Did you follow the rules for racial level limits in AD&D?

[Random]

Considering I was born almost nine months into 1986, it's not entirely appropriate to answer... but for what it's worth I have always assumed demi-human level limits (playing the 2nd Edition through no fault of my own) were absolutely set in stone. I was all for new and variant rules, but to outright disregard what seemed like perfectly reasonable rules for demi-human characters didn't even cross my mind.

I can only assume I'd feel the same if I were ten years older.

*awaits horrible shouts*

[Benoist]

As for me, yes, we were using the level limits in First Ed, and moreover, we never even thought there was a problem with them (whereas in a vast majority of cases, the WP vs. AC table was utterly discarded, and the combat system was more or less applied, depending on the particular table).

I can remember tables discarding level limits at some point, but it was far later, during the 2nd edition days. A sign of the times and the gradual evolution of the users' mentality, I'd say.

[Philotomy Jurament]

We followed the 1e limits. I don't remember it ever being a big issue.

[Stonegiant]

My DM for AD&D was very much against level limits so we didn't use them, I was primarily a B/X (Moldvay/Cook) DM and we did use level limits in those games but the differences between them and the humans wasn't very large.

[MojoBob]

I don't recall level limits ever becoming an issue. I suspect if it had been we would have just dropped them.

[TRP]

I strongly believe that the character generation rules should not have "bad choices" available. There are plenty of opportunities during play to make bad choices, but choosing a class and race isn't the time for that. If you (as a DM/game designer) don't want Halflings to be good Fighters, just don't allow them as a PC choice. If they are a choice they should be able to level up with everyone else, for however long the game lasts.

That's a newer gaming philosophy, that all paths are equal. No, they're not. Choices are made from beginning to end in the game. Some are good; some are bad. You learn (or should learn) to make the good choices through experience. That's how you learn at every strategy game. Sometimes (often really) you have to have your ass handed to you before you see the error of your ways. It's how you get better as a player. If a character begins life wearing a bicycle helmet, knee & elbow pads and training wheels, then you're arresting the *player's* development.

[BlackBat242]

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.

Ditto... except I played from 12/82 onward (am still doing 1E when I can get people to). And I still don't apply them.

I don't remember any of the dozen or so DMs I played under applying them either.

Yes, I know all about the limits being there almost entirely to force the "human-centric" world Gary, etc preferred... but not all of us are species-ists.

We found the human multi-classing neatly balanced the demi-human level limit removal (people still played lots of humans)... and we allowed demis more class access as well... no Dwarven Magic-users, however!!

[Gray Mouser]

I'm curious how many people respected the level limits set out in the AD&D 1E Players Handbook during its 1978-1989 era.

I did. I never saw anything wrong with the demi-human level limits as they were written. There were a couple of times when I thought it would be great if Gnomes could be a bit better as Fighters or Illusionists or if Elves could get even higher as M-U's but that never led me to think the rules were "broken" in any way.

If you want your Fighter to be the next Conan-level conquorer of worlds then I'd suggest simply not having a halfling Fighter PC.This doesn't mean the race as presented is wrong, much less that racial level limits is a bad idea. EGG was using various literary influences when he designed A/D&D and those influences were what led to level limits, IMHO. Part of the attraction to races such as halflings is that in the Hobbit and the LotR they were presented as being kind of a demi-human "everyman" which, when faced with adversity, rose to meet challenges other members of "greater" races simply couldn't or wouldn't overcome. Did freeing the dwarves from the Eleven king's jail make Bilbo a 15th level thief? No. Did getting the Ring to Mordor and into Mount Doom make Frodo and Sam super-hero level Fighter/Thieves? Hardly. It meant they used the resources available to them. The same could be said for any demi-human race in AD&D. If you reach your level limit there's no need to stop playing simply because your human companions are going to continue to raise in levels. You can adventure, get more gold, more powerful magic-items and still make great contributions to the game and have fun running a character that you enjoy.

I will say that when UA came out I was of two minds about the new higher limits. As it stands now I don't use them, sticking with the limits presented in the PHB. In some campaigns I house rule that single classed demi-humans can exceed the PHB limits by 2 levels (thus an Elf with 18 INT could be a 13th level M-U but would still be limited to 11th level if a Fighter/M-U) but that's actually how I remember Gary writing the new level limits when they appeared in an old issue of Dragon before UA was published. This generally keeps the races in the same "proportion" as they were originally intended and the slight bumps that it does allow don't upset things as they only apply to non-multi-classed characters.

[James Maliszewski]

That's a newer gaming philosophy, that all paths are equal. No, they're not. Choices are made from beginning to end in the game. Some are good; some are bad. You learn (or should learn) to make the good choices through experience. That's how you learn at every strategy game. Sometimes (often really) you have to have your ass handed to you before you see the error of your ways. It's how you get better as a player. If a character begins life wearing a bicycle helmet, knee & elbow pads and training wheels, then you're arresting the *player's* development.

This can't be repeated enough, as it's one of the key differences between many (most?) early RPGs and later ones.

I'll add that I think gaining new levels isn't the only way characters can "progress" in D&D. Even a level-capped halfling fighter can be fun to play in a campaign where all his human companions are of much higher level. Certainly his hit points are lower and his odds of hitting an opponent are less, but that only means it's more of a challenge to play him, not that he's no longer a viable character. I had one guy in the campaigns of my youth who seemed to revel in one-upping our mutual friends with their humans PCs with his own level-capped gnomes and halflings. Not everyone is going to enjoy that sort of thing certainly but I am certain the guy was having lots of fun, as were the rest of us (even the players of humans whom he made look bad by his skill).

[Wheggi]

Correct. The numerical 'level' is not the only way characters progress in this game. The aquisition of influence (political and social), treasure, magical items, land and even potential deification are all viable reasons to keep Bonko the Halfling Fighter in the game even after he's reached his level cap.

- Wheggi
NOW PLAYING ON RADIO WHGI: Midnight Express by Extreme
Very nice on a Saturday morning

[T. Foster]

Correct. The numerical 'level' is not the only way characters progress in this game. The aquisition of influence (political and social), treasure, magical items, land and even potential deification are all viable reasons to keep Bonko the Halfling Fighter in the game even after he's reached his level cap.

This. My level-capped dwarf (mentioned in the cross-board quote by Odhanan upthread) remained part of the campaign even when he fell behind the other characters levelwise because he had a large retinue of henchmen, he had a castle (and an army to guard it), and he had way more money than any of my other characters. So even though he didn't much go into dungeons anymore he still existed in the game and the other characters would still interact with him, with his castle serving as their de facto home base.

Also, I agree that a level-capped demi-human can continue adventuring with a higher level party and not be totally worthless or a liability. Mixed-level parties, even widely mixed-level, were the norm in the early hobby and the idea of every character being the same level within +/- 1 only came about later, when the shape of the game changed from being about the world to being about the story of the party. A level 5/9 elf f/m-u or a level 8 dwarf fighter can still make a useful contribution in a party alongside, say, a 12th level mage and a 12th level fighter -- the elf can't cast as many or as high level spells as the human but presumably has memorized different spells (thus increasing the versatility of the party), the dwarf has lower hp and THAC0 than the human but not hopelessly so and his saving throws against poison and magic are still superior to the fighter's, plus both of them still retain their other miscellaneous racial abilities (infravision, surprise and secret-door-spotting bonus and charm immunity for the elf, underground skills and the ability to use the full powers of a +3 warhammer for the dwarf) that the humans don't. Now, once the human characters hit 15th or 16th level the demi-humans are totally outclassed and don't really belong in an adventuring party together, but given the expected campaign-shape and level-pacing of AD&D it's likely taken another 2+ years of play to get the characters to that level, which is plenty of time for the demi-humans' players to have worked up new (presumably human) characters up to at least close to that level themselves (because lower-level characters (especially lower-level characters who are played by experienced players and are tagging along with higher-level parties) gain levels so much more quickly than higher-level ones).

[tacojohn4547]

Never.

Never nixed the demi-human racial limits.
Never let single-classed M/Us wear armor or weild swords.
Never let assassins be good-aligned.
Never let a female human fighter have 18/00 strength.
Never let a player be a drow (UA is all optional in my world, fuck that book).
Never used non-weapon proficencies.

Never. Never. NEVER.

<snip>

God it's fun being a grouchy old man. Walt Kowalski, take notes!

And

That's a newer gaming philosophy, that all paths are equal. No, they're not. Choices are made from beginning to end in the game. Some are good; some are bad. You learn (or should learn) to make the good choices through experience. That's how you learn at every strategy game. Sometimes (often really) you have to have your ass handed to you before you see the error of your ways. It's how you get better as a player. If a character begins life wearing a bicycle helmet, knee & elbow pads and training wheels, then you're arresting the *player's* development.

You guys are my heroes. Seriously.

I would prefer to stick with the RAW on most counts, including this one. However, in actual play, I've not enforced level limits on demi-human PCs. I don't necessarily need a human-centric world to have fun in the games I run. I have a few players that make a big issue out of level limits, so I let that one slide. Do I have to turn in my K&K membership card for that?

[Random]

A related question, given that some of you (tacojohn, at least) have players who get their undies in a wad about racial level limits, do they have the same problem with class level limits.

I mean, do they stomp their feet and blow smoke out their ears until you write up rules for the Ultimate Grandmaster Assassin of the Universe?

At some point characters just don't get any better. They know the numbers from the beginning, so why complain?

[James Maliszewski]

Do I have to turn in my K&K membership card for that?

If you do, there's a long line ahead of you, so I wouldn't worry about it too much

[James Maliszewski]

A related question, given that some of you (tacojohn, at least) have players who get their undies in a wad about racial level limits, do they have the same problem with class level limits.

I mean, do they stomp their feet and blow smoke out their ears until you write up rules for the Ultimate Grandmaster Assassin of the Universe?

That's a very interesting question. My suspicion is that, because the level limits are comparatively high for the classes that have them -- well beyond the level to which most people play in AD&D -- the question rarely comes up.

At some point characters just don't get any better.

There is much wisdom here and, again, I think it highlights the changes that have occurred in gamers' conceptions of character "progression" since the early days. When I was a kid in the late 70s/early 80s, much as we enjoyed our characters' achievement of a new level, I don't think we enjoyed it any more than their getting a potent magical item or acquiring some position of importance within the campaign setting. There are plenty of other ways for a character to "progress" than gain new levels, as anyone who's played AD&D to the point where your character needs a mere 350,000 XP to attain his next level will tell you.