What is wrong with race class limits?

[Plane Sailing]

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

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

 

[Crothian]

No. Classes are sets of skills, and I can't imagine a good explanation as to why members of a certain race are unable to learn a certain skill, or are only able to learn a skill "up to a certain point."

It's like saying that elves can't learn to craft horseshoes or half-orcs can't learn to move silently.

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?

 

[thedungeondelver]

So it's not kosher to compare the earlier editions' short-comings with an edition that does a better job to help illustrate the answer to the original question?

The original poster asked in context of 1e/2e and OD&D. I'm entirely sure that if 3rd+ was brought into the equation, the original poster never would've asked.

 

[Crothian]

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

While this is true, it wasn't like the players got 10th level and then the DM told them the non humans could no longer advance and it was a big suprise. You knew the limits and what they were going into the game. Why play a character that has to stop at level 6 in a game that goes to level 15?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Exactly. A lot of things seemed to work that way back then: Rule X said that you can't do Y, but extra book Z gave you a variant that circumvented the limit. Like Elves not allowed to become bards (as asinine as that was), but then all of a sudden, they break out the Elven Minstrel.

Bad rule design that seemed to have been done mostly in order to sell those extra books.

I think that's a needlessly cynical point of view. OD&D and AD&D (I have no idea about 2nd edition, from whence the "elven minstrel" sprang, I'm guessing?) were entering territory that was just wholly unplumbed. I mean, my goodness the game was only fighter, magic-user, cleric for how long?

D&D is all about "Tools, not Rules". If D&D had a built-in setting that can't be changed, I might be okay with it, but D&D prides itself to be playable in many settings, including those you create for yourself.


Concerning the level limits: They're rubbish no matter what. They're neither here nor there. If you play only low-level campaigns (and in older editions, that was quite likely), many of those limits would never come into play. And many of these limits didn't even make sense.

To you.

 

[WayneLigon]

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

It was just nonsense. I can accept dragons and flying mages and the lot, but being unable to get any better in a profession just because of one's species? Can't accept it.

Would that kind of explanation for race class limits in the game and setting make them okay?

No. I hate most explanations that say 'the gods don't allow x' because virtually every use of it was a hamhanded way to justify silly game-related balance restrictions (Race A has this advantage so obviously it must have a corresponding disadvantage) or just simple lack of thought on the subject. I could accept that a curse made Race A unable to use arcane magic if it was well done, but it would be a special case. I can't accept the idea that they can only be a Fighter of level n.

 

[Crothian]

I could accept that a curse made Race A unable to use arcane magic if it was well done, but it would be a special case. I can't accept the idea that they can only be a Fighter of level n.

A curse couldn't limit the abilities of a race to be fighters like it could for them to learn magic?

 

[Piratecat]

Nothing; the races got plenty of other advantages so it balanced out in my opinion.

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.

Don't take this as a slam on earlier editions; I love them dearly. But tossing racial level limits was a no-brainer for me, and a rule I haven't even vaguely missed.

 

[Seeten]

I thought the rule was stupid, and I junked it, as did my friends, in all our campaigns. If we wanted the setting to be human dominated, we made it human dominated. Period.

 

[lukelightning]

It does balance out multiclassing; otherwise you'd have your 15th level human magic-user overshadowed by the 14/14/15 elven fighter/magic user/thief.