Thoughts On Level Limits?

[Aurumvorax]

I don't see what the big complaint against level limits is. Your hit dice and class features pretty much cap at level 9 for the basic classes and from there you're only earning THAC0 and improved saving throws. Very, very few monsters have hit dice above 10 (and even fewer have HD above 13 being the realm of dragons and the tarrasque) with -3 AC and 7 THAC0 pretty much being the pinnacle of 90% of the monster manual.

Demihumans also get restricted items which humans can't use. Demihumans might not reach the level of excellence as a human, but the demihumans set the bar. Few people hit level 10 but a handful ever see level 20. I tell my players straight up that new characters they bring into a high level game will start with the average experience of the group; demihumans that hit their capped level are the average.

So far, none of the people I've played with complained about this rule. Your hardcore, level 18 guy is your holy grail and knowing that if he permanently dies you'll be stepping in as a level 12 or 13 dude makes for far more intense moments.

Count me in the 'I hate level limits' bandwagon. We used the need more XP 'rule' that others have mentioned (don't remember how much). However, here's a thought no one else has mentioned: allow Humans to multiclass too. (Possibly with a tweek or two.) Something else we did was to expand the things you could multiclass in. Why no Druid/Rangers? In. Why no Cleric/MUs (for those dieties of magic)? In. &etc.

Because druids have to be true neutral and rangers have to be good. Druids protect nature, rangers protect people from nature.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I never had a DM -- during the BECMI/AD&D/AD&D2 era of my gaming -- that ever ran a campaign high enough in level where we reached level limits. It was infuriating how stingy they were, they weren't believers that found treasure was meant to benefit XP. You can imagine how much that slowed down advancement. The longest campaign was 3-years-long, 1-3 times a month. With no dying, start to finish, my highest level achieved was 8th in that AD&D2 campaign. Yeah.

Regardless, level limits, were I to ever get there, felt stupid. Which is why I liked the Rules Cyclopedia's rule that got rid of level limits for the dwarf, elf, halfling, and mystic classes.

 

[billd91]

How often did the limits actually come up in play?

We ran into them fairly often over the course of about 10 years. Though by the end, most demi-humans were playing thieves, a class in which only half-orcs faced a limit, thus skirting the issue.

 

[billd91]

Agreed. It always struck me as funny that level limits were imposed on non-humans to encourage people to play humans. Why didn't they just create an incentive to play a human?

They did. Lack of level limits and unrestricted access to any class.

That said, if you don't want to use level limits, there are options.

Note that most demi-humans have a +1 stat and a -1 stat. Give the humans a +1, no minus, to the stat of their choice. That's a good balance for the stat adjustments that gives the humans an edge.

+10% XP would also be a nice advantage that wouldn't be too powerful, though with a high prime requisite, a PC could get a +20% XP bump. Probably still not unbalancing at all.

Give the human PC a +1 on all saves (kind of like halflings in 3e). It's a good way to offer some element of resistance to compete with the dwarves, gnomes, and halfling bonuses as well as the elven resistance to sleep/charm.

Aaaannnnnddd... hmmm. That might be quite enough.

 

[Lanefan]

Over time, I've slowly done away with almost all level limits, but I've certainly kept the idea that not all races can be all classes. Dwarves cannot be any arcane class. Part-Orcs cannot be Paladins. Etc.

I've also toned Elves' racial abilities down somewhat.

Any race can multiclass in my game (max. 2 classes) provided both classes allow it - Cavaliers, for example, cannot multiclass at all. Characters who stay single-class, though, get some perks in their class that multiclass types do not.

I've also done away with the alignment restrictions on Druids (they function like any other Cleric now only with a very different spell list; and can be any alignment) and Rangers (one does not necessarily have to be Good to learn outdoor survival skills and tracking; besides, Evil Rangers make for excellent opposition for the party).

I've kept it human-centric mostly through setting, and through not allowing all races to be freely chosen at roll-up.

Lanefan

 

[Aus_Snow]

Over time, I've slowly done away with almost all level limits, but I've certainly kept the idea that not all races can be all classes. Dwarves cannot be any arcane class. Part-Orcs cannot be Paladins. Etc.

Same here, although I got rid of all level limits in one go, and good riddance.

I am, however, similarly partial to the idea of certain 'races' (i.e., species) being unable to enter certain classes. Dwarves and arcane casters is one of those cases for me too, as it happens.

I've kept it human-centric mostly through setting, and through not allowing all races to be freely chosen at roll-up.

And again, likewise. For that kind of setting, I mean.

Spoiler

edit --- another pet hate: bonus XP from high prime reqs. blech.

 

[Nai_Calus]

They make no sense to me.

The reason that thousand-year-old elf isn't level eleventy in six different classes? He hasn't bothered. Never felt the need. Life is long and life is good. So he stayed in his forest and practiced with the sword and the bow for when his village was attacked but never decided that he had to master all aspects of it and go out and slay things, he spent a century or two learning to paint and mastering it, dabbled for half a century in pottery, took up singing for a good 75 years, spent a decade watching a tree grow, did a thousand other things that took a little bit of time, read a lot, learned a few spells out of curiosity, and just generally lived his life and floated between things.

That elf PC who's devoted his life to one thing and goes out into danger constantly? That guy is crazy. Mr. Thousand-year-old Elf has no idea what the heck to think of that guy and his crazy hectic human-paced life, but knows that that sort of thing was never for him.

That's why you don't have a billion high-level elven/dwarf/whatever NPCs.

And frankly I've never gotten what's supposed to be so great about human-centric settings anyway. So what if the Elven empire rules the world, or the Dwarves have taken over, or the other races are constantly complaining about the doors and ceilings built by the halfling majority? Why is that even a bad thing?

 

[The Shaman]

In my experience many 1e AD&D gamers completely miss one of the key elements of level limits: they exist, in part, to encourage demihumans to multi-class.

As such level limits are part of the implied setting of the game: demihumans exhibit breadth rather than depth. It is the demihuman archetype of AD&D.

Consider level limits in that light.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

In my experience many 1e AD&D gamers completely miss one of the key elements of level limits: they exist, in part, to encourage demihumans to multi-class.

As such level limits are part of the implied setting of the game: demihumans exhibit breadth rather than depth. It is the demihuman archetype of AD&D.

Consider level limits in that light.

I´m pretty sure that multiclassing as a Demi is still awesome without level limits. I think what you mean is that level limits make playing a single classed Demi suck in the future, but if that is the right incentive to encourage multiclassing...

If i wanted a totally invasive rule to encourage multiclassing for Demis i would just say: "Demihumans cannot be single class" and be done with it.

Let´s be honest: Level limits tried to enforce two things at once: influence player choice AND simulate a human-centric world. For those goals, it was clunky, and there are many better ways of doing that. Especially the "wall" nature of the rule is just stupid: if you want to simulate something, the rule should be much more gradual. Forex (even if i hate those): separate XP tables PER RACE AND CLASS would make much more sense.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Level limits never bothered me, but I'm not fond of demihuman PCs, in any case. I like a *very* humanocentric world, where non-humans races are more like monsters (and are rare and don't mix with human society). I think my next campaign will probably sidestep the entire issue by using all human PCs.

If pressured, I allow demihuman PCs in my current campaign, although they're not the typical Elf and Dwarf of post-Tolkien fantasy: my "elfs" are changelings (left by the Fey to be raised by humans), and may be more similar to the Scandinavian concept of "trollborn" than they are similar to Legolas. My "dwarfs" are human babies born the with "mark of the fey" and left in certain places to be "taken by the dwarfs" and raised by the Fey. Halflings are mythical, as far as anyone knows.

Under the kind of level scale that I prefer, the limits aren't that big of a deal. In my game, name level is "high level," so the scale goes from 0 to 10 or so, with PCs of higher levels than that being possible, but rare. Dwarfs top out at 8th level Fighting Man. Elves top out a 4th level FM ("hero"), but 8th level MU. So they're topping out just under "peak level" for humans, anyway. (And hobbits aren't really worth mentioning.)