Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9879266" data-attributes="member: 4937">At the time I was playing AD&D, I never really questioned the demi-human level caps which in retrospect surprises me a little considering how much I did question and try to change. However, whether I had a bias then or now, I still don’t feel a need to actually eliminate the mechanic. Were I to play AD&D now I very much think I would keep them. Now that I have a vision of the Thief that is actually fun at high levels, I don’t even feel like they are that restrictive. At 3,000,000 XP, you could be playing an 8th level Fighter, 12th level M-U, 14th level thief and surely that’s a fun and capable character to play with a unique feel to it. Possibly the 8 levels of fighter and the 14 levels of thief wouldn’t make up for the missing 6 levels of M-U and loss of 9th level spells, but you would me in my experience more likely to survive to that point than a single classed M-U would and you would be useful and capable of holding your own.In retrospect, UA did mostly bad things to the game, but at the time I didn’t realize that. One thing I did find welcome at the time was slightly higher level caps that opened up more builds. The thing that I didn’t like was bringing in more racial options that were clearly just better than the previously existing options, and which were formerly limited to being NPC races. I haven’t changed on that. I’m revisiting and revising the level caps, but the main actual changes you will notice is in the handling of races and racial subgroups. Gone are any differentiation between hill and mountain dwarfs, or between the different hobbit pastiches, or the list of a dozen different types of elves. The other major change is I’m not longer giving out bonuses for having implausible attribute scores that no PC is ever likely to have. You could rightly criticize 1e AD&D for being too attribute focused, but the other problem with it is that it’s too often denying PC’s access to things it would freely give to NPCs. The last thing the game needs is more of that, so maximum level attainable caps at 19.Increasing Level CapsConcerning the given numbers, in all cases, if the class has a single attribute prime requisite where 16 in the ability score grants a 10% bonus to XP, a 17 in that ability score increases the level cap by +1 and an 18 increases the level cap by +2. If the race may have an unmodified 19 in the ability score, then a 19 increases the level limit by +3.Rangers are a special case. They normally get a 10% bonus to XP for having a 15 in INT, WIS, and DEX. The level cap increases by +1 for rangers if they have at least a 16 in two of those attributes, and no less than a 15 in the other, and by +2 if they have at least a 17 in two of those scores and no less than a 16 in the other, and finally by +3 if they have at least a 18 in two of those scores and no less than a 17 in the other. Druids are likewise a special case. They normally get a 10% bonus to XP for having a 16 in both WIS and CHR. To increase the level cap by +1, you must have a 17 in both and by +2 you must have an 18 in both. No race that is level capped in Druid can have a 19 in both, so that is the maximum increase. Since Halflings are capped at 17 wisdom, the highest they can advance as druids is 7th level.Classes like assassin and illusionist which do not gain bonus XP also do not qualify for increased level cap. However, in all cases, if the character is single classed, they may increase the level cap by 2. This stacks with increased cap for having high ability aptitude for the class. I am assuming my revised Barbarian and on reflection think the class is suitable to non-humans, thus several races are allowed the class. Also the revised Barbarian has a prime requisite of Con and qualifies for bonus XP if you have a 16 or better, so most races can obtain higher than the given numbers. For example, Halflings are capped at 19 CON so it is possible to obtain 7th level in Barbarian for a “wild Halfling”. Note that Barbarians following the path of shaman and/or witch doctor count as single classes for these purposes, the paths in that class write up are more like the paths in the Entertainer class and not full classes in their own right.Level Caps and Multi-Classing Options by Demi-human RaceDwarf - Assassin: 9, Cleric: 9, Fighter: 8, Thief: UDwarves may be Cleric/Fighters and Fighter/Thieves.Elf, High - Assassin: 11, Cavalier: 6, Cleric: 7, Druid: U, Fighter: 6, M-U: 11, Ranger: 7, Thief: UElf, Wood - Barbarian: 5, Cleric: 6, Druid: 8, Fighter: 7, Ranger: 7, Thief: UHigh Elves includes Valley and Grey Elves. High Elves may be Cleric/Thieves, Druid/Thieves, Fighter/Thieves, Ranger/Thieves, Druid/Ranger, Fighter/M-U, Fighter/M-U/Thieves, and Fighter/Druid/Thieves.Wood elves include Wild Elves. Wood Elves may be Cleric/Thieves, Druid/Thieves, Fighter/Thieves, Ranger/Thieves, Druid/Ranger, and Fighter/Druid/ThievesGnomes: Assassin: 8, Cleric: 7, Fighter: 6, Illusionist: 10, Thief: UGnomes may be Cleric/Illusionist, Cleric/Thieves, Fighter/Thieves, Illusionist/Thieves, Cleric/Fighter/Thieves, Cleric/Illusionist/Thieves, and Fighter/Illusionist/ThievesHalfling - Barbarian: 4, Cleric: 7, Druid: 6, Fighter: 6, Thief: UHalflings may be Cleric/Thieves, Druid/Thieves, Fighter/Thieves, and Cleric/Fighter/ThievesHalf-Elf - Assassin: 12, Cavalier: 8, Cleric: 9, Druid: U, Fighter: 8, M-U: 10, Ranger: 8, Thief: UHalf Elves may be Cleric/Thieves, Cleric/Ranger, Druid/Thieves, Fighter/Thieves, Ranger/Thieves, Druid/Ranger, Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/M-U, Fighter/M-U/Thieves, and Fighter/Druid/Thieves.Half-Orcs - Assassin: U, Barbarian: 8, Cleric: 7, Fighter: 10, Thief: 9Half-Orcs may be Assassin/Clerics, Assassin/Fighters, Cleric/Thieves, Cleric/Fighters, and Fighter/Thieves,Reasons behind my ChangesThe main reason I like level caps is they strongly encourage the player to multiclass, which in turn I think help makes the racial options that aren’t human feel more non-human, like they are their own thing distinct and not merely funny shaped humans. They can do things humans can’t and will play different than humans.  So I want to keep the flavor but give more options.  As I mentioned before, with my revised thief I now feel all multi-classed options including thief are viable to play, because thief is now viable to play and thief is not level capped except to half-orcs, who are in turn not level capped in assassin which is not level capped after my revision. So every racial choice has several interesting multi-classing options. Single classing options outside of thief are more limited, but Dwarf Cleric (13th), Dwarf Fighter (12th), High Elf Assassin (13th), High Elf Druid (unrestricted), High Elf M-U (16th), Gnome Illusionist (14th), Half-Elven Assassin (14th), Half-Elven Cleric (13th), Half-Elven Fighter (12th), Half-Elven Ranger (12th), Half-Elven M-U (14th), Half-Orc Assassin (unrestricted), Half-Orc Barbarian (13th), and Half-Orc Fighter (14th) all are viable within most campaigns. Wild Elf and Halfling Barbarians going into the Shaman/Witchdoctor path are also surprisingly and hilariously robust. Other options may be viable for shorter campaigns.I’ve opened up every multiclassing option that feels right for the race. I particularly think cleric-thieves are appropriate for gnomes and halflings, and to a certain extent for elves, as they all have deities that totally endorse a roguish, swashbuckling, trickster archetype. In short, I think that there is now lots of viable options suitable for most campaigns, and there is plenty of options for dangerous colorful NPCs without resorting to giving NPCs things that the PCs could never have. There are a whole panoply of demi human PCs you could make to take on your next “Isle of the Ape” excursion.Underdark RacesI haven’t touched these on purpose, because I generally disliked the power creep then which for some reason bothered me in a way weapon specialization or cavaliers didn’t at the time. I guess because I didn’t see those things as invalidating all other choices at the time while it seemed to me obvious that players would just pick the best race. So I’m largely getting rid of the idea of a rare being better.Since some people like playing the underdark races, I’ll give a brief summary of my thinkingElf, Drow - Assassin: 12, Cleric: 7, Fighter: 7, M-U: 11, Thief: UDrow Elves may be may be Assassin/Clerics, Assassin/Fighters, Cleric/Thieves, Cleric/M-U, Fighter/Thieves, Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/M-U, and Fighter/M-U/ThievesDrow Elf females can exceed the normal limits on level by 2 in Cleric and M-U. This is in addition to the raised cap for single class or high ability scores. Thus they may reach 13th level clerics and 18th level M-U. They must abide by the female maximum strength of 16 normal for elves, and by the same ability caps as high elves.Gray Dwarves are the same level caps their surface dwelling cousins but may also be Assassin/Clerics. Deep Gnomes in all respects have the same abilities and maximums as their surface dwelling cousins.As far as ability score bonuses go, I’d be perfectly happy with all elves just having the basic +1 DEX and -1 CON. Loss of CON is very punishing and balancing. But some people may miss all the bonuses you get for being a Gray Elf or Wild Elf or some such. For them I would say it would not be game breaking to give all high/drow elves two +1 bonuses chosen from among INT, DEX and CHR and for wood/wild elves +1 STR and +1 DEX and a -1 CON. Drow females could get the full +1 INT, +1 DEX, +1 CHR package with the strength cap and -1 CON in trade. If you wanted maximum variation, drow males could get the wood elf package. Not that I would encourage playing the drow, but at least these rules preclude utterly Drizzt.</blockquote>

Verification