What is the average level at playthrough end?

[POGGERS!]

I take my time significantly slower than others and explore quite well and do everything so what level will I be around when I'm a few hours before the end of the playthrough? (I don't have idiot savant and I have 8 Intelligence.) Or just give me the average for a completionist player's level a few hours before playthrough's end.

[MDuh]

Finished my first playthrough @ very hard with High int (around 15?) after perks + clothes + mentats everytime I finish a mission @ lvl 82.

[Veya]

At "full exploration", I seemed to finish at 85-ish, Survival, getting every kill, all companion perks(except Hancock, he glitched).

[Sova6]

I don't think that an average could really be applied considering how drastically different people can play this game. On my first playthrough I got to level 40 something because I wanted to experience the story before I got into settlements, exploration, and sidequests. On my current playthrough I'm level 73 and I haven't even gone into the glowing sea yet because I'm grinding out companion perks and looking for all the bobbleheads without guides to give my exploration a goal.

[ImHelping]

I deliberatly procrastinated to 50 before heading into the institute, but I think if if you mostly stick to the story you will be in the 20-30 range tops.

Trying to do "Everything" is much harder to quantify or estimate.

[ItsRandxm]

I'm reading these replies and I'm so confused. I got to like level 30 and I spent a crap ton of time in the settlements and intentionally prolonged my gameplay

[BGratz]

I never reached the institute in any game (and i started really often) and before yesterday i never visited nuka world.
My max level was around 100, but that came probably from all the meat i get from hunting thanks to a mod. (additional its easy to raiase incoming XP by raising int. lowering it is much more complicated, only thing i did was half the XP from Crafing/building)

[Viper217]

If you do the dlcs and are pretty thorough on quests you'll prob be around level 80.

[Bored Peon]

Unless you have a "normalization mod" gaining levels in Fallout 4 sucks.
Mostly because it turns every mob into bullet sponge at high levels.

Mods that normalize and fix HP instead of +hp/level prevent the game form becoming a snoozefest at high levels.

[BGratz]

i never understood why some devs think it would be a good idea to level player and monster.

Just level only the player, and only a bit. (Areas with extra buffed monsters against low level player are ok) You could half the Perk bonis and the player would still be too powerfull. Why must the player be IMMUNE to stuff, is 50% more protection not enough for the endgame ? Instead they (and many other developer) make systems so complex they can never be balanced in a decent way

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Personally I finished the Railroad main quest having completed most of the side quests at level 62. Judging from the replies to date mid sixties would appear to be the answer.

S.x.

[DouglasGrave]

I'm guessing around level 100 for myself, due to my tendency to resolve as many other side-quest and DLCs as possible before making a final decision.

Originally posted by BGratz:

i never understood why some devs think it would be a good idea to level player and monster.

My understanding is that it's intended to maintain the challenge as you advance (in non-linear games where you can't simply place the tougher opponents on later game levels), but it gets stale when it's just the same opponent with higher numbers, rather than them doing anything new and interesting.

I don't think it's too bad in Fallout 4 until they hit their highest version of opponents, since it's only then that the higher levels become nothing more than extra numbers, though many enemies are already relatively dull by then and have little variety beyond possibly having more advanced weapons.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by BGratz:

i never understood why some devs think it would be a good idea to level player and monster.

Fallout 76 did it best. Set HP for player and mobs level and mobs were equal to the player's level. It also meant loot levels were balanced.

Starfield went right back to the Fallout 4 bullet sponge system with trash one shot mobs being mixed in, which makes the loot levels garbage.

[eMYNOCK]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Originally posted by BGratz:

i never understood why some devs think it would be a good idea to level player and monster.

Fallout 76 did it best. Set HP for player and mobs level and mobs were equal to the player's level. It also meant loot levels were balanced.

Starfield went right back to the Fallout 4 bullet sponge system with trash one shot mobs being mixed in, which makes the loot levels garbage.

the difference... in FO4 you can scrap the trash gear for parts...
like, hmm.. thats a nice receiver on that gun.. oh.. and a nice muzzle.
or when i can't use any of it.. still can scrap it for its raw materials.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by eMYNOCK:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Fallout 76 did it best. Set HP for player and mobs level and mobs were equal to the player's level. It also meant loot levels were balanced.

Starfield went right back to the Fallout 4 bullet sponge system with trash one shot mobs being mixed in, which makes the loot levels garbage.

the difference... in FO4 you can scrap the trash gear for parts...
like, hmm.. thats a nice receiver on that gun.. oh.. and a nice muzzle.
or when i can't use any of it.. still can scrap it for its raw materials.

Though it would still be nice if they went the whole way and allowed you to either completely disassemble gear into mod parts, or construct a weapon from nothing if you had all its pieces.

[eMYNOCK]

still not a bad game... but not "the step forward" that was hyped up sky high.
lets just hope they get things sorted after the recent abysmal events.