http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/
I didn't - though during the timeframe you give, I was really only playing at the start of that. At that time we ignored level limits and allowed human multiclassing (heresy!). These days, though, level limits are observed.
You are totally welcome to it, man.Wheggi wrote:(and just to let you know Odhanan, this isn't any kind of attack on you. More just a conveinant spot to do some good ol' fashioned grognardian grumblin')
- Wheggi
Did you ever give out the collected money for landing on Free Parking?Wheggi wrote:Never. Never. NEVER.
PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Not "did you". The appropriate question is "do you"; we don't normally talk about AD&D in the past tense here.
And yes, I do and as far as I remember, always have.
The wording was important as well. I was careful to copy the exact wording from the original polls (including the mistake of "1977", though I did correct the typos in the poll options), so I can't be accused of falsifying the results.Nor I. I've honestly never understood the hatred for level limits; it's not like they matter for most races in a properly refereed AD&D campaign, where it'll take years to reach level 9. I suppose if you were fool enough to play a single-classed gnome or halfling fighter, it might matter, but that's just the rules' way of saying you made a very poor choice of characterWheggi wrote:Never.
Never nixed the demi-human racial limits.
Again, did anyone do this?Never let single-classed M/Us wear armor or weild swords.
Never let assassins be good-aligned.
Male human fighters with exceptional strength were rare enough that this never really mattered all that much, but I'd have used the rules as written too.Never let a female human fighter have 18/00 strength.
DittoNever let a player be a drow (UA is all optional in my world, fuck that book).
Alas, I cannot say the same, but I plead the foolishness of adolescence in my defense.Never used non-weapon proficencies.
I generally do as well, although I've incorporated some of the options from Supplement I into my current campaign and it's worked just fine. Mind you, after a year and a half of weekly play, no character is above 6th level (and most are below that), so level limits haven't become an issue yet. Still, I won't be relaxing them when the elf and dwarf PCs run into them (assuming they live that long).Geoffrey wrote:I've never relaxed the demi-human level limits. In fact, I prefer the lower 1974 level limits.
See this? I hate this attitude. To me this is just being a jerk. "Well you're an idiot for making that character in the first place! Now you're just gonna have to watch all the other players advance while you don't, or retire a PC you've played for 1~2 years. Yeah, I could have stopped you from making this decision back when we started, but I thought it would be more true to the game for you get this huge, stinking, steaming, pile of disappointment crapped on you."I suppose if you were fool enough to play a single-classed gnome or halfling fighter, it might matter, but that's just the rules' way of saying you made a very poor choice of character
T. Foster wrote:My first D&D character was a dwarf (created under B/X as a "dwarf," later converted over to AD&D as a dwarf fighter) who maxed out at 8th level (due to 17 Str) after about a year and a half of play. When that happened I kept playing him for awhile (for non-spellcasters at high level a difference of a couple-three levels isn't all that pronounced, especially since as a dwarf he had big saving throw bonuses) but eventually he went from being a main protagonist character to more of a background supporting character and he entered semi-retirement and became a quasi-NPC, and I mostly played other characters -- a half-elf ranger (who also maxed out at 8th level and ended up in pretty much the same boat as the dwarf), and two humans -- a fighter and a bard. The decision to make the latter characters human was motivated in part by having had two characters max-out (the ranger hadn't maxed out yet when they were created, but the dwarf had and I knew what was coming for the ranger) and wanting to have a character with unlimited potential -- and my fighter eventually reached 12th or 13th level (don't remember exactly, and it's been ~20 years since I last played him), so it paid off
Other players had similar experiences with their own dwarf, elf, and half-elf characters (the only gnome I can recall was a thief, and I don't think anyone ever played a halfling or half-orc) and we rolled with it, and eventually everybody ended up with at least one unlimited character. I suppose it's worth noting that we didn't limit ourselves strictly to one character per player -- most of us had a stable of at least 2 characters who we would rotate between from session to session -- so it wasn't like I played only my dwarf character until 8th level and then had to start totally fresh with a new 1st level ranger while everyone else had 9th+ level characters. By the time my dwarf hit 8th level my ranger was already at about 4th, and by the time the other characters the dwarf was adventuring with got enough higher than him that the difference was becoming noticeable (about 11th level) the human fighter and bard had gotten high enough level to fit in with that group and take his place (because they were played more often and low level characters gain levels so much more quickly than high level ones).
So every version of D&D from 1974 to 2000 was simply mistaken and encouraging jerkiness? That's a fascinating perspective.Irda Ranger wrote:See this? I hate this attitude. To me this is just being a jerk.