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



## joethelawyer (Jun 6, 2009)

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.   

Thx


----------



## Treebore (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, dwarves lived for centuries and elves lived for over 1,000 years, without the limitations "logic" would dictate that the elves had hundreds/thousands of their people well over 20th level.

So to allow for humans to have a chance, the limitations were imposed.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Yes, it was mainly thematic, because game balance among PCs could have been attained in other ways (as in 3E and 4E, for example). As things stand, class and level limits are the only really "hard wired" game-mechanical reason to choose a human in AD&D. So, if one were to remove them, then one might want to compensate in some way (such as "Method V" character generation from _Unearthed Arcana_). Depending on the setting, humans may retain advantages in acquisition of henchmen and hirelings -- but that seems likely to be undermined in a less human-centric milieu.

I think the saving-throw bonuses of dwarves might become very significant at high levels, and perhaps some other racial bonuses as well.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 6, 2009)

There is a reason stated in the 2E books as I recall.  I don't recall one in the 1E books, but it is possible there is one there as well.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 6, 2009)

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.

-O


----------



## Treebore (Jun 6, 2009)

I guess no one read Dragon back in the old days. The only "balance" they were worried about was having 1,000's of 1,000+ year old elves, all being 20th level in several classes, ruling the world.  So to "balance" out the edge such longevity would give the elven race, and to lesser extent the Dwarves, they did the racial limits. Then to be "fair" they put limits on the other "demi human" races.

Then in UA they allowed higher racial level limits if they had super high attributes.

The racial advantages actually became pretty meaningless in high level games, because by then most parties had ways to see in darkness, etc... even when human. So to limit them at high levels due to their racial advantages was pretty meaningless. It was to make Greyhawk being a "human centric" world rather than elven or dwarven make sense.

After all, why wouldn't a race that can live  a couple of thousand years not have a few hundred multi class elven demigods walking around being level 20 in 3 classes each? 

So it was to have the world make sense that humans would have a position of eminence rather than servitude.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 6, 2009)

Treebore said:


> I guess no one read Dragon back in the old days. The only "balance" they were worried about was having 1,000's of 1,000+ year old elves, all being 20th level in several classes, ruling the world.  So to "balance" out the edge such longevity would give the elven race, and to lesser extent the Dwarves, they did the racial limits. Then to be "fair" they put limits on the other "demi human" races.



Are you honestly saying the fact that humans otherwise have zero advantages as a PC race has absolutely nothing to do with this decision?

That seems a bit rose-colored to me. 

-O


----------



## Tigh (Jun 6, 2009)

*Title level*

First: what may be facts
Second: my conjectures
Third: conclusion that I wish to share with OP​


*First:* what may be facts

at 11th level a Wizard earns the name Wizard
at 9th level a fighter earn the title Lord
at 8th level a cleric used to become Patriarch.

At 11th level a Wizard has the same chance to hit AC zero as a 9th level fighter and an 8th level cleric.
It takes a Wizard 11 levels to attack as a SuperHero in old Chainmail: fantasy.
it takes a Warrior 9, etcetera.



*Second*: my conjectures

I believe that Title level was originally seen as the end goal.  If this is the case a demi human with a lower level cap, actually has an easier journey to achieve title level.  To really earn the title of Dwarf or Elf, one has to make the title level.  An elf starts much closer to their cap than a wizard.  I believe all this became confused with the separation of race and class.  And of course we can't forget the lid coming off and levels extending on beyond title levels.



*Third*: conclusion that I wish to share with OP

Convert all the Demi human races into a Class.  Subtract their level cap from the Fighters' level cap of 9.  The result is the level a Demi human should start at.  And then you have The Chainmail: fantasy version of demi humans.


Tigh


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jun 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Are you honestly saying the fact that humans otherwise have zero advantages as a PC race has absolutely nothing to do with this decision?



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


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

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.

Gygax devoted DMG page 21 to the subject, under the heading of "The Monster as a Player Character".







> *Advanced D&D* is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans and humanoids in various orbits about the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high-level characters ... There is a point where the well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. ... The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game.



Gygax went on to relate the advantages, especially for the DM whose task is to craft an imagined world, "when history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign".


----------



## Tigh (Jun 6, 2009)

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 (Jun 6, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> 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.



Obryn said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2009)

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 (Jun 6, 2009)

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 (Jun 6, 2009)

> 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 (Jun 6, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2009)

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 (Jun 6, 2009)

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!


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 6, 2009)

Ugh. Hideous rules, those.

As for why, well yes, it's truly a clumsy, ugly, ill-considered 'balancing' measure. Sometimes, rules in RPGs are simply bad. This is not automatically a condemnation of an entire system, say, but yes - not everything is 'just different' and all that PC crap.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 6, 2009)

The reason for demihuman level limits is (and i don´t mean that aggressive or as an attack) a lack of flexibility in thinking. A lack of being able to create rules for class advancement and then not apply them to all people / races which exist in the world in the same way. 

Once you have a PC/non-PC split and accept that classes are only balanced for use by PCs (not for all people in the world), the problem that causes demihuman level limits to be necessary vanishes. Of course, this expects that you think "PCs are really different from Joe Shmoe", and that is not that old-school.

Or the tl;dr version: not aknowledging that AD&D class-advancement made only sense in the intra-party-context and NOT when used in the world as a whole, led to the need for demihuman level limits.


----------



## Runestar (Jun 6, 2009)

None really. It just means that prior to lv15, no one will ever play a human. Then when the campaign would exceed that lv, you retire your existing character and reroll as a human.


----------



## Mircoles (Jun 6, 2009)

I remember from the games back then, that we just ingnored the level caps.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 6, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Once you have a PC/non-PC split and accept that classes are only balanced for use by PCs (not for all people in the world), the problem that causes demihuman level limits to be necessary vanishes. Of course, this expects that you think "PCs are really different from Joe Shmoe", and that is not that old-school.




In some ways, PCs were different . . . they had fewer class options than NPCs.    In 1e, many demi-humans could be clerics, but dwarves, elves and gnomes were NPC clerics not PC clerics, and halfings were NPC druids, not PC druids.  This cap got lifted with the Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 6, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> *What was the reason for Demihuman level and class limits in AD&D?*
> 
> 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 demi-humans could achieve.




This was one of the first rules to be thrown out.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jun 6, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> I remember from the games back then, that we just ingnored the level caps.




Yup.


----------



## Olli (Jun 6, 2009)

well, at least in BECMI, if you played low-level games, the elf was always the superior choice (spells like a MU, weapon and armor selection of a fighter and d6 HD). If one could reap up the necessary attributescores, there was no reason not to play an elf!!!!! The same does NOT apply to dwarves and halflings, as they were not much bettter then the fighter respectively!!!!!

Olli


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Keefe the Thief: That NPCs were not bound by the same rules was understood. See the DMG section on expert hirelings, for example, or humanoid spell-casters, or the NPC-only clerics. Going back to OD&D, druids were presented first as "monsters". The rules for PCs were designed to produce the effects they did. Read that bit by Gygax about the composition of high-level adventuring parties; it was clearly the intended result.

Of course, it is not necessary for your game world to be so. The guidelines in the books are more descriptive than prescriptive. The reasoning behind them -- and behind the urge to conformity in major systems -- is laid out. As Dungeon Master, *you* are the final arbiter of your campaign.

Absent any evidence, I cannot take seriously claims that Gygax did not understand what he was doing, that he really had quite different goals but could not think of how to attain them. That you or I might have other goals is not relevant to the question. (I would note that Gygax went on to design two other RPGs distinctively different both from each other and from AD&D.)


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 6, 2009)

What's fascinating about level limits is how they work almost perfectly _against_ what seems reasonable to most people.  If anything, you should have a hard time finding any nigh-immortal elves _under_ the level limits.

Perhaps the meta-game rule should have been that you weren't allowed to play an elf until you retired another character of that (high) level...


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

What seems reasonable depends on one's concept of elves. I agree that they are pretty odd in AD&D -- but for really weird, try the "today a magician, tomorrow a fighter" approach in the original set!

Actually, I think they fit well the impression I got from _The Hobbit_, _The Broken Sword_, and other fictional sources. Even the eldest are not by any evidence I recall matches for the most powerful humans (which even Wizards apparently were from internal evidence in _The Hobbit_). If one considers a human making good use of such longevity, one might expect a bit more -- although one might need to start forgetting things to make room for new memories before very long. The fey folk, though, seem not to change so much or so rapidly. They are also for the most part reclusive.

I could see slowing advancement for player-characters, but not to such an extent as to require game-decades per level. As things stand, they are likely to retire from human affairs while they have much life left.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> 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.



Also, saying there is one reason for anything would be a mistake as well.  I am sure there are many reasons for such rules.


----------



## Belorin (Jun 6, 2009)

One reason was that Dwarves, Elves, etc, got to multiclass and humans could only dual class which meant giving up your first class until you passed it in levels of your second class.


Bel


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 6, 2009)

I strongly dislike demi-human level limits, for many of the reasons posted above. They do a very poor job as a balancing mechanism between the races and a world can easily be humano-centric by fiat... who cares about following strict rules for NPCs anyway...

What I'm currently doing in AD&D is giving humans a 25% XP bonus (I don't use prime requisite bonus, but that's the topic for another thread...)


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Yes, 25% should be pretty significant at high levels, after XP requirements flatten out. I figure that should keep a single-classed human about a level ahead of a single-classed non-human at that point (two, three, or maybe four if they rise far enough; I doubt that anyone would go more than 20 past "name" level). A multi-classed character would fall further behind in each. That might not be the best balance -- How many levels are the advantages really worth, especially at high levels? -- but it certainly seems worth a try.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jun 7, 2009)

I always used race/level limits, and never had a problem with them. 

I find the philosophical notion that humans - alone of all species - have  unlimited potential in any area to be rather appealing. 

I also think that, implicitly, the classic setting premise is one where elves and dwarves are "fading;" the era of Man has taken hold, or is about to. I suspect (but have no evidence to prove) that this may have informed the choice to limit demi-human advancement.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 7, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> 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 has always been my understanding, as well. It might just be me, but looking at how said limits are imposed, this seems pretty obvious.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 7, 2009)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I find the philosophical notion that humans - alone of all species - have  unlimited potential in any area to be rather appealing.




That's always struck me as so chauvinistic as to be distinctly unappealing.  It's like bad Sci-Fi where all the humans are good guys, and the aliens are BEM.  Or something.  Even though the races don't, to the best of my knowledge exist, it just feels wrong to make out that humans are somehow better like that.   

Oh well, if players didn't want non-human PC's I'd probably have all-human settings by default anyway.  Mostly because creating a half dozen or so options is way too much trouble even when I crib a few here and there.  But a few times I've not even had humans just to do something different.


----------



## Orius (Jun 7, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> I remember from the games back then, that we just ingnored the level caps.




I think a lot of groups ignored them, which then made them entirely pointless.



Olli said:


> well, at least in BECMI, if you played low-level games, the elf was always the superior choice (spells like a MU, weapon and armor selection of a fighter and d6 HD). If one could reap up the necessary attributescores, there was no reason not to play an elf!!!!! The same does NOT apply to dwarves and halflings, as they were not much bettter then the fighter respectively!!!!!




That's a good point too.  To have a tweaked-out multiclass demihuman, you also needed to have the right prerequisite scores.   This also assumed rolling the straight 3d6 for your scores.  So if you were using 3d6 stat generation, you'd have more plain vanilla human fighters and stuff like that because the dice didn't roll in your favor.

But then when you throw in 4d6 rolls (which everyone did), it's easier to get the pre-requisites, and then expand the level limits well above name level like 2e did, then the whole system seems stupid, because now you've stacked the odds in your favor.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jun 7, 2009)

> That's always struck me as so chauvinistic as to be distinctly unappealing. It's like bad Sci-Fi where all the humans are good guys, and the aliens are BEM.




I know what you're saying, and I agree; it's absolutely chauvinistic. 

I also think it's consistent with the literary/mythical idea of the Hero (who is human [or a demigod], but not an _elf_). Human champion overcomes all obstacles etc. Achilles is only a 15th-level Fighter in 1e _Deities and Demigods_. 

It depends on the kind of mood you want to evoke in your game, I guess. And I hadn't necessarily considered myself an apologist for the notion of level caps until today, but they do make a certain kind of sense. Demi-humans in 1e (for me, at least) still straddle the threshold between "monster" and "person", although they fall closer to the idea of "person" than say, an otyugh.

I feel almost that humans are _entitled_ to progress in class levels, whereas for demi-humans it's more a privilege: they are half-monster.

Even the name, _demi_-human...


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 7, 2009)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Even the name, _demi_-human...




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.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 7, 2009)

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 (Jun 7, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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.




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 (Jun 7, 2009)

mmadsen said:


> What's fascinating about level limits is how they work almost perfectly _against_ what seems reasonable to most people.  If anything, you should have a hard time finding any nigh-immortal elves _under_ the level limits.



 you know that almost makes sense...



Belorin said:


> One reason was that Dwarves, Elves, etc, got to multiclass and humans could only dual class which meant giving up your first class until you passed it in levels of your second class.



 This we saw as backwords...



Sepulchrave II said:


> I always used race/level limits, and never had a problem with them.
> 
> I find the philosophical notion that humans - alone of all species - have  unlimited potential in any area to be rather appealing.




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 (Jun 7, 2009)

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.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 7, 2009)

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 (Jun 7, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 7, 2009)

Ironic? I don't think so.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 7, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Ironic? I don't think so.




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?)


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 8, 2009)

> 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.)



This is incorrect. Gygax said directly, on this board, that reaching name level should take about one year (52 weekly game sessions).

Bullgrit


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> 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?)



Same reason as with non-humans! Ditto (pre-UA) ability-score requirements: a prejudice against proliferation, extreme at exceptionally high levels.

Lift the caps if you like. The Great Druid and Grandfather of Assassins require (besides the trial by combat) only 1,500,001 XP -- the same as a 14th-level fighter or magic-user. _Unearthed Arcana_ takes druids up to 23rd level (Hierophant of the Cabal) via something sort of like the bardic colleges. For assassins, one might try +500,000 XP per level, a 16th HD (Hidden Imam?) and +2 HP per level thereafter. Higher levels of monk could also be +500,000 XP for +2 HP. (These are just off the cuff.) Good luck rolling a bard in the first place; I think 23rd (on top of the fighter and thief levels) is plenty!


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 8, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> This is incorrect. Gygax said directly, on this board, that reaching name level should take about one year (52 weekly game sessions).
> 
> Bullgrit



Really? Weird. I thought I remembered an editorial of his way back when where he said something different; it's possible he changed his mind, or I'm misremembering.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 8, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Really? Weird. I thought I remembered an editorial of his way back when where he said something different; it's possible he changed his mind, or I'm misremembering.





			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play.



I assume that it is actually the _character's_ survival in question; player mortality in "old school" games has been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 8, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Really? Weird. I thought I remembered an editorial of his way back when where he said something different; it's possible he changed his mind, or I'm misremembering.



It wouldn't be surprising.  Gygax certainly has both changed his mind, and just changed his statements (because the original statement was in his official TSR position).


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 8, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Really? Weird. I thought I remembered an editorial of his way back when where he said something different; it's possible he changed his mind, or I'm misremembering.



This is what I based my statement on. Its entirely possible that I misremembered, but I suspect that he changed his mind. As someone else pointed out, he's certainly done that on more than one occasion!


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 9, 2009)

> Really? Weird. I thought I remembered an editorial of his way back when where he said something different; it's possible he changed his mind, or I'm misremembering.



For what it's worth:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-108.html#post2766231


			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> The number of XPs given to rise a level was initially intuitive, later on based on th play of my campaign group. I think that 52 sessions to reach 10th level is about right if the time per session is about four hours. Longner sessions would reduce the number accordingly.



* * *

The ironic thing with demi-human level limits, in my experience, is I never saw anyone reach a limit through play from low levels. PCs died before reaching higher levels.

Although, one time I did tell the Players I was going to start a campaign off at higher level, and I gave them the xp number (putting a single-class character at about 11th level). They all (6) chose to play elves. All the PCs started the campaign at their class maximums (some single classed, some multi classed). The campaign lasted only around 5 game sessions, so again level limits didn't come into play.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 10, 2009)

And: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/239789-lets-read-entire-run-2.html#post4451449


> An essay by Gygax on what constitutes successful gamemastering. As expected it is quite oriented towards competitive play, chastising GM's who let their players advance level too quickly, and encouraging strict enforcement of timekeeping rules. We also get our first estimation of proper advancement time. According to Gary, it should take about a year of weekly gaming to get to name level, and then characters should gain around 2-3 levels a year after that, so overall, getting to 20th level should take around 4-5 years.



Bullgrit


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 10, 2009)

*But*


> As _BLACKMOOR_ is the only campaign with a life of five years, and _GREYHAWK_ with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the  most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge, no player in either _BLACKMOOR_ or _GREYHAWK_ has risen above 14th level.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 10, 2009)

Ariosto's posted quote, above, is what I remember!


----------



## MerricB (Jun 10, 2009)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Ariosto's posted quote, above, is what I remember!




There's no contradiction: "Name" (8 or 9th) level should take about a year (or slightly more than that; say 40-60 sessions) to achieve. The levels above that come at a crawl: 2-3 levels per year, according to Gygax's early writing.

For a five-year campaign, that gives:
The first year to reach 9th level.
The following four years to reach 21st level (3 levels/year).

So, it's possible to reach 20th level in Blackmoor/Greyhawk... although no-one had done so when Gary wrote that article.

The demi-human limits are built very heavily around an assumed retirement level for PCs - once Name level is reached, your PC is probably more concerned with territory building than normal adventuring. Thus, in a campaign that ends at about 10th level, having a elf fighter 5/magic-user 8 isn't really far off the pace.

Of course, these limits were also imposed in the very early days of the game, before Gary really got to see how long certain PCs would be active. When you have the high-level magic-users that later appeared, that elf is looking a lot less interesting. 

Thus it was - and I don't really know how much Gary had to do with it, but I assume at least some - the levels were increased in Unearthed Arcana for high ability scores, and then, a little later, they were much increased in 2nd edition by the new team.

Unfortunately, the 2nd edition increases totally ignored how the XP charts work and the effect of "Name" level. Territory development had basically gone from the game by that time, but the plateau effect of the Name levels meant that while an multiclass character wasn't far behind the curve in AD&D for the levels they were active (a fighter/magic-user could expect to be only one or two levels behind a single-class character), by the time the 2e F/MU was wandering about at levels 10+, they were slipping behind more and more and more!

Not so much of a problem with the fighter-types, but a huge problem for the magic-using types.

Cheers!


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 10, 2009)

Yes: What's reasonably possible is not what "should happen" in some automatic fashion. One factor to bear in mind is that a long-played character is likely to get involved in affairs to ends other than gaining treasure (the main source of XP). The characters' personalities and relationships tend in the long run to acquire "lives of their own" beyond such purely game-oriented concerns.

Probable rate and extent of advancement seems key, though, in considering level limits. If humans are likely to retire from full-time adventuring by 12th level or so, then a limit of 6th or 8th may be a good balance for non-humans. If the human career is likely to last much longer -- not only in levels but in real time -- then those caps may be too low.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 11, 2009)

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the design given as it was the first of it's kind and created in a different era.  But here is my understanding of it with some lead in for context: 


The Ability Scores represented six characteristics of real world adult humans and were not really meant as character attributes to be portrayed.  Their generation followed a bell curve meant to represent our world's demographic distribution of these six abilities among the adult human population, IIRC for ages 16-50.  The numbers represented 16 segments within that distribution. (Demographic segments are vertical slices of the bell curve, sometimes demographers use only four calling them quadrants)  So these 16 numbers, listed 3-18, were not game mechanisms, but descriptors of real world human ability.  In that way they were more like height and weight when written on a character sheet then any kind of numerical game mechanism.

By having a real world understanding about these six abilities, players could ostensibly predict how likely they were to succeed at a wide range of actions within the game world.  The actual game mechanisms tied to these scores were not meant to be known to the players at all.  Otherwise the players were judged to be playing a numbers game rather than a roleplaying game.  By using these descriptors, real world knowledge could then be used to overcome challenges in the game world according to how well the players understood those challenges based upon their correspondence with reality.  I should point out, that testing real world knowledge and ability was widely, but inaccurately considered a requirement of, if not the essence of roleplaying when the hobby began.

So fantasy, non-real world elements were defined within the game rules exclusively using what was believed to be real world descriptors in order that the players could understand and interact with these fantasy elements using each player's own real world knowledge.  To the best of my research into this, the purpose behind all this tying in of game mechanics to reality was because roleplaying was understood differently than it is today.  For at least 40-50 years roleplaying was thought to deal with reality, not fiction.   Sadly, this "not a fiction" myth was held by both psychodramatists and role trainers.  In RPS, or role training, roleplaying is still widely held by sociologists as unrelated to theatre.  So, within this era's widespread view, by adding in fantasy, non-real world elements D&D was considered "not roleplaying" by most people when it came out. It's my opinion that most of this game design and the philosophy behind it was an attempt to justify each and every element in the game by using real world terms and, especially, by testing participant's real world knowledge and ability.  All this because this testing was largely believed to be the primary objective of roleplaying.

So, fantasy races were termed "demi" humans, or semi-human "races" that could be played as long as their ability scores fell within the corresponding human/player understandable range of 3-18.  This I'll call the PC-Playable range.  One which was strictly limited to the 16 segment distribution based upon our own reality.  Unlike humans however, fantasy races were understood to have their own demographic distributions specific to their population's characteristics.  And when these racial distributions overlapped the PC-playable distribution, then certain classes were either fully playable, partially playable, or not roleplayable at all.  

Here are some examples: 

Halflings were weaker than humans. By my understanding, a PC halfling's Strength score corresponded to any other PC's Strength score on the 3-18 scale, but that halfling's score location upon their own race's demographic distribution was much higher.  I don't remember the numbers exactly, but an 18 on the hypothetical "Halfling Racial Strength" table equated to the Halfling Maximum Strength score on the PC 3-18 table.  Maybe an 8 IIRC.

Dwarfs could effectively be fighters to the highest limit of their race's distribution (8th?), could be thieves within the full spectrum of human understanding (unlimited), but were either too wise or too unwise (or perhaps just too inhuman) to be be playable as clerics (N/A).

All six abilities scores worked the same way defining each demi-human race according to the real world understanding of human abilities.  Scores outside the 3-18 range were considered impossible to roleplay because they were outside the spectrum of understanding by the players in real world terms - reality being the only the spectrum within which one could roleplay.

EDIT:
Lastly, I'm not exactly sure if ability scores were the sole reason some classes were judged playable or limited in their playability.  I believe other traits had an effect on these assumptions as well, but I don't as yet know how.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 11, 2009)

I very much doubt most, if not all, of the above. E. Gary, Dave A, and most of the earliest D&Ders were wargamers who added fantasy elements to their games. It had nothing to do with the psycological/sociological role assumption and role training mentioned. So what the p/s professionals thought of the phenomena of RPGs is irrelevent. IMNSHO.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 12, 2009)

Roleplaying in the Army is acted out wargaming. (link)  Hobby roleplaying is the sister half of hobby wargames.  Heck, U.S. army officers are still under strict regulations not to play RPGs or wargames with enlisted soldiers.


----------



## Zulgyan (Jun 12, 2009)

*To the OP:*

EGG said here in ENWorld, and back in AD&D DMG, that he wanted to keep the game humano-centric, and humans as the main protagonists of the game.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 12, 2009)

howandwhy99 said:


> Dwarfs could effectively be fighters to the highest limit of their race's distribution (8th?), could be thieves within the full spectrum of human understanding (unlimited), but were either too wise or too unwise (or perhaps just too inhuman) to be be playable as clerics (N/A).




Hmmm . . . how would you explain "NPC only" race/class combos, like Dwarven Clerics in 1st ed AD&D?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 12, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> Hmmm . . . how would you explain "NPC only" race/class combos, like Dwarven Clerics in 1st ed AD&D?



Pretty easily.  They were not "roleplayed" under the definition of the day, but were rather run by a neutral DM.  Only those being tested in their ability to perform the role were roleplaying.  This is why DMs were considered not to be roleplaying.  And why they could not run PCs alongside the players, seeing as they had the "test answers" on their side of the screen.  

EDIT: 
Auxiliaries, the people who play NPCs in RPGs, are pretty common in all forms of roleplaying, even today.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2009)

How do you explain that PC elves could have a 19 Dexterity - outside the human norms - and dwarves could have a 19 Constitution?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 12, 2009)

MerricB said:


> How do you explain that PC elves could have a 19 Dexterity - outside the human norms - and dwarves could have a 19 Constitution?



I can't.  Maybe 19 was believed to be another segment up on the bell curve? In the same way exceptional strength was?  19 == 18/00 essentially.

EDIT: Honestly, AD&D was D&D turned up to 11.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jun 12, 2009)

howandwhy99 said:


> Pretty easily.  They were not "roleplayed" under the definition of the day, but were rather run by a neutral DM.  Only those being tested in their ability to perform the role were roleplaying.  This is why DMs were considered not to be roleplaying.  And why they could not run PCs alongside the players, seeing as they had the "test answers" on their side of the screen.



Your ideas are intriguing, but I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with what Gygax and others were doing, back in the day. At least nothing in the posts of Old Geezer on RPG.net (one of Gary's friends and original players) implies anything like this.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 12, 2009)

I suspect that D&D was envisioned as a humanocentric game, so limiting the non-human races fit the "fantasy concept" and also seemed to fit in with the issue of game balance.  Level limits were constraints, but not crippling ones, when the "level scale" of the game was considered, with "name level" marking the upper end of the scale.  (The original _Men & Magic_ book referred to "top level" for the human classes, even though no firm limits were imposed.)

Also, I don't think the races and classes are best viewed as being rules of the world so much as definitions of typical archetypes for adventurers.  For example, I don't think all Elves in the campaign world need be (or should be) Fighter/Magic Users.  But PC elf adventurers typically are.  Similarly, I don't see the Cleric class as being the "rules for a holy man or priest in the game world."  Instead, I see the Cleric class as modelling a specific type of martial, adventuring saint or holy man who is physically capable and also performs spells/miracles.  I think the game world would also be full of other kinds of holy men and priests that don't follow Cleric class rules at all.  This helps explain why non-humans couldn't be Cleric's, originally.  It wasn't that Elves don't have religious leaders or priests or whatever, it's just that they aren't _Clerics_.

The obvious criticism of this approach is "well, what if I want to play such-and-such that doesn't fit this mold?"  I say, "go ahead, if you want to."  Come up with something fun and make the game your own.  But while doing so, consider that maybe the original approach isn't broken or stupid, it's just viewing the fantasy world with a different set of assumptions: one that doesn't attempt to set up a holistic system of rules that model everything, but rather bite-sized chunks that model specific concepts.  Not "these rules cover all holy men and divine magic" but "these rules cover a specific kind of adventuring holy man and his magic."  Not "these rules cover and define all Elves in the fantasy world," but "these rules cover the archetypical elven adventurer."  Et cetera.

My $0.02, for what they're worth...


----------

