What is wrong with race class limits?

[mhacdebhandia]

A lot of people have seemed to complain on the race class limits of the earlier editions. Why were they bad?

Because they're not fun.

 

[prosfilaes]

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

Oh, that's a lot of fun. "I'm sorry Bob, your elf can't improve any more as a wizard. Come on, I'd like the party to meet the elf king this session, who's a 25th level fighter/mage..."

Even restrictions on which classes PCs can take is annoying if it's not enforced on NPCs. PCs are the stars of the game, and shouldn't be watching other people do stuff.

 

[RFisher]

Because the PCs could no longer participate effectively when the campaign got to high level play.

That's just not true. A PCs effectiveness depends more upon the player than the numbers on the character sheet. The game is a lot more than just rolling dice. Otherwise, we'd be happy with computer games.

Also, keep in mind that in older editions all PCs started to plataeu after name level.

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

Exactly.

Which, incidentally, means that the "to keep the world human dominated" justification for level limits doesn't hold water for me.

Oh, that's a lot of fun. "I'm sorry Bob, your elf can't improve any more as a wizard. Come on, I'd like the party to meet the elf king this session, who's a 25th level fighter/mage..."

Even restrictions on which classes PCs can take is annoying if it's not enforced on NPCs. PCs are the stars of the game, and shouldn't be watching other people do stuff.

The latter is not a consequence for the former. Just because there are demigods & deities in the setting doesn't mean that the PCs just watch them do stuff.

They were arbitrary limitations in the rules

Do you really believe that? Do you really think Gygax thought, "Hey, I'll add that dwarves can only be fighting-men for absolutely no reason whatsoever!"?

You may not like the rationale. It may not fit what you're trying to do with the game. You may not know what it was. But that doesn't mean there was no rationale.

 

[Particle_Man]

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

I don't buy this as the rationale, since in 1st ed., some class/race combinations were specifically given as NPC only. If there had been a line in the phb that said "NPC elf magic-users can be 25th level, but PC elf magic-users only get to be 11th" then your argument would be more convincing. Since there is no such line, and since the PHB does contain specific NPC vs. PC differences, it is hard to see why it should be assumed to be so.

The practical effect in the campaign I was in of class/race/level limitations was that certain characters were not played at high level. The party became a party of humans and thieves. Demi-humans that were not thieves simply retired their characters.

That said, I see no problem with class/race limitations if a particular setting demands it. Class/race/level limitations, I now have more problem with, now that I am no longer accept what is in the rulebook as gospel.

 

[Psion]

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.

Odd thing is, I agree with you about the basic concept of a dwarf. The idea of dwarven wizards made me wince. I used to not allow them.

But where I differ from you is which aspects are more fundamental to what represents a dwarf. A dwarf that can be a wizard is less in line with characteristics I consider to be a dwarf, but a 7' dwarf is not a dwarf.

 

[dcas]

No, not really, and here's why: most people can figure out that height is flavor

Well, what is flavor doing in the core rules?

Height has no in-game implication.

I disagree. Would a 7'-tall dwarf have a movement rate of 20'? Or a +4 dodge bonus against giants?

 

[Quasqueton]

From my Treasure and Leveling Comparison thread:

At the end of the Against the Giants adventure, the AD&D1 [all-human] party is:

Fighter 10
Paladin 9
Cleric 10
Magic-User 11
Illusionist 11
Thief 12

If the party was not all humans. . .

Dwarf Fighter 9 (maxed out, if he has 18 Strength)
Human Paladin 9
Half-Elf Cleric 5 (maxed out, regardless of ability scores)
Elf Magic-User 11 (maxed out, if he has 18 Intelligence)
Gnome Illusionist 7 (maxed out, if he has 18 Intelligence and Dexterity)
Halfling Thief 12

The Half-Elf Cleric and the Gnome Illusionist probably would have retired from adventuring before even going on the Giants adventures – they would have reached their level limits before finishing the Temple of Elemental Evil. (The Players would have to bring in new/different [human] characters.)

Quasqueton

 

[Slife]

That is why in my examples the reasons why deal with gods. In my mind gods make a good way for the impossible to become possible. Magic also does a great job.

What if elves for whatever reason had a superstition against making horseshoes? Or half orcs never became theives because it was morally wrong?

So... elves have a single culture, with no diversity? Half orcs are always completely moral (so they must be restricted to LG alignments as well)?

If the gods are so involved as to prevent every member of a race from advancing, what's the point of adventuring? Or are the gods just too obsessed with making the numbers work out right to intervene directly?

 

[Crothian]

So... elves have a single culture, with no diversity? Half orcs are always completely moral (so they must be restricted to LG alignments as well)?

You have read a setting before right? Most of the time elves have a single culture. But these are just examples for the purpose of discussion, no need attacking them. If you can come up with better go ahead.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I suppose it was naive to hope that folks defending the rule (especially since a lot of the arguments against it are a little thin, especially from people who never played prior to 3E) would do something other than spit the stupid "they just want kewl powerz for their templated munchkin characters!" line.

The people who actually feel that way aren't stung by the line and the people you might actually sway over to your side will be turned off by this. If your only purpose in posting is to insult the knuckle-dragging 3E players, you might as well stay in the positive feedback loop of Dragonsfoot instead.

Now then ...

Anyone saying that 1E doesn't have an implicit setting needs to reread the 1E Monster Manual, where it specifically outlines the drow's place in the world -- as rumor, without stats. Later monster books would likewise make it clear that 1E was mostly meant to replicate Greyhawk. If your home campaign differed greatly from Greyhawk, you could change any rule you wanted to, but that doesn't make it a bad rule by definition.

And as a game with a strongly implied setting, cosmology and so on, it was perfectly appropriate of EGG to say that the demihumans and humanoids just didn't have the right souls/spirits to advance in the same ways that humans did. He created a humanocentric setting and had the rules mechanically reflect that. That's a pretty standard concept in today's games of all sorts: Make the setting the natural result of the mechanics.

I think the best argument against the rules is that they don't matter until the campaign has progressed a long ways. The theoretical balance doesn't matter, in other words, until the campaign is past 8th level. Given that plenty of campaigns don't get that far, it makes demihumans too good.