What is wrong with race class limits?

[Sejs]

Why is that?

Mainly because I have a hard time believing that lack of propensity equals inability.

I think environment has something to do with it, too, but I don't want to start the classic nature-nurture debate here.

Heh, fair enough.

Sure, why not? Some people are much better at math than others and this difference can't all be because of environment.

Right, but as above, that's the difference between saying Person A is better at math than Person B, versus Person A can perform calculations whereas Person B cannot. Just flat can't; no matter how hard he tries, how otherwise bright he might be, etc - to him 2 and 2 will never make 4.

You might not find it convincing, but it does not follow that it is fallacious. In fact one might argue that you have engaged in fallacious reasoning by suggesting that genetics do not play a part in what a person is able to learn.

I may well have, and if I did, please by all means call me on it. The fallacy I'm talking of is the slippery slope: if you throw out A, then you must throw out B. Getting into it more would require we deal with the whole nature vs nurture vs both debate, as you mentioned. Acquired skills versus inherrited skills, inclination versus ability, and so on.

Heh, which would take us both a long time, and probably not get us anywhere beyond where we are now. Like you said, no need to rehash it here.

It's quite clear in the first edition AD&D PHB that dwarven, elven, and gnomish clerics, and halfling druids are NPCs and only NPCs. I'm merely extrapolating.

Fair enough, and to be honest I don't have my 1e books anymore so I can't even check.

~ ~ ~

Who says it only applies to adventuring classes? One doesn't read often of dwarven shepherds or cranberry farmers, does one?

Mostly because the lives of dwarven sheperds or cranberry farmers generally arn't worth writing about.

Leads to a completely seperate line of discussion though - dwarves eat, same as everyone else. You'd figure there'd have to be some dwarves ranching and farming out there somewhere, right? Even if it's mushrooms instead of cranberries and mountain goats instead of sheep, there would have to be some form of production in order to support a dwarven community.

Topic for a different thread though, I figure.

Why should I accept, for example, that dwarves are well-adapted to living underground? Maybe that's just "flavor," too (after all, it does affect game mechanics). All adventuring dwarves seem to have an excellent knowledge of stonework. Is that genetic?

Nature/nurture again. *shrug* Also gets tied up in the Reincarnation Debate, too. (That is - new body, same mind: what abilities of each race do you get. What is learned by growing up elven versus what is a function of your new halfling body)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How is someone supposed to play a non-human, then?

As aliens, not superheroes. Probably sympathetic aliens, but aliens nonetheless. At times, even the benevolent hobbit should seem strange and a little frightening to the ordinary humans, when the gap of their alieness comes up in a situation.

The cosmopolitan nature of almost every D&D game makes me a little nuts. If people die within 10 miles of where they're born, as a rule, anything that's not from their area should seem strange. This might mean, of course, that the elves in the Forbidden Wood are more familiar to them than people of their own race from across the sea, but even those elves should be different than them in fundemental bedrock ways.

Demihumans as humans in funny suits is one of the worst D&D tropes, IMO.

 

[thedungeondelver]

As aliens, not superheroes. Probably sympathetic aliens, but aliens nonetheless. At times, even the benevolent hobbit should seem strange and a little frightening to the ordinary humans, when the gap of their alieness comes up in a situation.

The cosmopolitan nature of almost every D&D game makes me a little nuts. If people die within 10 miles of where they're born, as a rule, anything that's not from their area should seem strange. This might mean, of course, that the elves in the Forbidden Wood are more familiar to them than people of their own race from across the sea, but even those elves should be different than them in fundemental bedrock ways.

Demihumans as humans in funny suits is one of the worst D&D tropes, IMO.

I get where you're coming from. I've seen some good attempts at playing most of the demi-humans in my years and I've contemporized quite a bit so it isn't a big sticking point with me.

 

[Seeten]

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.

I did this also.

Elves were 6-7 feet tall, and weighed slightly less than a human at those heights.

Just like Tolkien elves.

I dont need any setting rules, and for balancing rules, I require rules that are actually balanced enough that they dont set off my balance detection radar.

 

[Geoffrey]

As aliens, not superheroes. Probably sympathetic aliens, but aliens nonetheless. At times, even the benevolent hobbit should seem strange and a little frightening to the ordinary humans, when the gap of their alieness comes up in a situation.

The cosmopolitan nature of almost every D&D game makes me a little nuts. If people die within 10 miles of where they're born, as a rule, anything that's not from their area should seem strange. This might mean, of course, that the elves in the Forbidden Wood are more familiar to them than people of their own race from across the sea, but even those elves should be different than them in fundemental bedrock ways.

Demihumans as humans in funny suits is one of the worst D&D tropes, IMO.

Very well put.

I should apologize that my previous post came off as more combative than I meant it. While typing it, I was thinking of some of the lame-brained attempts at playing demi-humans in games that I've played in.

I realize that most D&Ders like Tolkienesque demihumans hobnobbing with humans. I don't, and so I don't allow it at my table. Just think how weird an Australian Aborigine from 20,000 years ago (for example) would seem to a 21st-century American, and vice versa. If even we humans seem incomprehensibly bizarre to each other, how much more so beings who aren't even human? Even those beings "closest" to humanity (such as elves, dwarves, etc.) should seem more outre and weird to us than any conceivable human would.

 

[Glyfair]

If even we humans seem incomprehensibly bizarre to each other, how much more so beings who aren't even human? Even those beings "closest" to humanity (such as elves, dwarves, etc.) should seem more outre and weird to us than any conceivable human would.

At the same time, I don't think it's outlandish to think that some racial differences would be as "minor" as different cultures are in the real world. Certain things are going to be hard to identify with (the long lifespans being a recurring issue). However, Half-orcs might not be any different from humans than certain disparaged minorities, for example.

On the other hand my favorite campaign setting, Glorantha, takes the alien non-human races to an extreme. Trollpak is probably the most thorough racial sourcebook for any RPG, in giving their outlook on life and making it alien. Elves are essentially plants, with the deciduous elves sleeping throughout the winter and no other time (the sourcebook for them is due out probably this year). Greg wrote an article for Different Worlds about how no player really would want to play a dwarf because their mindset is so boring (essentially, being the perfect worker is their "spiritual" goal).

 

[Lanefan]

I realize that most D&Ders like Tolkienesque demihumans hobnobbing with humans. I don't, and so I don't allow it at my table. Just think how weird an Australian Aborigine from 20,000 years ago (for example) would seem to a 21st-century American, and vice versa. If even we humans seem incomprehensibly bizarre to each other, how much more so beings who aren't even human? Even those beings "closest" to humanity (such as elves, dwarves, etc.) should seem more outre and weird to us than any conceivable human would.

I disagree, to some extent. An ancient Aborigine would have no way of ever having heard of a 21-C New Yorker. But Dwarves in general would have heard of Humans in general, and vice-versa; and in cosmopolitan settings e.g. Greyhawk City, Waterdeep, etc. may well even have interacted with them. Tolkein gives us a good example: even Hobbits, that most isolated of races, knew Humans somewhat well and vaguely knew what Dwarves and Elves were all about...this is a fine enough foundation for me.

Keep in mind too that a magic-based world is by default going to have better long-range communications than a non-magical medieval or earlier world...not internet quality, perhaps, but enough for at least the more learned and-or wealthy to contact other cultures and races.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

As for level limits in general:

The *idea* of some races being simply unable to function, or function well, in some classes is fine by me. Dwarves, for example, should simply not be able to be Magic-Users or Illusionists. That said, I think 1e took it way overboard, and put many more restrictions on many more races than common sense would dictate. Yes, it might have been for game balance, so people would still want to play Humans, but toning down a few of the more outlandish benefits given to non-Human races fixes that in a hurry.

So, what limits make sense: (note: if you're multiclassed there are lots more restrictions; what follows applies to single-class only)

- Cleric and Druid: none. No matter what race you are, you're getting your spells from a god; clearly, no god is going to stand in the way of you as its Cleric becoming as proficient as you can given your skills, piety, and capability for earning ExP.

- Fighter: none. Anyone of any race can learn to fight. Those same beings can learn to fight better. Lather, rinse, repeat.

- Ranger and Cavalier: some. Hobbits don't have what it takes to learn anything but the most basic woodscraft, and Gnomes and Elves tend to be too free-spirited to make decent Cavaliers.

- Paladin: some. If a race doesn't have a deity that will support Paladins then it becomes mighty hard to be a Paladin as that race.

- Magic-User and Illusionist: some. No Dwarves. No Hobbits except they can learn the rudiments of Illusion.

- Thief and Assassin: none. I also made Thieves open-ended (the class does not top out at 15th any more, because it doing so made no sense).

- Bard: nobody played Bards the original way, so I made them a "core" class (i.e. starts at 1st level like everonye else) that anyone with the requisite stats and an opposable thumb can advance in.

- Monk: lots. Right now, only Humans can be Monks in my game; were I to start over I might be talked into allowing Part-Elf and Part-Orc Monks as well, but that'd be it. Assuming I kept the class at all, that is.

Now, even with all this I find in the long run people tend to play Humans slightly more often than other races, but most parties tend to have between 3 and 6 races represented; works for me.

Lanefan

 

[Aaron L]

I just have to ask why dwarves shouldn't be magic-users? Ancient Norse myth dwarves certainly used magic. The only reference to dwarves being some kind of antimagical race is, well, old D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

Really, is playing an elf any different than playing a twi-lek? Or a Klingon? Or an android? Sci-Fi and fantasy has been making aliens/races/species all humans in funny suits for years. It allows us to emphasize an element of humanity by setting it as contrast (dwarves are like humans except with emphasis on honor, work, axes, and grog).