|
|
Post by merias on Feb 27, 2015 8:56:26 GMT -5
Curious what others use as far as house rules here. I like the BFRPG-style 10% XP bonus for humans, combined with no limits for the other races.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 27, 2015 9:21:48 GMT -5
I normally run it as per the 3LBBs. However, I have been known to just ignore it on occasion.  |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Feb 27, 2015 9:46:10 GMT -5
I don't use level limits but I do let humans freely multi-class. I'm not sure what level limits are supposed to accomplish. You get the bonuses now but pay the penalties later.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 27, 2015 9:54:06 GMT -5
I have 10 as name lvl for men.
I have 7 as name lvl for Fay.
Fay is just dwarves and elves. I don't run hobbits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Feb 27, 2015 10:16:18 GMT -5
I would say in theory I don't implement level limits - but high-level play hasn't come up that often and those times my players didn't happen to happen any non-human characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Feb 27, 2015 11:03:04 GMT -5
As prescribed in the 3LBBs, of course.
Humans are also capped at 9/11/8 for fighting-man/magic-user/cleric respectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by merias on Feb 27, 2015 11:59:21 GMT -5
As prescribed in the 3LBBs, of course. Humans are also capped at 9/11/8 for fighting-man/magic-user/cleric respectively. Interesting - do you alter the spell progression for M-Us, or just not allow 6th level spells? |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Feb 27, 2015 17:25:49 GMT -5
As prescribed in the 3LBBs, of course. Humans are also capped at 9/11/8 for fighting-man/magic-user/cleric respectively. Interesting - do you alter the spell progression for M-Us, or just not allow 6th level spells? I've never seen a magic-user get close to that level, but there's a kink in magic-user spell progression at the level. Based on the spell progression over the first 10 levels, a magic-user should get his first 6th-level spell upon reaching "wizard" at level 11. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 27, 2015 18:03:29 GMT -5
FWIW "demi-humans" don't appear in the 3LBBs or in Greyhawk... OD&D has "man-types"  |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Feb 27, 2015 18:14:35 GMT -5
I had these thoughts after Makofan proposed non-humans getting 1/4 XP after they surpassed the level limits:
Way back in the day, the group of gamers Glen Blacow was in gave 1/2 XP to non-humans above their level limit.
I've yet to quite reconcile my thoughts on level limits. There definitely needs to be some downside of playing a non-human, on the other hand, level limits can make playing a non-human in a long running campaign depressing. Meanwhile, as a limit at low level, they don't really serve as any sort of limit.
On the other hand, I see another way. Garfund is getting close to parity with Jariel, at some point they will become more companion than hero and henchman. Maybe I take over Garfund as the PC, and Jariel becomes the trusted companion (hmm, here's an interesting rule idea: ONE character from a player's retinue is the primary PC and gains full XP, the others gain half XP, treasure division is up to the player, with the retinue getting one share). Then, once Jariel tops out, Garfund could get the full XP share (and at that point, probably Jariel and Garfund would each take a 4/10 treasure share, with the other two henchmen each getting a 1/10 treasure share).
And if the 1/4 XP rule also applies, Jariel would VERY slowly make levels, while the whole retinue can still be an interesting group to play.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 28, 2015 22:47:36 GMT -5
I tried level limits several times but I prefer none at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 1, 2015 2:14:41 GMT -5
I don't have a unilateral approach to these things, but if I want to make a particular point about which type of sentient being holds the power and all the cards I am likely to institute caps at sub-domain level for others. On TITAN or whatever the Vel can only achieve domain-holding level in Magic User, the Half-Orcs in Assassin or (barely) in Fighter and Goblins in nothing at all. I don't use dwarves of any stripe at present, but there is a conceptual niche for them in which only their Clerics would be holding down a domain.
In another game I might do away with level limits by race and instead introduce them by class or by nation (if I want Magic Users to be a despised underclass they will be capped at one level below domain, or if I want a particular state to be a theocracy then only Clerics of any background may rise to domain level within its confines). The idea is to use the level caps to showcase how hierarchy functions in the world by limiting what is possible for player characters to achieve in particular contexts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dartanian on Mar 4, 2015 23:06:49 GMT -5
I selected - / +
No, all races are able to advance to any level, and all races get prime attribute XP bonuses
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Mar 7, 2015 1:04:54 GMT -5
Even before d20 got rid of them I did not like them. So, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 7, 2015 1:10:34 GMT -5
The diversity on this question is quite cool. Love to see more votes.  |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Mar 7, 2015 6:57:17 GMT -5
I selected "Yes, as per 3LBBs!" but should clarify. For me, it's all about the scale of the campaign. When I run my standard OD&D campaigns I go with a scale something like this: Level 1 = flunky Level 4 = hero Level 8 = super hero Level 12 = mythic Level 13 = John Carter  My typical campaign is designed to cap out somewhere around 8th-10th level, so a level cap for non-humans is a nice perk for humans. Not so much as to totally unbalance the campaign, but a way that humans can become better near the end if they wait long enough. (Pretty much the same argument given for why magic users are so weak at low levels, then so strong later on.) If I decided to accelerate the scale of my campaign, I'd also accelerate the level caps. So, for example, if I decided to cap my campaign at level 15 instead of level 10, I'd multiply the "by the book" non-human caps by 1.5x so that non-humans don't become irrelevant at higher levels. |
|
|
|
Post by The Old Ref Himself on Mar 7, 2015 21:41:05 GMT -5
I run them all the same character design and level wise. However, the older races have withdrawn into the remote fastness and it is a rare one that journeys down to the vile rough world of the humans. Lets just say that they are not liked and are not generally welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 7, 2015 21:54:33 GMT -5
When it comes to it, I plan to use the limits from the 1981 expert book, which are more generous than LBBs or Greyhawk and not tied to stats. So dwarves at 12, hobbits at 8, and elves at combined 6/10, effectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Mar 10, 2015 12:45:25 GMT -5
There is a third option which is to apply level limits to NPCs but not PCs. I sort of do this in my monster charts where a NPC monster will have a randomly generated level range. For example, d4 for hobbits, d6 for dwarfs, d4/d8 for elves, etc.
This only addresses the "why don't elves take over the world?" question but doesn't address character balance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 13:40:21 GMT -5
I've always used them as they are in the LBBs. To be honest, though, I've never had any demi-humans make it to their level cap before dying or dropping out of play anyway, so it's hasn't ever come up as an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 30, 2015 14:21:32 GMT -5
So how often are people playing ODD and going waay beyond about level 10? This really is one of the more theoretical inquisitories.
The end game is, you make a pile of gold, you clear a hex, you build a castle, and you hire other people to go to war for you. Being a level 18 fighting man is not all that much better than being a level 9 fighting man. And for demi-men, who can keep piling up the good for as long as they want to, the couple-three extra hit dice is irrelevant after a while.
Now if you are playing a more fantastic campaign where the end game is something else, then maybe the additional hit points and fighting capability matter.
For Wizards, the spell chart stops improving at what? 16th? I don't recall. So they can't really get too much better at magic either.
The only killer level cap is the Elf's MU8. But that will come up very infrequently.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 30, 2015 16:09:42 GMT -5
The limit of 4th for fighting for halflings and elves is pretty significant, and dwarves only go to 6th. Elves don't get the two highest levels of spells, which is pretty significant.
In Makofan's PBP campaign, my elf is 4/6 and we have started the conversation about what comes after level limits. I have proposed allowing a henchmen to be played as gaining the full share of XP with the PC gaining the half share. Makofan has also proposed allowing proceeding beyond level limit at 1/4 experience. We'll see how it all plays out.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 30, 2015 21:29:05 GMT -5
Hmm. My thought is, you can keep adventuring and gaining XP, but there are no more level ups to be had.
I don't think lvl 4 is a terrible level cap for the hobbit because he can still use any magic sword and build a stronghold. Michael Mornard said Gary HATED hobbits, and the level 4 cap was a kind of punishment for playing one.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 7, 2015 14:51:21 GMT -5
If no level limits, the majority of players would play elves. In fact, I still have a lot of elves. And quite frankly, I didn't expect my campaign to last 8 years and have people hit their level limits. But now I don't want to punish my characters who have created some great characters. ffilz has articulated two excellent positions. I would love more ideas
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 8, 2015 10:51:04 GMT -5
One option is to simply reduce the amount of XP a character earns after reaching their max level. So elves will earn 1/2 or 1/4 the XP of their human companions. They keep leveling up but will fall behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:15:15 GMT -5
Option 3 is the way that I have generally run it over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 8, 2015 12:34:17 GMT -5
One option is to simply reduce the amount of XP a character earns after reaching their max level. So elves will earn 1/2 or 1/4 the XP of their human companions. They keep leveling up but will fall behind. That was part of Makofan's proposal (I think he went for 1/4, back in the day, Glenn Blacow and company did 1/2). I also proposed allowing the player to play one of his henchman as primary character with the original PC now only getting 1/2 share, either "wasted" by level cap, or further reduced by non-human progression rate. Frank Read more: ruinsofmurkhill.proboards.com/thread/129/demi-human-level-limits-games?page=2#ixzz3WjxHx1T2 |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 2, 2015 17:35:03 GMT -5
I definitely enforce them.
Just house-ruled a bit. I allow humans to multi-class, having up to two classes and operating in them ssimultaneously, if the second classes prime attribute is at least 16 (fighter/clerics need at least a 16 Wisdom, if fighter was the first class chosen).
Non-humans are expanded and extrapolated from the original elf idea; Each race has two iconic classes they may operate in simultaneously with no prime requisite necessity. Dwarfs = fighter and cleric, halfling = fighter and thief, elf remains fighter and magic-user.
Non humans may choose to start as both classes at first level, or only one at first and then swap into the other at later levels if desired.
elves only may operate in 3 classes at once (fighter, magic-user, and cleric) or a double combo of anything with thief.
Thing is, and most relevant to the OP, non humans may also choose at start to forever remain single-classed. If this option is chosen, they may reach one level higher than the normal maxima in that class (a 7th level dwarf fighter, for instance).
I love level caps and adhere to them. I believe them to be a necessary play balancer to keep humans a viable option, due to lack of greatly expanded saving throws (a real game-saver in my campaign) and extra abilities for the latter.
This is also due to my viewpoint of a near-humano-centric game world. Humans are numerous, and can achieve astonishing heights of power in they're relatively short lifetimes, albeit rarely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximum Forest Ranger on May 3, 2015 8:25:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I just use option 1. Always have, I like it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bear Hawk on May 4, 2015 12:08:21 GMT -5
Yep! I love me some level limits! |
|
