What is wrong with race class limits?

[thedungeondelver]

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.

It just balances well in my games. The advantages any combination of other classes with thief given to "front-loaded" races (dwarves with their abilities, elves with theirs, halflings, etc.) means that your demi-human is going to keep getting hit dice, better saves, better to-hit rolls, and all the advantages commensurate with the thief class and the abilities "on the side" given by their other classes. Imagine a backstab from an 11th level dwarven fighter/theif with an 18/75 STR! Ye-OUCH.

And didn't take it as a slam at any rate.

You say toMAYto, I say to-MAH-to.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Worked fine for me and my players in OD&D and 1st Ed. AD&D. Then again, non-Humans always multiclassed. IMHO I think the game was designed with the assumption that non-Humans would always multiclass. Racial level limits kept the multiclass characters from dominating the game. Can you imagine an Elven 18th level Magic-User/Thief/Fighter? Experience pointwise that's about equivalent to a Human 21st level magic-user but most certainly not in power. And besides with Unearthed Arcana the racial level limits were increased.

Setting-wise the question the DM has to answer is 'why haven't the Elves taken over the world?' After all, they live the longest. If there were no level limits there would most definitely be very very high level M-U/Fighter/Thieves running around and ruling the world. The game rules are there to ensure balance. It is up to the DM to explain why the world is Humanocentric rather than some other race.

NB that in 3rd ed. an 18th level Wizard/Fighter/Rogue would be 54th level! And with full abilities not blended abilities. Such comparisions are useless.

 

[Aaron L]

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?

The it should be a roleplaying experience as those characters are shunned for doing culturally forbidden things. Mechanically restricting those races from doing those things is like saying it is physically impossible for a human to have a child with his sister because it is a taboo.

Racial level limits gave us such wonderful things as elves being described as ancient masters of magic who lived for thousands of years and taught the greatest human wizards, yet were restricted to 11th level while there were 27th level human mages out saving the world.

Yeah, it's stupid when the rules limit what characters can do!

It's only right that every player should have all the KEWEL POWERZ of their choice. And my fiendish half-grell half-myconid paladin/assassin/bard/ranger/monk makes much more sense than those stupid rules.

/sarcasm

Cute.

 

[Crothian]

The it should be a roleplaying experience as those characters are shunned for doing culturally forbidden things. Mechanically restricting those races from doing those things is like saying it is physically impossible for a human to have a child with his sister because it is a taboo.

But with fantasy gods such taboos can be enforced.

Racial level limits gave us such wonderful things as elves being described as ancient masters of magic who lived for thousands of years and taught the greatest human wizards, yet were restricted to 11th level while there were 27th level human mages out saving the world.

Which is why I'm not using their fluff since the rules di not reflect what they wrote. Instead of kicking out the restrictions since they don't match the fluff, why not just change the fluff?

 

[Psion]

But with fantasy gods such taboos can be enforced.

Sure. But that's a pretty overt setting element, don't you think?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Which is why I'm not using their fluff since the rules di not reflect what they wrote. Instead of kicking out the restrictions since they don't match the fluff, why not just change the fluff?

I'm all for that approach to something. Altering the fluff is my favorite way to accomodate cool but thematically awkward rules!


However, there's the question of whether one wants the rule in the first place?

In the case of the racial limits, they just felt like a bad rule to me... seems like quite a few people found that?

As they're written, it doesn't matter how interesting the explanation was, I can't envisage me ever finding them a fun and/or worthwhile part of the game.

That's not strictly true, as there are a lot of (half)-elf cleric/n multi-class combinations.

Also, multi-classing as n/thief means you're always advancing in one way or another, plus getting an awesome skill set as a demi-human.

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

Although I found pure thief class a bit uninteresting at the time. It was all a bit situational and GM dependant - more so than other classes? Then again, I played very different games back in 2nd edition days. Much more violent and a lot less sensible.

 

[Aaron L]

But with fantasy gods such taboos can be enforced.



Which is why I'm not using their fluff since the rules di not reflect what they wrote. Instead of kicking out the restrictions since they don't match the fluff, why not just change the fluff?

All I can say is that, to me, the "fluff" is what matters, and if the rules don't service the "fluff," then the rules get axed.


I'm not about to twist the flavor of a race just to use to accommodate a poorly thought out game mechanic.


As Psion says: "use the rules, don't let the rules use you."

 

[Crothian]

Sure. But that's a pretty overt setting element, don't you think?

I'm not saying it works for all settings, but it would help a setting that wanted the gods to be more important and more involved.

 

[Umbran]

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?

I think this bears repeating. Hindsight is 20-20. People talk as if they should have been able to divine from the start what actually took a couple of decades of experience to develop. We are talking about what was, at the time, the only game in town, and the cutting edge of design.

Yes, today we'd call the gas-guzzling engine of a car form the 1950s "bad design" as compared to today. But it isn't as if the weaknesses were purposeful. They did the best they could with what they understood at the time. Cut 'em a little slack for being on the forefont, hm?

 

[Crothian]

I'm not about to twist the flavor of a race just to use to accommodate a poorly thought out game mechanic.

That's the heart of the question. Are the class race limits just bad because they are bad or is it becasue they didn't m,ake sense with what was written in the game? If they are just bad, then there is no where for that discussion to go. So, I went with the idea of changing the words of the description so the rules could work. And that's not a rule using me, that just having the campaign world reinforce the mechanics something that I think D&D fails to do.