|
|
Post by merctime on Jul 5, 2015 15:31:08 GMT -5
And by this I mean, both as a player or referee/DM.
I see them as valuable to a team, for both detection abilities and better saving throws, but often saving throws don't seem to crop up enough to make them enticing for that reason. I usually just play humans, in the hopes of building a castle later.
But non-humans can build castles too! Anybody can. They just don't get benefits towards that due to high levels.
Besides, in OD&D, only the Cleric seems to have high level benefits to Castle building.
Obviously, level limits seem the obvious deterrent to playing non-humans. But, also, the thief class might be, too!
Why choose a level limited Dwarf or Elf if the human thief can detect everything? This bums me out, really. Both as a player and a referee. I like having non-humans around in play.
So what do you guys think? Do you like 'em, or just don't care? Is there a lack of them? Is that due to campaign specifics, or lack of player desire, or both? Or, what?
Just started thinking about this today for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jul 5, 2015 16:07:41 GMT -5
I've never used demi human level limits. The exception would be B/X where the game only goes to level 14 I let it stand there. I have thought about limiting demi human HD but allow level progression. I've never had an issue with everyone wanting only demi humans, but even if they did it wouldn't matter. The players show up to have fun not to hear no.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2015 5:39:27 GMT -5
Besides, in OD&D, only the Cleric seems to have high level benefits to Castle building. Not sure exactly what you mean merctime? "Lords" (as in name level characters of any class) can oversee/develop their protectorate, and have a base from which to police/fleece local traffic, and participate in the political theater. The 3LBBs are explicit that Fighters and Clerics can collect taxes, and imply that M-Us can too (M. Mornard confirmed this was an omission from the booklets over on odd74). Yes, a clerical stronghold will attract a force of faithful men that will serve (the Temple!) without pay, but this doesn't prevent fighters and M-Us assembling similar--or even greater--forces. Why choose a level limited Dwarf or Elf if the human thief can detect everything? Hmmm, well elves and dwarfs are not level limited in the thief class. And, assuming we're talking GH now, elves and dwarfs can also be combination characters. So even if they are limited in their other classes, they can continue to progress as thieves. Elves and dwarfs can see in the dark while Men cannot, which is a singularly useful ability for thieves. Neither can human thief detect "everything"; he doesn't inherit the dwarf's sense of direction underground, nor his talents around stonework; he doesn't inherit the elf's ability to spot secret doors (or other hidden things) by merely passing nearby. Moreover a human thief has not the dwarf's mastery of the +3 warhammer, the elf's ability to fire a bow on the move, nor the elf's *intimidating* combat prowess versus goblins, orcs, and ogres. In my view the regulation thief is generally a very different character to even the elf- or dwarf-thief; there can be a healthy niche for each. |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jul 7, 2015 10:11:35 GMT -5
We are absolutely on the same boat, Ways. I'm agreed on all points, and was a bit too hasty on my statement regarding Clerics and castles. But the benefits of a non-paid military force are quite large! Still, that in no way deters me personally from playing the other classes. All the points you brought up about non-humans are basically what I meant with this post. They have a ton of things to offer a player in offset to level limits. It's just that in my experience, the level limits become the only determining factor when considered by many players. I can see why you choose to disregard them, Bestial. I dig non-humans and what they bring to the game. But I don't want to relax the level limits myself, considering them an acceptable trade for all the stuff they can do. It's a conundrum for me. I just was interested in hearing some of your own experiences. I appreciate the correction regarding classes and castles, though.. To be sure, a castle at name level is directly beneficial to anyone attaining same. I suppose I brought that up to illustrate that, while Clerics gain an extraordinary benefit (in my opinion) of church support at name level in the form of troops and construction cost assists, I haven't seen many people choose or disregard that class over a Fighting-Man for that reason, but the level limits seem to act as a determining factor. I think it boils down to what someone feels like playing. Some benefits, then, are seen as primary to how one wants to play, while others may only be icing on the cake to some players : Nice, but not why they are playing that class. But the non-humans offer much the same as at least a fighting-man in play, and with excellent abilities to boot... But I still think the limits might kill the allure for some. I see the point on the thief, and I'm not against them at all, but I still think they offer a way to detect while still having unlimited progression. A shame, really... I think the benefits of a Dwarf underground are not to be disregarded. Excellent discussion, and thank you both. Wonder what more will be said here  |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Jul 7, 2015 10:27:52 GMT -5
I have the players randomly roll race as part of their background. It's far easier than trying to balance racial abilities, especially balancing them over the full level range (racial abilities become less valuable as the party levels up).
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jul 7, 2015 20:41:47 GMT -5
Now, that's an interesting way to do it!
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2015 21:39:30 GMT -5
I consider the non-human level limits to be appropriate for a game which natrually "tops out" somewhere around 10th-12th level.
I played an Elf fighter who achieved Hero status and retired (alive!) and I personally thought of that as "success". My elf had lived while so many other PCs had died along the way.
In the game I run a player has a hobbit who has also reach Hero status. The player doesn't want to retire the PC, so I've allowed him to become a combination character, and he's currently a Hero-Burglar (a 4th/4th fighter/thief). Meanwhile, the overall highest level player in the campaign after five years is a 6th level cleric.
I don't see the level limits as necessarily "limiting"; more they help define the scope of play.
|
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75 
|
Post by todd on Jul 8, 2015 10:55:19 GMT -5
I don't find the level limits problematic either for the reasons already mentioned and also, because of the high lethality in the game, there's a good chance that character won't survive long enough (or the campaign will die/finish too soon) to bump up against those limits anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Jul 8, 2015 13:11:23 GMT -5
I don't find the level limits problematic either for the reasons already mentioned and also, because of the high lethality in the game, there's a good chance that character won't survive long enough (or the campaign will die/finish too soon) to bump up against those limits anyway. Yeah, I while back I read an old quote from Gygax that said non-human races were good for characters with bad ability score rolls since those character will probably die before hitting their level limits anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Jul 19, 2015 11:31:38 GMT -5
The sort of person who wants to play an elf will generally do so whether there's a mechanical distinction to doing so or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by LouGoncey on Apr 4, 2016 22:51:06 GMT -5
When the non-human hits their level limits, all it means is all their continuing XPs are halved. They still gain them though.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Apr 7, 2016 5:21:51 GMT -5
I consider the non-human level limits to be appropriate for a game which natrually "tops out" somewhere around 10th-12th level. I don't see the level limits as necessarily "limiting"; more they help define the scope of play. This is the way I see it as well. (1) While OD&D has rules defined for higher level campaigns, in my mind the "design" of the game was to cap our somewhere around level 10 for player characters, a couple levels higher for NPCs, and only John Carter can advance to level 13.  (A little Warriors of Mars poke there.) (2) The level titles seem to enphasize this scale in my mind as well. The terms "hero" and "super hero" have certain meaning to me, and allowing advancement to be unlimited in the game seems to weaken the context of those terms. (3) With those ideas in place, I think that the level limits as stated in the rulebook work just find for my campaigns. Non-humans gain certain advantages early on, humans can advance farther at the end. Trade-off. (4) A note that when I move to a Barony-style campaign the character levels become essentially unimportant because at that stage you are a leader and not a combatant. As such, the "king of the dwarves" is no less valuable than a "king of a nation of men" even if their adventuring levels might differ. In other words, level limits have zero impact on my barony-level campaign phase, with the potential exception of spellcasters. If the character enters battle he or she is essentially limited to "Super Hero" on the Chainmail scale. This is not to say that someone else can't define their campaigns such that any other level is the cap. I ran a "max 20" game once and decided to double the level limits for non-humans to maintain a simlar power balance. Just how I do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 17, 2016 12:55:58 GMT -5
Why choose a level limited Dwarf or Elf if the human thief can detect everything? This bums me out, really. Both as a player and a referee. I like having non-humans around in play. So what do you guys think? Do you like 'em, or just don't care? Is there a lack of them? Is that due to campaign specifics, or lack of player desire, or both? Or, what? Just started thinking about this today for some reason. My original post didn't really address these questions. That's a shame. As a player I will take up a non-human character IF any of the following prerequisites are met: - they're really interesting in the world/setting, irrespective of mechanics - if there's some story or psychological quirk which hooks me
- there's a class or multiclass option which isn't available to humans, ESPECIALLY if I want to be multiclassed from the start
- the rest of the party are all human. BORING!
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 17, 2016 15:56:40 GMT -5
In principle, I like demihuman level limits. However, I'm thinking about working something up where another race is central (as humans are in D&D) and the set of humans + other races are limited from their perspective. In a way, this makes little sense, as the whole European canon has humans as central and changeful and the fay or whoever as powerful but somewhat limited by their "functions". But can I come up with something that makes sense and isn't just a reskinning of demihuman level limits? Has someone else? I need to look into this more.
|
|
(A little Warriors of Mars poke there.)
