Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 3259008" data-attributes="member: 29398">As for level limits in general:The *idea* of some races being simply unable to function, or function well, in some classes is fine by me.&nbsp; Dwarves, for example, should simply not be able to be Magic-Users or Illusionists.&nbsp; That said, I think 1e took it way overboard, and put many more restrictions on many more races than common sense would dictate.&nbsp; Yes, it might have been for game balance, so people would still want to play Humans, but toning down a few of the more outlandish benefits given to non-Human races fixes that in a hurry.So, what limits make sense: (note: if you're multiclassed there are lots more restrictions; what follows applies to single-class only)&nbsp;- Cleric and Druid: none.&nbsp; No matter what race you are, you're getting your spells from a god; clearly, no god is going to stand in the way of you as its Cleric becoming as proficient as you can given your skills, piety, and capability for earning ExP. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;- Fighter: none.&nbsp; Anyone of any race can learn to fight.&nbsp; Those same beings can learn to fight better.&nbsp; Lather, rinse, repeat.&nbsp;- Ranger and Cavalier: some.&nbsp; Hobbits don't have what it takes to learn anything but the most basic woodscraft, and Gnomes and Elves tend to be too free-spirited to make decent Cavaliers.&nbsp;- Paladin: some.&nbsp; If a race doesn't have a deity that will support Paladins then it becomes mighty hard to be a Paladin as that race.&nbsp;- Magic-User and Illusionist: some.&nbsp; No Dwarves.&nbsp; No Hobbits except they can learn the rudiments of Illusion.&nbsp;- Thief and Assassin: none.&nbsp; I also made Thieves open-ended (the class does not top out at 15th any more, because it doing so made no sense).&nbsp;- Bard: nobody played Bards the original way, so I made them a &quot;core&quot; class (i.e. starts at 1st level like everonye else) that anyone with the requisite stats and an opposable thumb can advance in.&nbsp;- Monk: lots.&nbsp; Right now, only Humans can be Monks in my game; were I to start over I might be talked into allowing Part-Elf and Part-Orc Monks as well, but that'd be it.&nbsp; Assuming I kept the class at all, that is. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Now, even with all this I find in the long run people tend to play Humans slightly more often than other races, but most parties tend to have between 3 and 6 races represented; works for me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 3259008, member: 29398"] As for level limits in general: The *idea* of some races being simply unable to function, or function well, in some classes is fine by me. Dwarves, for example, should simply not be able to be Magic-Users or Illusionists. That said, I think 1e took it way overboard, and put many more restrictions on many more races than common sense would dictate. Yes, it might have been for game balance, so people would still want to play Humans, but toning down a few of the more outlandish benefits given to non-Human races fixes that in a hurry. So, what limits make sense: (note: if you're multiclassed there are lots more restrictions; what follows applies to single-class only) - Cleric and Druid: none. No matter what race you are, you're getting your spells from a god; clearly, no god is going to stand in the way of you as its Cleric becoming as proficient as you can given your skills, piety, and capability for earning ExP. :) - Fighter: none. Anyone of any race can learn to fight. Those same beings can learn to fight better. Lather, rinse, repeat. - Ranger and Cavalier: some. Hobbits don't have what it takes to learn anything but the most basic woodscraft, and Gnomes and Elves tend to be too free-spirited to make decent Cavaliers. - Paladin: some. If a race doesn't have a deity that will support Paladins then it becomes mighty hard to be a Paladin as that race. - Magic-User and Illusionist: some. No Dwarves. No Hobbits except they can learn the rudiments of Illusion. - Thief and Assassin: none. I also made Thieves open-ended (the class does not top out at 15th any more, because it doing so made no sense). - Bard: nobody played Bards the original way, so I made them a "core" class (i.e. starts at 1st level like everonye else) that anyone with the requisite stats and an opposable thumb can advance in. - Monk: lots. Right now, only Humans can be Monks in my game; were I to start over I might be talked into allowing Part-Elf and Part-Orc Monks as well, but that'd be it. Assuming I kept the class at all, that is. :) Now, even with all this I find in the long run people tend to play Humans slightly more often than other races, but most parties tend to have between 3 and 6 races represented; works for me. :) Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification