What is wrong with race class limits?

[dcas]

<--- had a halfling shepherd as a major NPC in his Five Shires campaign

Oh, halflings, sure, one expects halflings to have some knowledge of animal husbandry. I wonder if it's genetic, though? or purely cultural?

 

[billd91]

That's not much different than the 3e mechanic of tying one's ability to cast high-level spells to one's Intelligence (or Wisdom) score, is it?

Yes, stronger fighters are better fighters, more intelligent wizards are better wizards, etc. It may not be the most realistic rule in the world but it works just fine in the game.

It's actually quite a bit different. The intelligence limit for spells in 3E doesn't limit the character's ability to gain levels, improve skills, improve saves, or even gain the spell slots (which could be used to prep and cast lower-level spells).
Being unable to make the strength requirement in 1E meant full stop in all ways of mechanical advancement. And even making the requirement only meant a delay in the limit.

Level and class limits may have been intended to make a human-centric world for AD&D, but that doesn't mean they were really a good idea, just the idea that was being implemented at the time.

 

[molonel]

That's not much different than the 3e mechanic of tying one's ability to cast high-level spells to one's Intelligence (or Wisdom) score, is it?

Except that it's tied to race, rather than ability. In 3rd Edition, a dwarven fighter, the veteran of a thousand campaigns, can rise to whatever level his DM feels like playing to. A human has different advantages. A human cleric with a 15 Wisdom is just as limited in his spellcasting as a dwarven cleric or an elven cleric or a halfling cleric.

The ability to use magic is abstract. It requires less suspension of my disbelief to say that an archmage must be SUPER SMART or a great cleric must be VERY WISE than believe that warriors with the biggest biceps have the most potential.

Yes, stronger fighters are better fighters, more intelligent wizards are better wizards, etc. It may not be the most realistic rule in the world but it works just fine in the game.

No, it doesn't. It was one of the first rules that everyone houseruled in most of my games because it made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Earlier editions of D&D had their strengths and weaknesses. Class level limitations for races was one of those weaknesses.

 

[XO]

Not !

That's just not true. A PCs effectiveness depends more upon the player than the numbers on the character sheet. The game is a lot more than just rolling dice. Otherwise, we'd be happy with computer games.

<loud buzzer sound indicating error>

In any edition, when the situation "outclasses" (pun intended) or overwhelms (in terms of level) the proponent, you're in deep doo doo...

Sure you can stay in townm become a bard, and play old songs, but you won't go anywhere with your buddies the 18th level Lord or Archmage, capicce?

In 1e, a difference of 4 levels (below the average of main party) was all it took to start thinking about retirement, hobbit holes, fishing and opening an inn!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh, halflings, sure, one expects halflings to have some knowledge of animal husbandry. I wonder if it's genetic, though? or purely cultural?

They is as Tol- er, Yondolla made them!

 

[dcas]

It's actually quite a bit different. The intelligence limit for spells in 3E doesn't limit the character's ability to gain levels, improve skills, improve saves, or even gain the spell slots (which could be used to prep and cast lower-level spells).

It's a different game mechanic but the end result is the same: unless one has a high score in one's prime requisite, one won't be able to learn the most potent skills of one's class.

Except that it's tied to race, rather than ability. In 3rd Edition, a dwarven fighter, the veteran of a thousand campaigns, can rise to whatever level his DM feels like playing to. A human has different advantages. A human cleric with a 15 Wisdom is just as limited in his spellcasting as a dwarven cleric or an elven cleric or a halfling cleric.

I'm sorry, I thought your primary objection was that level advancement was tied to ability (in this case, Strength). I'm sorry that I misunderstood your post.

In any event, even though I am not a big fan of level limits (as opposed to class limits), I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with them. Some people just can't progress any further in certain skills no matter how much experience they have (and yes, some of this is genetic). I don't see the problem with tying this to race, especially since members of demi-human races are much more likely to have a small gene pool in comparison to humans (there seems to be much more variation among humans than among the members of other races). This might not be a popular idea in our egalitarian age but that doesn't mean it's false. Sometimes it just doesn't matter how hard you study.

 

[Geoffrey]

I think racial class and level limits were a result of Gary being too liberal. Nevermind that in OD&D a dwarf (for example) can reach only 6th level as a fighter. The fact that a player could play a dwarf (or any other non-human) is actually lenient, and a concession that I do not make as Judge.

I have never, not even once, seen a player play a non-human as anything other than as a human with cool powers. Most of this thread's conversation illustrates this problem. Many people have said, "It is illogical that demihuman race X can't be class Z, or advance to level Y in class Z." That's right: according to human logic. Maybe a human with a lifespan of 1,500 years might like nothing better than to rack up levels into the 100s. But that's just humans. Non-humans are, well, not human. They therefore don't think like humans.

And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.

 

[thedungeondelver]

And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.

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

 

[Crothian]

And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.

I disagree, but it does not help you prove your point. I don't think you are a good judge of the way most everyone plays non humans. Now, it might be theat of the few people you game with most everyone of them can't play a non human. But that obviously is not most everyone that plays D&D. And it isn't that these people you know play the character wrong, it is that they play the character wrong based on whatever you seem to think it should be played.

 

[molonel]

I think racial class and level limits were a result of Gary being too liberal. Nevermind that in OD&D a dwarf (for example) can reach only 6th level as a fighter. The fact that a player could play a dwarf (or any other non-human) is actually lenient, and a concession that I do not make as Judge. I have never, not even once, seen a player play a non-human as anything other than as a human with cool powers. Most of this thread's conversation illustrates this problem. Many people have said, "It is illogical that demihuman race X can't be class Z, or advance to level Y in class Z." That's right: according to human logic. Maybe a human with a lifespan of 1,500 years might like nothing better than to rack up levels into the 100s. But that's just humans. Non-humans are, well, not human. They therefore don't think like humans. And if you disagree with this, it illustrates why I don't allow non-human PCs in my campaign: because most everyone plays non-humans as humans with super-powers. I don't need that.

And how, pray tell, did you acquire direct life experience regarding how dwarves, elves and orcs actually interact or behave?