I'm just a few years shy of having played, in one form or another, Dungeons & Dragons for half a century (yes, I am old). In all the years that I've played the game, there have been certain constants, chief among them being complaints about aspects of their rules that some players have found ridiculous. A very well-known example of what I'm talking about is alignment, the vocal dislike of which has been commonplace since at least the mid-1980s and probably longer. Almost as common a target for criticism are class restrictions and level limits for demihuman characters.
Personally, I've never had a problem with them and still don't, but there's no denying that no edition of the game has ever done a good job of explaining why they were included, let alone necessary. Consequently, like alignment – another poorly explained game concept – I've heard complaints about dwarves not being allowed to be paladins or elves being worse magic-users than humans for decades. I suspect Gary Gygax heard them a lot too, judging from how often these questions came up in his "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" column in Dragon magazine.
For the most part, Gary was pretty adamant in his belief that D&D's implied setting was humanocentric, thereby justifying demihuman class restrictions and level limits. However, as the years wore on, he started to soften his stance, especially in the years prior to the publication of Unearthed Arcana, as he was more seriously pondering the future direction of AD&D – and by "soften," I mean he more or less capitulated on the matter entirely. Unearthed Arcana (and the articles that preceded it) more or less opened the floodgates to demihumans being able to enter most classes and achieve much higher levels in them than had previously been allowed.
The prudence of that can be debated. However, Gygax goes further in his next article on the subject. “New Jobs for Demi-humans” appeared in issue #96 of Dragon (April 1985), in which he loosens level limits for non-humans yet again, this time by tying them to high ability scores. For example, after allowing all demihumans to become clerics, he connects their maximum attainable level to their Wisdom. The higher the score, the higher the level cap. He even provides a chart laying out the precise relationship between Wisdom and maximum level, with the highest score listed as 20.
It’s possible Gygax thought he was being clever here. By reserving the highest levels for characters with extraordinary ability scores, he may have imagined he was preventing the vast majority of demihumans from ever reaching parity with humans. However, if my own experience is anything to go by, all this actually did was subtly encourage ability score inflation, something to which AD&D was already prone, thanks in part to its methods of ability score generation and its profusion of sub-classes with steep ability score requirements.
To me, this is a much worse sin than merely allowing an elf to be a ranger or a halfling to be a druid. Doing so simply expands the range of character concepts. By contrast, tying level limits to high ability scores undermines the logic that supposedly motivated level limits in the first place while simultaneously pushing players toward the very sort of min-maxing behavior that AD&D’s design otherwise tries to discourage. If you tell a player that the only way for his dwarf cleric to reach 11th level is to have an 18 Wisdom, you are no longer meaningfully limiting demihumans so much as ensuring that all dwarf clerics will eventually 18 Wisdom, one way or another.
Players being what they are respond to game mechanical incentives. They seek out every legal method of getting the desired high scores, whether rolling and rerolling until they get what they want, using the aforementioned generous generation methods, using wish spells, magic tomes, or anything else the Dungeon Master permits. The result is not a world in which humans remain the assumed norm, with demihumans as colorful exceptions. Instead, you get a world in which ability scores creep upward across the board, because the game itself makes it clear that high scores are not merely beneficial but necessary to avoid being mechanically shortchanged.
In other words, this approach doesn’t preserve the humanocentric assumptions Gygax continued to claim were his rationale. Instead, it undermines it and encourages players of demihuman characters to look for every loophole possible to achieve their ends. Most importantly, it takes what had originally been a blunt piece of design – demihumans shouldn't outshine humans – and replaces it with something far more corrosive: a system that appears to be about setting and balance, but is instead about gaming the numbers.

I think I could have lived with level limits, but for the fact that elves could not cast Enchant An Item or Permanency, let alone Wish, and were therefore shut out of making magic items (at least using the discussion on p. 118 of the 1e DMG as a model). Elves being incapable of making magic items seemed a fundamental breach of the archetype.
ReplyDeleteAnd it does not cohere well with having magic items named "cloak of elvenkind" and "boots of elvenkind." Why are they "of elvenkind" if elves can't make them?
DeletePerhaps you need to make them out of elves…
DeleteMeh.
ReplyDeleteLook at Gygax's pregens for D1-2. All but 1 character has several scores 16+, with at least 1 with 3 18s (iirc).
And demihuman level was tied toprime requisites since Greyhawk (the book).
What you suggest is capitulation was most likely Gary conceding howhe had already expanded the ruleset.
After all, most of those "new classes" for demihumans were already mentioned in the PHB, where they were suggested to be npc-only. And already repeatedly broken at cons (cf. aforementioned D1-2 pregens & the Elf Cleric included in the line-up).
I haven't really seen the problem. While players might be very interested in raising their ability scores, a DM who doesn't tilt the field toward making that happen and sticks to the very rare ways of doing so listed in the DMG and UA will keep that from being any sort of problem. Cavaliers still suck, though, in part because they break that attribute economy, and Fighters or Paladins with lance proficiency already fill that niche so it's an unnecessary class.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I like Advanced Fighting Fantasy. Demi-humans have the Darkseeing Talent and several extra languages built in, and lose an extra Skill slot, but that is it. There are zero limits to anyone else otherwise....
ReplyDeleteRight! All this gate keeping was/is really annoying, and did not age well. Why the obsession with maintaining a sort of racial hierarchy? As for ability scores and their associated modifiers, good grief! We'd be so much better off with a simple bell curve: 9-12 gets 0 modifier, 13-15 gets +1, 16-17 gets +2, 18 gets +3, instead of all that crazy growth (penalty) at far ends of the curve. When I was 13, I thought these were rules to be learned; but now I see it's just subjective whimsy.
ReplyDeleteYou're describing the B/X modifiers! I always preferred them to the AD&D modifiers. They gave lower scores some bonuses (starting at 13 rather than 15 or 16) and didn't get so big (especially for percentage strength!) at 18.
DeleteThe reason for the AD&D bonuses starting higher than the B/X bonuses (15 rather than 13) is B/X keeping the 3d6 and AD&D moving to 4d6 drop low and other methods. The % chance of getting a 15+ on 4d6 drop low is the same as getting a 13+ on 3d6. It keeps the bonus math close to prior but radically reduces the chance of penalties by lowering the number they stop at and giving the adjusted bell curve.
DeleteI notice lots of people want to remove the level caps, but never want to give up darkvision or ability bumps, or the ability to cast magic and wear armor. weird.
ReplyDeleteNicely said! Indeed... This mirrors my own experience in 40 years of gaming, too.
DeleteIf Gygax wanted humans to be the dominant race, he could have simply made them the best mechanically so that they would naturally dominate, instead of artificially limiting demihumans by giving them insurmountable learning disabilities at arbitrary levels.
ReplyDeleteI am old-fashioned on these points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I insist that the six ability scores are always rolled in the sight of the DM: 3d6 in order, set in stone. No cheating, no fiddling, no gimmes. This is true also for the DM's NPCs, which prevents not only inflated stats but also preposterous numbers of sub-classes, monks, and bards running around.
Second, I like 1974's class and level limits:
Dwarves (and gnomes) can be fighters up to 6th level.
Elves can be fighters up to 4th level and/or magic-users up to 8th level.
Hobbits can be fighters up to 4th level.
And that's it.
I could certainly be wrong, but I think this might have been a legacy issue more than anything else. The original rules had level limits for elves, dwarves, and hobbits. Why include those races in the first place in the humanocentric world? For ease of being seen as the game that let you play out Tolkien? To give a second dimension to character options? Regardless of why, they were included, and of hobbits the description even begins, "Should any player wish to be one," implying many players would see no point in playing such a character. But they're in there, with the very low level limits to make them less attractive than humans. Greyhawk raised those limits slightly with ties to ability scores. However, Greyhawk also introduced thieves, who could be of any race, and had no limits. So now we have a mix, both capped and uncapped possibilities for demi-humans. Maybe it would have just been too much for AD&D to remove the caps, as it would have been almost impossible to justify without adding some new drawback(s). There's also the benefit of multi-classing to consider in re-balancing. I think when Gygax later raised the limits with higher ability scores in those Dragon articles, he may have meant it as something close to an experience point penalty: consider that your 11th level hill dwarf fighter with 18/00 strength is going to need to adventure for more than 250,000 xp worth of time to find some means to raise his strength to 19 and therefore his level cap to 12, and probably way more to then raise to 20 to increase the level cap to 14. After all, each raised point takes 10 wishes, or one of the nearly impossible to manage as written tomes/manuals/librams (which you can't repeat). I can imagine this being "balanced" in a way, as you could have, all else being equal, a 17th level human fighter with, say 18/76 strength and 18 dexterity, both having benefited from wishes or other magics, and a set of magic items, and a 14th level hill dwarf fighter with 20 strength but only 16 dexterity and a lesser set of magic items because much of his selection of spoils and other wealth went towards those strength increases.
ReplyDeleteI found that players who wanted to play Demi-humans typically did so more because they wanted to multi-class than because they wanted to play a specific Demi-human. So, I began allowing humans to multi-class in two classes, with set level limits - 8 for all classes except thieves and assassins, which are capped at 9. The use of Demi-humans dropped off significantly.
ReplyDeleteI very much have mixed feelings about level caps and class restrictions.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely hate linking them to high stats, for one.
My ruleset of choice is Advanced Labyrinth Lord, so I ended up using the standard class and level restrictions but with "soft" level caps.
That is, once demi-humans reach the level cap, they can keep progressing with a 50% XP penalty.
It's also a very good thing, imho, that in ALL there is no Dual-classing and that humans have access to unrestricted multi-classing.
At the same time I right away give humans a 10% xp bonus.
---Jim Hodges
ReplyDeleteI always took comfort from the bit in the DM Guide that there were no rules in D&D, only rule suggestions, and we pretty much did what we wanted re: alignment (never a fan) and racial/species restrictions. I think as a result we honestly had more fun.
One difference in player outlook I noticed between my era of playing D&D in the early to mid 1980s and my brother's time from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s was that while we seemed loose with rules sometimes, the kids who came in about a decade after us seemed to want rules established for anything and everything, even if it meant halting a session in order to find a rule in a book, or barring that to hash out an agreed upon precedent. (I started jokingly calling their D&D books the Talmud, because they consulted them almost religiously.)
Honestly, I think we got a lot more playing in than they did, had fewer fights, probably enjoyed our sessions more. I'm glad I got to be part of the golden era of the hobby.