How does this strike you gentle folk as an alternative system to level limits for demi-human characters in AD&D?
a. Clerics.
Demi-human clerics cannot cast spells above level 4. They get the spell 'slots' for higher-level spells as they progress, but they must fill those slots with lower level spells. Otherwise, demi-human clerics progress as normal.
Justification: the demi-human races are in decline, and so are their gods. The demi-human gods simply cannot channel as much of their divine essence to their followers as human gods can.
b. Magic-Users
Elven and half-elven magic-users cannot cast spells above level 5. Gnome illusionists cannot cast spells above level 4. They nonetheless receive the appropriate spell 'slots' for the higher levels, but have to fill those 'slots' with spells that are level 1-5 in power (1-4 in the case of gnomes).
Justification:The long-lived, traditionalist ways of the elder folk have engendered in them structured minds simply too rigid to apprehend the non-Euclidean runes (or whatever) that higher-level magic requires.
c. Fighters and Rangers
Once demi-human fighters or rangers reach their level limit, they no longer receive full hit die (d10 for fighters), but rather the flat +3 bonus per level thereafter (the bonus that all fighters receive levels 10+). Moreover, their combat abilities (to hit rolls, or THAC0) improve in only one weapon (with all other weapons, they remain as they were at the original level limit). Finally, demi-human fighters do not found new strongholds and lands of their own.
Justification: The decline of the civilizations of the demi-humans saps their martial and political will. Culturally, it becomes difficult for them to remain continually ready for conflict. They thus concentrate their limited attentions on only a single weapon after a certain point.
d. Thieves and Assassins
Just let demi-humans in these classes progress normally (most demi-human thieves could progress without limit already, and half-orcs could progress without limit as assassins). However, they never can become guildmasters in any city dominated by humans (and most crime-ridden cities, of course, are dominated by humans).
Justification: Humans are somewhat envious of demi-human thieves and assassins, and refuse to grant them positions of authority.
e. Druids
Half-elves can be druids just as humans can be, according to the core 1e rules. This should not be changed. However, I recommend that elves also have their own druidic order, and can advance to level 14 within that order. Unlike regular druids, elvish druids receive only a d6 HD, do not learn to shape change, but are skilled in short bows (with a +1 to hit bonus) in addition to the usual druidic weapons. The Elven Druidic order is NG in alignment and accepts only elves (however, rumours of dark elven NE 'spider druids' exist). Half-elf druids must be part of the human hierarchy.
f. Bards
No changes, though the class probably should be open to elves, who use only a d8 for HD during their phase as a fighter.
Paladins and monks are unaffected, as they are human-only classes.
Also, human PCs receive a +1 bonus to any ability score of their choice at level one (no ability score can be improved beyond 18), and another +1 bonus to any ability score of their choice at level 5 (no ability score can be improved beyond 18). This reflects humans' focus on continual self-improvement, a focus the elder races now lack.
That's it. Thoughts?
Sure, they sound as reasoned as anything; although I've never seen the reason for level-limits in either AD&D1&2 or Basic. It isn't like demi-humans are over-powered - even though I think there is a case for Elves being so (from mythological/Tolkien source material). Game balance should come from role-playing or from the DM not from mechanics. With that said, how about:
Clerics: Demi-humans worshiping Human gods may only advance/reach a certain power level due to church hierarchy. Demi-humans worshiping their own gods have completely different objects and tenets of faith; after a certain level they are required to spend their lives in a monastery or within their homelands.
Magic-Users: I think it depends on which take on Elves you go with. If you go with Elves as being adept with magic then you would have to allow any level. Alternatively, you could say that D&D magic is mainly of the human variety and that Elven magic requires study within their own lands - thus hierarchy prevents higher levels. Though I think this doesn't seem to fit well. Of course you may have Elves as being one with nature and therefore have hefty restrictions. As for Gnomes, I'd go with unrestricted illusion magic.
Fighters: Again, I'd say any level; unrestricted. However, again you could bring in hierarchy, though again this seems unfitting. You could bring in weapon restrictions and fighting styles though. Elves only being able to advance with certain weapons (spear, Eleven Swords), with humans weapons being too unbalanced for Elves to use. You could also apply this to the other demi-humans (i.e. Dwarves using axes and hammers only).
Thieves: Thievery could be a human concept so apply level limits; Elves may find in utterly alien, Dwarves less so. You could allow Halflings to gain maximum level by being a certain type of Thief (i.e. Bilbo Baggins Burglar). Half-Orcs would seemingly make great Thieves, but I think your idea could reason why they couldn't advance in level.
Druids: If you've gone with nature loving Elves then I'd allow Elf Druids and any level - same with Half-Elves.
Bards: Yes to Elven bards
In AD&D demi-humans have a number of mechanical advantages like special vision, a boatload of languages, immunities/saves and so forth, and very few drawbacks other than level and class limits. Any kind of level limits, hard or light, postpones the cost of selecting a demi-human to a point most campaigns never reach.
Handwaving "old school shouldn't care about balance" doesn't absolve you from running a game where players feel they have real choices and don't feel dumb because they wanted to play one legitimate thing over another. A straight-up 10% experience levy on demihumans (5% for half elves, yeah) at least only postpones the consequences to 2nd level. or, more smoothly, just restrict the XP bonuses for ability scores to humans.
Quote from: elfandghost;679716Sure, they sound as reasoned as anything; although I've never seen the reason for level-limits in either AD&D1&2 or Basic.
I believe it's a way to explain why Elves (and Dwarves) don't rule the world, as they live 100s, even thousands of years.
I think the cap could have been a little higher, though. I used to run into it on Half-Elf clerics a lot
Not bad at all.
I also like the Dark Dungeons take, where they simply require lots and lots of extra XP, and the Blood & Treasure take, where humans Get a couple Nice advantages (+10% XP, and a bonus to all saves (wich also makes them better at skills!) or an extra feat (if used)).
And yeah, in AD&D the demihumans Are just plain better - Dwarves, Elves and even Gnomes make better Fighters than Humans, and while Halflings can't have 18 STR wich means they can't really be melee monsters, their Dex + thrown & sling bonus makes them at least equal to Humans as Fighters (a Halfling Fighter that say specializes in, say, darts makes for an extremely good wizard-killer!).
And that's not getting into multiclassing. Dear Gawd. Elf Fighter/Mage, anyone? (or Half-Elf Fighter/Mage...who can have 18 Con...)
Not having Elf Fighter 20/Mage 20 dudes running around (...or Half-Elf Fighter 20/Mage 20/Cleric 20...) is a good thing, unless you want to play Silmarillion.
I prepping a LL w/AE Companion game for the near future.
Instead of level limits, I was thinking of making the following changes:
1) There are are no hard cap level limits except for classes that have one (such as assassin)
2) Only humans get a bonus to XP from high ability scores.
3) All demi humans require a base 10% more XP to advance per class chosen. So a F/MU/Thf would need 30% more XP to level than the tables indicate.
4) All XP from all the classes (plus the additional %) are added together in a single pool. Once this total is reached the character gains a level in all chosen classes.
5) The only classes available for multiclassing are fighter, cleric, magic user, and thief. All subclasses must be single classed.
I plan on working out a hit die progression for each combo so no wonky totaling multiple dice, dividing, etc.
Also demihuman life spans for this game will be reduced. Elves max age will be about 160, Dwarves 140, and halflings/gnomes about 120.
Quote from: Roger the GS;679720In AD&D demi-humans have a number of mechanical advantages like special vision, a boatload of languages, immunities/saves and so forth, and very few drawbacks other than level and class limits. Any kind of level limits, hard or light, postpones the cost of selecting a demi-human to a point most campaigns never reach.
Handwaving "old school shouldn't care about balance" doesn't absolve you from running a game where players feel they have real choices and don't feel dumb because they wanted to play one legitimate thing over another. A straight-up 10% experience levy on demihumans (5% for half elves, yeah) at least only postpones the consequences to 2nd level. or, more smoothly, just restrict the XP bonuses for ability scores to humans.
Never had a problem with no level limits here. People play what they want to because they think it's cool, so there are players who mostly play elves because they like elves, or dwarves because they like dwarves, or humans because they like humans. It doesn't have anything to do with mechanical advantages (in these cases).
Not a fan of this sort of targeted, specific explanation for everything. I prefer loose abstractions which can be explained differently in specific circumstances instead.
But then, I'm okay with level limits in the first place. I know it rubs a lot of players the wrong way, but I like the notion of a medieval fantasy world in which the humans, though short lived, fleeting presences in the world, as it were, can realize a heroic potential the demi-human races simply do not have, or can only attain rarely. Reminds me of Moorcock's Young Kingdoms in which humans are the center piece on the Cosmic Balance's chessboard.
If I softened it, I would use UA's level limits, and rule that demi-humans can advance beyond those limits, but at a much lesser rate of XP gains, like they would effectively gain only one XP for each four, or five, or ten acquired by a human in similar circumstances. So they can mature and realize some potential in a development capacity comparable to humans on the short term, but stagnate, and learn much more slowly from new experiences, as time passes.
Or you just do away with level limits and come up with in-game disadvantages like a lack of anonymity, treated either really well or very badly, and so on.
Quote from: Benoist;679793If I softened it, I would use UA's level limits, and rule that demi-humans can advance beyond those limits, but at a much lesser rate of XP gains, like they would effectively gain only one XP for each four, or five, or ten acquired by a human in similar circumstances. So they can mature and realize some potential in a development capacity comparable to humans on the short term, but stagnate, and learn much more slowly from new experiences, as time passes.
I think if I ever went back to an earlier edition of the game, I would use a combination of this and swapping multiclassing and dual classing. It just makes more sense to me that an elf would suddenly get bored over the years and decide to give up his sword to learn magic, whereas a human would try to cram as much into his life as he could, and so he decides to be a fighter AND a thief AND a mage, all at once.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;679797I think if I ever went back to an earlier edition of the game, I would use a combination of this and swapping multiclassing and dual classing. It just makes more sense to me that an elf would suddenly get bored over the years and decide to give up his sword to learn magic, whereas a human would try to cram as much into his life as he could, and so he decides to be a fighter AND a thief AND a mage, all at once.
That is true. Dual-classing suits demi-humans much more than humans. One advantage could be that only humans can multi-class, while demi-humans don't feel the need - due to longevity. I know that prevents Elven fighter/mages but I always felt that such a concept should be its own class (for Elves only).
Way back on Dragonsfoot - wow, was that really almost seven years ago?! geebus! - I wrote about uncapping demihumans' archetypal classes (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=368361#p368361) as an alternative to the current rules, but now I'm more inclined to require player character demihumans to multiclass instead and leave the level-limits as-is.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;679797I think if I ever went back to an earlier edition of the game, I would use a combination of this and swapping multiclassing and dual classing. It just makes more sense to me that an elf would suddenly get bored over the years and decide to give up his sword to learn magic, whereas a human would try to cram as much into his life as he could, and so he decides to be a fighter AND a thief AND a mage, all at once.
I had this thought ~10 years ago, and agree that it makes good sense.
The one drawback with it -- and the reason why I wouldn't use it -- is that in any ADnD game I'm likely to run, I'd use a number of classic TSR modules (indeed, doing so would be one of the main reasons
why I'd run ADnD again). I would not want to rework all the NPCs in light of such a change.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;6797375) The only classes available for multiclassing are fighter, cleric, magic user, and thief. All subclasses must be single classed.
No gnome thief/illusionists! :eek:
Quote from: The Ent;679733...
Not having Elf Fighter 20/Mage 20 dudes running around (...or Half-Elf Fighter 20/Mage 20/Cleric 20...) is a good thing...
Yeah, this is, I think, the original rationale for level limits, in addition to a mechanism for encouraging human PCs.
My understanding is that Gygax was concerned to ensure that the world was human-centric, with demi-humans 'exotic' but marginal (and in decline). (I don't think Arneson cared about this issue...)
So Gygax had no problem with unlimited progression for thieves, as members of that class were never going to become world-dominators.
I have some sympathy with this view, at least for ADnD. At the same time, I wanted to come up with a mechanism that did not impose such a 'hard' limit on demi-human PCs, which seems both excessive and violates (IMO) verisimilitude ("my dwarf fighter is going to live for another 200 years, but he will
never improve his skill with his battle-axe
at all?!?").
Quote from: Akrasia;679832I had this thought ~10 years ago, and agree that it makes good sense.
The one drawback with it -- and the reason why I wouldn't use it -- is that in any ADnD game I'm likely to run, I'd use a number of classic TSR modules (indeed, doing so would be one of the main reasons why I'd run ADnD again). I would not want to rework all the NPCs in light of such a change.
Fair point.
This line of thinking lead to oddness in the Forgotten Realms when they were trying to make a big deal out of big, powerful elves...who were, of course, level capped. So their imperfect solution? They can reach these high levels *on the island of Evermeet*.
With all the differences in editions, level limits of demi-humans are one reason I would select to play 1st Edition.
Quote from: Akrasia;679840I have some sympathy with this view, at least for ADnD. At the same time, I wanted to come up with a mechanism that did not impose such a 'hard' limit on demi-human PCs, which seems both excessive and violates (IMO) verisimilitude ("my dwarf fighter is going to live for another 200 years, but he will never improve his skill with his battle-axe at all?!?").
I can absolutely see that.
BECMI kinda sorta had a solution, of sorts, allthough an Odd one...
Quote from: JeremyR;679730I think the cap could have been a little higher, though. I used to run into it on Half-Elf clerics a lot
And I can see that, too. They're stuck at Max level 5 as clerics - that's pretty harsh. Of course, if the half-elf is a fighter/mage/cleric or mage/cleric, wich I suppose is what's intended*, then it'd take somewhat longer to reach that limit, but, still, unless his stats Are superheroic the half-elf's basically stuck at the lower end of mid-level (and if his stats
Are superheroic then he's still just mid-level).
Gnomes have the same problem, even with 18 Int
and Dex their Max Illusionist level is
7, and that's their iconic class! Of course though that's mainly an argument in Favor of gnome illusionist/thieves, since that's High enough level for Improved Invisibility and II + backstab = win.
*=I really like Swords & Wizardry Complete's take. In that one Elves, say, can be Fighter/Mages, Fighter/Mage/Thieves or Thieves but not single classed Fighters or Mages (Half-Elves add Fighter/Mage/Cleric to the options but Are otherwise identical Class vise).
I think the Fighter restriction is pretty harsh. I'm fine with the HP progression shifting from HD to flat +2 or +3 HP per level. But the improvement restricted to one weapon will just encourage funneling, especially upon one sole weapon.
Fighters are hampered by WP/NWP when it is used, which funnels their weapon spread due to -2 for unfamiliar weapons. In theory it shouldn't be so bad, but a lot of players become fixated on bonuses and self-restrict. It'd be better to avoid that just by delaying things instead.
How about instead of the 2e progression of +1/2 attack per 3 levels gets delayed? Perhaps that bonus every 4 or 6 levels? And to hit progression (BAB/THAC0) goes from +1 per level to then per every 2 or 3 levels?
The loss of name level is so big that that alone would subsume them into the human hegemony. An issue of population or organization lower than humans would definitely give humans the edge.
Why not get rid of level limits altogether?
A little off topic but not by much.
What is the logic behind XP bonuses for ability scores? I just don't get it.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;680020Why not get rid of level limits altogether?
This is what I ultimately did in our games.
Because I don't find removing it (demihuman level caps) useful to my use of the default published settings; human hegemony should have a good reason in the face of such racial bonuses and longevity. The default answer given is level limits and human cosmopolitanism. It's a good answer and one I came back to appreciate -- and currently use.
But if you were interested from a game standpoint to give treats per level to players, and still want the assumed human hegemony in your campaign, you'd want a different solution than level caps.
This topic is about those solutions. I just want to help on that design front.
Of course though 2e makes the reasoning somewhat less obvious since demihumans can generally speaking reach decent levels in their allowed classes in 2e. There's a big difference between Being restricted to level 6 and Being restricted to level 10 (or higher!).
Quote from: boulet;680034What is the logic behind XP bonuses for ability scores? I just don't get it.
An artifact of LBB OD&D, I'd say, where that's what high Str/Int/Wis gives you.
I ditch em. Personally, I make the reasons that humans excel more social than rules based, and it works for me.
Then again I care more about, "Are you having fun" over questions of "is your character balanced?"
Quote from: Opaopajr;680079Because I don't find removing it (demihuman level caps) useful to my use of the default published settings; human hegemony should have a good reason in the face of such racial bonuses and longevity. The default answer given is level limits and human cosmopolitanism. It's a good answer and one I came back to appreciate -- and currently use.
I found granting a +15% XP bonus adequately models the dominance of humans in a D&D setting for players.
I found anything beyond+15% XP was too overpowering and more importantly didn't change how often the average player picked a human over the other races. Lower numbers I found were not compelling enough to outweigh the mechanical advantages of other races.
I fined tuned this from running game store events for the last five years.
Yeah, that's another way to handle delayed progression for demihumans -- speed up human progression.
But what if the game is going mid to high levels and dealing with domain management?
Birthright elves are rather gross in access to source AND civilization potential. However it is kept in check by setting alignment conceit; their chaotic nature prevents high urbanism and favors confederate organization. Works as long as GM enforces that on elven land regent players.
But there's doubtlessly other solutions, I'm sure.
Quote from: estar;680101I found granting a +15% XP bonus adequately models the dominance of humans in a D&D setting for players.
I found anything beyond+15% XP was too overpowering and more importantly didn't change how often the average player picked a human over the other races. Lower numbers I found were not compelling enough to outweigh the mechanical advantages of other races.
I fined tuned this from running game store events for the last five years.
I had to go the other direction.
In my last years of playing the game, I had instituted a penalty instead of a hard cap. I don't have my notes right now, but I seem to remember adding on 5% per level over the cap for demi humans, with a maximum of 60%. It was a decent patch and incentivized players to see the benefit of going human.
Quote from: boulet;680034A little off topic but not by much.
What is the logic behind XP bonuses for ability scores? I just don't get it.
People who are naturally athletic tend to learn sports faster than those who aren't?
Quote from: apparition13;680120People who are naturally athletic tend to learn sports faster than those who aren't?
All right, that's one explanation. I find that justifications that goes the other way around - mechanic X justify fact Y that is desired about the setting - sounds more relevant. Like "Since we want a game world where humans prevail, and demihumans have many perks, we need level caps to explain why elves/dwarves/etc.. are not prevalent." I might be nitpicking.
Quote from: boulet;680125All right, that's one explanation. I find that justifications that goes the other way around - mechanic X justify fact Y that is desired about the setting - sounds more relevant. Like "Since we want a game world where humans prevail, and demihumans have many perks, we need level caps to explain why elves/dwarves/etc.. are not prevalent." I might be nitpicking.
There are definitely campaign based expectations embedded into the game.
We've discussed elsewhere how hit points might not be all physical but may also have a large luck element. The level limitations may be another reflection of divine favoritism that now is the Age of Men.
This discussion made me go back and look at the explanations from pages 14 -> 17 about race and class in DMG 2nd edition. Very interesting, and detailing about what expectations are (and that DMs should feel free to ignore them).
double xp requirements for demi humans.
or to be more fine tuned set a multiplierbased on race so say elves are three timed and hobbits 1.5.
this limits demi humans but in real terms only a level or two below the human.
alsi promotes the human as fast learner meme compared to the ponderous long lived races
Two alternatives to some of the above.
1. Create individual classes for each race - each requiring more experience per level perhaps. That is an Elven fighter, perhaps slightly different to a human fighter, with less armor and weapon availability. A Dwarf fighter; similar still but who won't retreat and so and so forth for each class variant.
2. Play RuneQuest/BRP ;)
Quote from: elfandghost;680134Play RuneQuest/BRP ;)
Normally I'd be inclined to do just this. :)
But I'm thinking of running a classic AnD game online for some friends, using a few of my old modules.
Quote from: LordVreeg;680116I had to go the other direction.
In my last years of playing the game, I had instituted a penalty instead of a hard cap. I don't have my notes right now, but I seem to remember adding on 5% per level over the cap for demi humans, with a maximum of 60%. It was a decent patch and incentivized players to see the benefit of going human.
Yeah, I previously had thought of simply imposing a 50% on experience points earned *after* the level limit had been reached.
Perhaps something like this would be the easiest solution overall...
Best alternative to demihuman racial limits is to give Humans bonuses that make them attractive to play. As it stands, they're the only race not allowed to multiclass and one of two races that doesn't have some ability to see in the dark.
What I'd recommend doing is letting Humans multiclass normally, between any two or three classes they qualify for, and giving them a 10% XP bonus. When I play AD&D, I usually lobby for Player's Option, so I'd say an extra CP or two per level is also justified.
Quote from: elfandghost;680134Two alternatives to some of the above.
1. Create individual classes for each race - each requiring more experience per level perhaps. That is an Elven fighter, perhaps slightly different to a human fighter, with less armor and weapon availability. A Dwarf fighter; similar still but who won't retreat and so and so forth for each class variant.
This is the sauce. If I were more ambitious, I'd do something like this-- no level limits, no MC restrictions, race-as-class for demihumans, and demihumans can multiclass into a limited,
unique selection of 'normal' classes.
If I were feeling really ambitious, I'd include demihuman-only classes for each race.
Quote from: FaerieGodfather;680167This is the sauce. If I were more ambitious, I'd do something like this-- no level limits, no MC restrictions, race-as-class for demihumans, and demihumans can multiclass into a limited, unique selection of 'normal' classes.
If I were feeling really ambitious, I'd include demihuman-only classes for each race.
I think it would work well. I'd actually like a retro-clone to attempt it. You could then apply the level-limits to the human classes - saying that the limits are there because they have to work in human circles or human ways of working that are unnatural to demi-humans.
Sample High Elf classes:
Guardians: As fighter with weapon restrictions, medium armor only. Perhaps morale conduct that prevents certain actions.
Weavers: As Magic-Users, but restricted to using certain spells - non Necromantic type, none detructive.
BASICALLY: Playtest, playtest. The best way to find out how incentives really work is to leave it to players!
Quote from: Akrasia;679712They get the spell 'slots' for higher-level spells as they progress, but they must fill those slots with lower level spells.
There are sound reasons why number of spells *of a given level* castable is limited, and why those limits were reduced in AD&D from their OD&D values.
This is a common problem with "spell point" systems that take no account of the placement in the standard lists of remarkably powerful spells at low levels.
QuoteFinally, demi-human fighters do not found new strongholds and lands of their own.
This is arguably a stretch more than just on the order of "MUs don't use armor, or weapons other than those permitted their profession." Acceptability presumably depends on the combination of how you rationalize it, and what particular players are prepared to swallow.
Quote from: Phillip;680221There are sound reasons why number of spells *of a given level* castable is limited, and why those limits were reduced in AD&D from their OD&D values.
This is a common problem with "spell point" systems that take no account of the placement in the standard lists of remarkably powerful spells at low levels.
I think that you may have misread my proposal. The idea was that higher level spell 'slots' could only be filled by *lower* level spells. E.g. An elf magic-user would have to fill his level 6 'slots' with spells levels 1-5.
When I DM, level limits are tossed into the scrap heap. Don't want 'em, and don't need 'em.
Quote from: Akrasia;680163Yeah, I previously had thought of simply imposing a 50% on experience points earned *after* the level limit had been reached.
Perhaps something like this would be the easiest solution overall...
It worked.
I went skill based ultimately for most of my games, but when I used it, it seemed to work. The accumulating thing (5% per level) made more sense for some of the other, non elven issues, as well.
I have not found level limits to be 'game breaking'
However, I have, at times over the years, house ruled level limits.
1) Ignore level limits. Easiest option.
2) Earned xp halved after level limit reached
3) Demi humans other than half orcs get one extra 'class' to divide
xp among. Essentially this is assuming the racial bonuses are roughly as useful as being mutilassed.
Ultimately I don't think worring about level limits is worth it.
If it ain't broke. Don't fix it.
I have no problem with level limits, but I also haven't missed them in old-school games that don't have them.