I've heard the dwarven equivalent term translates to "nearly beardless head-bumpers who can't mine or hold their beer worth a darn" and the Elven one...well, let's just say I wouldn't want to offend.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What was the reason for Demihuman level and class limits in AD&D?
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
I've heard the dwarven equivalent term translates to "nearly beardless head-bumpers who can't mine or hold their beer worth a darn" and the Elven one...well, let's just say I wouldn't want to offend.
In BECMI, all one needed to play a dwarf or elf was one score of 9+ (74% chance of getting the particular one, 93% one or the other). For a halfling, you needed two such scores (only 55%). And yes, the elf was basically a "super" class! Beyond 10th level, if that limit was even relevant, it kept gaining "attack ranks". Then there's weapon mastery. In the older (Cook/Marsh) Expert set, humans were (if I recall correctly) limited to 15th level rather than 36th as with the later Companion and Masters additions. I think the elf was even more desirable then.
Particle_Man
Explorer
The Cook Expert D&D game went up to 14th, but had a minor description (like, a paragraph or two) with each of the 4 human classes about how the DM could give extra powers for levels up to 36th. And yeah, Elf rocked.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
you know that almost makes sense...
This we saw as backwords...
I think humans and demi humans were backwords...
demi humans have level limits, and live a long time.
Humans have unlimted levels, but have short lifespans..
shouldn'r demi humans dual class...aka hit there limit, grow board and move on to a new set of skills
meanwhile wouldn't it make more sense for humans to try cramp alot of training and experance into there short time???
One of our first house rules that stuck was to swap them, Demi humans dual, humans multi...
pawsplay
Hero
90% of the reason is that Gygax preferred a human-centric world, and if that borked the elves and such, so be it. He preferred classic swords-and-sorcery, and insofar as he was willing to let LOTR taint D&D, he preferred the idea of humans carving out a world in which elves and dwarves were diminishing and dragons were to be slain.
From a world design standpoint, there's the whole centuries thing. However, it's a pretty weak rationale. Frankly, high level characters are not going to die in bed unless they retire, and XP in the old days was based on treasure and defeating monsters. Plus, it had no effect on special-case NPCs, and you can safely assume the very most powerful elves and so forth might be special-case characters. Folks like King Arthur, Drizzt, and Elminster are shameless rulebreakers, so there is no reason not to apply that same reasoning to Galadriel. I would assign this reason, then, to the realm of "rationalizing."
From a balance standpoint... humans gained nothing, nothing, unless you had two ability scores and a master plan for dual-classing. Even halflings had superior abilities, provided you weren't interested in extraordinary strength and melee combat. However, demi-humans were deemed to be constrained by their natures, and hence were forbidden from classes that did not fit their culture or psychology. Setting level limits therefore often served as a quasi-prohibition. In AD&D 1e, dwarves could be clerics, but only up to level 8. However, only NPC dwarves could be clerics; presumably, their clerics were tied up in duties that prohibited from adventuring. Level limits were then applied across all races and classes, for consistency's sake. Demihuman multiclassers could expect to see one of their classes max out during the course of a normal career.
It is important to realize that in the old days, it was expected campaigns would end somewhat sooner. AD&D typically assumed the campaign was over by 20th level, and up to 30th level was considered very high level gaming. In many cases, it appears campaigns ended in the teens. Name level occured at level 9 or 10, at which point characters started building keeps and settling down, while most of the material was written with the notion that 20th was an informal ceiling on advancement. Deities & Demigods indicated that high level, or maximum level, varied by campaign and ascension to deity status should take this into account. In other words, unlimited advancement was sort of a little bonus thrown in, something for humans to do for a few levels as a campaign wound down. It did not have to be exceedingly balanced because it was an end-game condition. Much like the availability of the highest level spells, it was the conclusion to which the campaign journeyed, after which point the basic challenges had been conquered.
Naturally, this approach clashed with BECMI's adoption of the 36-level model. As a result, it is no surprise that BECMI added "virtual levels" after maxing out demihumn levels. There is no absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have just allowed demihumans to go to 20th level or whatever in BECMI, but inertia won out. Clearly, a few hit points was not going to break the campaign. So in BECMI, demihumans gained better attack capability, more masters, better saves, and special defenses, while not advancing in hit points or (in the case of elves) high level casting. It was quite arbitrary, since demihumans effectively gained level advancement in all but name, admittedly as a slower rate.
It is important to realize also that Gygax allowed demihumans as a play option. His vision was always of a human world. Thus, demihumans are limited, in much the same way some of the weirder choices in Savage Species carried high LAs in 3e, simply because limitations had to be imposed if you wanted the game to continue to look a certain way. In many ways, playing an elf amounted to "play a monster with class advancement, have fun." Elves still fared better than orcs, who were all 1 HD monsters with the occasional 2 HD or 3 HD leader and a handful of individuals with pathetic casting abilities. There is a character in the Pool of Radiance computer game who is a clear rulebreaker, some kind of orc or hobgoblin character who clearly has the capabilities of a 5th or 6th level fighter.
AD&D and AD&D 2e was peppered with "it's your own funeral" warnings. You can allow players to be dragons, pop the lid off racial level limits, or allow a player to make his case why he should be allowed to play the only halfling wizard in all Greyhawk. But it's up to you to clean up the mess. You can let players be gnolls, but if you let them be trolls, there is little in place to balance such characters.
From a world design standpoint, there's the whole centuries thing. However, it's a pretty weak rationale. Frankly, high level characters are not going to die in bed unless they retire, and XP in the old days was based on treasure and defeating monsters. Plus, it had no effect on special-case NPCs, and you can safely assume the very most powerful elves and so forth might be special-case characters. Folks like King Arthur, Drizzt, and Elminster are shameless rulebreakers, so there is no reason not to apply that same reasoning to Galadriel. I would assign this reason, then, to the realm of "rationalizing."
From a balance standpoint... humans gained nothing, nothing, unless you had two ability scores and a master plan for dual-classing. Even halflings had superior abilities, provided you weren't interested in extraordinary strength and melee combat. However, demi-humans were deemed to be constrained by their natures, and hence were forbidden from classes that did not fit their culture or psychology. Setting level limits therefore often served as a quasi-prohibition. In AD&D 1e, dwarves could be clerics, but only up to level 8. However, only NPC dwarves could be clerics; presumably, their clerics were tied up in duties that prohibited from adventuring. Level limits were then applied across all races and classes, for consistency's sake. Demihuman multiclassers could expect to see one of their classes max out during the course of a normal career.
It is important to realize that in the old days, it was expected campaigns would end somewhat sooner. AD&D typically assumed the campaign was over by 20th level, and up to 30th level was considered very high level gaming. In many cases, it appears campaigns ended in the teens. Name level occured at level 9 or 10, at which point characters started building keeps and settling down, while most of the material was written with the notion that 20th was an informal ceiling on advancement. Deities & Demigods indicated that high level, or maximum level, varied by campaign and ascension to deity status should take this into account. In other words, unlimited advancement was sort of a little bonus thrown in, something for humans to do for a few levels as a campaign wound down. It did not have to be exceedingly balanced because it was an end-game condition. Much like the availability of the highest level spells, it was the conclusion to which the campaign journeyed, after which point the basic challenges had been conquered.
Naturally, this approach clashed with BECMI's adoption of the 36-level model. As a result, it is no surprise that BECMI added "virtual levels" after maxing out demihumn levels. There is no absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have just allowed demihumans to go to 20th level or whatever in BECMI, but inertia won out. Clearly, a few hit points was not going to break the campaign. So in BECMI, demihumans gained better attack capability, more masters, better saves, and special defenses, while not advancing in hit points or (in the case of elves) high level casting. It was quite arbitrary, since demihumans effectively gained level advancement in all but name, admittedly as a slower rate.
It is important to realize also that Gygax allowed demihumans as a play option. His vision was always of a human world. Thus, demihumans are limited, in much the same way some of the weirder choices in Savage Species carried high LAs in 3e, simply because limitations had to be imposed if you wanted the game to continue to look a certain way. In many ways, playing an elf amounted to "play a monster with class advancement, have fun." Elves still fared better than orcs, who were all 1 HD monsters with the occasional 2 HD or 3 HD leader and a handful of individuals with pathetic casting abilities. There is a character in the Pool of Radiance computer game who is a clear rulebreaker, some kind of orc or hobgoblin character who clearly has the capabilities of a 5th or 6th level fighter.
AD&D and AD&D 2e was peppered with "it's your own funeral" warnings. You can allow players to be dragons, pop the lid off racial level limits, or allow a player to make his case why he should be allowed to play the only halfling wizard in all Greyhawk. But it's up to you to clean up the mess. You can let players be gnolls, but if you let them be trolls, there is little in place to balance such characters.
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Another thing to remember about E. Gary's early assumptions is that it was supposed to take years in real time to get to name level. (And in his games, it did.) And at that point several of the characters would be playing a different game anyway, the domain game. So the lower level Demi-Humans made good baliffs, senechels, etc., while the Humans got most of the perks of being noble. Which is how he seemed to figure the end game ought to be.
Remathilis
Legend
While I agree 99.99% with your article, I want to nitpick BECMI...
Attack ranks (the virtual levels beyond "name" demi-human levels) were just that; bonuses to hit. Neither hp NOR saving throws continued to improve beyond name level (nor did any class abilities based on character level, such as elf caster levels). In addition, at other XP points on the table they gained resistances to spells/breath weapons (1/4 dmg on save, 1/2 on fail) and fighter attack options (as well as masteries and general skills, if either system was used).
Ironically, if Gary viewed level limits as a way to insure "humanocentric" world, he also made use of the mechanic to make sure it was not a assassin-o-centric, druid-o-centric, or monk-o-centric world either.
Remathilis
Legend
What? Can't humans be those classes? Doesn't stopping assassins at 15th level defeat the "humans can advance infinitely in their chosen class" concept of game balance?
And why DID assassins, monks, and druids cap at 15/17/14, but illusionist, paladin, and ranger NOT cap? (I can see fighter, cleric, magic-user, & thief, but why some sub-classes and not others?)
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content