AD&D 1E On Demi-Human Level Caps

[Celebrim]

What do you mean by 'gestalt'? A term for independently-advancing classes, as opposed to 3-4-5e's additive version?

Yes. To get the benefit of two classes for basically the price of one.

I also like independently-advancing classes as it allows players more options when creating their characters; in that I allow them to assign what proportion of the character's earned xp goes to which class... The player can change the assigned proportions only during between-adventure downtime...

I find it interesting that most of the criticism I got on the "thief" thread was "the thief is fine as it, it doesn't need your power creep", and the criticism that I'm getting in this thread is, "This is not nearly enough power creep."

I take it you've never actually played with any power gamers, because that's as busted as heck. And they rarely change the proportions? Because the guys I played with back in 1e era would have abused the heck out of everything you just outlined.

 

[Lanefan]

I find it interesting that most of the criticism I got on the "thief" thread was "the thief is fine as it, it doesn't need your power creep", and the criticism that I'm getting in this thread is, "This is not nearly enough power creep."

I don't see it as power creep, though.

I take it you've never actually played with any power gamers, because that's as busted as heck. And they rarely change the proportions? Because the guys I played with back in 1e era would have abused the heck out of everything you just outlined.

Most of the time the proportions are set when the character comes in and then never change. If they do, it's because of an in-character change of focus on what it does while adventuring.

I don't see how it could be power-gamed to any great extent - I mean, you still need the same xp numbers to get to the next level, and you're losing any single-class benefits you might have had. What it does mean is that, for example, you can do like a player of mine once did where the character wanted to be a Fighter but for in-game family reasons also had to be a Magic User; so she went 90-Fighter 10-MU and stuck with that throughout, finishing up (if memory serves) as something like F-8/MU-4.

Perhaps worth noting I don't allow Mages to cast in armour even if multi-classed with Fighter or similar (Gygax was far too generous to Elves here IMO), which means she was only really casting spells at camp or during downtime - usually Identify - but did mean she could use items normally restricted to Mages only.

Edit to add: I also cap any character at two classes, maximum.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't see how it could be power-gamed to any great extent

Just off the top of my head, the fighter is linear and arguably the strongest class in the game. But it is helpful to have high level casters because their power grows exponentially. The trouble is, it's almost impossible to get a high level single classed M-U in RAW AD&D unless your DM is deliberately using kid gloves or you cheat.. So you right off the bat solve my problem. I go 90% fighter and 10% or so M-U until I get sufficiently high level in fighter that I've upped my hit points (6th sounds like a good break even point, though 10th is probably optimum in the long run so as to get 100+ hp M-Us). Then, I switch from there to 90% in M-U and 10% in fighter. Now I quickly level up M-U, and I'm tanky enough that I can actually survive with decent enough THAC0 that throwing weapons from the back line actually contributes. I power level through the low XP requirements of gaining levels as an M-U now with all of the benefits of dual classing and none of the drawbacks.

mean, you still need the same xp numbers to get to the next level, and you're losing any single-class benefits you might have had. What it does mean is that, for example, you can do like a player of mine once did where the character wanted to be a Fighter but for in-game family reasons also had to be a Magic User; so she went 90-Fighter 10-MU and stuck with that throughout, finishing up (if memory serves) as something like F-8/MU-4.

At which point she's now perfectly positioned to switch from 90% fighter to 90% M-U to "please her family" or whatever RP excuse she wants to give. That's near spot on the power gaming curve. And really you can see how you are being scammed even your example. Had she gone 100% fighter she MIGHT have gotten to F-9. But by giving up 10% of her XP she's gaining net 4 levels of class on you. Now granted, this isn't the best way to make a OP fighter (that would be to dip 10% cleric), but it's heck busted if you are planning long term M-U.

Literally the only thing that might stop some power gamers from abusing the heck out of this is you seem to be using the Dragon magazine rule that only single classed fighters can specialize, because specialized single class fighters have almost no draw backs until 13th level or so - which your campaigns don't seem to hit.

Perhaps worth noting I don't allow Mages to cast in armour even if multi-classed with Fighter or similar (Gygax was far too generous to Elves here IMO)

Sure, I mean that's not a problem. You just don't play an elf, which was already a really weak choice to begin with RAW. You've done away with all the reasons to do so, since you can multiclass as a human and nerfed probably the strongest benefit of being an elf. No reason to put up with that nasty -1 CON if you can get better AC than usual.

 

[Lanefan]

Just off the top of my head, the fighter is linear and arguably the strongest class in the game. But it is helpful to have high level casters because their power grows exponentially. The trouble is, it's almost impossible to get a high level single classed M-U in RAW AD&D unless your DM is deliberately using kid gloves or you cheat.. So you right off the bat solve my problem. I go 90% fighter and 10% or so M-U until I get sufficiently high level in fighter that I've upped my hit points (6th sounds like a good break even point, though 10th is probably optimum in the long run so as to get 100+ hp M-Us). Then, I switch from there to 90% in M-U and 10% in fighter. Now I quickly level up M-U, and I'm tanky enough that I can actually survive with decent enough THAC0 that throwing weapons from the back line actually contributes. I power level through the low XP requirements of gaining levels as an M-U now with all of the benefits of dual classing and none of the drawbacks.

So you end up as a F6/MU6 once the MU side catches up, meanwhile all the single-classers are 7th or 8th. Same difference as if you'd gone with a 50-50 split all the way along.

At which point she's now perfectly positioned to switch from 90% fighter to 90% M-U to "please her family" or whatever RP excuse she wants to give. That's near spot on the power gaming curve. And really you can see how you are being scammed even your example. Had she gone 100% fighter she MIGHT have gotten to F-9. But by giving up 10% of her XP she's gaining net 4 levels of class on you. Now granted, this isn't the best way to make a OP fighter (that would be to dip 10% cleric), but it's heck busted if you are planning long term M-U.

That would require some serious long-range planning, given that to get to F-8/MU8 (via any sequence) would in our games take potentially 6-9 years of play if not more.

The most common multiclass combinations I see are Fighter-Thief and maybe Fighter-MU, though lots of different ones have been tried over time. Long ago there was a time when various people wanted to go Ranger-MU, until they came to realize just how long it took to bump given that those are two of the slowest-advancing classes.

Literally the only thing that might stop some power gamers from abusing the heck out of this is you seem to be using the Dragon magazine rule that only single classed fighters can specialize, because specialized single class fighters have almost no draw backs until 13th level or so - which your campaigns don't seem to hit.

Only single-classed Fighters can specialize, multi-classed casters don't get as many spell slots as their single-class counterparts, multi-classed Rangers lose some benefits. About the only classes that don't suffer much through multi-classing are Thief and Assassin, intentionally so in order to make them a bit more appealing.

And you roll an average of the two classes' hit die, based on the proportion most often assigned through the previous level, when the leading class bumps. Admittedly, someone could game this a bit by running as a 90-10 F-MU and rolling d9 each level, then flipping to 90 M, 10 F and not rolling any new hit dice until the MU side caught up (unless the F side happened to bump at some point from that 10%, at which point you'd roll a d5 for new hit points because you're mostly MU now) but rolling d9 rather than d7 gives on average maybe 1 extra hit point per level. In the long run, who cares?

Sure, I mean that's not a problem. You just don't play an elf, which was already a really weak choice to begin with RAW. You've done away with all the reasons to do so, since you can multiclass as a human and nerfed probably the strongest benefit of being an elf. No reason to put up with that nasty -1 CON if you can get better AC than usual.

By RAW, Elves rock. They get proficiency with longsword and bow as a bonus, they can cast in armour (which nobody else can), they can see in the dark better than anyone else, and their (Int or Dex, I forget which) gets bumped up. Not bad just for losing a Con point, given that their other big drawback - they can't come back from the dead - might as well not have existed once it got out in the wild.

And how am I getting better AC than usual in comparison with any other Fighter?

 

[Celebrim]

@Lanefan I had this problem in the revised dragon thread discussing the game with you; you've made so many adjustments to the game that it is almost unrecognizable as AD&D (and the RAW was completely unfamiliar to you because you've been playing your game for so long). If you are nerfing specialization (which UA didn't but a latter Dragon article did) AND you've got something homebrew going on with nerfing multi-classed spell access AND it you're not letting multi-classed M-U's wear armor AND you've got your own hit point formulas and who knows else, then yeah, it probably doesn't matter that you've made multiclassing accessible. If I'm going to power game I'll just stick with a single classed dual specialized fighter in that case, which is honestly about the most broken thing you can do anyway (comparable to Cavalier or Samuria if you are allowing those), but who knows what else you've changed.

By comparison to the wholesale reimagining you've done, my goals here are modest. I'm not trying to change the game in a substantial way. I'm not trying to take out things a player who adhered close to RAW would be familiar with. I'm trying to tweak them enough that they work, without making them something completely different.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan I had this problem in the revised dragon thread discussing the game with you; you've made so many adjustments to the game that it is almost unrecognizable as AD&D (and the RAW was completely unfamiliar to you because you've been playing your game for so long). If you are nerfing specialization (which UA didn't but a latter Dragon article did) AND you've got something homebrew going on with nerfing multi-classed spell access AND it you're not letting multi-classed M-U's wear armor AND you've got your own hit point formulas and who knows else, then yeah, it probably doesn't matter that you've made multiclassing accessible. If I'm going to power game I'll just stick with a single classed dual specialized fighter in that case, which is honestly about the most broken thing you can do anyway (comparable to Cavalier or Samuria if you are allowing those), but who knows what else you've changed.

One of the underlying reasons for our changes has specifically been to file the edges off of options that are too obviously power-game-able, while also trying to pump up underpowered options a little. Not perfect yet and probably never will be, but far better than it once was.

By comparison to the wholesale reimagining you've done, my goals here are modest. I'm not trying to change the game in a substantial way. I'm not trying to take out things a player who adhered close to RAW would be familiar with. I'm trying to tweak them enough that they work, without making them something completely different.

Where I'm suggesting that rather than the slow-motion succession of tweaks on which you're embarking, to just rip the band-aid off, as it's highly likely that sooner or later you'll end up with the same result anyway: few if any level limits remaining, with some other things tweaked to compensate.

 

[TwoSix]

One of the underlying reasons for our changes has specifically been to file the edges off of options that are too obviously power-game-able, while also trying to pump up underpowered options a little. Not perfect yet and probably never will be, but far better than it once was.

Where I'm suggesting that rather than the slow-motion succession of tweaks on which you're embarking, to just rip the band-aid off, as it's highly likely that sooner or later you'll end up with the same result anyway: few if any level limits remaining, with some other things tweaked to compensate.

Gotta agree with @Lanefan here on this point. The point of a game is to play, with 45 years of people creating AD&D fixes it’s easy to identify what fixes you need for your particular problem points and just implement them.

None of us here are young, slow and cautious incrementalism serves little purpose in getting a game running before we reach our “level cap”.

 

[Celebrim]

Where I'm suggesting that rather than the slow-motion succession of tweaks on which you're embarking, to just rip the band-aid off, as it's highly likely that sooner or later you'll end up with the same result anyway: few if any level limits remaining, with some other things tweaked to compensate.

So, I don't think so. We have discussed 1e AD&D enough over the years that I'm pretty sure I will never end up with my "fixed" version looking anything like your fixed version. What you think is elegant and interesting I find banal and removing the unique charm of the older edition, and probably vica versa. I've said before that I anticipated that my fully fixed version would look a lot like 3e D&D, so much so that I hardly thought it worth it to fix 1e. But to the extent that I am now finding myself thinking about a fixed 1e AD&D, I want it very much to be recognizably 1e AD&D.

I don't even think we are asking of ourselves a lot of the same questions as the other. One of the things that I'm asking for example is how many viable builds are their at 500,000 XP, one million XP and three million XP. And I can't conjecture to much about what is true about your game because every time I do you bring up three more things that you've changed, but I don't think those are questions you ask of your game based on talking to you, and from what I can tell on what you've "fixed" and what you haven't fixed, IMO your game's answers to those questions you don't care about but which I do are boring. I mean look at the things I'm fixing, going back to the dragon thread. Most of them have to do with play above 10th level. I'm not doing a lot of things that are focused on fixing the game in the existing sweet spot of 3rd to 9th level.

So no, I don't think my fantasy heartbreaker would look much anything like yours. I'm perfectly happy with level caps, multiclassing, and dual classing and allowing multi-classed fighters to keep their weapon specialization because all of those things ensure that a power gaming party doesn't just consist of single classed fighters with a cleric to provide healing.

We're also I think choosing to balance at a different point. While it's a perfectly valid tack to suggest everything in late 1e AD&D was bad for the game, including UA and OA, and to try to balance everything with pre-UA rangers and paladins, I'm more or less explicitly balancing for a post UA environment of specialized fighters and barbarians and cavaliers and rangers and bards at the least.

I making a huge number of different choices than you, and I think it's looking at them wrong to imagine that I'm not going to be happy with them. Like I frequently thought of bringing weapon vs. AC modifiers into 3e. I frequently considered spell casting times and segments for 3e. I only didn't because 3e already had plenty of complexity that came along with it. But those complexities from the 1e era are explicitly things that I want to include in the game. I detest so much of the OSR design landscape because so much of OSR is basically simplified 2e or cleaned up B/X, and if I'd wanted to play in those spaces back then I would have. I'm not looking for a streamlined simplified version of the game designed to just support the core dungeoneering game loops because modern games have gotten too far from the heroic beer and pretzels style. I want a full game system that supports the sort of things I think come up in long running campaigns that go 10 or 15 years and involve 200 sessions and over a thousand hours pf play. I'm not looking for how to run a dungeon and a fight between the party and some hobgoblins.

I don't think we'd ever converge to what you've got going on your 30+ year old fork of the game. Like elves not casting fireball while wearing chainmail? That's a deal breaker for me. That's part of the flavor and lore and iconics of the game. And so forth.

And as an example, if I did make changes, almost certainly among the first ones would be one you shuddered at in the thread - allowing Dwarves to be M-Us.

 

[Lanefan]

So, I don't think so. We have discussed 1e AD&D enough over the years that I'm pretty sure I will never end up with my "fixed" version looking anything like your fixed version. What you think is elegant and interesting I find banal and removing the unique charm of the older edition, and probably vica versa. I've said before that I anticipated that my fully fixed version would look a lot like 3e D&D, so much so that I hardly thought it worth it to fix 1e. But to the extent that I am now finding myself thinking about a fixed 1e AD&D, I want it very much to be recognizably 1e AD&D.

No disagreement here. I too would rather it looked and felt more like 1e than 3e; which is fairly easy provided we keep the overall power curve at 1e-level flatness rather than 3e-level steepness.

I don't even think we are asking of ourselves a lot of the same questions as the other. One of the things that I'm asking for example is how many viable builds are their at 500,000 XP, one million XP and three million XP.

I'm not sure I've ever DMed a character that got to 500,000 xp and for sure never anything near a million. Better perhaps to put it in terms of actual level numbers, as we're doubtless using wildly different xp advancement tables. The highest-level PCs I've ever DMed got to 12th; the highest-level party average I've ever run was about 10.5.

And I can't conjecture to much about what is true about your game because every time I do you bring up three more things that you've changed, but I don't think those are questions you ask of your game based on talking to you, and from what I can tell on what you've "fixed" and what you haven't fixed, IMO your game's answers to those questions you don't care about but which I do are boring. I mean look at the things I'm fixing, going back to the dragon thread. Most of them have to do with play above 10th level. I'm not doing a lot of things that are focused on fixing the game in the existing sweet spot of 3rd to 9th level.

Fair enough. As noted above, very-high-level-play design isn't something I've ever had to worry about overmuch.

We're also I think choosing to balance at a different point. While it's a perfectly valid tack to suggest everything in late 1e AD&D was bad for the game, including UA and OA, and to try to balance everything with pre-UA rangers and paladins, I'm more or less explicitly balancing for a post UA environment of specialized fighters and barbarians and cavaliers and rangers and bards at the least.

Yep, we've gone in different directions: we tried (and, I think, more or less succeeded) to take UA and dial what of it we could back so as to balance with what already existed pre-UA. That which we couldn't dial back we ditched, along with that which was unsalvageably bad from the start (hello and goodbye, Acrobat).

I'm not looking for a streamlined simplified version of the game designed to just support the core dungeoneering game loops because modern games have gotten too far from the heroic beer and pretzels style.

Where I'm quite happy with beer-and-pretzel gaming. Different goals, different outcomes, I suppose.

I want a full game system that supports the sort of things I think come up in long running campaigns that go 10 or 15 years and involve 200 sessions and over a thousand hours pf play. I'm not looking for how to run a dungeon and a fight between the party and some hobgoblins.

Same here. Right now I'm at 18 years and over 1100 sessions in this one I'm running (the game I play in is a year senior and a few sessions ahead), and that's what I aim to design for: something that works well enough to be good enough to last without too many annoying glitches and ongoing rules issues rearing their heads. And sure, after 18 years there's some things I want to tweak; but nothing's yet got bad enough to make me shut 'er down and reboot.

And I've found that if I can make that simple dungeon with a fight between the party and some hobgoblins work properly then everything else more or less kinda flows from that. But getting the simple basic stuff nailed down (which, we have to admit, dear ol' EGG didn't always get right) is always priority one.

I don't think we'd ever converge to what you've got going on your 30+ year old fork of the game. Like elves not casting fireball while wearing chainmail? That's a deal breaker for me. That's part of the flavor and lore and iconics of the game. And so forth.

The deal-breaker for me is the in-setting inconsistency of having one PC be able to cast while wearing armour while another of the same class cannot. If an Elf can cast arcane spells in armour it's only natural that the players of Gnomes or Humans are going to say "Hey, why can't I do that?"; and to me both as DM and player that's a very valid question without a valid answer.

And so, to avoid the power creep that comes from letting everyone cast in armour, I took that ability away from Elves. Instead, there's very rare (and hella costly!) magic armour in the game whose enchantment specifically allows arcane casting while wearing it, and any species can use this if they're lucky enough to find some.

And as an example, if I did make changes, almost certainly among the first ones would be one you shuddered at in the thread - allowing Dwarves to be M-Us.

I allowed Hobbit Mages in the current campaign. It's worked dubiously-OK but I think were I to reboot they'd be gone again; or maybe I'd only allow them to be Illusionists.