Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9650401" data-attributes="member: 7026594">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.</blockquote>

Verification