Another attempt at level limits

[Finarvyn]

This topic has come up a couple times before, but I had a different slant on the issue and decided to start a new thread rather than necro an old one…
Level Restriction for Non-Humans
and Demihuman Level Restrictions?

I’m thinking of level limits in general, not automatically limited to demi-humans, but you can’t address level limits without considering demi-humans. If there are level limits as per Men & Magic, then it makes sense that there should be some sort of limit on humans so that demi-humans don’t get totally lost in advanced campaigns.

Looking at Men & Magic, page 16, I notice that “name levels” are given up to level 9 for fighters, up to level 11 for magic-users, and up to level 8 for clerics.

Then, turning to Greyhawk, page 10, I noticed that regular hit dice are awarded for fighters through level 9, magic-users through level 11, clerics through level 8, and thieves through level 10.

Then it hit me: Why not let those numbers represent level caps?[/color]

Putting it all together and including demi-humans, level limits might look like this:
Dwarf fighter 6, thief 10.
Elf fighter 4, magic-user 8, thief 10.
Human cleric 8, fighter 9, magic-user 11, thief 10.
Hobbit fighter 4, thief 10.

Perhaps add on the restriction that no character can multi-class to more than 12 total levels, just to keep things somewhat balanced.

What do you think?

[doc]

Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this for a bit. As a kneejerk reaction, I have to say that I like the restrictions as they are in OD&D for reasons that I've discussed in other posts (at least I THINK I have). The big reason is that OD&D is meant to be Humanocentric with humans ultimately being the big movers and shakers in the campaign world. Also, demihumans can be more than one class with much more ease than humans can, thus giving another reason for the level caps.

Just off the top of my head, I'd set the maximum level obtainable for humans at level 18, still giving characters the incentive to strive for the pinnacle of abiity, but limiting them to relatively sane levels ("Hey, let me tell ya about my 47th level magic user!!"). In reality, most characters tend to top off about level 13-14. I would also allow for dwarves to reach "name" level as fighters, elves to reach "name" level as magic users, and hobbits to reach "name" level as thieves. It just seems ridiculous to me that dwarves can make better thieves than they can fighters, or that elves can make better thieves than they can magic users.

I'll talk more on that point in a bit.

Doc

[dwayanu]

I think it reasonable to vary demihuman level limits with normative human limits. One can see that process at work in Supplement I and AD&D. Theoretically, one could have characters of level 20 (or 30 or higher) regardless of the rules-set used. In practice, the range of levels that remained really interesting was progressively expanded with additions to the game (most notably the spell levels in Greyhawk). The across-the-board increases in AD&D may reflect at least in part further experience with (and reflection upon) what had been introduced in Supplement I. I'm not sure whether Unearthed Arcana continued the process. I think 2nd ed. AD&D and BECM may have been too generous, weakening the humanocentrism.

Capping humans at "name" level might have a similar effect; one might actually have to lower the ceiling on nonhumans to keep the humanocentrism (the moreso if they can keep going as Thieves). If you try that scheme, let us know how it works in the long run!

In my campaign, humans are limited to 600,000 XP: Fighter 12, Cleric 13 or Magic-User 14. There are subtle ramifications, but basically this seems about right to me for a pre-Greyhawk setup. It's also in the neighborhood of the highest levels attained through play in my experience (even in AD&D). I like the "feel" of a limit based on a uniform number of XP.

Halflings (max F4) thus go about "a third of the way," remaining essentially low-level (perhaps still viable on mid-level expeditions). Dwarves (F6) get about "half way," and with their bonuses may even contribute to a party made up mainly of newly-titled "name level" humans. Elves (F4, MU8) go a bit further and have notable versatility. Still, they're not likely to be found often in the ranks of the "world-saving" heroes of legend.

Basically, those few nonhumans who roam a while as adventurers tend to go back to lives among their own kind with little interest in the wider world. Played with similar frequency and success, they run out of use for experience points long before their human comrades (e.g., maximum 83,000 for an Elf). Magical treasures or the necessity of facing certain foes may lure them out of retirement.

Humans of level 10+ are the stuff of which myths are made. Upon attaining maximum experience level, any further adventures are likely to be of cosmic dimensions. It is the dawning of the Age of Man, the dying of the Age of Magic, and it is the heroes of humankind who have roles to play in the Turning of the World. The Age of the Elder Races is long passed.

[calithena]

Fin,

I do level 12 for humans in all classes. It's a nice round-off that includes all those numbers and it's still a BIG advantage over the demihumans who all top out at 6-8. It also doesn't make e.g. wizards better than everyone else.

But I like the cap thing. I also have some really cool variant rules for ways of improving characters after you hit the level cap, but you'll all have to wait for those...

[jrients]

My current house rules document caps humans at the limits of the charts in Men & Magic. All I do is ignore the text explaining how to extrapolate higher levels.. That puts m-u's at 16th and the other two at 10th.

[coffee]

If you're going to have caps, I think 12th level is the minimum cap for Wizards; otherwise all those 6th level spells go to waste.

For the rest, that sounds good to me.

[Finarvyn]

jrients said:

My current house rules document caps humans at the limits of the charts in Men & Magic. All I do is ignore the text explaining how to extrapolate higher levels.. That puts m-u's at 16th and the other two at 10th.

That's not a bad idea, either. I could live with 10's and 16. Of course, M&M was written before Thieves were introduced....
1. Do you allow thieves?
2. If so, where do you cap them?

[coffee]

The table of thief's abilities stops at 14 -- sounds like a good cap to me.

[jrients]

No, I don't allow thieves. If I did the cap would either be 10th or 14th.

[Deleted]

My players (& myself) like to top it off at "name" level; everyone (including myself) gets bitten by the "new campaign" bug once they reach it. I don't have a hard & steady rule when it comes to this; it's really when everyone in the group comes to a consensus & is ready to move on. As I 've mentioned before, we play on average around 1 to 2 games monthly, so they have their characters for quite a long time. When they reach name, it's pretty much over...

[Finarvyn]

I'm not 100% sure that I want a hard-and-steady rule, but it just occurs to me that the higher the cap for humans, the more of a disadvantage it would be to play an elf or a dwarf. From a game-balance standpoint it would be nice to find some numbers wereby a human would clearly have an advantage, but not so much of an advantage that no one wants to play a non-human.

Going with (a) a cap at "name level" or (b) a cap at levels listed in the main rulebook seem to be decent rules. I'm not sure which is better, however.

And 14th might be better for thieves than 10th, simply because thieves advance faster.

[coffee]

I wouldn't worry about the advantage for humans causing players to not want to play demi-humans; some people ALWAYS want to play a dwarf, or an elf, or even (so help me) a hobbit.

Besides, it gives them the oh-so-necessary opportunity to complain!

[Stonegiant]

Meepo (who does post around here from time to time) did an expansion to Holmes D&D in which he expands it to go higher in level and in his house rules pretty much established level limits along the same lines as you did. Its worth a look.

LINK

[Finarvyn]

Thanks, Stonegiant. I've seen Meepo's doc around but never really looked at it, if you know what I mean.

It's along similar lines to what I imagine, but obviously for a different edition of the game. You're right that his level caps are similar, and I should send him an e-mail to ask why he chose the level caps that he did.

[dwayanu]

If I were using Thieves, I would adjust Master Thief on (from 125 to 150), so my 600 kXP cap would make them neatly 13th level.

Having reflected on it, I think existing nonhuman limits combined with a "name level" cap should work fine to keep a human majority among adventurers. Elves in particular won't be as overshadowed in "highest level" play, though, which may have significant consequences (perhaps the very ones you desire).

I'm not fond of multiclassed Thieves, which seem in my experience (mainly of AD&D) to have undermined humanocentrism -- although not in the "big picture" of the setting (Thieves not being movers and shakers at that level). Then again, I'm not fond of Thieves at all in my OD&D! "Different strokes," of course ...

Capping Wizards at 11th level (before gaining 6th-level spells) may have interesting consequences. Of course, Wizards can make magic items -- one way spells from (e.g.) Supplement I find expression in my game. If a Wizard wants to summon an Invisible Stalker, he can research the construction of an appropriate Amulet (or whatever).