Which leveling system do you prefer Warband or Bannerlord?

Which has the better leveling system?

  • Warband

  • Bannerlord

Results are only viewable after voting.

Users who are viewing this thread


Grandmaster Knight
Yeah the system is not good. Some skills barely level at all, and all skills level very slow after you get to 100 or so, even with max focus points. I think the level of weapon skill should have greater impact on weapon speed, not so much the damage. With speed comes the higher speed bonus and damage through it.
It's a mess. No one tested anything in this game.

There is no actual feature that works properly.
Yeah, I think with the skills/perks that it was just a early work in progress and not tested or played at all. That gives me hope though that it could likely be improved.
I might expect some other changes too though, like you character not being magically competent in all weapons at the start of the game with only 5 skill and no FP in them. That too seems like something for "show and tell" and not intended for the real game.


Other than the miserable grind that is Smithing, I think the system is Ok. needs some work but hey, this is what the EA is for.


Knight at Arms
Scouting works- one you get somewhere in the 40-50s you can see tracks but just barely. I think tracks start being way more obvious and useful to actually follow/tell what they are when Scouting gets into the 90-100 range.

Who the hell has the patience to get scouting to 90? I can't even imagine how many hours that would taker.


I like the concept and the interface, but the criteria for leveling certain things is too specific, like you can win a 100 battles but leadership doesn't move. One thing that does not make sense though is that you can not change the focus of yourself or you companions.


Vote for it being too slow here too. I didn't realize it actually might be a bug. It's an alpha, that part is fine, but definitely it's way too slow as it is.


current system is really awesome, for example I started with 2 vigor, 5 1 h skill.

At first it showed an exp modifier to be like 3.4 but then 3.0. 3x the exp.

I hit a looter with 30 damage once, and let myself get beaten. Officially you have 3x, but if 3x is correct, then the base exp is nerfed to just 0,5.

For 100 damage you get 50 exp. So with 3X modifier with 100 damage you get 150 exp.

All great. And on top of this half exp, you get robbed of up to 20x exp gain. Until this is fixed, I shall refrain myself from playing this frustration inducing experience. With high focus and vigor I was to have 219x exp gain. And it gives not even 10x. On top of that, half damage exp, 5x instead of 219.

7 vigor 5 1 h focus.


1.11x base
63,11x from vigor
155,56x from focus

yet I get 1,11 + 3,11 + 5,56= 9,78

210x got lost somewhere. With so high exp modifier, 0,5 damage (why isnt it damge = exp for simplicity?) isnt so bad perhaps ... however, I bought a hireling and he has 185 archery. To reach 186th level, exp requirement is 47000. If bows also get 0,5 damage penalty to exp, and we assume 10x exp gain, that is nearly 19 000 bow damage for 1 skillup.

If we assume 210x / 2 = 105, then, 447 damage would be needed. At higher levels exp gain still drops. This is not too much since all attributes and focus went there.

I think that this right here is the problem. Focus points were intended to give us a big skill growth multiplier, but it seems that it's currently bugged. The +155.56 bonus from having 5 focus points counts the exact same as having a +5.56 bonus. Same thing is happening with the bonus from attributes.

If you were to hit a bonus of +70.00 from attributes and +160.00 from focus points, then this bug causes neither your focus points or your attribute points to count AT ALL towards the multiplier. You'd be stuck with the incredibly small base rate of around 1%.

No way is this working as intended. I haven't seen any of the devs acknowledge this at all, which is a real shame bc it seems like it would be very easy to fix. It's also caused players to question the overall design of the entire skill system, which may actually be very good if it were working properly.


A imo conceptually flawed design...
a) Level dependent upon skillspoint sum > means levelling everything will let you level faster, instead of helping the 'focus' idea.
b) Attribute groups that literally consist of skills were you'd mainly just want 1 out of the 3 (Vigor, Endurance, Control) - are a waste and not much different from the actual focus point system.
c) Attribute groups with differently used skills means it again impacts your levelling speed in different ways. And for different skills. E.g. 1 Point in endurance will have to differently impact smithing and atheltics as skills will be used not the same amount of skillchecks. And skillsgroups like Vigor and e.g. Intelligence will also be used not the same amount of time. So it's a mess to actually balance.
d) Having skill and foci point not only have impact on 'soft skillcap' but also skilling speed actually makes the whole system a lot less understandable.
e) Handling passive and active skills or better put skills with a huge impact on main gameloops and skills with a vanishing amount of influence (scouting vs. fighting or tactics). Is imo quite flawed.
f) leveling just grants you points for faster leveling/higher caps - so in actuallity the GM awards you with the ability to keep on grinding. Which doesn't give the same reward feeling as actually gaining something from it.

And those are the points i see other than 'balance' issues of how fast things in themselve level. Or how some perks a copies within different skills groups (as far as i remember in both riding and bow is the skill to use every bow from horse. Which is off imo) - not even to mention why i should want that, when the best recurve bow is en par with the best longbows.
So again, my hope is that they manage to include enough things to at least smooth out the huge differences in skill usages. I mean don't see any reason why one would want an intelligence focussed character at the moment. And i think it's quite unlucky to basically need 2 if not 3 attributes for fighting (Vigor, Endurance - possible also Control) when Cunning solves battles with one skill.


This is a redo of 100's similar posts. I for one already mentioned that this is just VISUAL BUG and anyone who would not follow other comments like blind sheep would soon see this as the math wouldn't sum up. Because otherwise you wouldn't reach skill level 30 in any given skill after 40 hours of playing and you wouldn't reach player level 5-8 after 40 hours... so the math is working properly.. only the Visual side of it doesn't work, because the TOTAL sum is only calculating the numbers before the point.

This visual bug causes the total sum to be calculated based on single digit and only taking the number before the separation point.

SO the visual representation is 7.47 which is derived from 1.33+2.13+4 = 7.46 (There probably is somewhere a 3rd digit behind the separation which rounds this number to to 7.47)

This is purely VISUAL if you ask me. I mean im level 15 after 20 hours got 150 points in Steward which would be impossible with a learning rate of max 10.

I don't find that to be particularly convincing. First, assuming that this is indeed bugged, 10 is not the max learning rate, you could theoretically have +9.99 from focus points, +9.99 from attributes, + base rate of ~+1, giving you a max of around 21. You probably won't hit that x21, but you can definitely get between +10 and +20 at times.

Second, I've leveled up skills like scouting, medicine, stewardship, and tactics to around level 30 without any significant focus point investment at all (maybe 1 in each, if that), and my current campaign's playtime is well under 40 hours. In fact stewardship is easily my highest skill at over 100, while I have only been investing points into it when it hits the cap. Meanwhile, skills that I've invested 5 points into, like bows and throwing, athletics, and trading, are leveling at a snails pace. I get that bows and throwing don't level passively, which would explain why it takes longer for these to level, but my athletics and trading are barely, if at all, outpacing my non-invested skills.

I guess in the end, it doesn't matter if it's bugged or not - the point is that leveling invested skills feels much slower than it should should regardless.


No idea because I have to keep restarting with updates. Never get to level very far.

You know the patches thus far have been save-compatible, right? Just update your save when you first load in. I've been playing every day, so have gone through 7 patches (8 as soon as I load for today), am only on 2nd character. Updates to daily patches have worked just fine.


As far as the OP topic, my basic impression is same as many others: cool in theory/concept, not currently working so great in practice (once getting to somewhere in the Level 11-13 range. Early leveling seems okay). Lots of tweaking to do, but I'm reasonably confident TW will do so.
Last edited:

Sgt Hulka

No idea because I have to keep restarting with updates. Never get to level very far.
Just so you know, you can keep playing your old game on the new mod. But I feel like the character levels slower than the game progresses. I don't think I can come close to maxing my character before a faction takes over the map.


I mean yes, but good progression also tends to entail an easy late game. Normally if a game is well balanced the majority of the play-through is challenging but not boring or impossible feeling, however the further you get in the game the more powerful you feel until in the late game, you have a feeling of a "power fantasy" where you can just annihilate everyone that used to cause you so many issues earlier in the game. The problem for this game is that you don't really feel that. You can assemble a massive army that actually can annihilate everyone, but you yourself still feel incredibly weak. A fully leveled up late game character with the best armor and weaponry that you can physically get in the game can and will still get absolutely wrecked by a few looters throwing rocks.

I don't want Bannerlord to be some kinda Skyrim or what have you power fantasy at all.


I absolutely love it. The concept of focus points meaning you have to dedicate training in very particular areas as well as only being able to choose one of a choice of perks when you level up means that each playthrough is different and you need to specialize your character to get the most out of each skill tree. You get around the 'no generalists' limitation by having multiple companions who also specialize.

A merchant trader who excels at bartering would rarely be a skilled warrior, and a crackshot archer would rarely be a skilled engineer. But through the team you can fill those gaps and be greater than the whole. For that reason I always max my leadership perks first.

It can be a bit grindy due to low xp gain but it's a marathon game - you're playing someones lifetime, not a short segment of a small war. I really like the pace and I think the skills system is one of the best I've ever seen.

I agree. It might need tweaking here and there but the concept and general feel is excellent, as is the tempo in general for skill and level gain.
I don't like being forced to choose between two perks and not being able to reassign them.

on polearm there are two perks to choose from:
1) do 70% more damage to horses
2) you get 2% speed when you equip a polearm.

The first perk doesn't make sense, because in theory the damage to a horse should depend only on the relative speed, on the hitbox and at the most on the type of attack inflicted (if piercing, cutting or blunt damage).
Both perks would be excellent and there is no real sense in choosing between the two, since no logic asserts that whoever is able to do one thing cannot do the other.

Rather than forcing you to choose between 2 perks, they should give you points to spend on the perks you want and at most limit the level to which the perk is obtainable through the level.

On the level system I would have a lot to say.
It is a system in which more levels and more become incompetent in proportion to the enemies than you were in the past.
You have better equipment, but you can deal with them in an ever-decreasing number of ways, which is a nonsense.
And this problem occurs in all level progression games.
Perks should also guarantee mechanical, not simple "numerical values".
Take sekiro.
There are no statistics, but the more you experience and the more "unlocking skills", you don't get stronger "because you have the big numbers" but "with the greatest number of ways to approach a fight", therefore "you become more competent".

One branch of perks that should be improved is "tactics".
I expect that on tactics there is the possibility to unlock different formations, perhaps to have a sort of map in which to move the units.
In short, stuff that concerns tactics and strategy, not a numerical value for the "simulated battles" which is nothing but the antithesis of this game in some ways.

In addition, skill leadership, if not as much as a steward, should guarantee at least a little increase in party size.


As a framework it seems ok.

However the values need some serious balancing. Main point is that most skills are too slow.

Let's think about what progression should look like and what signals are given to a player. As a player, we can see these perks up to 275 skill. This indicates to a new player you are supposed to get those perks eventually. Secondly the player is shown the focus and stat mechanics where they must specialize into something. This signals to the player that if they put max focus and high stat into something, they will be rewarded and get those 275 skill perks in a reasonable time.

What is a reasonable time? Well that varies to taste but IMO 30 hours to get 275 skill in your character's main specialization. This should be the goal, if you are playing 'normally' IE using the character in a way that matches your specialization, but not having to do super gamey grinding (like, not 30 hours of headshotting only looters, real battles and progressing to merc/vassal/kingdom etc).

So how does the 30 hour goal compare to real values right now? Really, really poorly. Frankly I'd be surprised if someone could hit 275 skill in 100 hours of normal gameplay, in their main specialization. Even with a 5x XP mod, it will probably take me like 50 hours of playthrough to get 275 archery. Five times XP mod, and it's STILL too slow vs our target. That shows how borked the unmodded values are.

Lastly there is serious disparity across different skills. Stewardship for example levels far faster than others, while some skills are super slow. So a lot of balancing is required there.


Knight at Arms
1. I don't like it that level gains are bound to skill gains. It forces you to make all kinds of silly decisions just to train skills in order to gain the next level up. I liked it better as it was in Warband when your level grew independently from weapon skills (or proficiencies as they were called).

For example, I want to use a polearm but I will gain a skill-up much, much quicker with a one-hander. We all know how painfully slowly we grow in power so I am going to use that one-hander even if I don't really want to. It might be the only way for me to level up, or that's especially often the case for companions.

2. I don't like the prohibitive hard caps on skill gains. They are too harsh. Especially with the way the character creation system works, where you have to choose between differently imperfect choices for your starting attributes and focus points, trying to find the least bad figuration.

3. I don't like how incredibly slowly the skills go up after only a few skill-ups, and while your skill level is still at the level of tier 1 or 2 troops. Aside from the very start, it feels like you never gain a level or get to do something fun like pick a Perk. Once in a blue moon that happens. This is one of the most fun aspects of RPGs, those rewards when you "ding".

4. I'm not sure how I feel about Perk choices. Warband seems more fluid and less prohibitive (also because there was no hard cap on improving your weapon proficiency).

All in all I feel like the system forces you into such a stupid and convoluted meta game in order to get the most out of the system and actually not really hamper your growth potential and screw your character completely.

I think the system also is the culprit for forcing you to level up your troops using auto-resolved battles (battles that aren't simulated or "simulated battles" as they are called). Because there is no regular XP gain but only skill gain by using them, there is no collective XP gained after a regular simulated fight (where you yourself fight an actual battle) that is shared with all your party.

The auto-resolved battles however calculate an expected XP gain somehow, which is completely different from how it would turn out if you actually fought the battle. So in that case it is more like the XP gain in Warband.
Last edited:


My character is presently lvl 13 in less than 15 hours of playing, my 3rd game though where i took what I learned and applied it. My first playthrough was much like yours however, leveling took forever. That first character was focused on combat skills, and I found that leveling non combat was harder and took longer soooo.

My 3rd playthrough (2nd bugged) I took non combat skills during character creation. Social attribute and charm, some riding and trade. So while my character was a potato for combat early on, he was levelling incredibly quickly due to all the combat skills I didn't have...which gain experience super quick compared to non combat.

Hmmm Ok that's good advice thanks! I was thinking of starting a new character soonish cause I'm eh about my current one, which is like, sort of well rounded. I was thinking of doing some two handed, bloodthirsty kind of character lol


All in all I feel like the system forces you into such a stupid and convoluted meta game in order to get the most out of the system and actually not really hamper your growth potential and screw your character completely.

I can get behind this. While, I do feel that RPG's in general normally involve some sort of metagame, this is a little ridiculous.
Top Bottom