Race Level Restrictions. HELP PLEASE!

[santosud37]

I am old schooler of 0D&D through 2nd ed. I am having a problem with 2 things for the game but I do not want to use 5th ed in anyway shape or form when it comes to this. As I believe 5th ed. was created by chaotic lunatics that have no concept of how authority and rules work in our known Universe.
I like Gary Gygax's and the other creators ideas and concepts of class and level restrictions, because, as he said: "Demi-humans live longer than Humans so we put these restrictions in plsce to balance the game." This quote is found in the introduction section of the 1st ed PH pgs 7-8. I am sure it is in other places as well because it makes sense.
Take a 2000 year old Elf and have a max 100 year old Human compete against that semi-immortal in experience. It just doesn't work. This is the logic behind Gary's and others thinking that the lunatics of 5th ed. would never understand because they want everything handed to them with a Silver Spoon.

Anyway, my question is, because the 1st ed PHand UA are conflicting in it's rule on this, I have 2 High Elf Thieves; 1 a Male at L20, 1 a Female at L17, and, in accodance with both these books it says that Elven Thieves are Unlimited in Level under the Racial Level Limitations. This conflicts with what it says in 0D&D in that Elves can be only Fighter/Mages, which I do not agree with, as that was the original box sets, and it also conflicts with 2nd ed. AD&D, which is found on page 15 of the 2nd ed. DMG. I agree with the Optional there, however. What are the thoughts of the community on this subject without delving in the chaotic lunacy idea of the 5th ed. where all races are Unlimited in level? Maybe 4th ed. answers this question, I do not know. I may need to change the levels of my Thieves is the main reason why I am asking. Maybe dual class them with the Thief Acrobat class are my thoughts.

My second question is about Psionics. I am having some difficulty with the Players Skills Options book on this matter and I will have to get the Psionists Handbook maybe for this answer. Are the Aura Alteration and Mind Bar Psionics, and possibly others, been removed from the game? Or does it just depend on which rules one goes by? This is also a question about the 'Death's Door' spell for 3rd Level Clerics?

Any input would be great!

Thanks In Advance!

 

[Celebrim]

I'm a 3.0e player though I have been playing since the early 80s and have some familiarity with the Basic/Expert and 1e AD&D versions of the game.

It sounds to me like you have very specific opinions on how the game should be played, and accordingly it doesn't feel in your questions like you are looking for answers as much as you are looking for validation.

In terms of balance issues, 1e AD&D is wildly unbalanced and that's one of the reasons I moved my game to 3e. The level caps on demi-humans in 1e AD&D and BECMI are basically kludges. The 1e PH versions of these restrictions on level caps are IMO/IME too restrictive. While the Unearthed Arcana is generally bad for the game and makes things worse, the level caps given for the more esoteric racial subgroups it introduced (like Drow or Gray elves or Deep Gnomes) are closer to the levels that should be used for the race as a whole. Basically, every race needs the ability to hit 10th to 12th level in some primary class in order for there to be any reason to play that race outside of one shots.

As for thieves the reason that unlimited levels in thieves isn't a problem is that thief is such a terrible and worthless class that allowing unlimited access to it hardly matters. Taking the class is a trap and I say that as a long-time player of 1e thieves. If you do the math, the class is worthless. About the only reason you'd ever take it at all is if you were a demihuman where you'd multiclass into it just so you'd not hit a hard cap on your power quite so soon. Not that levelling up at thief really gains you much, as the class is most useful at 1st and 2nd levels (and even then it's pretty questionable) but at least it is something.

As for psionics, it sounds like you are using the 2e AD&D rules for them and worse you are using the Players Options: Skills & Powers of late TSR that is just entirely broken. I never saw the point of Psionics as a separate idea from magic. The 1e AD&D take on Psionics was that it was innate magical talents largely disconnected from your level as a character and not a class or something you learned. It filled a niche that nothing else was filling. That the rules were punishing in the extreme was hardly the point. It was rare and hardly ever came up. Balance was not something 1e AD&D cared about. But at least 1e AD&D psionics had an idea of what it was trying to be, unlike every single other version of psionics in the history of the game.

My advice to you is to move to OSR because cleaning this all up is just so much work you'll end up pulling your hair out. Or, do what I did and port your game over to 3e with its much more coherent rules and play 3e in a more 1e AD&D style.

As for elves vs. humans, D&D elves as I understand them don't stand a chance particularly if you assume like 1e AD&D does that it takes twice as much XP to level up to a class as it does to the next class. Having 10 times as long to gain experience only results in maybe gaining two extra levels compared to a human over the course of an average lifetime. This makes elves individually certainly quite powerful but also means that in practice elves will on average never reach old age, dying some violent death or of disease or famine owing to random chance and that low Constitution. The greater capacity of humans to recover their population by having faster generations and producing new humans quickly more than outweighs the possibility of elves gaining more levels particularly when you consider the ability of humans to produce new heroes of high level quickly.

 

[billd91]

Anyway, my question is, because the 1st ed PHand UA are conflicting in it's rule on this,

Yeah, on that issue... Unearthed Arcana was supposed to update expectations and rules from the Players Handbook. So any conflict you see is UA changing the rules of the game. Intentionally.

 

[santosud37]

I'm a 3.0e player though I have been playing since the early 80s and have some familiarity with the Basic/Expert and 1e AD&D versions of the game.

It sounds to me like you have very specific opinions on how the game should be played, and accordingly it doesn't feel in your questions like you are looking for answers as much as you are looking for validation.

In terms of balance issues, 1e AD&D is wildly unbalanced and that's one of the reasons I moved my game to 3e. The level caps on demi-humans in 1e AD&D and BECMI are basically kludges. The 1e PH versions of these restrictions on level caps are IMO/IME too restrictive. While the Unearthed Arcana is generally bad for the game and makes things worse, the level caps given for the more esoteric racial subgroups it introduced (like Drow or Gray elves or Deep Gnomes) are closer to the levels that should be used for the race as a whole. Basically, every race needs the ability to hit 10th to 12th level in some primary class in order for there to be any reason to play that race outside of one shots.

As for thieves the reason that unlimited levels in thieves isn't a problem is that thief is such a terrible and worthless class that allowing unlimited access to it hardly matters. Taking the class is a trap and I say that as a long-time player of 1e thieves. If you do the math, the class is worthless. About the only reason you'd ever take it at all is if you were a demihuman where you'd multiclass into it just so you'd not hit a hard cap on your power quite so soon. Not that levelling up at thief really gains you much, as the class is most useful at 1st and 2nd levels (and even then it's pretty questionable) but at least it is something.

As for psionics, it sounds like you are using the 2e AD&D rules for them and worse you are using the Players Options: Skills & Powers of late TSR that is just entirely broken. I never saw the point of Psionics as a separate idea from magic. The 1e AD&D take on Psionics was that it was innate magical talents largely disconnected from your level as a character and not a class or something you learned. It filled a niche that nothing else was filling. That the rules were punishing in the extreme was hardly the point. It was rare and hardly ever came up. Balance was not something 1e AD&D cared about. But at least 1e AD&D psionics had an idea of what it was trying to be, unlike every single other version of psionics in the history of the game.

My advice to you is to move to OSR because cleaning this all up is just so much work you'll end up pulling your hair out. Or, do what I did and port your game over to 3e with its much more coherent rules and play 3e in a more 1e AD&D style.

As for elves vs. humans, D&D elves as I understand them don't stand a chance particularly if you assume like 1e AD&D does that it takes twice as much XP to level up to a class as it does to the next class. Having 10 times as long to gain experience only results in maybe gaining two extra levels compared to a human over the course of an average lifetime. This makes elves individually certainly quite powerful but also means that in practice elves will on average never reach old age, dying some violent death or of disease or famine owing to random chance and that low Constitution. The greater capacity of humans to recover their population by having faster generations and producing new humans quickly more than outweighs the possibility of elves gaining more levels particularly when you consider the ability of humans to produce new heroes of high level quickly.

Your thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated!
I have 2 HIE Thieves and 2 HIE F/MUs that are from the B/X box sets that moved oved over to the 1st ed rules, which, for me work out properly. Changing the rules for these already mid- to high-level characters does not make much sense. I will have to check out the the 3rd or 4th ed rules like u said and figure out what to do with the Thieves. My F/MU HIE r going to the Ranger class next along with 1 female Lady ruler and I have extraordinary ideas for my other PCs that are already Heroes of Mystara and FR locations. As you said, I like the 1st ed Psionic ability rules much more than the Players Options book. I will have to get the Psionists Handbook probably to get a better idea on how to move that character over to that class because a 25th-30th MU doesn't get much better when u have all the spells of that class. I play fair with MUs having a 19 INT and that is all beyond the 18 max ability for a mortal PC. I have 1 PC with Psionics by roll and played that 1 PC a little differently than the rest. I want to dual class him to either Psionist or Chronomancer at some point after a few more quests of his homeworld with the other PCs. All the other PCs have their own route of levelling up and changing classes. I agree with u that Psionics is a rare thing to acquire and should never start out as a class. I think even Gary G was worried about this as well. He even disagreed with Psionics from the get-go. IMO, the Psionist class should only be reserved for those that already possess the ability. I also do not agree with the Wizard class this way as well. I think the separation of MUs, Illusionists, Clerics, and Druids is what I like MOST about 1st ed and the UA. Wizards being a combination of the 2 is fine but do not tell me u can become a Wizard before being in the other 2 classesof MU/ILllusionist with the same spells. 2nd ed is ridiculous in this. I played Everquest as well, and, even thr Developers there separated a MU and Wizards' spell abilities. Makes total sense for the AD&D creators would follow this instead of complicating it further.
As for the HIE Thieves, I am considering Dual-classing to Thief Acrobat or some related field to improve their abilities beyond just normal thieves. Like u said, they do not improve that much over time. However, they have a purpose in my campaigns.
I try not to get too complicated with rules and classes beyond what has been given bc I do not see a need for this with characters from the early 80s and my locations for campaigning. And this includes for the Inner and Outer planes of the AD&D Multi-verses. I think one loses sight of why they r playing to begin with by doing this. Just have Fun with what u have and rise up above the field of creativity.
I am currently building a Castle Fortress with the characters I have that includes within it 2 towns for an 8-mile Hex area and a Grand Duchy of over 12 8-mile hexes and rule 2nd only to the King of the land. I am a Thyatian in the Known World helping the cause of Good in Mystara. And in the Forgotten Realms doing the same.
I will take your insights from your experience and look into 3rd ed. I think 1st ed and UA actually have a lot of rules that make sense, i.e. Cavalier class before a Paladin class can come into existence, the explanation of the Barbarisn class, the changes to other classes and more details of the race/class limitations. I wpuld just like consistency and accuracy moreso than anythung.

 

[Morrus]

As I believe 5th ed. was created by chaotic lunatics that have no concept of how authority and rules work in our known Universe.

that the lunatics of 5th ed. would never understand because they want everything handed to them with a Silver Spoon.

Let's try asking your question without calling people names just because they have different tastes in how to pretend to be an elf to you, please. This is EN World, not the YouTube comments section.

 

[Stormonu]

Been a while since I played 1E (or 2E). I always went with the higher racial limits using UA's rules for 1E and using "slow advancement" for 2E characters after the hit the base level limits. Psionics - unless I was using Dark Sun are right out.

By the way, I mostly play/DM 5E these days and enjoy it quite a bit, thank you very much.

 

[Mannahnin]

Your confusion re: the level limits conflicting between 0E, 1E (with or without UA), and 2E is, is just missing the fact that the designers deliberately changed things.

Remember that demi-humans (including elves) being able to become Thieves was introduced as an option in the 1975 Greyhawk supplement for 0E; there was no Thief class yet in the 1974 set, which is why elves at that time could only be Fighter/MUs.

While Gary rationalized level limits as necessary for game balance and to justify humans being the predominant species, even he increased them over time, because he knew they simply weren't fun.

For example, in the 1974 original rules the Dwarf can only reach 6th level as a Fighter. A year later in Greyhawk Gary changed the rules to allow Dwarves to get to 7th level if they had a 17 Strength, to 8th with an 18. And added the Thief option with unlimited advancement, as well as the ability to multi-class. Similarly, in 1978 AD&D 1E the level limits were increased again (for example, all Dwarves could now reach 9th level Fighter), and then when Unearthed Arcana came out in '85 it increased level limits yet AGAIN; at least for the new sub-races.

And the 2E designers raised them even further. They actually put the limits in the DMG instead of the PH (though they mention in the PH that limits exist, and repeat Gary's rationalization), but in addition to raising them (Dwarf Fighters can now reach 15th!), they warn the DM that such limits can be un-fun, and contextualize them with additional optional rules for exceeding those limits with high ability scores, or advancing further, just more slowly, costing more XP, rather than the limits being hard limits.

This is symptomatic of what most DMs can tell you- that if you actually run a game long enough to reach those level limits, they create an unenjoyable experience for the players impacted by them. They are attached to those characters and want to see them continue to advance! And so Gary, like the 2E designers after him, kept raising the limits! Of course, if you keep making exceptions and raising the limits, the idea that those limits are necessary becomes obviously spurious.

In reality, of course, giving demihumans lots of free abilities which cost no XP starting at 1st level, in return for imposing a limit to advancement someday in the future (which the game may never reach, even if the DM ever DID actually stick by that), is not balance. It's just imbalance in two different directions at different times. In the early game the demihuman is just better. And at high levels once the human gets a chance to leave them behind in level, the human is just better. At almost no time are they actually equal.

So the 3rd ed and later approach, to ditch level limits (which were rarely or never actually used or stuck by in the first place) and just give humans benefits AS WELL, is simply better design. B/X and BECMI, with their racial classes, get an honorable mention because they made the demihumans pay more xp to advance in level in return for their cool special abilities.

 

[billd91]

In reality, of course, giving demihumans lots of free abilities which cost no XP starting at 1st level, in return for imposing a limit to advancement someday in the future (which the game may never reach, even if the DM ever DID actually stick by that), is not balance. It's just imbalance in two different directions at different times. In the early game the demihuman is just better. And at high levels once the human gets a chance to leave them behind in level, the human is just better. At almost no time are they actually equal.

Now, I know a lot of critics of this argument are going to say that AD&D's balance is over the life of the characters from 1 to <whatever> high levels. But then playing a balanced game hinges on the game always playing well into those higher levels - and we all know that rarely happens. Groups break up, groups shift from one campaign to another, and those characters/parties depending on long term balance are pressured to end by a variety of non-game-based factors. That means most games are playing in levels where the demi-humans are overpowered compared to humans and human PCs are devalued because they rarely reach the levels where they gain the payoff of being human. And that further brings us around to why...

So the 3rd ed and later approach, to ditch level limits (which were rarely or never actually used or stuck by in the first place) and just give humans benefits AS WELL, is simply better design. B/X and BECMI, with their racial classes, get an honorable mention because they made the demihumans pay more xp to advance in level in return for their cool special abilities.

3e was the first time humans were given positive reasons for being chosen as the PC race (as opposed to the negative reasons of demi-human limitations and extra XP costs). I know I felt that was a much better cognitive space to be in. And, better yet, those benefits applied no matter what level the PC, no need to endure levels of being inferior to shine later on.

 

[Mannahnin]

3e was the first time humans were given positive reasons for being chosen as the PC race (as opposed to the negative reasons of demi-human limitations and extra XP costs). I know I felt that was a much better cognitive space to be in. And, better yet, those benefits applied no matter what level the PC, no need to endure levels of being inferior to shine later on.

In AD&D I almost always played elves and half elves (exceptions were if I had a particular character concept incompatible). In WotC-era D&D I mostly play humans, with the occasional demi-human mixed in if I have a particular concept in mind.

 

[ldvhl]

In 2e, it was optional to get rid of race/level limit restrictions on classes and I went that route. In exchange, I gave Humans some racial features and all races start at a negative XP (ala BECMI I think?) based on how much cheese they have.