What is wrong with race class limits?

[Darth Shoju]

I dislike race class/level limits. They really get in the way of my immersion in the setting. Some have claimed them as a purely rules-balance construct. A very strong case has been made that they fail in this respect. Others claim it is more to reinforce setting elements such as a humanocentric world. To me this seems like a ham-fisted way to achieve that end. To my D&D groups back in the pre-3ed days, throwing away this clumsy mechanic was a no-brainer.

 

[Mad Mac]

I can see how the last point could constitute "broken", but what's broken about maxing out on HD & special abilities?

Well, I see two reasons, off-hand.

A. Most classes stop gaining HD and special abilities. Spellcasters became increasingly godlike, while Joe Fighter or Bob Theif are more or less stuck with gaining +2-3 HPs for every half a million XP they managed to scrape together.

B. When you can already kill practically everything, and your character stops advancing in any meaningful way...why not just start over? You've already "won" the game, really.

 

[RainOfSteel]

My Version:

Level limits were one of the most irritating rules of 1st Ed. AD&D. I house-ruled them out of existence almost immediately.

Why were they irritating to me?

• There was no logical reason for them to exist. (If elves will live for 2000 years, then guess what, they really are going to accumulate massive levels. Just like the elves in Tolkein's world did (and they were immortal and whiled away large portions of their time). If correctly represented in 3.x, I can't even imagine what sort of skill ranks Feanor would have had in Craft: Gems. 75? 100? More? And probably a half-dozen craft-related feats, just for gems. You should see his stats in I.C.E.'s Lords of Middle Earth Vol.1. <eek!/> Come to think of it, you should see Fingolfin's stats and gear.)
• Because there was no logical reason for them to exist, they felt arbitrary.
• They made sure that heroes of every race but humanity were inferior to human heroes.
• They felt prejudicial.
• They prevented players from playing the characters they wanted to play.
• They set into carved canon a rule that many people were not going to play with from the get-go, thus disinheriting those games and all the resulting characters from canon legitimacy.

----------------------------------------

Class limits were equally irritating. I don't know why I didn't house-rule them out of existence, but it may have been that I had stopped playing those rules (I had many, many issues with them) and was buying products only to read updates to the game worlds.

 

[Aaron L]

To the topic: whats wrong with race class limits? Nothing.

Those limits are part of the rules that define the game. Anyhow, they also follow the pattern of many fairy tales and popular fantasy novels. Look at LOTR for instance. The elves are immortal. In that time you'd expect them to reach 100th level. So, level limits, in a way, are suggested. Anyhow, its Gary's universe.

I would argue that many elves in Tolkien could have easily been extremely high level. Faenor confronting Morgoth and craftiing the Silmarils, Glorfindel (!), heck, Legolas and his bow. Galadriel is descried as doing some amazing things in the appendices. The elder elves did crazy things in the Silmarillion. I don't see any kind of level restrictions going on.

 

[raltgaither]

It's been mentioned several times in this thread that level limits for demi-humans make little sense because it's illogical to think that a being that lives for hundreds or thousands of years wouldn't acquire high levels. A sincere question: do those of you who have no level limits actually have lots of super high level elf wizards and dwarf fighters because of the open-ended potential and long lifespans? What's the average level of those race/class combos in your world?

 

[Crothian]

do those of you who have no level limits actually have lots of super high level elf wizards and dwarf fighters because of the open-ended potential and long lifespans?

Lots: No. But there are more higher level long lived characters then short lived.

What's the average level of those race/class combos in your world?

No idea. It is not something that I ever figured out as it ius not important to the game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

To answer your original question...I think nothing was/is wrong with those limits, if they create the kind of campaign background you and your players are comfy playing in. On the other hand, I started playing with ALL elven adventurers being fighter/magic-user combos, all dwarves adventurers being very hardy fighter types, and all halflings very sneaky fighter types. Good old Basic D&D.

If it's simply about limiting the choice for demi-humans among players a little, I'd still prefer the method of "prerequesite minimum attribute values". Properly used together with rolling methods, it simply keeps the amount of demi-human adventurers to a minimum.

 

[tx7321]

I would argue that many elves in Tolkien could have easily been extremely high level. Faenor confronting Morgoth and craftiing the Silmarils, Glorfindel (!), heck, Legolas and his bow. Galadriel is descried as doing some amazing things in the appendices. The elder elves did crazy things in the Silmarillion. I don't see any kind of level restrictions going on.

Sure, and in 1E "a few" special elves could attain very high level (but those would be NPCs...PCs are considered the "typical").
Look, the elves were immortal (most alive for 1000s of years), and could practise fighting or casting spells all day for many centurys (compared to 30 yrs or so for humans). In that time (if they applied themselves in practise) every Elf would be very high level. They certainly wouldn't have been threatened by Orcs or trolls in hand to hand combat (espl. considering mere 20 something humans killed orc).

Yes, Elrond, Galadriel, Legolas were beyond the average power of regular elves...so what. Thats only 3 in millions (or however many elves there were).

 

[tx7321]

You seem to have an interesting definition of "immerson". I fail to see how skills and feats defeat immersion in any way. QUOTE]


You are entitled to your opinion. For me they interfere in 2 ways: 1. they reduce actions to video button feel (jump, bluff, tumble) and they create overly complicated PCs *highly customised, where the player is forced to look at their PC sheet to remember what powers they have and can use, what their stacked chances to do anything in particular is etc. etc. This need to search there paper and then do math brings them out of their imagination (breaking the concentration) and reminds them there just playing a game with rules (compare that with 1E or OD&D, with simplistic PCs). Feats and skills also give a since of predictability (as these chances are rolled on a D20 system rather then a table system which puts the power in the hands of the DM).

I realize Merric B and others have stated they do not experiance these problems. And I realize not everyone plays D&D for the same reason (some actually prefer stacking, building unique characters with powers, and in-game use of skills as actions). But, my players seem to find 3E too confusing, and have stated they have a hard time getting into the game because of it. Who knows, maybe its a difference in how brains are wired, or just getting enough experiance under your belt.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I would argue that many elves in Tolkien could have easily been extremely high level.

I certainly would. So did an entire game system.

Faenor confronting Morgoth and craftiing the Silmarils [...]

Fingolfin vs. Morgoth?