What was the reason for Demihuman level and class limits in AD&D?

[Tigh]

Here is another pass at trying to clarify my post above​

Old School: The inverted edition
(needs more grog)

Pick a class

Fighter
Wizard
Cleric

The object of the game is to get down to level 1. This is called your title level. After this you become a titled person who has control of part of the DM's world.

Starting levels

Fighter 9
Wizard 11
Cleric 8

Write down your characters name, class, and level. Now your DM will take you into their world and through a series of tests where you learn about your self (stats) and the path (abilities) you have chosen.

APPENDIX

The titles are Lord, Wizard, and Patriarch.
Demihumans start at their level cap.


Tigh

 

[Glyfair]

Back then, yes. There was really no concept of "game balance" as we think of it today.

But there was a thought. Gygax stated at the time that level limits were to balance out the fact that had extra abilities.

Basically in AD&D the theory was that being amazing at certain levels was balanced by being horrible at others (see the magic-user class).

 

[Orius]

Does anyone know why? The only thing I could think of was that Gygax and Co. wanted to make a human-centric world, and simply made a game mechanic which limited the power demihumans could achieve.

That was part of Gary's reasoning, at least from what I remember from the "Ask Gary" threads. Also, demihumans had various minor abilities like infravision, ability to examine stonework features, better chances to spot secret doors and so on, as well as multiclassing which made them more attractive to players.

Balance. I think it was kind of a backwards balance, given that it didn't come into play until you hit levels most PCs never reached, but that's about it.

Apart from having no level limits, humans in 1e got boned. Well, I suppose no other race could quality for an 18/00 Strength at the beginning of the game, but that's all I can come up with.

Yeah, this is my feeling on the whole level cap stuff. Humans could advance to any level in any class they wished, but demihumans had level and class limits. The level limits were stricter in 1e, and I don't know what they were, but in 2e they were extended which made the whole balance concept useless.

Here's 2e's limits:

Dwarf:

Fighter 15
Thief 12
Cleric 10

Elf:

Ranger/Wizard 15
Fighter/Cleric/Thief 12

Gnome:

Illusionist 15
Thief 13
Fighter 11
Cleric 9

Halfling:

Thief 15
Fighter 9
Cleric 8

Half-elf:

Bard No limit
Ranger 16
Cleric/Fighter 14
Wizard/Thief 12
Druid 9

Now 2e, didn't have name levels per se because level titles were dropped, but classes still gained followers, and those point's were essentially the equivalent of name level for those classes. Those levels are:

Fighter 9
Ranger 10
Cleric 8
Thief 10

So around 9th or 10th level is 2e's equivalent of name level. Note that the level limits for all the "favored classes" of every demihuman race is well above that limit, and many of the levels are at it or above it. Worst is the half-elf, which has a name level cap for only the druid, and everything else goes above that, and no limit for bard! And in addition, half-elves had the best multiclass combos in the game, they could combine almost anything. So by 2e, the whole level limit concept was useless as balance, since the typical game ended before most of them came into play. Basically, whatever balance Gary had originally intended had been utterly thrown out at this point, and the multi/dual-class system did not improve things. The only reason to play a human was if you wanted a paladin or one of the other special classes that weren't open to a lot of the demihumans. The 2e DMG mentions the game balance and human-centric aspects, but generally the level limits were only coming into play with NPCs. And even that didn't make sense, because if elves are so good with magic, and gnomes with illusions (for example), then why do humans still manage to advance further?

 

[Ariosto]

For comparison, here are the 1E PHB limits for characters with prime requisites (e.g., strength for fighters) of 16 or less. Those with a + allow another level for a score of 17, or two for 18. Halflings and gnomes have slightly different limiting factors represented with an asterisk. U = unlimited advancement; parentheses = NPC only.

Dwarf: Cleric (8); Fighter 7+; Thief U; Assassin 9.
Elf: Cleric (7); Fighter 5+; Magic-user 9+; Thief U; Assassin 10.
Gnome: Cleric (7); Fighter 5*; Illusionist 5*; Thief U; Assassin 8.
Half-elf: Cleric 5; Druid U; Fighter 6+; Ranger 6+; Magic-user 6+; Thief U; Assassin 11.
Halfling: Druid (6); Fighter 4*; Thief U.
Half-orc: Cleric 4; Fighter 10; Thief 6+; Assassin U.

Only humans can be paladins or monks.
The Bard class is a very special case open to humans and half-elves.

I think one reason thief (or assassin for half-orcs) is unlimited is that it is not so powerful (either personally or in resources) as other classes at high levels. Still, a character who had over centuries attained 100th level would have a lot of hit points (average 215 for a single-classed thief)!

 

[Particle_Man]

It is interesting that, except for the half-orc, no race had a level-cap on the thief class. I wonder how many human thieves were played in 1e. Or 2e. I do think of the Gord the Rogue novels though . . .

Oh, and 1e half-orcs are more limited than any other race. Their only "U" class is itself beset with a class-based level limit. Still a half-orc Fighter/Assassin of 10th/15th level is fairly respectable.

 

[rounser]

I don't think it was notably "balanced" to limit hobbits to 4th level in the original set (and most fighter-class halflings likewise in 1E AD&D), while allowing dwarves and elves to advance further.

Therein lies the rub. A halfling requires the most XP of any class to reach level 36 in the RC. Why? I assume because they're viewed as - like the hobbits they're facsimiles of - not natural adventurers, so a 36th level halfling is one hell of a thing. It's not a politically correct reason, and the heresy by modern standards, but it is a reason. A simulationist one, as unfashionable as that may be.

Their death ray saves make a big compensation for this if you're using some of the optional rules like weapon mastery (not joking here).

 

[Obryn]

But there was a thought. Gygax stated at the time that level limits were to balance out the fact that had extra abilities.

Basically in AD&D the theory was that being amazing at certain levels was balanced by being horrible at others (see the magic-user class).

Yep, and I seem to recall it came up whenever someone asked Dragon what will happen if they removed the level caps in their games...

Saying it had nothing to do with any concept of "game balance" seems awfully revisionist to me. I am certain we have a somewhat different understanding of "balance" nowadays, but the thought was there.

-O

 

[doctorhook]

But there was a thought. Gygax stated at the time that level limits were to balance out the fact that had extra abilities.

Basically in AD&D the theory was that being amazing at certain levels was balanced by being horrible at others (see the magic-user class).

This is an example of the hazard of coming first: at the time, Gygax, Arneson, and co. didn't yet have the benefit of lots of mistakes to learn from. Now, after thirty-five years, the roleplaying game has been built-upon developed by tens or even (I dare say) hundreds of thousands of people globally, across a variety of formats and media. Because would-be game designers have so many examples to learn from now, I think games tend towards being a lot more playable -- arguably more balanced, more imaginative, more "fun", and more useable out-of-box. (Exceptions abound, in all respects.) However, for all the virtues of early D&D, the notion of balance in those games is perhaps their biggest failure; means of "balancing" those games seem primitive and ineffective by today's standards, and I think that level and class limits are a prime example of this.

Personally, I think the d20 system is probably the most significant innovation in modern roleplaying. We've come a long way, baby.

 

[Ariosto]

Non-humans generally got bonuses to thief functions as well, apart from climbing walls and reading languages. In 1E, a dwarf, for instance, was at first level 1.75 times as good at finding and removing traps (2.5 times at detecting pits, falling blocks, etc., if the thief function even applied in those dwarf-specialized cases, which was contra the PHB but might be inferred from the DMG ) and 1.4 times as good at picking locks.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't think the design choices were due to inability to think of alternatives! It's not like nuclear physics to figure out that one could balance character types across the whole spectrum of levels. "Failure" is in the eyes of those who consider the object desirable in the first place; an apple is not a "primitive and ineffective" orange but a more or less fit apple. So it is with people who have different goals in playing or designing games -- hence the variety of different games!