Level restriction for non-humans

[Finarvyn]

I'm surprised that this topic hasn't reared its ugly head long before this, because it often has very passionate supporters and detractors.

The other thread on level limits discussed overall character levels, regardless of race or class. I'd like to discuss the merits of level restriction by race.

To recap:

Men & Magic proposed that elves could advance no higher than Hero (4th level) in Fighting Man and no higher than Warlock (8th level) in Magic User. Dwarves could progress as far as Myrmadon (6th level) in Fighting Man. Hobbits "should any player wish to be one" were limited to Hero (4th level) as Fighting Men. Only humans could be Clerics, and there were no thieves in the boxed set.

Greyhawk relaxed this somewhat with provisions that non-humans with high stats could perhaps advance higher. Maybe this is where the whole stat-inflation thing got started?
* Dwarves with STR of 17 could be 7th level FIghting Men, those with STR of 18 could be 8th level.
* Elves with STR 17 (or 18) could now be 5th level (or 6th level) Fighting Men. Elves with an 18 INT could become 9th level Magic Users.
* Clerics were still only open to humans.
* Anybody could now be a Thief, with no limit to levels.

I assume that the intent of these level limits for non-humans is to make humans more special to play and to preserve some form of game balance.

So ... is this system of level limit a good thing or not?

[ffilz]

Good point. I think also the addition of percentile strength contributed. Suddenly, who wanted to be a fighter if you didn't have an 18 strength? The benefits of the attributes are simply too top heavy.

I think BECM has a better way of handling bonuses by distributing them more. Needing only a 13 to get a bonus makes an 18 less of a must have.

As to demi-human limits, this post of T. Foster's on Knights and Knaves Alehouse is a good one. I've got another post of T. Foster's stashed away, but I can't quickly find where it came from.

My plan is to take advantage of the Greyhawk rule for racial level limit softening to make it more desireable to play a demi-human IF a high prime requisite is rolled rather than encouraging demi-human characters and then having players say "Gee, I want to play a dwarf, that means I won't be happy without an 18 strength." I also plan on having some kind of bonus system more like BECM so that it doesn't take much to get SOME bonus, yet real high scores still make a difference.

Perhaps another factor was the game drifting from using the ability scores directly. In the early days, we often made d20 rolls against ability scores. This makes a 12 pretty good even if you don't otherwise get a bonus from it. But when everything is handled using the ability scores indirectly through bonuses, then obviously you want to have a bonus to differentiate your character. So in a sense, the original rules actually made the ability scores have more differentiation by not having many bonuses.

Frank

[calithena]

Foster's got it.

Of course, allowing dwarves and elves to be thieves (in Greyhawk) botched up the genre assumptions he's talking about, but there is a slice of fantasy that the D&D class/level system and demi-human limits gets exactly right.

[ffilz]

I've been thinking about thieves for my upcoming OD&D campaign. I'm inclined to either allow only human thieves, or perhaps also halfling thieves (since halflings do have some significant restrictions - though granted they aren't much of a restriction for a thief), or perhaps institute level limits for thieves.

I am still struggling with the limits though. I like what T. Foster has to say about genre. But somehow I'd still like to have demi-humans be attractive for PCs.

But there are still ways to do it. You might play a demi-human in the early part of the campaign, and then when the level limits start to become a pain, switch to a human PC. Or you might play a demi-human if you got a 17 or 18 prime requisite, and perhaps hope that you can use a wish or two to be allowed another level or two.

And in the end, perhaps it's ok for thieves to tend to want to be demi-human since there's little or no downside. The party will still want to be mostly human.

And I guess that's the key. By incenting most characters to be human, the genre conventions are held, and the demi-human seems rare and unusual. And not like some campaigns I've had where the existence of a human PC was an oddity (this was definitely an issue with D20).

RuneQuest had an interesting setup that encouraged humanocentric groups. The non-humans were just too weird. Elves and dwarves were really way out. And people thought ducks were ridiculous even if the stats worked out ok. But D&D has a different measure of demi-humans which means mechanics is the only deterrent.

Frank

[foster1941]

The decision to play a demi-human in D&D is one of instant vs. delayed gratification -- if you play a demi-human you're awesome right out of the gate -- you can see in the dark, you get cool combat and save bonuses, you have cool special abilities, heck if you're an elf you get all the benefits of two separate classes at the same time and just kick all kinds of ass. A 1st level dwarf fighter is just plain better than a 1st level human fighter, and a 1st level elf (ftr/m-u) is WAY better than a 1st level human magic-user. But the downside is that eventually you're going to max out, whereas the humans will keep going and going. Demi-humans are awesome enough that they'll still be able to keep up power-wise with the humans for a level or two after they max out (a 6th level dwarf fighter with a +3 hammer is probably about as good as a human fighter of 8th or 9th level, especially fighting against giants) but eventually the humans are going to surpass the demi-humans and they'll be reduced to supporting-cast status.

This is no surprise, it's spelled out clearly in the rulebook for anyone to see -- by choosing to play a demi-human you're choosing to trade an early-game advantage for a late-game disadvantage. Some players will be willing to do this, others won't. From a purely game-play perspective there's really no problem here.

The problem only arises with those players who want to play a demi-human not because they've got extra powers but because they like the role, but don't necessarily want to be crippled late-game for their preference. I've got no real answer for this, except to say that "that's part of the role" and if the person really wants to play that role they should be willing to accept that limitation as well (noting, for instance, the strange case of hobbit PCs, which seems to have mystified Gygax while writing the rules -- they're clearly an inferior race ruleswise, and yet he acknowledges that "for whatever reason" some players are going to want to play them anyway; his attitude seems to be that it's their decision and they have no one to blame but themselves...).

[crimhthanthegreat]

My oldest campaign has had many characters run up against level limits. On the other hand it takes 30-40 years of game time to reach 12th level for humans in my campaign. It also takes more experience for demi-humans to earn their levels in my campaign since due to their longer life spans they are younger and more immature at the ages they are starting at. Some people always take humans and some always take demi-humans, regardless of the rules. Only a few of my players switch around the race that they play.

I generally just leave level limits as they are written with one main exception, if someone playing an elven character (for example) decided not to retire and kept playing the same character and he didn't get killed he would pick up an additional level past his maximum for every additional 100 years of game time after the intial 30-40 years of game time. Therefore in my game if someone had kept playing the same character from the beginning he would have earned two extra levels by this time and would be about 50 years of game time from adding a third extra level. Elves in my campaign have an indefinite lifespan and the player know of Elves that are 2000 to 3000 years old. The few elves that adventure generally have their wanderlust sated by the time they reach 600-700 years old. For dwarves I add an extra level every 50 years of game time past the initial 30-40 years of game time and the same for gnomes. Hobbits I play have the same life span as humans so this rule does not affect them.

[serendipity]

The problem I seem to run into most often is that our games start low level and may not progress very many levels before we move on to other scenarios and settings. Thus if I choose a human over a demi-human, I may never reap the rewards of the delayed gratification that foster describes. I don't mind much, because I kind of like playing the underdog (which is just as well, as my dice rolls are not known for being even as good as mediocre). It is, however, somewhat disheartening when my human thief doesn't get to lead the party because the elf and dwarf are so much better at seeing in the dark.

[evreaux]

serendipity said:

It is, however, somewhat disheartening when my human thief doesn't get to lead the party because the elf and dwarf are so much better at seeing in the dark.

In the dark, that elf or dwarf can't map, will easily miss written and other visual clues, and will have a heck of a time finding anything they might need on short notice in their backpack. IMO, light is pretty much an essential resource for delving parties, demihumans included.

[serendipity]

Yay! I plan to quote you next time I'm asked not to take point. I always felt it was silly to rely on their vision anyway, since someone had to carry torches to keep the humans from falling down pits or whatever, even if the demihumans didn't need the light. To be out of the circle of light which would give away our presence meant the elf and dwarf had to be a lot farther ahead of everyone than I think was properly played.

[philotomy]

I've actually lowered demihuman level limits, slightly, to better fit with my approach to level scaling.

[Deleted]

The campaign that we play in uses level limits as it is written.