From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

To Grind or not to grind? (That is the question....)[edit]

Is level 100 going to be too much of a grind? Was level 20 too low in GW1? It's time for YOU to have your say!! Personally the only arguement against it is that PvE players have to grind to get up to level 100 (or higher) inorder to be able to compete in PvP.

My solution generate a PvP character then!! I got so dissapointed with GW1 and PvE not being able to level up, especially as my Prophecies character was level 20 by the time he got to Lions Arch, which meant that all through the Shiverpeaks, Crystal Desert, Fire Islands, The WHOLE of Cantha, the WHOLE of Elona, the WHOLE of EOTN (do you get my point?) he got absolutely no more experience.

What's that I hear you say? Skill Points - yeah got a nice little collection of them thanks, still not used most of them.....

Anyway that's my POV raise the level cap to be more PvE friendly.--Stu 09:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're lv20 when arriving in LA, you're doing something wrong I think; most people are lv16 tops there. But that's besides the point. If GW 2 is going to include grind for levels, ANet looses a lot of players. Most people like it because PvE is not level-based (unlike WoW and other similar levelgrind RPGs), but based on skill. When everyone is max level, people who are simply better at the game, win faster. That's what GWO is about, anyhow; skill. It's the sole reason you can create a max level PvP char as much as you damn well want to. If you suck at the game, you'll lose anyhow, because you probably have a bad build, or don't know how to play with a good build.
Also, sidekick system for PvP. --- Ohaider!-- talkpage 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that level 20 is too low, but level 100 is too high I think Anet should make the level cap 50 or so - Giant Nuker 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

aah lotsof bullshit, lets see how they pull it off... they alrdy stated they don't intend the levels to be a grinding factor and will probs make the content accordingly, u will have max lvl and UAX when u enter structured pvp - Wuhy User Wuhy sig.jpg 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this talk about what number the max level should be is kind of pointless, because it really is just an arbitrary number. The leveling system could be that you reach lvl 5000 after your first mission, because of extremely low point requirements. The more important concern is at what point in the game are we going to max out?

Another thing to consider is that it's looking like the game is shaping up to have several expansions (i.e. Cantha and Elona for example). If Anet goes with the limitless maximum level, I'm not sure how they would give us any increase in power with new expansions for levels that we'd already gained. Of course, there hasn't been any info on whether we will receive power increases, but maybe if they do this, it'll be done with equipment upgrades...Vidal 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, I really hope that there will be a level cap. And although I like to grind sometimes, I'd like to have a limit to it. - 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the source is but I remember reading that if there is no cap, there will still be a certain level/point where your character doesn't get any stronger whenever it levels. So technically, even if there is no number level cap, there will be a cap as far as how powerful your character can get.

It would be nice if they dont show your lvl but your characters age, you know like how long your character exists... 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)T-MAN(wikivisitor)

No secondary prof[edit]

sauce? ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC) -- pling User Pling sig.png 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
ty Pling =). ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops. --Neil2250 , The Zoologist User Neil2250 sig icon5.png 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How Many Characters?[edit]

How many caracters are available for each account, or is it unknown?? 12:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unknown. People who would like to make every possible profession with every possible race are probably going to be disappointed, though. Erasculio 12:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"level 50"[edit]

A recent interview has a direct quote from Eric Flannum in which he states, "So if you get to level 50 and you want to go get a new type of pet, you don’t have to spend a bunch of time levelling that pet". Is that a sign that the level cap will be of at least 50, maybe more? Erasculio 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We know it will be at least 50 from this, but there is nothing to suggest the maximum is 50. --Odal talk 18:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"@GWars2Forum All the article says is that there is a level 50... ~RB". So I'll go ahead and assume level 50 is definitely not the max level. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 18:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Max level is 80: Ramei Arashi 03:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm really glad that they are making level-ups more constant. That is always a good thing (in my opinion, at least). My favorite game does this also, which makes leveling multiple characters more enjoyable. -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк) 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, combined with PvP allowing every level to compete on a level playing field, this almost seems inevitable. My only concern; What's the cap for monsters? 100?--Warzog Watch your six! 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt monsters even have a level cap, similar to GW. I don't think it should be too much of a concern, yet. We have no idea what effect leveling up has, it could be very slight past a certain point. -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that the enemies will scale accordingly. I thought that in GW1 the enemies scaled quite well with general character progression in the game Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I love them using a flatline as what their game represents reguarding lvling. First few lvls always come easy and I highly doubt 79-80 is gonna be a few minute ordeal. Maybe they are trying to break that very line of thinking. Seriously though im 100% positive that chart is just P.R. B.S. Justice 07:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is just PR. It is exactly what they did for GW1. From where I'm sitting all they seem to have changed is the number you stop at and the attributes you sink your level points into. -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 09:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually your probably right. My graph reading skills must be off a touch. The progression between the lvls is linear(?) is all they were saying. GW1 is like +set amount of exp required for next lvl compared to the last lvl, where as in other its like last lvl x 2, and the next would be like last lvl x 3, Exponential(?) or something. Justice 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Other games just make it doubly exponential (it takes more to get, and rewards decrease...). So while GW2 might require the same amount for every level, it will be longer because the rewards are lessened. Imagine that the creature you killed to get to 1st level gave the same experience when ur at level 79. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not every game. The linear leveling model isn't anything new, but it works so well. The rewards won't decrease as long as you are playing in the appropriate area, I wouldn't expect to get much exp from stepping on a level one snail if your level is seventy-nine times higher than its. -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


For the people who got to play the demos, how hard was it to gain levels? Victor6267 User Roaring Taco Black Moa Chick.png 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it took them very long. The fact that people leveled at all should tell you something. Shadowed Ritualist 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Leveling curve?[edit]

I was just reading the PCGZine interview on GW2 ( and at one point he states that time it takes to level from 79-80 is the same as leveling from 29-50. Now since this is an interview, I understand that the wording might be a little messed up since they don't edit what they say. But I can't tell from the article if he is saying that this leveling principle will be implemented into GW...I like playing multiple characters way too much. :D ERICtheESKIMO 19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That interview full of mistakes, not worth reading at all. The interviewer misheard that, so the correct number is 49-50. Here is a post about it on GW2Guru. 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
So the leveling curve is logarithmic? 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much failed at maths, but I don't get this . If the time it takes to get from 49-50 is same as 79-80(and earlier levels being more of the same), shouldn't the line be a straight diagonal line? Where as Other MMOs it should start off straight and head upwards as levels progress.. I'm currently reading as it taking little time to level up in early levels and almost no time in later ones. Sorry if I'm wrong!-- 02:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because those lines are the derivatives of the overall time it would take. (It's saying that the time in between levels is constant; you would need to integrate to get the actual leveling function). Aqua (T|C) 02:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No PvP characters[edit]

"Unlike Guild Wars, there will be no differentiation between PvE and PvP characters, so the same character can be used to enter both PvE and PvP."

"A character used to enter structured PvP will retain race and profession."

This really worries me. Does anybody else get the feeling that this means we won't be able to change into any possible role in PvP, like it was possible in Guild Wars? That was really one of the strongest parts of GW, IMO. 22:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll have access to all skills and traits, as well as max armor and weapons, when playing PvP. -- ķ̌yoshĺ User Kyoshi sig.png 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Or rather, everyone will have access to the same level of armor and weapons, or something. But all skills and traits are unlocked for PvP. -- ķ̌yoshĺ User Kyoshi sig.png 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the IP might be talking about something like Costume Brawl or the Dragon Arena, am I correct? EiveTalk 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No. What I was talking about is that the only way we can have the same functonality as with GW1 PvP characters is by being able to immediately enter structured PvP with any just-created GW2 character. Either that or 40 character slots per account, which seems a little bit unrealistic. But now that I've spelled it out for myself, it does seem likely that we'll be able to just make a new character all the time and immediately enter PvP with it. Do you guys think so? 00:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Soon as you get through the initial gameplay "tutorial", I suppose. But yes; any character can enter PvP, and have access to all skills/traits and the same level items everyone else in structured will have. I assume it's not in a set location like GToB was. To be honest though, they haven't talked much about PvP yet. -- ķ̌yoshĺ User Kyoshi sig.png 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if the structured pvp starts from a district of Lion's Arch. Having a single location in the world where it starts from makes it much much easier to make a pug. Thering 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Anyone know if our Characters will have birthdays and/or birthday presants? User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg Titan Crow 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No clue, but i really hope we do. im creating all my toons right away, just in case :) --Moto Saxon 21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


Should it possibly be mentioned as a trivia that (80 lvls at 90 min each) to get your character to maximum level it would take 5 straight days of gameplay? Kormon Balser 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Only 5 Character slots?![edit]

Thats not even enough for one character of each profession! Nor even enough to have one of each race and one extra to experiment with! I'd have thought that we'd have at least 6 slots to begin with, but ideally 8. User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg Titan Crow 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Added: Ofc, we will be able to buy more but I reckon we should get at least one slot for each profession free. User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg Titan Crow 11:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Go figure, in GW1 we had only 4 slots at the start, with 6 or 8 professions (depending on which campaign you bought first). 5 is fine in my opinion, if you need more, buy more. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, 5 to start is just fine. As Cyan said, more slots were available when the additional campaigns were released. Plus, the game isn't pay-to-play, so really, what's an extra $10 for one more slot? Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 11:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
when did they announce that?--Angelkiss User IcyyyBlue Elementalist Blue.png 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Here :) — astronomy User Astronomy.png 12:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
oh ty, atleast ill have an extra slot since im only makin 4 characters... ;)--Angelkiss User IcyyyBlue Elementalist Blue.png 12:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Suddenly the name reserve system is that much more interesting to hear about. - Infinite - talk 14:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Any word on that yet? T'would be nice because it would be a pseudo-quasi-maybe-sort of way of saying the game is closer to release (antsy). 5 is just fine because, seriously, who is going to have more than 3 characters (maybe) in the first 6-8 months of playing? One for PvE, one for PvP, one for experimentation and since there's so much to do in all 3 modes I'm sure people'll be busy as hell. (Was that comment about slots being $10 true? Or a guess-timate based on GW1 pricing?) 14:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I know I will be wanting to use the 5 slots right away and will purchase 4 or 5 additional slots right away. I can reserve names with the old system, so I can use the standard set of slots for new names I couldn't reserve. - Infinite - talk 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Clarification from SLP that this is not set in stone. Redshift 14:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't set in stone. People kept telling us it was confirmed as final, but if they don't even have an estimation regarding release date they wouldn't have finalized the slots, either. - Infinite - talk 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Im not at all against buying more slots but still think that we should have at least one slot for each race, plus another one for trying out the professions. In GW1 I had one PvE character of each profession and then another PvP character for each of my favourite professions (in total there were another 6 PvP chars). In GW2, I will be having at least one character for each profession and hopefully several other characters to try out mixing particular professions with the various races. In an ideal world, like I said, I would love to see eight slots to start with. User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg Titan Crow 16:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think five slots (one for each race) is fine. I have no problem with buying extra slots. Ramei Arashi 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Dang it! I really wanted at least 8 slots. Even 6 would be doable... Kormon Balser 00:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least I can still make a necromancer for every race. -User Eive Windgrace Harbinger of the Deceiver.png 01:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
" In GW1 I had one PvE character of each profession and then another PvP character for each of my favourite professions" You certainly did not have this after the game was initially released. We are all spoiled now, comparing a currently unreleased game to a game with 3 campaigns and an expansion. I think 5 is plenty to begin with. Of course, everyone will make 5 right away so that they can maximize birthday gifts ;). Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 04:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thread necromancy! The "clarification" is from more than a year before they said it would be 5 slots, so I think we can be pretty sure the first link was correct. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 14:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Link- August 20th 2011. Clarification- August 21st 2011. Nice try but no it seems valid. Any news on this coming out today, the day it goes out for prepurchase? --Starfleck 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reserving Names[edit]

I wonder how reserving names from GW1 characters works. Surely, this has to be done before the game release, but this could be done only pre-ordering the game... Lukas Mantor 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no up-to-date information avialable regarding this matter. - Infinite - talk 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe they will just reserve all HoM registered names in GW2 for the first few months, or indefinitely. I'm not even using my gw1 names since we can now have 1 word names. --Moto Saxon 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I m pretty sure they' re gonna steal the name "Sephiroth" again before i get the game . XD CaiusTheBig User talk:Caiusthebig 17:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the unoriginal names will be gone quite early on, but they are terrible names for Guild Wars 2 in the first place. - Infinite - talk 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
All we know is that they will be reserved, so this section amounts to (very silly) speculation. --ஸ Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig2.png 19:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The clarification is still sufficiently vague. I understand that I have to log into any GW1 characters I wish to reserve the names for, but if I am reading the statement correctly those names will ONLY be reserved until the end of release day. Is it possible for anyone to clarify this? 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No clarification required, you got it right. Names will be reserved only for the timeframe between the start of the headstart access and the end of the day of release. - Infinite - talk 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To reserve a name you must sign in before July 31, 2012. Recently announced. Names will be reserved during the 3 day early release. 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's up with Reserving Names? The "Reservation Period" for GW1 -> GW2 names was supposed to end ages ago (end of headstart!), but despite that, I'm still getting "The name you entered is a reserved Guild Wars character name. If you think this name should have been reserved for you, please make sure your Guild Wars 2 account is linked to your original Guild Wars account and try again. (Code=1061:4:18:193:101)". Of course I don't own this name in GW1... I have verified this name does exist from someone else in GW1 by punching the name into the GW HoM rewards calculator (doesn't look like a very active account based on the calculator). I want to know when are they actually going to drop GW1 name reservations?


So I'd personally like to improve the WvW and PvP sections of the article (I haven't played those bits myself yet) and include some images but don't really think the page needs a stub tag. Is the IP who attached the stub tag still around to explain what they think needs work with the article? At the moment I'm struggling to think of things to include on the page which aren't housed somewhere else on the wiki. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

2nd Utility Slot[edit]

You forgot the level acquisition of the 2nd utility slot, regarding the landmarks. But I don't know which level it was. Maybe someone could add that. Gnarf 07:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammer: They / It / He or She[edit]

I have noticed that most people refer to the word "character" using the pronoun "they". Example- "When a character's level is scaled this way, the power of their skills and attributes also adjust accordingly, and their adjusted level is displayed in brackets next to their actual level." Has it been established that we refer to the word "character" using the pronoun "they", or should we use the grammatically correct phrases "he or she" or "it"?-- 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "grammatically correct" choice. Some grammarians insist on he/she, some allow "they" (since it's personal, but gender-neutral), some are okay with "it" (since it's singular and gender neutral, although others think it is too impersonal). I suspect we've been inconsistent on the wiki to-date because no one had (yet) brought up the idea that we should be more consistent. Basically, it's a stylistic preference and we (the wiki community) are free to choose whichever of these three choices we like. (We could also insist on rephrasing content so that we never need a gender-neutral pronoun.)
In my personal writing, I always use "they," but I am aware it rubs some people the wrong way. (To be fair, I find the use of "he/she" to be similarly awkward and I cannot stand seeing "it" to refer to a person, even if they are just a bunch of pixels in the screen.)
Consequently, I have a strong preference for "they," followed by insisting on rewriting to avoid the use of a gender-neutral pronoun. However, I'm willing to go along with the use of "s/he" or "he/she," if the majority of the community agrees. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely, including that the best way is finding a sentence structure that avoids the need for a pronoun altogether. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey I'm just curious, since English is not my first language I want to ask, does it really feel awkward to use "he/she" and "it"? This is familiar to me because I've seen many communities around games documenting using "they" too. – Valento msg 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@Valento: yeah, but it depends a lot on how you learned English. The teacher I had who introduced me to the idea of using "they" mostly insisted that it was the audience that mattered for things like this. She would never use "he/she," but she sometimes used "s/he" and generally preferred to rewrite to avoid the issue. That was realistic in her rhetoric class and in when she taught fiction, but it's a lot more difficult to do for a game wiki, since gender-unknown or gender-non-specific situations come up a lot more frequently. I had another English teacher who refused to allow her students to use anything other than "he," unless it was likely that we were discussing a female, but I always associated that with being closed minded: to that teacher, doctors were always "he" and nurses always "she."
"It" generally is almost only associated with "things," so I don't think I've ever seen it used for an adult: in the sentence, "the child and the doll were on the bed and it sat up" would come from a horror novel — that sentence would be universally be interpreted as "and the doll sat up."
@Ish: it's possible to rewrite every they + s/he sentences to avoid the pronoun, but sometimes, it's going to be difficult and sometimes it might generate a more awkward phrasing than desired. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see, in portuguese we use the male pronoun for most gender-unknown sentences but it's not closed-minded, it's the most natural and the only grammatically correct way of doing it so it's not a problem at all. When translating I usually focus on fluence and naturality. – Valento msg 22:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That used to be the prevailing method in English, too (using "he"), but that got shot down and burned by the wave of political-correctness that swept through the USA a couple decades ago. Now, using "he" is seen as chauvinistic. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't stuff work out fine if you'd (read : we'd) rephrase the sentence (whenever possible) to a plural form? 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
My answer, although it may be a little sneaky, it to try to avoid the singular noun. Instead of "A character must change his or her skills..." I amend to "Characters must change their skills..." I cannot -- simply cannot! -- use "their" with a singular noun without it nagging at me for the rest of the day. :) Yes, I am the prissy person who says, "Everyone needs to put on his or her coat. It's cold out there!"  :) -- Gaile User gaile 2.png 22:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I can never call my character "it." *shudder* -- Gaile User gaile 2.png 22:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Level difference -> no reward from killing npc and DE?[edit]

the subsection named level difference says:

"Players are discouraged from playing in areas not appropriate for their level. If a player participates in an activity, such as killing foes or doing events, that has a difference greater than 10 levels from their own level, they will not receive any experience or other awards. They are also more likely to deal glancing blows the greater this difference is. It is also more difficult to get a medal reward from events. This prevents players from participating in events that give static rewards and thus rewarding more experience than appropriate for their level.

   Players will not receive experience or loot from enemies.
   Players will not receive normal rewards from completing Renown Hearts, although they will receive the normal coin reward in the mail.
   Players will not receive rewards from dynamic events, even if they contribute to most or all of the event.
   Players will only deal glancing blows to enemies and isn't considered damage.
       Players will not receive chests that spawn from bosses as they cannot participate in the concurrent event or defeating the enemy.
       Players cannot rally off enemies. "

This section does not make sense. Not only the listed things do not happen, and even if it happens in some rare chance that player character's level is not dynamically scaled to the area, it should be noted in the text. --Kgptzac 19:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have screenshots showing that most of these things happen. Want to prove me otherwise? The exact level and stuff is still unclear.--Relyk 19:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be clarified a bit, it does seem to refer to players doing events in areas that are too high for them rather than the other way around where dynamic scaling would kick in.--Zilvoran 14:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Does that really need clarification? The Dynamic level adjustment section is sitting right there above it.--Relyk 21:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Good point, and the recent addition about enemy names appearing in purple makes it a lot more obvious too. Perhaps the section that states "10 or so levels from their own level", could be altered to "10 or so levels above their own level" (seems the OP read 'from' to mean above or below their level, even though the note at the end of the section about gathering mentions minimum levels), but that might muck up the flow of the sentence.--Zilvoran 10:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I want to see proof of all the penalties. I often take my level 80 to the starter areas to help my guild members and have never noticed any of this crap. Also, if any of this is true, then it totaly goes against the aim of GW2, as described by the development team since day one. I played all the betas and read every scrap of info I could find that NC released as the game progressed and one of the solid unchanging points was that no matter what level you were, you could always go back to lower level areas with NO penalty. If absolutly necessary, Im sure I can find and copy/paste some quotes. User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg Titan Crow 11:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This only applies to content that is too high level for your character. The existing article text was extremely ambiguous about this, however, so I rewrote the whole thing. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maximum number of character slots[edit]

Can anyone provide a verifiable number for the maximum number of slots? Or at least a lower limit. I've seen posts by people who say they have 29 characters (although only Dhuum knows what they need with that many alts). 05:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)