Confessions of a Level Limiter

[robertsconley]

Aug 31, 2009 13:16:44 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

It's a cool concept, but I've never taken the time to really impose a system like this on OD&D. When you're done I suspect it will have changed the character options quite a bit and it might not resemble OD&D much any more.

Hackmaster BASIC takes this approach. And it works. Basically each character has so many building points and your class abilities (and your class itself) are accounted through building points. So a fighter is still a fighter and has a different set of choices than a wizard, priest, or thief.

[irdaranger]

Sept 2, 2009 6:20:07 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Another option to consider is to make humans more appealing.

Oh, that's what I planned on doing (barring someone making a convincing case for Level Limits). I'd much prefer to give humans something to be good at than saddle the demi-humans with penalties of any sort. Players are so crafty at avoiding those ...

Since humans should be 'generic' I'd probably give them something like +1 HP/HD and +1 to Saves. I was also thinking of changing the Hirelings/Henchmen rules a tad to favor humans, as the 'natural leaders' of the races. That's useful for everyone.

Those are just ideas I'm considering though. Nothing final.

Sept 2, 2009 6:20:07 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

In Castles & Crusades there is a "prime attribute" system as part of the SIEGE Engine mechanic whereby attempts to do skill-like things are influenced more prominently by stats. The basic guts of the system is that you try to roll over a 12 or 18, depending upon whether the stat in question is "prime" or not. In C&C a human gets to designate 3 stats as prime, whereas demihumans only get to pick 2. (One of the 2 or 3 is picked in advance due to the class of the character.) If you haven't seen C&C, definitely check it out. It "fixes" many of the things from OD&D and AD&D that many folks find confusing.

I was a C&C playtester and was active on the TLG forums some years ago, so I'm familiar with it. I decided though that Universal Mechanics (of any sort) just aren't my cup of tea (and really, SIEGE is just inverted d20 that makes everything a stat check) and it didn't try to fix the "right" things in AD&D, from my point of view. But it's certainly intriguing and I always appreciate seeing how other people do things - even if I don't do "that thing" the same way I always find the mental exercise of understanding "the why's" very helpful.

Forum discussion is similarly useful. Thanks everyone.

[Deleted]

Irdaranger, I'm just curious what kinds of solutions you have found for the level issue.

I mean, I know that your earlier comments suggested that you were dissatisfied with present level limits and their rationalle, and I guess I just wondered if any of the ideas suggested helped or if you found anything elsewhere to help.

[oldgamergeek]

My group generally retires characters about level 12. then we start a new campaign

[irdaranger]

Sept 3, 2009 11:26:04 GMT -6 @keltset said:

Irdaranger, I'm just curious what kinds of solutions you have found for the level issue.

Just make humans good enough to be a smart choice even without level limits. Both 3E and 4E did that.

Actually, to preserve the human-centric world and adventuring group (which I prefer for aesthetic reasons), I would make them slightly better than the demihuman races. That way the players only play a demi-human when they really want to for some RP reason. Some of my ideas for how to that are above.

Sept 3, 2009 11:26:04 GMT -6 @keltset said:

I mean, I know that your earlier comments suggested that you were dissatisfied with present level limits and their rationalle, and I guess I just wondered if any of the ideas suggested helped or if you found anything elsewhere to help.

Yes and no. I didn't find anything that suddenly enlightened me as to why level limits "made sense", but then I didn't really expect to. I guess my basic problem with them is that they are a solution that doesn't scale to all levels of play. It only works as long as the level difference stays within a certain range (and even then, it doesn't "work" at 1st - 5th level because the demihumans have such an advantage). At a system-design level I prefer rules that allow for more campaign options to ones that restrict campaign options. In this specific case I would prefer a system that makes the races equally good choices at all levels of play.

I did find the contributions of in-game experience helpful, as they threw light on how level limits work (and don't work) in campaigns.

[irdaranger]

Sept 4, 2009 8:08:20 GMT -6 oldgamergeek said:

My group generally retires characters about level 12. then we start a new campaign

Thanks.

[Finarvyn]

Not a new idea, certainly, but why not revise OD&D to fit something more like the B/X type model where each race was also a class.

As such the demihumans could just have even higher XP totals required to level up, making their level progression slower but not totally capping the levels at any point.

[irdaranger]

Sept 4, 2009 11:48:35 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Not a new idea, certainly, but why not revise OD&D to fit something more like the B/X type model where each race was also a class.

Because that's exactly why I prefer OD&D/AD&D to B/X.

But more seriously, the "race as class" of B/X is my #1* beef with that rule set. I understand why they did it, and it works ok, but I really prefer being able to mix races and classes. I'm just not a fan of limiting elves and dwarves to just one choice, even if that's what most people end up playing anyway. I like options.



*Of course, how many beefs could I really have with B/X given that I enjoy O/AD&D? They're terribly similar, and this is the primary difference (IMO). I'd play B/X in a fractional second if someone offered to run it, and enjoy the hell out of it. It's just not my first choice as a DM.

[coffee]

You could very well expand the choices and still keep the "race as class" style.

For instance: The Moldvay Elf is a Fighter/Magic-User. They're limited to 12th level or something (I haven't checked lately). You could also make a F/MU/T, and have that one limited to say 9th. But instead of it being a multiclass, F/MU/T itself would BE the class.

To be fair, you could limit ALL the classes. Take a look at the Blackmoor supplement; it introduces the Monk and the Assassin, each of which tops out at a certain point.

If you have access to the old ODDities fanzine (on Dragonsfoot, go to www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=CD&fileid=187) issue 7 had a "Character Class Generator" which would allow you to make new classes that were more or less balanced. (Relative to each other, I mean; I don't think you could exactly duplicate the original classes.)

That would give you LOTS of options!

[Deleted]

One solution that may appeal to you, IrdaRanger, is allowing progression in one main "racial" specialty. For Elves, for instance, that may be magic-user; Dwarves would have unlimited advancement as fighters. Multi-classed demi-humans would still be capped in their other classes. It is just a thought, and not even mine, but I think it makes a nice compromise between preserving the tone of the rules while allowing more options.

[dwayanu]

It beats me why anyone chooses to play a human MU rather than an Elf in Moldvay/Marsh/Cook, and even in Mentzer it seems to me a dubious proposition. Getting back to OD&D (and the roughly similar case in 1st ed. AD&D):

A Dwarf or Hobbit has some disadvantages from small size (which is sometimes a benefit), but special advantages that more than compensate -- up to their level limits. Along with Elves, they make better Thieves than do Men -- and are unlimited in that class. Curiously, Greyhawk provides for Half-Elves with no Thief option. Hobbits therein can be either Fighters or Thieves, rather than multi-class (so 1.5 million xp makes one 21st level, vs. 15th for a Dwarf or 13th for an Elf). Note the reversal of order from the Vol. 1 level limits (Elf 8/4, Dwarf 6, Hobbit 4).

Overall, I find that this still tends toward humans representing at least half the characters of level 9+ (and of course the highest-level Fighters, Clerics and Magic-users).

Someone in for the long run is likely in my experience to have started a whole "stable" of characters as free agents -- in other words, apart from those later recruited as henchmen. That whole campaign context makes for a different perspective than what seems common in later versions of D&D. One might get a character to "name" level within a year or two, after which that worthy may be mostly occupied with running his or her demesne. Worthy challenges just keep getting more rare, and thus advancement slower, level by level thereafter. So, active play tends to turn more to characters still working their way up. Once in a while, the "godlike" characters of level 16+ venture forth (probably into Spheres Beyond to battle Lords of Chaos or the like).

[snorri]

With Epees & Sorcellerie, I found the following solution : Demi-Humans can progress up to level 12, just as Humans. But they stop to get new Hit Dice before : 4 for Halflings and Elves, 7 for dwarves. So it keeps a 'balance' limitation, and enables characters to grow up levels.

[Finarvyn]

Sept 4, 2009 15:11:54 GMT -6 irdaranger said:

Sept 4, 2009 11:48:35 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Not a new idea, certainly, but why not revise OD&D to fit something more like the B/X type model where each race was also a class.

I really prefer being able to mix races and classes. I'm just not a fan of limiting elves and dwarves to just one choice, even if that's what most people end up playing anyway. I like options.

Okay ... back atcha ... here's a simple "fix" for your problem: What if you simply bump up the XP charts for demihumans by some factor, say 15%.

So the human MU may need 10,000 XP to reach 4th level so the elven MU would need11,500. It would be a quick fix, have a minimal effect on the rules, and would slow down the demihumans without capping them.

(Not sure if 15% is the "best" number; you might need to tinker with it. 10% would make for easier math but "felt low" if that makes sense.)

What do you think?

[dwayanu]

A 15% penalty to earned XP is a bit heavier (about +17.6% to number needed), but that starts to leave one about a level behind around 12th level. By the time one would have been 20th, one is behind about 2 levels (ca. 18th). Being behind a level only about 1/6 of the time at lower levels (or typically just one session in any case) doesn't seem like a big deal to me -- even assuming I'm in the kind of situation to make that comparison. YMMV, of course.

I'm thinking that the advantages tend to be most significant at low levels. A penalty down the road depends on getting so far in the first place, or else the advantages are all that count.

Fighter saves max out at 13th, or 9th for the magic resistance of Dwarfs and Hobbits (which is +4 levels, not a +x to the die as in AD&D).

[irdaranger]

Sept 5, 2009 6:06:11 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Okay ... back atcha ... here's a simple "fix" for your problem: What if you simply bump up the XP charts for demihumans by some factor, say 15%.

So the human MU may need 10,000 XP to reach 4th level so the elven MU would need11,500. It would be a quick fix, have a minimal effect on the rules, and would slow down the demihumans without capping them.

(Not sure if 15% is the "best" number; you might need to tinker with it. 10% would make for easier math but "felt low" if that makes sense.)

What do you think?

That could work. I'd have to look at the 15% number. The drawback I see (which dwayanu also saw) is that it's only a penalty at higher levels when you have actual level differences between the players. At 1st - 10th level (where most campaigns spend the majority of their time) there's no level difference and the advantage lies with the demihumans.

[Arminath]

Sept 17, 2009 12:31:15 GMT -6 irdaranger said:

Sept 5, 2009 6:06:11 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Okay ... back atcha ... here's a simple "fix" for your problem: What if you simply bump up the XP charts for demihumans by some factor, say 15%.

So the human MU may need 10,000 XP to reach 4th level so the elven MU would need11,500. It would be a quick fix, have a minimal effect on the rules, and would slow down the demihumans without capping them.

(Not sure if 15% is the "best" number; you might need to tinker with it. 10% would make for easier math but "felt low" if that makes sense.)

What do you think?

That could work. I'd have to look at the 15% number. The drawback I see (which dwayanu also saw) is that it's only a penalty at higher levels when you have actual level differences between the players. At 1st - 10th level (where most campaigns spend the majority of their time) there's no level difference and the advantage lies with the demihumans.

I'm working on doing away with Level Limits for the 2nd Edition of my S&W World of Onn setting along these lines. Each class has seperate XP columns in the class details - one for 'Men' and another for 'Non-men'. Non-human Fighting-men need 10% more at low levels and around 10th level are 2 levels behind men, Clerics need about 33% more XP at low levels and are about the same around 10th level and Magic-users start out with a 50% more xp requirement, but only end up 2 levels behind around 10th. At the higher levels where each class has a static progression, I just applied that number to each column so for say, Clerics, whether you're a Man or not, you need the flat +70,000 xp for each level. It keeps a small level disparity between Men and others but so far seems to be a good balance for allowing any race to choose any class.

[Ghul]

I've never been a big fan of level limits. In recent years I have simply imposed a 50% EP penalty once the level limit is reached.

[Arminath]

Sept 17, 2009 19:29:52 GMT -6 Ghul said:

I've never been a big fan of level limits. In recent years I have simply imposed a 50% EP penalty once the level limit is reached.

One thing I never liked about level limits in any form is you are as good as a human whatever for all those levels, then just stop learning from your experience or suddenly become dense and need twice the experience to finally 'get it' and level? That's why I imposed XP penalties early on and levelled the playing field at higher levels.

[James Maliszewski]

Sept 18, 2009 1:06:01 GMT -6 Arminath said:

One thing I never liked about level limits in any form is you are as good as a human whatever for all those levels, then just stop learning from your experience or suddenly become dense and need twice the experience to finally 'get it' and level?

I'm not sure it's a question of being "dense" so much as the notion that demihumans are more staid and set in their ways compared to humans. Consequently, there's a "psychological" limit to how much they are able to learn from the experience of adventuring, an activity that's quite unnatural to their kind anyway. Now, there are certainly problems with this kind of approach, chief being that we're attempting to provide justifications for what was in all likelihood a rather crude attempt at "balance."

For myself, I simply prefer to limit the number of demihumans allowed in the campaign at one time and dispense with level limits entirely. If someone plays an elf, for example, he is the elf, the one, lone weirdo of his kind who leaves the forests and goes adventuring. He's unlikely to encounter other elves unless he specifically goes into elven lands and, even then, he may no longer be welcome, given his choice to associate with Men and imitate their foolhardy ways.

[Ghul]

My logic is this, and I present it to my players as such: The human need to conquer and achieve -- to learn, to survive, to flourish -- is part of the human condition, and it may stem from their limited life-span as compared to the other civilized races (i.e. dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, etc.). Demi-humans differ in that they do not possess this unquenchable capacity; they simply learn at their own pace. I don't consider their development to be retarded; rather, it stems from a lack to voraciously achieve.

[palmer]

Sept 18, 2009 8:37:48 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Sept 18, 2009 1:06:01 GMT -6 Arminath said:

One thing I never liked about level limits in any form is you are as good as a human whatever for all those levels, then just stop learning from your experience or suddenly become dense and need twice the experience to finally 'get it' and level?

I'm not sure it's a question of being "dense" so much as the notion that demihumans are more staid and set in their ways compared to humans. Consequently, there's a "psychological" limit to how much they are able to learn from the experience of adventuring, an activity that's quite unnatural to their kind anyway. Now, there are certainly problems with this kind of approach, chief being that we're attempting to provide justifications for what was in all likelihood a rather crude attempt at "balance."

For myself, I simply prefer to limit the number of demihumans allowed in the campaign at one time and dispense with level limits entirely. If someone plays an elf, for example, he is the elf, the one, lone weirdo of his kind who leaves the forests and goes adventuring. He's unlikely to encounter other elves unless he specifically goes into elven lands and, even then, he may no longer be welcome, given his choice to associate with Men and imitate their foolhardy ways.

I like the ideas in that last paragraph, James. How about if you have more than one player wanting to run an elf, the second and/or third elves are guardians, or warders, or elders or something, sent to convince the wayward elf to return to his senses and come home? It could be a fun role play hook to have them at each other about wasting their lives among the, "ephemerals."

[Arminath]

Giving this alot of thought lately, a friend made a suggestion that I've worked into something I rather like: instead of Level Limits, use Hit Dice Limits. When a demihuman reaches their level limit, allow them continued advancement, but they no longer gain any hit points. As an option, instead of applying the Constitution bonus (from Supplement I) to hit points, allow the character 1 bonus Hit Dice when advancing beyond their Hit Dice Limit per point of Constitution bonus (even if it is beyond the class maximum). This would also apply to humans reaching the class maximum Hit Dice. It gives slightly more power, but doesn't go all crazy with characters that have hundreds of hit points.

[coffee]

Oct 7, 2009 10:54:57 GMT -6 Arminath said:

Giving this alot of thought lately, a friend made a suggestion that I've worked into something I rather like: instead of Level Limits, use Hit Dice Limits. When a demihuman reaches their level limit, allow them continued advancement, but they no longer gain any hit points. As an option, instead of applying the Constitution bonus (from Supplement I) to hit points, allow the character 1 bonus Hit Dice when advancing beyond their Hit Dice Limit per point of Constitution bonus (even if it is beyond the class maximum). This would also apply to humans reaching the class maximum Hit Dice. It gives slightly more power, but doesn't go all crazy with characters that have hundreds of hit points.

That's an interesting notion.

In a way, you could say that humans are also limited by level, since (per Greyhawk, anyway) they stop getting new hit dice at some point. It's just that for non-humans that limit comes earlier.

I like that. I'm gonna have to think about that for a while, but I like the sound of that. In the meantime, have an exalt!

[snorri]

That's also the way I use in E&S : demi-human can grow up to level 12, as other characters, but elves and halflings can't get more than 4 HD, and dwarves 7HD.

As I use the 'rer-oll all Hit Dice each level and take the best' method, I allow demi-humans to reroll Hit dices each time they got a new level, even if the number is limited (so a lvl 6 halfling will roll 4HD, hope to get more than he had previously).

[Deleted]

I'm not saying this solely because I started this thread, but ... I'm so proud of my fellow members of this board! Four pages, and a topic that generally sinks to knock-down, drag-out fights everywhere else on the 'web has remained civil.

I can't exalt you all, so give yourself a pat on the back from me. You're a great bunch of gamers.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 7, 2009 10:54:57 GMT -6 Arminath said:

instead of Level Limits, use Hit Dice Limits. When a demihuman reaches their level limit, allow them continued advancement, but they no longer gain any hit points. As an option, instead of applying the Constitution bonus (from Supplement I) to hit points, allow the character 1 bonus Hit Dice when advancing beyond their Hit Dice Limit per point of Constitution bonus (even if it is beyond the class maximum).

Arminath, that is the best thing I have heard on level limits in ages. Have an exalt!

I have been using an escalating extra XP requirement for demi-humans which gradually slows their advance. It works okay, but even this basic math is an undesirable overhead. The simplicity of a straight out HD cap is beautiful. I feel a wind of change!

I also like the idea of modifying the HD cap based on PC constitution, though I personally wouldn't adjust it any more than +1 or -1.

You might also allow the extra 1 hp per level reached beyond the HD cap. So (assuming Hobbits were capped at 4 HD) a level 6 Hobbit would roll 4d6+2 hp. At 7th level, he could roll 4d6+3 hp and hope to roll higher. At 8th level, he could roll 4d6+4 hp and hope (once again) to get better.

[Arminath]

Thanks for the Exalts guys!

It came about because I was getting nowhere with deciding on a fair set of level limits for the extra PC races for my game. One of my players is extremely against hard level limit caps and we had been going back and forth on the issue when this idea came forth.

We both agree that one race having to earn more XP to be the same level in a class as another race was a solution, but not quite what I was looking for, and while I wasn't against level limits, he was and I was willing to explore other options that would benefit the fun of all involved.

Personally, I don't understand the heated (and sometimes hate-filled) debate over this subject. As I've seen others say, it's a game about pretend so play it how you want as long as it's a fair game and everyone has fun. Otherwise go play a different game.

[irdaranger]

Oct 7, 2009 14:41:07 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

I'm not saying this solely because I started this thread, but ... I'm so proud of my fellow members of this board! Four pages, and a topic that generally sinks to knock-down, drag-out fights everywhere else on the 'web has remained civil.

I can't exalt you all, so give yourself a pat on the back from me. You're a great bunch of gamers.

Indeed. This is exactly why Finarvyn's has become my favorite D&D related board. There will always be disagreements, but here they're amiable!

[coffee]

Oct 8, 2009 12:30:39 GMT -6 irdaranger said:

Indeed. This is exactly why Finarvyn's has become my favorite D&D related board. There will always be disagreements, but here they're amiable!

Exactly. That's a big part of what keeps us coming back. (The other part is the focus on the Original D&D. There are plenty of sites for the later iterations of OD&D, but this is one of only two that I know of that focus on the 'original' original D&D.)

[irdaranger]

Oct 8, 2009 14:19:46 GMT -6 coffee said:

(The other part is the focus on the Original D&D. There are plenty of sites for the later iterations of OD&D, but this is one of only two that I know of that focus on the 'original' original D&D.)

In the spirit of amiable disagreement, I would like to disagree with you.

I found K&KA too exclusively OD&D for my tastes, but like the "mix" of topics here. I can bring up Labyrinth Lord, Searchers of the Unknown or S&W here without people going ape-poop on me, while that sort of talk gets one thread-pooped on over at K&KA. My feeling is that while this board obviously focuses on OD&D, there's a general agreement that the clones are cousins in spirit and so mechanically similar that it's just silly to say "You can't talk about that here."