AD&D 1E On Demi-Human Level Caps

[cbwjm]

I find a good compromise for who can or cannot cast in armour is to reduce the heaviest armour worn a few steps when an arcane caster multiclassss. If you multiclass a fighter/wizard then they can cast at best in chainmail. A thief/wizard would be unable to cast in armour at all, and a theoretical multiclass for maximum chainmail wearing class/wizard would be able to cast in studded leather.

 

[Lanefan]

As for it being power creep, you've solved your power creep problem with power nerfs, which has forced a whole cascade of changes down the line. But so far where I'm standing you haven't made it more fun to play different things. You just seem to be hard pushing everyone toward single classed (human?) fighters. Of if you've not nerfed the races, or buffed humans, then maybe single classed dwarf fighters.

I've certainly tried to push everyone toward single-class, I won't deny that, but not toward any specific class.

Probably the most powerful class in my game right now is Ranger at low level and Nature Cleric at mid-high level (caveat: it's been ages since anyone's played a Paladin so I can't really say where they lie on the power scale). Fighters hold their own but they're not overcooked.

 

[Celebrim]

Probably the most powerful class in my game right now is Ranger at low level and Nature Cleric at mid-high level (caveat: it's been ages since anyone's played a Paladin so I can't really say where they lie on the power scale). Fighters hold their own but they're not overcooked.

Fighter in my opinion is slightly stronger than Ranger up to about 225,000 XP where the spell use of the Ranger and the extra HD and favorably leveling at mid-levels pulls the Ranger ahead. At low levels, the Fighter's extra weapon proficiency slot, D10 HD, and ability to hire men-at-arms and hirelings tends to push the fighter into a better place. In particular, the Fighter can double specialize or specialize in a bow while still being proficient with another weapon, something a Ranger can't do - so invariably at lower levels the ranger is taking that -2 penalty to hit regularly. The Fighter also has a faster progression in attacks per round, so again, considerable advantage when having to switch to melee weapon if ranged focused, or missile weapon if melee focused. At lower levels, really the Ranger's only substantial benefit is the bonus to damage versus certain common foes.

Paladin pre-UA is mostly just a better fighter that is the ideal solo class (tanky and self-healing). Post UA it's a rather weak class if it isn't folded into the Cavalier, but if it is made a subclass of Cavalier then it's just an uber-class that holds its own at low levels while having the most powerful endgame. You can't specialize but you get superior advancement on attacks per round, bonuses to hit, and so forth that keep pace with Fighters. I haven't done the math to exactly compare but its at least comparable to a double specialized fighter at most XP values. Late game, you have the huge advantage that you can easily attain 18/00 strength even if you didn't roll it, you have decent spell use to recover hit points and buff, and if you ever find a Holy Avenger you just turn into a one man army that takes down anything in a single round.

Fighter/Ranger/Paladin was the triad all power gaming is built around, whatever else the party is doing. Bard as the first PrC is worthwhile as well, because you are so freaking tanky relative to XP, and you have decent spellcasting utility and a bit of jack-of-all trades going. It's a nice build if you don't have the strength to be a really good fighter but you can qualify as Bard.

Cleric is decent, but mostly you are there to keep the meat shields/DPS stocked up on hit points and keep the nasty undead at bay so that they can take them down without risking all the bad things that happen if an undead touches you. You simply can't produce the damage output of the fighter classes though. You always want a Cleric in the party and D&D combat tactics revolve around protecting the cleric so the cleric can protect you, but at no point would I ever say the Cleric is the strongest class in the game. It's too easy to get really good saves and fighters just do 4, 6 or 8 times as much damage per round.

M-U is rough. My problem with the class is that you are so squishy you're always one round away from instant death. You never level up to the point you can mitigate against bad luck. In 40+ years of GMing, I've never seen a single classed M-U survive my games. But having one in the party as a problem solver is still really useful. Typically it requires an extreme amount of gaming the rules to get one that can stay alive, either by multi-classing or dual classing as something with more hit points before switching to the M-U. That's true even of 3e with its linear multiclassing, even with spellcasting being significantly easier and more powerful in RAW 3e. The single classed Wizards just die. High level, you are like the cleric in that the strategy is to keep you alive with the powerful tanky fighter classes so you can solve problems. (Power gaming 3e generally involves CODzilla IME.)

Nothing else is really worth it, especially since you've nerfed multclassing. I'm not sure how you'd even play an M-U in a game that challenges fighters that doesn't randomly die enough that you death spiral and fail resurrection survival checks, even if you could raise them from the dead every time.

 

[jolt]

In our games, we allowed advancement passed the caps, but said it took double XP. I think that might have been mentioned as an option in one of the books.

 

[Lanefan]

Fighter in my opinion is slightly stronger than Ranger up to about 225,000 XP where the spell use of the Ranger and the extra HD and favorably leveling at mid-levels pulls the Ranger ahead. At low levels, the Fighter's extra weapon proficiency slot, D10 HD, and ability to hire men-at-arms and hirelings tends to push the fighter into a better place. In particular, the Fighter can double specialize or specialize in a bow while still being proficient with another weapon, something a Ranger can't do - so invariably at lower levels the ranger is taking that -2 penalty to hit regularly. The Fighter also has a faster progression in attacks per round, so again, considerable advantage when having to switch to melee weapon if ranged focused, or missile weapon if melee focused. At lower levels, really the Ranger's only substantial benefit is the bonus to damage versus certain common foes.

At very low levels that second full hit die for the Ranger makes them much more survivable; and survival is job one at those levels. Survive a few adventures and you've built up enough treasure and gear to make yourself less squishy (while others are likely dying around you), also you've built up enough seniority within the party that they're more likely to get you revived if you do get knocked off.

Paladin pre-UA is mostly just a better fighter that is the ideal solo class (tanky and self-healing). Post UA it's a rather weak class if it isn't folded into the Cavalier, but if it is made a subclass of Cavalier then it's just an uber-class that holds its own at low levels while having the most powerful endgame.

Cavalier as written is overpowered. It's easy enough to tone it down such that it fits into a pre-UA environment, though.

You can't specialize but you get superior advancement on attacks per round, bonuses to hit, and so forth that keep pace with Fighters. I haven't done the math to exactly compare but its at least comparable to a double specialized fighter at most XP values. Late game, you have the huge advantage that you can easily attain 18/00 strength even if you didn't roll it, you have decent spell use to recover hit points and buff, and if you ever find a Holy Avenger you just turn into a one man army that takes down anything in a single round.

Fighter/Ranger/Paladin was the triad all power gaming is built around, whatever else the party is doing. Bard as the first PrC is worthwhile as well, because you are so freaking tanky relative to XP, and you have decent spellcasting utility and a bit of jack-of-all trades going. It's a nice build if you don't have the strength to be a really good fighter but you can qualify as Bard.

I never liked the PrC Bard either as a concept or as a reality.

Cleric is decent, but mostly you are there to keep the meat shields/DPS stocked up on hit points and keep the nasty undead at bay so that they can take them down without risking all the bad things that happen if an undead touches you. You simply can't produce the damage output of the fighter classes though. You always want a Cleric in the party and D&D combat tactics revolve around protecting the cleric so the cleric can protect you, but at no point would I ever say the Cleric is the strongest class in the game. It's too easy to get really good saves and fighters just do 4, 6 or 8 times as much damage per round.

Pretty much agree here.

M-U is rough. My problem with the class is that you are so squishy you're always one round away from instant death. You never level up to the point you can mitigate against bad luck. In 40+ years of GMing, I've never seen a single classed M-U survive my games. But having one in the party as a problem solver is still really useful. Typically it requires an extreme amount of gaming the rules to get one that can stay alive, either by multi-classing or dual classing as something with more hit points before switching to the M-U. That's true even of 3e with its linear multiclassing, even with spellcasting being significantly easier and more powerful in RAW 3e. The single classed Wizards just die. High level, you are like the cleric in that the strategy is to keep you alive with the powerful tanky fighter classes so you can solve problems. (Power gaming 3e generally involves CODzilla IME.)

Nothing else is really worth it, especially since you've nerfed multclassing. I'm not sure how you'd even play an M-U in a game that challenges fighters that doesn't randomly die enough that you death spiral and fail resurrection survival checks, even if you could raise them from the dead every time.

Well, all I can say is that our long-term stats show MUs have roughly the same survival rates as everyone else. Worth noting, though, that we long ago added in the concept of "body points" - for PCs this represents 2-5 additional hit points at 1st level with that number locked in for life once rolled - and I think that makes a big difference (though my games are still bloody lethal for all classes at low level!).

As for how to play a MU: make sure you've got a front line that can keep the foes off of you and don't annoy your party too much.

In fact, looking at the ten longest-serving characters in my current campaign (as measured by sessions-played count), I find:

2 Necromancers (homebrew sub-class of MU, similar to Illusionist)
2 Nature Clerics
1 War Cleric (homebrew class that fits between standard Cleric and Paladin; this PC might as well have been a Pally)
1 Thief
2 Magic-Users
2 Fighters

The next three are Bard (homebrew), MU, Ranger; so the spread continues.

That looks balanced enough to me, other than the Necromancers which are an extreme statisical outlier; only 5 have been played and the other three all died very fast.

Long ago Gygax suggested the rough breakdown of what gets played (ignoring Monks) should be something like 40% Fighter group, 30% Cleric group, 20% Thief group, and 10% Mage group. Over the long run here it's been closer to 40-20-20-20.

 

[Celebrim]

At very low levels that second full hit die for the Ranger makes them much more survivable

It's always necessary to look at things in terms of XP and likely ability scores. The 1st level ranger is clearly very strong, but they only gain a +3.5 hp bonus on the fighter. Plus, the Ranger needs somehow to find Intelligence and Wisdom to go with its required Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. You're really unlikely to have 16+ in five stats, so somewhere the Ranger is sacrificing. Meanwhile, a competent fighter only needs Strength and Constitution. And really, just 18 Strength is enough, the 17+ Constitution is gravy, and if you need to you can go Dwarf to bump that (before level 9, Dwarf Fighter is amazing). There isn't really anything you can do to make Ranger work out so easily. So, you have to deal with the fact the fighter gets a 10% XP bump and it's really likely that either the Ranger doesn't have 16 INT, 16 WIS, and 16 DEX (and so doesn't get a 10% XP bump) or else doesn't have 18 STR or 17+ constitution. So that extra HD only lasts only like 1800 XP, at which point you are now behind on hit points until 2250 XP. And then you are behind again at 3600 XP to 4500 XP. So you aren't that much more survivable even if you are lucky enough to be matching the fighter in Constitution while rocking universally good stats.

And again, not having henchmen or men-at-arms' servants at low levels is tough, and that missing weapon proficiency never hurt until specialization came along and ate 3 weapon proficiency slots for your first weapon. You don't contribute quite as often until level 3 and you get your 4th slot, and then at level 6 the fighter gets his first bump with his non-specialized weapons and you don't until level 7. It's a good solid class but it's always struck me as that class you go into when you don't have a lot of 17's and 18's but you don't want to suck.

Your perception of it therefore might be based on very restrictive ability score rolling (hence no Paladins) because it gets a lot of bonuses that aren't centered on ability scores and yet is also a bit hard to qualify for, so when you do see one they are a bit above average.

Well, all I can say is that our long-term stats show MUs have roughly the same survival rates as everyone else. Worth noting, though, that we long ago added in the concept of "body points" - for PCs this represents 2-5 additional hit points at 1st level with that number locked in for life once rolled - and I think that makes a big difference (though my games are still bloody lethal for all classes at low level!).

Again, this is part and parcel of just how little I can say about your game because every single conversation with you has always revealed several house rules in every post.

And again, a lot of this can be GMing style and encounter design. My experience with D&D as a GM is that no matter how skilled the party, there is always some encounter - a trap, an area attack, a burrowing monster, unlikely surprise, mass missile fire - complex enough that it disrupts the normal meat shield strategy. For every other class, that produces a "oh heck" moment but then within a round or two the situation can be righted, and the cleric can sustain and recover. For M-Us, this produces death, rather instantly regardless of the character level. It's not just the 1d4 HD at 1st level, but also the fact that the burst damage of monsters of equivalent level to you just always keeps up with what an M-U is expected to have. I just kill M-U's left and right, and have done so for 40 years. The fireball from the enemy mage out scales none of the party, but does tend to out scale the M-U. The giant tossing boulders hurts, but is lethal if any amount of focus is placed on the M-U. The dragon's breath, the trap that gets missed, the umber hulk at close range, the second griffin of the mated pair, whatever it is, the M-U goes down.