also probably high level. If they're mages, and they have what looks to be a library, you probably should assume they have invested alot into magic. Better yet: don't go anywhere near what looks like bandit camps if you know nothing about them. If you get a quest to take out a bandit camp, you will probably get some intel on the camp from the quset itself. Obviously, too, the bandits need something to raid to be strong, so there's probably a nearby source of information. You could also observe them from afar and raid them when they're raiding someone else if it looks like you can take them.

Since my game is to be non-linear, aside from special spawns of certain specific story-related structures, I figure there are a few ways of actually limiting this responsibly. First, bandit camps can spawn from villagers that leave villages "for the opportunity." Moreover, I plan on letting villages spawn by creating them a few "chunks" way out of the range of the player and giving them an X number of free turns to build their village organicly. Similarly, a bandit camp that spawns on the map should do this and potentially get their equipment that way. I don't expect a bandit to spawn with max level magic, but if left alone long enough, perhaps they can work up to it (NPCs will all have the ability to improve as well [which i expect to be a welcome feature when you try building your own towns from scratch by recruiting AI followers]). Odds are, bandits are going to be trying to hide their camps and will only raid from a position of advantage, and even then only if it's worth it (so a freshly spawned bandit camp might have a low "wanted level" so it's most likely to let you go because you simply aren't worth it unless you look like you're rich).

Dragons? Well, odds are, you're going to avoid them, and you're not likely to see that many. Dragons will most likely try to hunt large game that isn't organised (bears, deer, small bandit camps, etc). A succubus will likely "live alone" and will try to isolate you before making you a victim, thus simply rejecting a "strange woman" whom "lives in the middle of nowhere with no protection" will actually make sense. Find a town where there's almost no people and the few that are there refuse to go out during the sun? Probably hostile vampires, so stay away. See a massive castle with a town under it full of people, where the castle guards only come out at night? Friendly vampires. Large lake or ocean? Probably not a good idea if you don't have some way of breathing under water, 'cause who knows what all massive water-borne creatures are in there, and you might need to go into some kind of cavern to get away. Huge hole in the ground? Don't jump in. Giant spiderwebs everywhere? Better have a fire spell and tread carefully, ready to run at any time.

Maybe, the smartest thing you could do is join a caravan of traders going from town to town, since they'll likely have a reasonable guard to protect against what you're likely to deal with. As you work with them, you may encounter these different beasts and will have alot of help to fend them off. Then you'll know how likely you are to survive on your own with your current skill level. Almost certainly you should find a town right away, 'cause that's where you're going to get stuff for your skills: books, training, equipment, etc. Also, they're likely to have intel on whatever's nearby, since they've "been there for a while" and likely encountered what naturally occurs nearby.

I feel that, once you get to that point, you've completely lost all semblance of an RPG. You have stat growth and such, but, then, what's the point? You've dedicated yourself to being a God, rather than a team player. I've always found this conundrom, anymore, with games: you have cool skill X or cool equipment Y, but to get either of those you have to defeat the final challenge that X and Y protect you from (water breathing or something, for example). By the time you get the ultimate skill or equipment, you already beat the big bad thing. So here you are, with your omnipotent (but not omniscient) God of a character: now what? What is there left to challenge, to do, etc? In TES, well, you have the ability to continue quests for their moral value, but, well, I find myself too bored. I mean, sure, I can make myself a literal God, but what AI ever respects that?

But if stats don't change at level ups, what's the point of them?

(Incidentally, my dislike of level boundaries affecting gameplay is why I don't like it when characters get fully healed at level up. Similarly, while less common in CRPGs (seen it in some D&D variant rules that grant some special hero/action points), I don't like getting a consumable resource that's only filled at level up; this includes things like the one permanent stat potion per level limit in The Quest.)

SaGa 3, assuming we're talking about the Game Boy version (which is almost certainly the version you've played, as the DS version was released only in Japan), is atypical in the series.

It actually *does* have a level boundary issue; when an Beast levels up, it changes form, and that can be a change into a worse form.

It also has the issue that forms are only available at specific levels, so leveling up can lock you out of lower level forms; this is especially an issue for Cyborgs, where the form I've found best for endgame (because of it being fast and having an attack that slows down the enemy) is not the highest level one.