Thoughts On Level Limits?

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I was finishing up my introduction to the Shifting Twilight Campaign, (noted below)--and I was thinking about level limits for demi-humans from the standard rules. I suppose I can see how level limitations do *something* for race/class balance, but at the same time, I hate them. You have any thoughts about the best course or policy? Any suggestions on how to deal with level limits?

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shifting Twilight Campaign

http://www.enworld.org/forum/talking-talk/269857-shifting-twilight-campaign-ooc-recruiting-4.html

 

[Wik]

Our rule, way back in the 2e days of yore, was that once you hit your level limit for your race, you earned XP at half the normal rate.

Not that our games ever really got that high.

I was always bugged by how low the limits were for halflings, though - seemed kind of arbitrary, especially in BECMI. And really, in 2e, about the only option for halflings was to be a thief - there really was little point in being a cleric or a fighter. Despite that, my favourite 2e character happened to be a halfling fighter...

 

[Baron Opal]

Level limits help define what is commonly discovered in the world. As a whole, PCs are the exception, usually a cut above common folk. Even though they may start as humble peasants, it is the PCs who have the courage, the opportunity, the access or the luck to be in the position to be able to distinguish themselves and gain those all important levels.

For PCs, I have ignored level limits and mostly allowed them to progress in the classes that they desired. If you have lopsided experience charting you may be more stringent about it. For example, I once allowed characters to split their experience 2/3rds and 1/3rds, having a major and a minor class that they advanced in. The major class would advanced without limit, the minor class obeyed level and class restrictions from race.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Any suggestions on how to deal with level limits?

Ditch them. Srsly.

It's the first change I made to older D&D, and there's no way I would put them back in any edition. Ugh.

They have to be among the. . . Worst. D&D rules. Evar.

 

[Wik]

The way Level Limits are supposed to work is as an incentive for players to make humans - humans are better in long-term play. However, in games that aren't built towards long-term campaigns, there is no reason to play a human... and even in long-term campaigns, the human will be behind his non-human counterparts for a huge chunk of play.

A human fighter will be the same level as an elven fighter he adventures with, though he'll lack the elven fighter's racial abilities. Even if that elven fighter multiclasses, the way the XP tables work basically mean the elf will only be a few levels behind his human companion (and pre-3e rules rewarded versatility over specialization moreso than later editions).

A good houserule I've heard of (but never used in my 2e days) was to get rid of level limits, or to use a ceiling and then earn half XP (as I mentioned upthread)... and to add that humans get a +10% bonus on all XP earned, in addition to any bonus from a high prime requisite. This means that the humans in the group will usually be the first to "ding", which is a nice feeling, and makes being a human PC feel a little bit better.

 

[S'mon]

They work ok IME as part of a generally balanced setup like BX D&D (& Labyrinth Lord) where Dwarf, Elf and Halfling also have XP tables appropriate to their race/class power. Play a halfling to 8th level, then retire him and the GM should let you play a new human PC with the same XP total. This helps maintain the humanocentric default setting.

AD&D doesn't have that, the races vary in power with no balancing factor and level limits don't help. For AD&D I'd suggest giving humans an extra die on stat rolls - best 3 of 5d6* rather than 4d6, on the basis that human adventurers will be further above the norm than demi-humans. That done you can discard demi-human level limits while retaining a playable game, or keep them where desired purely for setting reasons, not balance reasons.

*Compare to 1e Unearthed Arcana's human-only stat generation system where you're rolling 9d6/8d6/7d6/6d6/5d6/4d6/3d6 for the 7 stats; it's relatively underpowered!

 

[Votan]

Our rule, way back in the 2e days of yore, was that once you hit your level limit for your race, you earned XP at half the normal rate.

I very much like this variant and beleive that it is even in the 2E DMG.

Level limits seemed too low for demi-humans to even participate in many cl;assic adventures (an elf would be thematically appropriate for the 1E module Queen of the Demonweb pits but, unless a thief, terribly outclassed by the challenges within).

 

[Nikosandros]

I personally hate level limits in AD&D. They do nothing while the game is at low levels and then they prevent any advancement. The half XP rule is a reasonable alternative, IMHO.

What I'm currently doing, is to give humans a +25% bonus on XP (but I've removed the bonus from a high prime requisite).

 

[Remathilis]

I'm with the "ditch 'em" and give humans an XP bonus (5-10%).

 

[Oni]

Level limits are strange and nonsensical IMHO. I would ditch them, and normally recommend some kind of % xp bonus to make humans more attractive, though if I recall you have already given humans a huge stat bonus in your game so that might be overkill unless you've proportionately powered up the other races. Another approach with similar results would be to think of race as a multiclass type situation, the benefit to this is that you can spread abilities over levels and not have to balance racial abilities straight out. For instance you might give elves a 20% xp penalty and halflings only a 10%, and at X amount of xp elves might get the ability to cast a spell or two. That's a little more work, but I think it could go a long way to making races more unique.