Opinions: d20 3rd ed.

[Nellisir]

Am I the only one who likes level limits?

It depends on what purpose they're supposed to serve. As a balance mechanism, they suck. As a tool to get people to play humans, it's like using a sledgehammer to drive a tack. They do nothing until -BAM-; your character stops dead. As a means of creating, following, or mimicking certain fantasy stereotypes, they're pretty good.

[The Red Priest]

Don't think of level limits as a curse upon the non-humans, they are a blessing.

Level limits aren't a game balancing act (Ick! This thing called "game balance", it is an evil thing).
Level limits aren't a force to encourage the play of human characters.
Level limits aren't a re-creation of stereo-types.

Once a demi-human reaches the limit of its level(s), it's player is no longer constrained by the curse of thinking that, to conquer bigger and badder monsters, it must advance in hit points, spells and/or other special abilities. No, the player of such a character is blessed earlier on, than one of a human character, that the way to great success (land ownership, riches, monster-slaying heroism sung by bards, or whatever, take your pick) is through the brain of the player and not how many hit points, or how many lighting bolts the character can throw nor how many attacks per round are available.

Think. Think of the accomplishment of the mid-level dwarf, standing side-by-side with it's 14th level human companion, conquering every manner of devious trap, trick and foe brought on by the referee. Certainly, the dwarf's player learned of means to succeed w/o higher level hit points or abilities. The player found the means to succeed beyond what lay in any rulebook. Dem's braggin' rights, ya'll

Level limits are not a game balancing act, encouragement towards humans nor meant as a stereo-type. No, level limits are a gauntlet thrown down directly at the feet of player. On that gauntlet are written the words, "Oh yeah? How good a player are you, really?"

[Bandigerbolls]

That sounds glorious, but it doesn't seem to jive with my experiences!

The level-impaired character was usually the first to die once the party began facing advanced challenges, sparing the player the dilemma of retiring the character or not.

[Wyldabeast]

Okay... seeing as I am new to the 0e thing, could someone actually explain WHY demi-human level limits are a good thing? This is an honest question from someone that hasn't seen them in play, and is kinda confused about the logic behind them. Hell, there may not be any logic behind them, AND THATS FINE WITH ME its thats the case. I still just want a little light on the subject.

Thanks in advance.

Oh, and so this post is more in line with the op I'll say Fort, Ref, and Will saves were the best thing about 3rd Ed! Although now that S&W gives me just ONE save number I'm even happier! (Just a few days until I get to start up my S&W game!)

[The Red Priest]

Okay... seeing as I am new to the 0e thing, could someone actually explain WHY demi-human level limits are a good thing? This is an honest question from someone that hasn't seen them in play, and is kinda confused about the logic behind them. Hell, there may not be any logic behind them, AND THATS FINE WITH ME its thats the case. I still just want a little light on the subject.

See my post above.

Think outside the box.. err .. rulebooks.

[Nellisir]

More things I like about 3e (after reading some of my old writing...)

No more S-M/L damage for weapons!

[MachFront]

Okay... seeing as I am new to the 0e thing, could someone actually explain WHY demi-human level limits are a good thing?

Well, they're a good thing to me because it actually does help enforce the idea of a human-centric world. It helps make the demi-humans different and a lil strange and not just humans with different features. It keeps everyone from choosing elves or dwarves since they'll have their class abilites and the race abilites to boot. With that and no level limit, there's little "reason" to choose to be a human (except to play a cleric). The way it's written, both demi-humans and humans have they're advantages and disadvantages. Your personal milage may, of course, vary.

[Wyldabeast]

Okay, that does make sense. Thanks!

I was kinda leaning in my head that without the limits, being as long lived as Elves and Dwarves traditionally are, the world would be overly populated with high powered demi-humans. Not sure if the idea has any merit though.

[Bandigerbolls]

IMO, instead of being cut off cold, added powers should taper off as a demihuman advances to make them go from slightly better than human at low levels, to slightly worse at high levels.

I like the way S&W makes 'Dwarf' its own class. It would be nice (and consistent) to do the same with 'Elf', making it a single hybrid fighter-MU class instead of a double class.

Class limitation rather than level limitation might make players choose humans more often, but also keep the demihuman characters in the game for the long haul.

[MachFront]

I like the way S&W makes 'Dwarf' its own class. It would be nice (and consistent) to do the same with 'Elf', making it a single hybrid fighter-MU class instead of a double class.

Well, the Dwarf is, just as OD&D, not exactly a race=class situation. Same saves, same xp advancement, same attack, same hit die,etc. as a human fighter of equal level. Really, it's simply a dwarf fighter as the only difference is that the dwarf has his racial abilities as well.
Moldvay Basic/Cook-Marsh Expert D&D (and Labyrinth Lord of course, being that it's based on B/X) actually does go the race-as-class route (elves, dwarves and halflings have their own xp charts, saves, etc.).