What is wrong with race class limits?

[howandwhy99]

In 3rd edition racial level limits are unnecessary and simply a choice up to those playing.

To my understanding, in OD&D racial level limits are a balancing factor for non-humans. XP charts vary because power varies level to level among the classes. Wizards are the toughest and Rogues the weakest and their corresponding XP charts reflect this. Races are balanced without using XP charts. As some races are more powerful than others in certain areas the balancing is arrived at by limiting the classes PC demihumans can take and the highest level they can reach in others.

This method contains two benefits lost as further editions were published: (1) the ability to play a high LA race from first level without balance issues, and (2) Flavor elements to accurately portray the race as something with different potentials than humans (should Frodo really be able to become the greatest fighter in the land?). Racial powers and class limits were built into the published system, but are a matter of flavor and can be changed by the DM by homebrewing the races.

The big difference between humans and demihumans comes in with Multiclassing and Dual-classing. Humans are the baseline and have no restriction on classes they can take and the level they can reach. However, they can only switch classes once and afterwards can never go back. Demihumans can multiclass as often as they wish.

Multiclassing = "Gestalt" character classes in 3e for a quick and dirty explanation. A 6/6 halfling fighter/rogue in OD&D is a 6th level gestalt halfling fighter/rogue in D&D. The real difference comes in for split levels: 3/6, the halfling is 3 levels of gestalt fighter/rogue and an additional three of a straight rogue. OTOH, Dual-classing, as I understand it, is like standard multiclassing in 3e.

As Demihumans multiclass level limits have less and less to do with character level power and more with flavor of race potentials. Other races are definitely not humans in disguise here.

Level limits can also more easily be put in perspective when you realize the highest level reached in OD&D is 10, maybe 11. Having a halfling stop at 6th level as a Fighting-man is equivalent to saying "this race's max BAB is 6 and only adds powers after that". It's important to note that this doesn't remove them from the game after 6th level as character's capacity to hang with higher levels is far broader in OD&D. By comparison, in 3e two levels means the higher level character is 100% better than the lower.

 

[Particle_Man]

The half-orc got the shaft even back then. The only class they have unlimited advancement in is itself limited to 15 levels.

 

[dcas]

Even the wizest and most proficient Elven Magic-User couldn't cast Permenancy. How in the Hells did all those magical Elven goodies ever get made?

Limits are limits on PCs, not on NPCs and figures of old.

 

[dcas]

OTOH, Dual-classing, as I understand it, is like standard multiclassing in 3e.

More or less, although there are severe restrictions on dual-classing.

 

[Ciaran]

Why the hell can almost every race be unlimited in Thief?

Because among demihumans, a thief's soul can grow bigger than anyone else's.

 

[Nifft]

Then lets take out height, weight, and age restrictions, too, from the core rules, and impose them in the settings.

Saying that it's not in the nature of a dwarf to be a magic-user is no different than saying that a dwarf must be (for example) between 4 and 5 feet tall, or that, on average, he lives for 300 years. It's part of what a dwarf is.

No, not really, and here's why: most people can figure out that height is flavor, while favored class is a mechanic. Height has no in-game implication. Favored class does.

So... it would be nice if the designers threw us homebrewers a frikkin' bone and told us exactly which traits and/or abilities were "balance-related" and which were just there because, you know, we needed to fill up that page.

Elf trancing: is it supposed to be a concrete benefit? For which classes? Why isn't Elf favored class Rogue, since that's what they're moderately good at?

It'd be nice if that stuff were marked and discussed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Gentlegamer]

Height has no in-game implication.

Then what were all those man-sized and larger than man-sized designations in AD&D? A Giant and a Halfling can both crawl into a 1' diameter tunnel opening? Etc, etc.

 

[Glyfair]

Interesting; found the opposite. In my experience, the way to balance an over-powered race is not to arbitrarily limit it ten or twelve levels up the line. Doing so gimps high level play without any balancing effect whatsoever on low level play, which is the goal. I'd argue it's bad design if you're doing this to try to make the races equitable.

This is my main issue with racial level limits (that and it's very hard to justify in the campaign world). It tries to create game balance that won't even effect very game. Many games tended to die before the levels the non-humans couldn't reach, so they weren't affected at all. In a very high level game they were crippled.

But tossing racial level limits was a no-brainer for me, and a rule I haven't even vaguely missed.

Of course, it was a design balanced decision so something should be done to make humans attractive to play in some fashion. In a given game the DM can do so with game world issues (giving preferencial treatment to humans in some fashion). It's not good for a game system to make a race non-mechanically balanced unless the intent is to discourage it's play.

As for classes, I didn't object much to it in AD&D. I had some quibbles with some decisions, such as certain races not having clerics at all (and then later limiting them to NPCs).

In retrospect, though, I do feel that's something the game should leave alone and allow campaign settings to develop.

That's true - there were a lot of rogue combis...

Yeah, it was amazing how many elves were actually criminal types in those days (as well as dwarves). Halflings and gnomes made sense, elves definitely seemed to go against type with such a large number of thieves.

 

[Shemeska]

Options are good...restrictions are bad. Restrictions without explanation or justification are just plain ugly.

Bingo.

They were arbitrary limitations in the rules, not something that was derived from and justified by flavor. With no explanations given or attempted, it was just plain cheesy, but a case can be made that such limitations if supported by in-game reasons as part of a setting's background can not only be kosher but they can open up RP potential and plot ideas in the process (but early AD&D didn't have this, it just had random restrictions).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

What always broke my suspension of disbelief in those days was the contradiction of how races who apparantly gifted humanity with the secrets of magic and warfare (Elves and Dwarves, respectively) were prevented from realizing the true potential of those secrets. Even the wizest and most proficient Elven Magic-User couldn't cast Permenancy. How in the Hells did all those magical Elven goodies ever get made?

This was just a setting element. It explained why humans were the dominant race (like in the iterature D&D was trying to emulate) rather than elves or dwarves. If demihumans have unlimited advancement and lifespans several times longer than humans, there are going to be a lot of demihuman uber-wizards, and there's no way humans are going to be dominant.