What is wrong with race class limits?

[Xyanthon]

I don’t think that there was anything “wrong” with class and level limits. They were implemented at the time to retain balance so that humans would be predominant in terms of what the players would choose. At the time, this was done through the lens of what was expected in fantasy. Most stories revolved around human protagonists that the readers could identify with (I know, LotR and the companions).

If I recall correctly, part of the reason for the racial limits was put forth not just to balance humans against the other races, but because the other races were viewed as being apart from the happenings of the world. For instance, halflings and their low level limits reflected the view that the vast majority of halflings would like nothing more than creature comfort and the ways of adventurers was beyond them. Similarly, elves and dwarves wanted to retreat from the world as it was the age of man. Fantasy of the time tended to view elves and dwarves as mysterious "others" that had little interaction with humans (again, I know there are exceptions). There were few tales where the heroes were not human and this is reflected in the game ("Sure you can be a halfling. However, as they rarely care for adventure you'll only be able to progress to a certain point before the longings of hearth and home will pull you away from a life of adventure").

Yeah, at the time I'll admit that I did away with the class and level limits. They seemed to stifle the fun. Afterall, since elves and dwarves WERE mysterious others; why wouldn't I want to play one? And since my pals that played humans had unlimited progression, why couldn't my elf who has a lifespan far longer than any human level up as far as they did?

Now, I prefer human centered campaigns. I can justify why certain races would only be certain classes and why they would only progress to a certain point. I'd encourage my players to be humans and try to bring the elves and dwarves and the rest back to their former status as "mysterious others". It is just my prefered playstyle. I am to the point that I don't like having 50 sentient races running about. It just doesn't make any sense to me. And from my past experience, many people don't play demihumans (or even more alien character concepts) any different than humans with different statistical adjustments. I mean, why would elves want to associate with shorter lived humans? I'm sure dwarves have a much different outlook on the world than humans do. Why would they want to go off and fight dragons and the like? For me, the vast majority of them would want to stick to their mountain halls and mine their ores and live their lives in ways that humans may not comprehend. So there wouldn't be much choice for most dwarves (be a pala-what? Nah, I'll stick to being a miner like my honored father and his father before him...).

Whew, sorry for the long post and I could go on... However, I think I've gotten out most of what I wanted to communicate. I have no problem with later editions of the game letting people play whatever crazy concept that their heart desires. However, I don't think it is fair to look at older editions of the game through a lens of today's fantasy concepts and say that it was just "badwrongfun". That's not really fair. Afterall, I'm sure in another thirty years, players will look back at 3.x and say "what the heck were those guys thinking?" So I'll go back and recreate the fantasy I like with my older edition of the game. And when I want something different, I'll get a game of 3.x on.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Well thank god dwarves are better than elves at SOMETHING. Stupid Legolas. He even DRANK better than Gimli...

Maybe that's why elves seem to be so much better than other races- they've got a lot more shortcomings to make up for?

 

[JVisgaitis]

Now that I think about this more, I kinda miss restricted classes. There was something to be said for dwarves who couldn't grasp arcane magic and elves that were too aloof to be paladins. Not only did you get a sense for what was weird and alien to certain races, but it also gave some pretty good roleplaying hooks when dealing with classes you weren't familiar with.

I dunno, restricted classes were pretty cool in my book and made you work within a concept to develop it more fully. 3e is so wide open it gets kinda difficult to figure how all classes would be portrayed by the various races. Thinking about it, some of the most memorable characters I've gamed with were from earlier editions. Not sure if that has anything to do with it, but it has certainly been the case for me.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

Was it because they were poorly explained as to why certain races and classes had limits? Would it have been better if for instance it was built into the game that halflings had pissed off the god of magic and there fore could not use any arcane magic? Would that kind of explanation for race class limits in the game and setting make them okay?

I have a problem with race level limits but not restrictions.

If dwarven wizards go against the vision of a world, I'm all for that. But I don't want to play a dwarven cleric up to 13th-level (or whatever the limit was) and then get told "sorry, your deity thinks dwarves suck, you can't level up". This is an even bigger problem if you didn't multi-class right from the beginning. In 3e, you can actually reach 10th-level in a year or two, so the rarely-seen limits from 2e would really grate. Sure you could multi-class at that point, but that's not good if multi-classing that way wasn't part of your character's concept.

Level limits should be for NPCs only, and really should only be there as flavor.

 

[Darkwolf445]

AD&D is a setting.

Demihumans don't have the same driving ambition as humans to reach high levels. That players complain that this restricts them only proves that the players themselves are humans and possess that driving ambition.

I remember reading this somewhere. I agree with the theory, even though I think it is bad from a player's point of view. But, whenever I played a demi-human I multiclassed and made sure at least one class had unlimited advancement.

I like the way B/E/C/M handled this By the way.

Also, you could always use a wish to allow 1 more level to be advanced (once xp was earned), or wish to be human.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Frankly, I was glad race/class/level limits were tossed out the window, as well as Prerequisites (or at least, the hard number prereqs of old). Though I understand the reasons behind the limits, I didn't like there presence. I didn't care for the differentiated XP charts, either (esp. with multiclassing).

Now, I did like the "revamped" old D&D of the Red Box days, but that's because it solely had classes (rather than race/class combos). I'd play that version of D&D again just for fun: heck, I'd like it if the classes were reworked to all use the same XP chart & threw out the level caps for the demihuman classes.

The race/class combo limits seemed ridiculously arbitrary, and in some cases, a bit nonsensical. Tree-hugging elves can't be druids (or at least the "default" elves--don't get me started on demihuman subraces)? Only half-elves can be bards (& not elves, or any other race for that matter)? Only humans could be barbarians?

Also, IMHO, the races (& subraces) of demihumans in AD&D grew to fit around these rules: gnomes essentially were magic-using dwarves (or rather, closer to mythical dwarves compared to the Tolkienesque default dwarves); various elf subraces allowed for race/class combos that the default elves couldn't assume; various subraces also allowed for improved level caps for certain classes. But, ultimately, IMHO, subraces min-maxed the set-in-stone system. It's better to play a grey elf mage instead of a high elf mage due to level limits & stat mods. Why play a hill dwarf when a mountain dwarf is more appealing?

Until 3.X cast out the limits, houserules were the only thing that modified these limits, and houserules vary from DM to DM (or even campaign to campaign). IMHO, it's always easier to place limits than it is to expand options, esp. if you're expanding options into uncharted territory.

As for limiting access to classes by race, I think that's only viable for Prestige Classes--core classes should not have any such limits. Then again, I also think that core classes shouldn't have Alignment restrictions, either (and classes with AL restrictions should become PrCs).

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Leaving aside wheter they're a good thing or not, I like this as a reason for why level limits might be in place:

His soul has grown all it can.

Building on this: IMO, high level DnD characters do sorta resemble superheroes. Perhaps this level of power involves channeling some vague primal forces of the universe. The dwarves, elves and other 'limited' races were made before humans. Although successful, perhaps there were some flaws in the process - the latest model, humanity, works better in that respect. The gods finally got it right as it were.

 

[Seeten]

But in my universe, Humans were made in the middle, and are not the predominant race, so why are my demihumans limited?

 

[Seeten]

Oh, right, must be because its a wholly arbitrary rule.

 

[frankthedm]

But in my universe, Humans were made in the middle, and are not the predominant race, so why are my demihumans limited?

I don't know, it is your universe, why did you keep them limited?

I felt level limits worked well in theory and could have decent reasoning. In play they did not do their job though.