I also think every race should be allowed to have clerics otherwise anything like an eleven racial deity makes no sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traditional fantasy protraits Hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves in a certain way, D&D was good at giving players a sense of that. That is what I feel has been lost - it has become more generic.
This is, like, bizarro logic.
So things are more generic now that we aren't forced to play with semi-Tolkien as every setting? On what planet does this make sense, so I can avoid going there?
How dare people not want to be yet another g~@#+#n dwarf fighter.People these days want to be that "beautiful or unique snowflake". Is there a stereotype? Do the opposite. Break all the conventions! I wanna be a good dark elf ranger with two long-blades for fighting style!
Being unique has become the stereotype. Apparently being "better than everyone else" isn't good enough.. you have to jarr the preconceptions too, otherwise you aren't doing it right.
Better still... play an anthropomorphic animal humanoid. Except that's been done too much now, so we really need to get into the weird (7 foot tall prey mantis people with mental powers, anyone?).
I guess my internets references went over peoples heads. My post was mostly hyperbole at the start.
A few lines further than what you quoted I refer to the "want to play something new" after 10 years playing the same edition.
|
Ignoring the useless posts by those against the idea in general...
I would like to thank those who gave their opinions on which classes/races especially the new classes seemed 'right'.
Another thought I just had, what about leave all race = all classes but have a level limiting system? This keeps the idea of 'unique' race/class combos but makes them less ultimaetly ideal from a pure class point of view (i.e. single class and capstone abilities).
What about a simple system that had Races that get -2 to a stat say STR for a Halfling top out at level 10 for Fighter class, if the stat racial mod is zero then level 15, and if +2 then level 20.
Works for the pure classes, but the MAD's are not so clear cut.
In general this means I do have to 'import' the idea of primary stat but it'll put a limit on classes people are likely to take per race perhaps?
Say for example Dwarven Paladin would only be able to reach level 10, but an Elven Wizard could be level 15.
Still mashing ideas around. Thoughts?
Constructive commenters most welcome and greatly appreciated, and I do wish to seem rude, all others please find another thread. Seriously it's MY game what if you don't like it - I really, really don't care. Again thanks to those with knowledge to help me not unbalance the game horribly.
Cheers,
S.
In retrospect I'm kind of surprised how much everyone liked extreme multiclassing. It's not as if you were becoming super powerful; in a 12th level party the 12th level wizard outclassed the f/w/t 5/4/3...
You're not remembering the multiclassing and leveling schematic.
A level 12 wizard was adventuring alongside a level 7/11/12 F/Wiz/Thief. This was because the amount of xp to advance doubled every level, and the xp for wizards was 375,000 xp at 12+. 375k xp got you to 12th level rogue all by itself! The xp for a ftr/7 was a pithy fraction of making level 11 in wizard.
Humans were always the odd man out in our campaigns. If you wanted to go single class fighter, they were okay, but you got so much mileage pre-10th, multiclass elves were always the better way to go...especially when they started loosening level restrictions. If you held absolutely to level restricts, then humans came into their own after 12th level...so they basically sucked for the toughest, funnest half of the game, then became gods.
And they still couldn't see in the dark.
And for the record, most Halflings were LG experts and the picture of contributing citizens. Most halfling rogues did it because they were good at it, not because they were greedy. AD&D had to really start moving away from the Tolkien image of halflings to justify a nomadic, thieving culture of halflings.
Oh, and Curley Greenleaf used the ruling that a NG half-elf could become a ranger/druid, and only a NG half-elf (only race permitted that multiclass combo). Didn't bork any level rules, either...he was something like 8/12, which was permissible in the rules. With Unearthed Arcana and bonuses for stats, he could become a 13th druid with ease, and he did.
===Aelryinth
Seems odd that Torag can't have very good dwarven paladins. You might want to raise your limits for racial deities.
Depending on how high-level your campaign is likely to go, level limits might be meaningless. If you're going to top out at level 10, the ability to continue in a class to level 20 doesn't come into play. Then again, if everyone expects to reach epic levels, the inability to reach the class capstones would most likely discourage players from taking a "limited" race/class combo at all, which I guess is what you want.
You also have to consider BBEGs. I presume they'll have to follow the same rules as the PCs, so no level-20 evil elven archmages.
Half-elves, half-orcs and humans choose which stat to put a +2 in. Will you put limits in place on a case-by-case basis based on where they use their floating +2?
|
|
I say kudos to the idea of reintroducing demihuman level limits - sometimes things become better defined by working within boundaries.
(Also, kudos for not letting the naysayers get you down.)
One of the best articles talking about what demihuman level limits can be found here. Two additional follow-ups are here and here.
Thanks. Those articles are brilliant. I've stolen a quote;
"That also means that the answer to “why don’t we see high level demi-human mages” is the same basic answer as to “why don’t we see hollywood screenplays written by antelopes?”. The answers both boil down to “they aren’t very good at it”. Antelopes aren’t very good at writing screenplays and demi-humans aren’t very good at high magic. There isn’t any simple reason for that other than “that’s how they are”, but there really doesn’t need to be. The underlying reasons are presumably a complicated function of evolution, circumstances, and – in the case of the demi-humans – whatever magical forces are at play.
What more can be said :)
Thanks again,
S.
EDIT: I really urge any interested in why I would want level limits to read these articles. They are, no pun intented, pure magic. The section regarding Human 18th Wizards vs Elven 18th Wizards is quite amusing.
Skimmed, may have missed something. May or may not care.
To the OP:
Open Racial Classes
I actually prefer this generic approach as a game design choice. I prefer it because it leaves options open for campaign setting designers to tailor any restrictions they desire. For example, someone may want to design a world where Elves can only be Rangers or Druids, period. Or where Gnomes are all Rogues with the class skills of profession - gardening (get it?) and Knowledge - geography (I'm lookin at you, Expedia).
However, what would be nice is a set of guidelines, by PF (or WotC) on how to include racial restrictions in your campaign setting design.
Class Equivalence
Here's my arbitrary opinion on the PF base classes.
Inquisitor = (human, dwarf)
Oracle = (human, elf, gnome)
Alchemist = (human, gnome)
Cavalier = (human, half-elf)
Summoner = (human)
Witch = (human, half-elf, halfling)
Ignoring the useless posts by those against the idea in general...
I would like to thank those who gave their opinions on which classes/races especially the new classes seemed 'right'.
Another thought I just had, what about leave all race = all classes but have a level limiting system? This keeps the idea of 'unique' race/class combos but makes them less ultimaetly ideal from a pure class point of view (i.e. single class and capstone abilities).
What about a simple system that had Races that get -2 to a stat say STR for a Halfling top out at level 10 for Fighter class, if the stat racial mod is zero then level 15, and if +2 then level 20.
Works for the pure classes, but the MAD's are not so clear cut.
In general this means I do have to 'import' the idea of primary stat but it'll put a limit on classes people are likely to take per race perhaps?
Say for example Dwarven Paladin would only be able to reach level 10, but an Elven Wizard could be level 15.
Still mashing ideas around. Thoughts?
Constructive commenters most welcome and greatly appreciated, and I do wish to seem rude, all others please find another thread. Seriously it's MY game what if you don't like it - I really, really don't care. Again thanks to those with knowledge to help me not unbalance the game horribly.
Cheers,
S.
A minimalist change of rules might just be to impose severe penalties for levelling in a non-favored class. This could be as extreme as you like - if taking a non-favored class meant you only got 1 hit point for that level you wont end up with many halfling paladins, even though you havent strictly ruled anything out. What you will be left with is a whole bunch of characters as balanced as they could have been under 'unrestricted PF'.
I can understand where Hill is coming from, I was raised on 2nd ed.
Sometimes I have winced at certain combinations, but as a dm I do change it up a little, so in a recent game, the players have encountered an apparent orcish swashbuckler (more common in the Freeport setting), raised in Andoran and very nationalistic/anti-noble, who is turning away from banditry and trying to go the straight and narrow, but still a swashbuckler. Another dm I know also throws in some unusual combinations or breaks the stereotypes, (trustworthy goblin experts) but it is always fun. Sometimes it makes a lot of sense, (the elven knight raised by dwarves, whom has really emphasised the code behind the martial training, or the dwarven samurai, which really works oddly enough). On stereotypes, I'm playing a very Mongol-like character, but whom has emphasised the diplomacy, love of freedom, gone into the 3.5 ninja class, and whom hasn't raped or pillaged anyone. He doesn't care about wealth either, only making friends, protecting the people of Freemir in the Greenbelt, fighting enemies, honing his ki mastery.
My latest interest is hobgoblins and developing/putting them in my world of Golarion a little more. I like the martial emphasis, but their culture needs a bit more to it. On races and classes, I don't mind some changes so much. Those whom are different can stand out all the more when they journey back to their community. "Oh so you're the Elf Knight? You're a bit strange, do you like the fair life of freedom?"
"Hard struggle and victory is far more important, you must adhere to the code."
"Ha ha, whatever works is far more important."
"Such is not the path of honour. You will never have discipline."
Honour and Racial Fighting Styles
In fact on honour I am reminded of the Second Darkness game I played in. So I was a human knight/cavalier, got involved fighting the drow, ended up joining the "good" elves, saw some action and how the conflict went down. The character realised and I role-played this in game for the others, that the elves fought with as little honour as the Drow. Questioning the elves after the battle on how one should fight, respect prisoners, proper conduct, none of them had a shred of honour. It was just a vicious genocidal conflict with great enmity and little decency or respect. The knight/cavalier realised the "good" elves were not good or honourable. It was quite a powerful moment in the game. Either side, they are all dicks.
Dwarves
On the dwarves and magic, if you are prepared to take a 3.5 class, there is the wu jen. Now that might seem right off, until you realise they can key themselves to the elements of metal or earth. Hearty and Dwarven I say.
While I don't like racial class restrictions, it should be applied evenly if it is going to be used.
So I'd suggest that humans can't take the following.
- Magus: The class requires them to split their learning evenly between fighter and magic user, which was something humans were completely incapable of under the old rules.
- Summoner: Humans lack the more magical, "enchanted" nature of gnomes, elves, dwarves and halflings, so they lack the core spark that will attract an Eidolon to them.
- Inquisitor: The gregarious, experimental nature of humans balks at the races being forced to follow one culture or path, unlike the ridged and overly historied cultures of the dwarves and elves. This lack of racial definition makes them incapable of taking on the ridged mindset of an Inquisitor.
I realize this is kind of clumsy though, so the better limitation is require humans to stick to a single class for their entire career. No multi-classing of any type, and only a single archetype if the GM is allowing them. Ideally, they would not be allowed to take the magus for the reasons I mentioned above. That keeps in step with the flavour and intent of the previous editions.
I am honestly curious though. Why bring back the old demihuman restrictions while ignore the traditional human limitations at the same time? A major part of the flavour of racial limitations was highlighting the ability for humans to take whatever single path they wanted as far as they could in their short lives while the other races were held back by their cultures and long lived mindsets. How is it that a dwarf loses flavour when he can take classes that are "dwarfish" while a human doesn't when he can spread out into every single possible class the way that only demihumans who lived centuries could do?
"I realize this is kind of clumsy though, so the better limitation is require humans to stick to a single class for their entire career. No multi-classing of any type, and only a single archetype if the GM is allowing them."
But...
An elite human bandit is an obvious example of a fighter/rogue. Learn the trickiness, get a bit more tested in combat. Tougher than a footpad on the street and more steady and experienced with weapons. I've seen multiclass combos make a lot of sense. E.g. the more melee focused cleric-axeman, cleric-fighter.
Or a human wizard with serious anger issues, a wizard-barbarian.
Or a ninja that starts to really focus on a specific type of prey and multi-classes into ranger for the favoured.
Or a melee char that gets a keep, starts to do the politics thing, and starts to level in more socially focused classes, fighter-aristocrat.
I suppose it is always important for it not to seem forced or implausible. What I dislike are spellcasters that have really good physical stats, but which shy and run from combat, and are just taking the con to get the hp boost, the strength to wear good armour or carry more loot. Why are they this tough in the first place if this is how they act? If you don't swing some weapons, if you shy and flinch from damage, how can your character be supposedly so competent and hardy?
Which is why I made attributes and bonuses more flexible in my game. What you do impacts them, positive or negative.
Oh, and Curley Greenleaf used the ruling that a NG half-elf could become a ranger/druid, and only a NG half-elf (only race permitted that multiclass combo). Didn't bork any level rules, either...he was something like 8/12, which was permissible in the rules. With Unearthed Arcana and bonuses for stats, he could become a 13th druid with ease, and he did.===Aelryinth
Hmm. That did always bother me, so I'm wondering how I missed that ruling? Do you recall where it was? And yes, I still have those 1st ed books and most of the Gord novels.
For some reason I thought CG was above 8th as Ranger (8th being max in earlier editions if I recall)As for OP,
The idea of tying racial bonuses to maximum levels is very clean and tidy. (And doesn't require a large chart to distribute.)
Elves (+2 Int) would actually get to go to 20th in Wizard, but not Sorcerer and I think do fit some types of Witch and Magus.
Humans could go to 20th, but only if they put their +2 in prime attribute (which they would, I'd think.)
Most of the prime attributes were listed in the 1st ed. books (the stats that gave XP bonuses), but some had multiple, but then choose the one that aids the races you want to be that.
The new classes are casters (use casting stat) or Cavalier (Str.)
The holes in this are that Half-Orcs (and Half-Elves, but they had lots of options anyway) would get to choose any stat for their +2 also and do so very non-Half-Orc things.
Also, Dwarfs would be better Clerics than Fighters. (Unless Str. OR Con. could be the stat for Fighters, but then Gnomes step in.)
Hmm.
I resubmit my original MC5, L10, etc. idea from earlier post.
(10th level for a Halfling Fighter is kinda legendary level.)
Anyway, good luck with this,
JMK
"I realize this is kind of clumsy though, so the better limitation is require humans to stick to a single class for their entire career. No multi-classing of any type, and only a single archetype if the GM is allowing them."
But...
An elite human bandit is an obvious example of a fighter/rogue. Learn the trickiness, get a bit more tested in combat. Tougher than a footpad on the street and more steady and experienced with weapons. I've seen multiclass combos make a lot of sense. E.g. the more melee focused cleric-axeman, cleric-fighter.Or a human wizard with serious anger issues, a wizard-barbarian.
Or a ninja that starts to really focus on a specific type of prey and multi-classes into ranger for the favoured.
Or a melee char that gets a keep, starts to do the politics thing, and starts to level in more socially focused classes, fighter-aristocrat.
I suppose it is always important for it not to seem forced or implausible. What I dislike are spellcasters that have really good physical stats, but which shy and run from combat, and are just taking the con to get the hp boost, the strength to wear good armour or carry more loot. Why are they this tough in the first place if this is how they act? If you don't swing some weapons, if you shy and flinch from damage, how can your character be supposedly so competent and hardy?
Which is why I made attributes and bonuses more flexible in my game. What you do impacts them, positive or negative.
I had suggested old style dual classing earlier, which is why this was different.
Regardless, archetypes or old style dual classing is just as good at reflecting split choices since humans were incapable of learning more than one class at a time, to a maximum of two classes total in their lives.
Old style dual-classing works like this.
-You can choose a different class once. When you do you can never take another level in your former class again.
-While initially leveling in your new class, you cannot use ANY of the abilities of your old one. For example, if were a fighter and are going wizard, you cannot use any fighter weapons, armor or feats until you have more wizard levels than you do fighter.
-You can only ever do this once.
This lets you have the strange combinations while limiting what a human can do in his lifetime.
That was part of the flavour of humans. They couldn't flip back and forth between classes or learn multiple trades at once in exchange for being able to take any class they wanted. And the OP wants the flavour of racial class restrictions brought back in.
If racial limitations bring more flavour to a game, then something has to limit humans. That was how it worked in older editions after all. People seem to be cherry picking it though by putting old restrictions back on the demihuman races while leaving humans free of any limits whatsoever.
|
|
Old style dual-classing works like this.-You can choose a different class once. When you do you can never take another level in your former class again.
-While initially leveling in your new class, you cannot use ANY of the abilities of your old one. For example, if were a fighter and are going wizard, you cannot use any fighter weapons, armor or feats until you have more wizard levels than you do fighter.
-You can only ever do this once.
This lets you have the strange combinations while limiting what a human can do in his lifetime.
That was part of the flavour of humans. They couldn't flip back and forth between classes or learn multiple trades at once in exchange for being able to take any class they wanted. And the OP wants the flavour of racial class restrictions brought back in.
If racial limitations bring more flavour to a game, then something has to limit humans. That was how it worked in older editions after all. People seem to be cherry picking it though by putting old restrictions back on the demihuman races while leaving humans free of any limits whatsoever.
I can't believe I still remember this stuff, but that's not quite right. You could use your old class abilities on an adventure before you exceeded your old class level, but you didn't gain any experience for that adventure. You also had to be able to dual-class more than once, or else you couldn't become a bard (IIRC, you'd start as a fighter, then pick up a few levels of thief, and only then pick up bard). (Which meant only humans could become bards.) Oh, and you had to have at least a 17 in the prime attribute for your classes after the first, and at least a 14 (IIRC) in the prime attribute for your initial class.
It was really convoluted, and one more way that OD&D and 1e rewarded high stats.
Here is what I don't like about this idea. It supports the idea that humans are the superior race in the game. Much like in reality, "race" should have little to no bearing on class choice. Why can't a dwarf dedicate his life to the path of a paladin or rogue or whatever? Just because 'most' dwarves are fighters or clerics doesn't mean they all should be. Same should go for halflings, gnomes, elves, and etc. It really saddens me to see such blatant racism in this day and age.
|
Traditional fantasy protraits Hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves in a certain way, D&D was good at giving players a sense of that. That is what I feel has been lost - it has become more generic.This is, like, bizarro logic.
So things are more generic now that we aren't forced to play with semi-Tolkien as every setting? On what planet does this make sense, so I can avoid going there?
Earth, would you a ticket to ride the shuttle away from here?
I'm kind of weirded out by some of the indignant outrage that some people are responding with in this thread. I mean, we are talking about a homebrew/social contract, right? It isn't as if this is a petition to make the core rules this way, etc.
Maybe it's just the internet making people overly dramatic.. I did that (on purpose, to be funny) in another thread, so I guess I'm one to talk.. :)
.
Regarding the actual topic.
An idea for differentiating Humans.
I recall in the Wheel of Time game (where it was basically 99% humans, maybe an Ogier), they differentiated your "race" more similar to the real world: minor differences in the region in which you were raised.
So what might fit better is to have class training allowed based on the region a Human is from. If you have a mageocracy (something like Cheliax), then the Summoner/Sorcerer class might make more sense to be allowed (perhaps it was a bond with a Devil your parents made, etc).
While a Human from a nomadic tribe might be more restricted to Barbarian and Druid training over Fighter and Cleric.
Heck, you could expand that out to all the races. That way if you happen to like the idea of the Halfling raised with Dwarves idea your player comes up with, you might let him play an Alchemist without it hurting your sensibilities too much.
To me, this makes far more sense than locking it into the race itself. Only a few things (like innate magical talent) can be written off as a purely genetically racial thing. And even that has it's workaround at even the societal level (my Cheliax example).
I can't believe I still remember this stuff, but that's not quite right. You could use your old class abilities on an adventure before you exceeded your old class level, but you didn't gain any experience for that adventure. You also had to be able to dual-class more than once, or else you couldn't become a bard (IIRC, you'd start as a fighter, then pick up a few levels of thief, and only then pick up bard). (Which meant only humans could become bards.) Oh, and you had to have at least a 17 in the prime attribute for your classes after the first, and at least a 14 (IIRC) in the prime attribute for your initial class.
It was really convoluted, and one more way that OD&D and 1e rewarded high stats.
Ok. I was simplifying that, but it amounts to the same thing. The fighter who is going wizard swings that longsword once and he gets 0 xp for the adventure? It means it isn't worth using those abilities at all.
|
|
Here is what I don't like about this idea. It supports the idea that humans are the superior race in the game. Much like in reality, "race" should have little to no bearing on class choice. Why can't a dwarf dedicate his life to the path of a paladin or rogue or whatever? Just because 'most' dwarves are fighters or clerics doesn't mean they all should be. Same should go for halflings, gnomes, elves, and etc. It really saddens me to see such blatant racism in this day and age.
Leaving aside the question of racism, the idea of level caps and class restrictions for demihumans is a response to a question of worldbuilding. In the generic Tolkien knockoff fantasy world (and I can't recommend "The Tough Guide to Fantasyland" enough when we talk about such things), there are elves (who live a really long time) and dwarves (who live a long time, but not as long as elves), but they are invariably races in decline, while humans are becoming (or have become) dominant in the world. Faced with a world that looks like this, one must ask what edge humans have over beings who can practice and hone their skills for centuries. The restrictions are one explanation.
That said, there are a lot of other possible explanations, so you pretty much justify any sort of crunch with fluff. But you can always do that.
|
|
Ok. I was simplifying that, but it amounts to the same thing. The fighter who is going wizard swings that longsword once and he gets 0 xp for the adventure? It means it isn't worth using those abilities at all.I can't believe I still remember this stuff, but that's not quite right. You could use your old class abilities on an adventure before you exceeded your old class level, but you didn't gain any experience for that adventure. You also had to be able to dual-class more than once, or else you couldn't become a bard (IIRC, you'd start as a fighter, then pick up a few levels of thief, and only then pick up bard). (Which meant only humans could become bards.) Oh, and you had to have at least a 17 in the prime attribute for your classes after the first, and at least a 14 (IIRC) in the prime attribute for your initial class.
It was really convoluted, and one more way that OD&D and 1e rewarded high stats.
Well, if the choice is between surviving with no xp gain and dying, I'd swing the sword. It's still a really stupid restriction, IMNSHO.
Well, if the choice is between surviving with no xp gain and dying, I'd swing the sword. It's still a really stupid restriction, IMNSHO.
Dying can be reversed with a single spell. Getting no xp for an entire adventure is rarely if ever worth it.
Frankly, most of the restrictions in the older editions made no sense. non-humans were only their races and incapable of breaking out of sterotypes, except they could reject everything about their race and still be incapable of breaking those restrictions. Elves could never be as good at magic as a human except most setting went on about how wonderful elven magic was, dwarves could never be as good at being fighter as a human except they were supposedly super focused on being warriors, etc.
But it's only the demihuman restrictions anyone ever wants for some reason.
|
|
I'm kind of weirded out by some of the indignant outrage that some people are responding with in this thread. I mean, we are talking about a homebrew/social contract, right? It isn't as if this is a petition to make the core rules this way, etc.
Maybe it's just the internet making people overly dramatic.. I did that (on purpose, to be funny) in another thread, so I guess I'm one to talk.. :)<<reasonable idea for cultural distinctions snipped>>
I'm more amused by it than anything else, which is kind of odd considering that I'm generally sympathetic to the goals of the Old School Renaissance. (OTOH, there was the minor culture shock of seeing Dragonlance described as classic fantasy instead of as the good example of Third Artist Syndrome it actually is. IMAO.)
What I suppose concerns me is that the OP doesn't seem to have addressed the question of what his players think of all this. It's possible to have fun in a game with demihuman level caps and class restrictions--we managed quite well, Back In The Day--but since they're not part of RAW Pathfinder, introducing them to the players seems to me to be something that could easily be mishandled. So I look at the OP's ideas and put myself in the position of a player whose GM pulled them out of a hat.
Here is what I don't like about this idea. It supports the idea that humans are the superior race in the game. Much like in reality, "race" should have little to no bearing on class choice. Why can't a dwarf dedicate his life to the path of a paladin or rogue or whatever? Just because 'most' dwarves are fighters or clerics doesn't mean they all should be. Same should go for halflings, gnomes, elves, and etc. It really saddens me to see such blatant racism in this day and age.
From what I understand, humans were supposed to be the superior race in those settings. It's a game, and really, demihumans are not representations of different human ethnicities, they are a different species. ⌐.⌐ They have long lasting lives, and they have better perception, but they were supposed to part of the backdrop; they aren't humans in a "humanocentric world".
Classes are also not professions; if you don't have access to magic schooling, how do you learn to become a wizard? If you don't have the blessing of the gods how can you be a cleric or a paladin? If you don't have an inner source of magic, how can you be a sorcerer? Professions (sailing, midwife, etc) fall under... the profession skill.
Finally, this is to everyone who keeps trying to disrupt this forum with their backlash, I don't see why there is so much fuss... It's Stefan's game, you are not the one playing it, you don't have to use these rules if you don't like it. Why do you care if Stafan's game uses rules that you don't like?
This is homebrew. It's as bad as constantly posting in a thread about how to make fighters awesome with your belief that fighters are already awesome and they're 'unbalancing' the game. :/
The best way around the fighter to wizard restriction was to specialize as a fighter in a wizard weapon.
Vlod Fidemfer, f/8, wizard transmuter up to 12, double specialized in the quarterstaff since he used to be a shepherd, wearing magic bracers since level 4. Everybody thought he was a wizard, so he decided to become one...
and his master finally found someone who would actually use that Staff of Striking...
Knives/daggers and darts worked fine, too. For a fighter to cleric or theif, just sub in mace or shortsword.
As I mentioned above, this 'racism' worked because exceptional, unique humans could get very powerful. However, the average human basically sucked, and the average demi-human tended to be 2+ levels higher. Elite human warriors were level 4, demihumans were level 6, barring perhaps halflings, who were basically short humans as far as NPC's went.
1E demi-humans were incredible compared to humans. Let's see what I can remember about all elves:
+1 Dex, -1 Con. Could have a 19 Dex.
+1 TH with longsword, shortsword, longbow, shortbow.
Spoke Elf, Gnome, Gnoll, Goblin, Dwarven, Common, Halfling, Orc, + whatever allowed by intelligence.
90% stealth in woods.
Suprised on 5 in 6 wearing leather armor or less.
Spot secret doors 3 in 6? Fuzzy.
Immune to sleep and charm person spells.
60' infravision (see in the dark aka elfsight)
Racial bonuses to several theiving skills, mostly MS/HS, as I recall.
Could multiclass into several class combos, the most iconic of which was the Fighter/Magic-user. Most elven monarchs were f/mu's 7/11, or 8/12 if Grey Elves.
Grey Elves got +1 Int, could start with a 19.
18/75 max strength, 17 max con. 16 Str for females.
What did humans get?
Nothing. They potentially were the only race that could get 18/00 Strength, or 18/50 for women. But you started knowing Common + Int bonus languages, and that was it.
But, they could get HIGH LEVEL. Far done the road, it made up for a lot.
Half-elves were strictly inferior to elves as far as levels that could be gained and racial bonuses, but they had 2 things going for them.
They could enter more multi-class combinations then any other class, especially with ranger levels, even if they couldn't advance all that far in most of them (level 8 in F, Mu, Cleric and Tf, roughly)
They were unlimited advancement in the Bard 'prestige class'.
So, you basically made them rangers, druids, and bards.
Halflings could be fighters, theives, fighter/theives, and clerics. But they were able to get 15+ as theives, basically unlimited levels.
Half-orcs had unlimited levels in assassin (which capped at 15, the Grandfather of Assassins)
Gnomes were the only demihuman race that could be illusionists, it was also their best class...
Dwarves were fighters, theives, clerics, or combinations thereof, favoring fighter levels. Lots of abilities with stone/underground, save bonuses against spells and magic, infravision, bonuses to hit orcs and goblins, AC bonuses against Giants...dwarves bloody rocked, too.
==================
The druid/ranger combo was basically made legal in Unearthed Arcana, and confirmed in Dragon Magazine by Roger Moore and Gary later. Helps to play a character outside the rules when you can change the rules to make him legal! Heh.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Leaving aside the question of racism, the idea of level caps and class restrictions for demihumans is a response to a question of worldbuilding.
Bingo. Without rewriting what an Elf or a Dwarf is, World-building becomes difficult to explain. Elves should dominate all classes as they gain XP at the same rate as a human but will live many times longer. So the only explaination as to why humans are still around is that Elves and Dwarves were too busy killing each other? If you agree with the level/class caps or not the huge hole in logic of World-building was solved by having them. I read the section in the 2e DMG last night on this subject and walked away thinking it all made sense. There is a suggestion in the 2e DMG that if you have no caps then demi-humans should need 2 or 3 times more XP per level. Meaning that both a human and an elf would be old when reaching archmage level (18th btw). Of course this doesn't work out very well for Halflings and completely bugger Half-Orcs...
For the posters asking about my group - this is a group effort, we in general agree that without checks and balances Elves (and Dwarves) win. Assuming that the PC races make up the majority of the Worlds population overall.
So everyone is sold on the idea the sticking point is how to impliment really. Many of the positive suggestions have been fantastic and really given us concrete things to discuss. In the end it'll be a group choice on how this works.
Regards,
Stefan.
|
|
Leaving aside the question of racism, the idea of level caps and class restrictions for demihumans is a response to a question of worldbuilding.Bingo. Without rewriting what an Elf or a Dwarf is, World-building becomes difficult to explain. Elves should dominate all classes as they gain XP at the same rate as a human but will live many times longer. So the only explaination as to why humans are still around is that Elves and Dwarves were too busy killing each other? If you agree with the level/class caps or not the huge hole in logic of World-building was solved by having them. I read the section in the 2e DMG last night on this subject and walked away thinking it all made sense. There is a suggestion in the 2e DMG that if you have no caps then demi-humans should need 2 or 3 times more XP per level. Meaning that both a human and an elf would be old when reaching archmage level (18th btw). Of course this doesn't work out very well for Halflings and completely bugger Half-Orcs...
For the posters asking about my group - this is a group effort, we in general agree that without checks and balances Elves (and Dwarves) win. Assuming that the PC races make up the majority of the Worlds population overall.
So everyone is sold on the idea the sticking point is how to impliment really. Many of the positive suggestions have been fantastic and really given us concrete things to discuss. In the end it'll be a group choice on how this works.
Regards,
Stefan.
Plus you can always give them the options of Gestalt Characters. Only Demi-humans can do this. And they use the slow XP instead of the fast one used by single classes and all humans.
I say kudos to the idea of reintroducing demihuman level limits - sometimes things become better defined by working within boundaries.
(Also, kudos for not letting the naysayers get you down.)
One of the best articles talking about what demihuman level limits can be found here. Two additional follow-ups are here and here.
Thanks. Those articles are brilliant. I've stolen a quote;
"That also means that the answer to “why don’t we see high level demi-human mages” is the same basic answer as to “why don’t we see hollywood screenplays written by antelopes?”. The answers both boil down to “they aren’t very good at it”. Antelopes aren’t very good at writing screenplays and demi-humans aren’t very good at high magic. There isn’t any simple reason for that other than “that’s how they are”, but there really doesn’t need to be. The underlying reasons are presumably a complicated function of evolution, circumstances, and – in the case of the demi-humans – whatever magical forces are at play.
What more can be said :)
Thanks again,
S.EDIT: I really urge any interested in why I would want level limits to read these articles. They are, no pun intented, pure magic. The section regarding Human 18th Wizards vs Elven 18th Wizards is quite amusing.
It's worth noting in FR:
As soon as they eliminated level restrictions on elves in Forgotten Realms, average levels of elves skyrocketed, and Myth Drannor and Evermeet were practically overrun with 15th+ level characters. You couldn't throw a rock and not hit an archmage.As a corollary, when Age of Empires: Netheril came out, and basically human aging was 'solved' (there was one Netherese 4,000 years old or something), human archmages began as common as weeds in the skycities. Why? Because they never died, and if they did, they simply got raised back to life.
If you can offset aging penalties, once you hit 18 and could afford wishes and contingencies and the like, you were very, very hard to get rid of, and your survival rate increased drastically over time.
Both examples easily illustrate the effect of having both long years and unlimited level advancement. Without restrictions on demi-humans, humans were just no comparison.
==Aelryinth
|
|
You couldn't throw a rock and not hit an archmage.
Funny you should say that in Ed Greenwoods, not best work, Spellfire you could throw a rock and kill an archmage!
Note that I agree with what you said in the rest of your post heartily. You made me think that this is only an issue if you see the PC's as part of a world rather than just part of an adventure. I like creating a feeling that the world was there before the PC's and will exist long after they are gone. Without that I feel a campaign setting falls flat.
S.
|
|
You couldn't throw a rock and not hit an archmage.Funny you should say that in Ed Greenwoods, not best work, Spellfire you could throw a rock and kill an archmage!
Note that I agree with what you said in the rest of your post heartily. You made me think that this is only an issue if you see the PC's as part of a world rather than just part of an adventure. I like creating a feeling that the world was there before the PC's and will exist long after they are gone. Without that I feel a campaign setting falls flat.
S.
Agreed. Another thing is that (as Aelryinth alluded to above) in order to maintain the integrity of the world you also have to address (in some way) the influence of high-level characters in general. OD&D tried to push characters into retiring/transitioning to a different style of play* once they hit levels between roughly 9 and 12, depending on character class, but as long as there's antiaging magic in a game it's something you have to think about. If you want a picture of what low-level play looks like in a world that contains significant numbers of high-level characters, check out any MMORPG that allows PvP. What stops griefers in the campaign world?
*The lack of support for the different play style apart from Chainmail is probably why it never gained much traction outside of Lake Geneva.
Elves and Dwarves don't need class or level restrictions to keep them from taking over the world. It's built into their biology.
Neither race breeds as quickly as humans do. This lets humans sustain much higher populations, which has other benefits.
A certain percentage of the population HAS to be in support positions. You can argue that Dwarves and Elves would take over the world through experience and lifespan except the majority of the population needs to do the jobs necessary for a society to function. This means they're experts, commoners and warriors. It also means they don't get experience adventuring.
This means that Dwarves and Elves have a much smaller percentage of their population that has a chance to advance in non-NPC classes.
The GM and players also have to realize that NPCs don't level like players do. If they did, all humans would be level 20 by the time they were 60. NPCs level according to their accomplishments in life (unless they become cohorts). You don't make the old dwarf cleric level 20 because he's old after all. You give him a level appropriate to his position regardless of his age, just as you would with a human.
That's how it works with the average NPC. Adventuring NPCs are different of course, but adventurers eventually retire and stop trying to level. Living longer lives doesn't mean you spend more time risking it. If anything, you're more likely to take care of it.
|
|
Elves and Dwarves don't need class or level restrictions to keep them from taking over the world. It's built into their biology.
Neither race breeds as quickly as humans do. This lets humans sustain much higher populations, which has other benefits.
A certain percentage of the population HAS to be in support positions. You can argue that Dwarves and Elves would take over the world through experience and lifespan except the majority of the population needs to do the jobs necessary for a society to function. This means they're experts, commoners and warriors. It also means they don't get experience adventuring.
This means that Dwarves and Elves have a much smaller percentage of their population that has a chance to advance in non-NPC classes.
The GM and players also have to realize that NPCs don't level like players do. If they did, all humans would be level 20 by the time they were 60. NPCs level according to their accomplishments in life (unless they become cohorts). You don't make the old dwarf cleric level 20 because he's old after all. You give him a level appropriate to his position regardless of his age, just as you would with a human.
That's how it works with the average NPC. Adventuring NPCs are different of course, but adventurers eventually retire and stop trying to level. Living longer lives doesn't mean you spend more time risking it. If anything, you're more likely to take care of it.
That lasts up until one enterprising Elven archmage researches the infamous "Slay Ruler and Transfer Loyalty of Populace to Caster" spell (or lower-powered variants). There's no rule that says the support positions in an Elven nation have to be filled by Elves. (Cf. Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, one of the old Appendix N books, in which the Elves were pretty-much all nobility and the support roles were filled by goblin and Dwarf slaves.)
That's not to say that breeding rate can't be used as part of an answer to the question of human supremacy, but it's not self-evidently the entire answer.
I definitely agree that there should be a qualitative difference in level advancement mechanics for PC-like characters vs. peons (for lack of a better word).
That lasts up until one enterprising Elven archmage researches the infamous "Slay Ruler and Transfer Loyalty of Populace to Caster" spell (or lower-powered variants). There's no rule that says the support positions in an Elven nation have to be filled by Elves. (Cf. Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, one of the old Appendix N books, in which the Elves were pretty-much all nobility and the support roles were filled by goblin and Dwarf slaves.)That's not to say that breeding rate can't be used as part of an answer to the question of human supremacy,...
Considering that would be an epic level spell, and Wizards can be immortal at level 20, that scenario works for every race out there. And the elf will die of old age before an immortal human wizard if the elf didn't take immortal as well.
If age was all it took to take over the world, then everything would be ruled by dragons, undead or fey.
And there is a quantitative difference in how NPCs gain level. They gain whatever the GM decides to set it at. Same with their wealth and items.
The elf who creates the epic spell is a nice plot hook, but it isn't an inevitability. If it was, then the world is doomed because it is inevitable that one lich will eventually research "Slay All That Lives" and kills every living thing on the planet so he can have some peace and quiet.
The druid/ranger combo was basically made legal in Unearthed Arcana, and confirmed in Dragon Magazine by Roger Moore and Gary later. Helps to play a character outside the rules when you can change the rules to make him legal! Heh.
==Aelryinth
Thanks.
It's sort of funny how often Gary 'broke/rewrote' the rules for his own campaigns. Of course, it was a much looser style of play, run out of their minds more than their books.
Which is to say, OP, if your players are all of similar minds, maybe you don't need to do so much prework, just lay out the basics then run. Heck, my gaming time's precious, and I suppose yours is too.
I am interested in your take on the 'magicmart' (buy what magic you can afford/WBL chart/Christmas Tree PC) issue in such a world.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not sure if this is even close to being in the ballpark of what you'd consider, but...
What about playing 2e? And I don't mean this as a "if you like 2e so much, why not just play that, huh?" way. I mean it in an "I agree with your sentiment and find myself nostalgic about 2e from time to time."
I'd be curious how the old girl handles these days. Particularly when I'm feeling tired of battlemat/mini focused tactical play.
One comment I'd make on the topic though - to me, humans in D&D should be capable of becoming any class. I think that's the hallmark of the race as much as anything.
One comment I'd make on the topic though - to me, humans in D&D should be capable of becoming any class. I think that's the hallmark of the race as much as anything.
That and their limit from learning much else than that one class.
Gygax always said to all DM's... "Your game, your way." The game was around for a long time before anyone came up with network play which required a large scale uniformity of play. Back then in the day, House rules WERE the rule.
They still are. House rules are rules in your own game, just not for internet discussion (and I don't think they were ever valid for that).
The reason that race and class restrictions were removed were:
1. Keep from limiting creativity.
2. They were clumsy.
3. They didn't make sense when actually examined (Elves can never be as good at magic as humans, despite being the "wizard" race; dwarves can't cast spells despite being known for making amazing magical weapons, etc).
4. So that the base rules weren't telling you what your world had to look like and espouse a vision of THE ONE TRUE FANTASY SETTING.
The druid/ranger combo was basically made legal in Unearthed Arcana, and confirmed in Dragon Magazine by Roger Moore and Gary later. Helps to play a character outside the rules when you can change the rules to make him legal! Heh.
==Aelryinth
Thanks.
It's sort of funny how often Gary 'broke/rewrote' the rules for his own campaigns. Of course, it was a much looser style of play, run out of their minds more than their books.
Which is to say, OP, if your players are all of similar minds, maybe you don't need to do so much prework, just lay out the basics then run. Heck, my gaming time's precious, and I suppose yours is too.I am interested in your take on the 'magicmart' (buy what magic you can afford/WBL chart/Christmas Tree PC) issue in such a world.
Sure!
Gord the Rogue had the magicmart, to a lesser extent. You had the mage's guilds, you had clerics willing to sell scrolls (to the faithful), and he got his dagger from a dwarven smith selling it "Dveemer! Zpellz und zuch!" "You haf the best off my daggers."
That said, unlimited ability to buy and sell things was never a hallmark of AD&D, because making magic stuff cost that precious point of constitution. Of course, that beggared the question...why would any spellcaster dare to spend a point of Con on anything like a +1 dagger? It blows the mind to even think about it.
You also have to realize it's a very different game. The monsters in 3.5/PF are BALANCED on the predication that you have the gear you need for your level, i.e. you are supposed to have stuff. Think back on Against the Giants. In Hill Giants alone, those casks of drow mushroom wine could be sold off for a quarter million gp. What are you going to do with the gold?
Exactly nothing. You can't buy magic items in AD@D. Unless you build a castle, your gold just builds up and up and up. The only way you get better stuff is to FIND it. There is no incentive to sell off +1 Swords...you can't buy them back, so maybe you'll equip your men-at-arms with them. You accumulate, but you can't sell. It was kind of ridiculous.
'Magicmarts' are a convenient way for DM's to make sure PC's have the gear that is appropriate for their level. In AD&D, this wasn't a problem...monsters maxed out around level 12 or so, and non-magic gear actually could carry you through most fights. A high level character with a non-magic sword was still a high level character, and that was actually more important to a great extent. Certainly true for spellcasters.
The magic mart effect is the only way to 'realistically' justify +1 and minor items. Sure, you can alter this by giving the characters those benefits, but its easier just to mark off the gold/loot and let them buy the routine stuff.
Now, unique stuff? Custom stuff? That's totally DM perogative. Magic item crafters net 500 gp a day just making dull, routine stuff they can churn out by the cartload...they have no incentive to set aside two months to make some mercenary a Sun Sword. Once you step away from standard stuff, it's all about exchanging favors for time, who can actually make what you need. It becomes a story, and NPC interaction.
WBL has a good/bad side when talking about wealthy characters, too. Sure, you can justify that a Prince of the realm should have some impressive stuff. But if he's a low level wuss, that's just begging for someone to come along, wax him, and take his stuff. WBL is basically a 'status' effect...if you've got too much, someone comes over and steps on you and takes it for themselves. A King armed with +5 everything is a formidable foe, and a magnet for greed. Anyone who kills him then walks off with all that +5 stuff, and becomes truly formidable themselves!
Trying to eliminate the magic mart in PF won't work...the whole game is based on a certain level of minimum offense and defense. If you can shift those bonuses to characters instead of items, you basically are making work for yourself in an attempt for the same amount of realism.
Is the DM allowed to bork the WBL? Sure! You can give a low level character a +5 sword if it fits the storyline, just be prepared to watch him outperform everyone else. You can give the characters less loot, and rely more on personal abilities...but this vastly favors spellcasters who can either make or buff their own magic toys, and don't need magic items like non-casters do.
And remember self-interest. The casters would be stupid to spend all their time making magic items for others and neglecting themselves. The cleric will give himself magic armor and shield before the Melee, a wis booster before making a str booster for the fighter, etc. They should not be forced to slave for their friends.
===============
SO, my take on the Magic Mart is this.
1) Routine +1 X items? Sure, you can pick them up. Unless you put in a timer that wears them out, magic lasts forever. +3 and higher items should be more and more rare, because they require higher caster levels...but that's part of the price. They also stick around forever. You may not be able to find them outside a large town because of the price.
2) Unique items? COmpletely a DM call on availability. Nobody churns those out, they are always special order.
3) Making magic items? Treat like spell research. Every magic item has a different formula, and you have to learn each one seperately. Making a +10 Weapon isn't any different then learning a 9th level spell...just as there are multiple 9th level spells, there are multiple 10th level weapons. So, you might know how to make a +5 Keen Sword of Speed, but you don't know how to make a +5 Holy Avenger...unless you spend the money to get the formula, just like getting a new spell.
4) Therefore, making crazy customized magic items starts getting pricey, each addition to an existing item requires ANOTHER custom formula (no, it's not as simple as learning Holy, thanks). This explains why +X gear is common, and custom gear is not...nobody wants to spend all the time learning all the infinite ways to make normal items. If you want that kind of thing, make it yourself, or pay them to take time from easy, routine stuff.
This is straight AD&D, btw...you had to do minor quests to figure out how to make something, get the right components, etc, and every single item was at least as unique as doing spell research. Now, it's very easy to hand wave components for magic items, as its fairly easy to justify that component hunters will be a cottage industry all by themselves, gathering what casters and artificers need to make their stuff. All you do...is sub more gold! Yay!
So, I don't see the 'xmas tree' as a problem. Everyone in AD&D wanted two rings, armor, sword, shield, gauntlets, cloak, boots, bag of holding. The biggest problem most DM's have is the 'upgrade' portion...PC's can upgrade without the DM handing them the loot.
Just realize its a technique to make your job easier, not harder. You don't have to toss in the Ring of Prot +3...you can just give gold, and they'll go GET the Ring. If you do give the Ring, they won't have to hold onto the Ring +2 they have which is now effectively useless...they can turn that into something else they can use.
That's a good thing. That's how economies actually work.
It allows you to do amusing things, too.
"+1 Light fortification plate? I can't sell that...nobody knows how to upgrade it! Maybe if it was +5 Light FOrtification I could find some archmage who could tinker with it!" Assuming that +1 through +5 are all different formulas, of course. Heh.
==+Aelryinth
Gygax always said to all DM's... "Your game, your way." The game was around for a long time before anyone came up with network play which required a large scale uniformity of play. Back then in the day, House rules WERE the rule.They still are. House rules are rules in your own game, just not for internet discussion (and I don't think they were ever valid for that).
The reason that race and class restrictions were removed were:
1. Keep from limiting creativity.
2. They were clumsy.
3. They didn't make sense when actually examined (Elves can never be as good at magic as humans, despite being the "wizard" race; dwarves can't cast spells despite being known for making amazing magical weapons, etc).
4. So that the base rules weren't telling you what your world had to look like and espouse a vision of THE ONE TRUE FANTASY SETTING.
1) That's 'keep from limiting what PC's want to play', i.e. bow to teh whiners, in many eyes. Creativity is another topic.
2) They were a table reference, so you knew what you were getting into.3) They made perfect sense in their own format. Elves couldn't be super-wizards...but every elf could be a bloody wizard, and often a fighter-wizard, so the average elf was a much better wizard then the average human, because there were so many more elven wizards. And who says you needed to cast spells to make magic items? Bruenor Battlehammer didn't when he created Aegis Fang, either. Pop a rune on an item, does the work for you alongside awesome craftsmanship. Heck, the Dwarves that made Mjolnir didn't cast any spells either, as I recall. Fire and steel was all they needed.
4) House rules change everything, anyways. Campaign rules are so everyone has a common basis to change FROM.
==Aelryinth