Opinions: d20 3rd ed.

[Mythmere]

I don't know the actual history of level limits, whether it was about game balance (definitely possible: I seem to recall someone writing that the "blunt weapon" restriction on clerics was done to make clerics slightly weaker than fighters) or whether it was simply the belief that in terms of the fantasy, only human heroes could really get past a certain point. Both are entirely believable, given what (little) I know about the way the game developed.

[Stonewolf]

I just read a Gary Gygax article about level limits for demi-humans in an old Dragon magizine. He recommend anyone to read "The Black Company" as a justification for his imposed class/race limits. This article in particular seemed to reflect his desire to encourage players to choose "human" over the other races; the dwarf, elf, or halfling adventurer was the exception not the norm.

Now I digress, THIS is the problem I have with d20 3rd edition...no one wants to play a human! As a matter of fact, it was a symptom of the 2nd Ed. AD&D as well, although level limits were still in place.

I personally feel that 3rd edition is the last playable version of "D&D", and that is only by a thread...mostly in part due to the retro-clone community. The system can't be horrible if it will allow itself to be recreated in an old school style

Al

[Nellisir]

I just read a Gary Gygax article about level limits for demi-humans in an old Dragon magizine. He recommend anyone to read "The Black Company" as a justification for his imposed class/race limits. This article in particular seemed to reflect his desire to encourage players to choose "human" over the other races; the dwarf, elf, or halfling adventurer was the exception not the norm.

Are we talking about Glen Cook's Black Company? Do you have an issue number for this Dragon?

Having just (re)read the entire Black Company series, I'm not sure what Gygax's point would be. If he wanted to get the Black Company sort of feel, he should've just eliminated demi-humans outright. I think Cook's the "low-magic" aspect of the Black Company is considerable overstated (reread The Silver Spike and count the number of wizards that show up), but even if it weren't, it's no more of an argument for level limits on demihumans than Battlestar Galactica is.

[The Red Priest]

It's not that the number or magic-users is particularly low in the Black Company series, it's just that most of them are like One-Eye and Goblin. They're not worth very much. What made Frick & Frack, as I call 'em, worthwhile, is how much they made with so little. Their magics were mostly small illusions used to maximum effect. Oh yeah.. and the sleep spell they had. Now that was worth diamonds, when you consider that most of their foes were 0-lvl man-at-arms types.

Even most of the Lady's tower wizards weren't all that hot, and I get the impression that in an unfair fight, Frick & Frack could take 'em. No, I think only the likes of the Lady and The Taken would rate as anything higher than mid-level.

I'd like to know in which edition Gary refers readers to the Black Company as a justification for level limits. It would be very odd indeed for him to use Cook's books, because the first Black Company novel wasn't published until the 1980's. That's long after OD&D was published. It could be to demonstrate what a character can do with very little, a la Frick & Frack. There's another possibility, but I'd rather hold off on that until I read the article.

[Nellisir]

It's not that the number or magic-users is particularly low in the Black Company series, it's just that most of them are like One-Eye and Goblin. They're not worth very much. What made Frick & Frack, as I call 'em, worthwhile, is how much they made with so little. Their magics were mostly small illusions used to maximum effect. Oh yeah.. and the sleep spell they had. Now that was worth diamonds, when you consider that most of their foes were 0-lvl man-at-arms types.

I'd bump up the power level a little. Goblin and One-Eye also did some summonings, and animated inanimate objects - albeit over a long period of time. They didn't excel at flash-bang magic, and the wizards of the Tower certainly did.

I'll have to reread the Silver Spike and make a note of the wizards and spells cast. There were quite a few. I seem to recall web, or a similar spell.

That said, I don't have a problem rating most of the wizards around or below mid-level - but the same is true in my campaign, which I would unabashedly classify as high magical fantasy.

Magic was definitely prioritized differently in Black Company. Illusion & sleep - easy. Summoning - easy to moderate. Flash-bang - moderate. Flying - hard (I don't think anyone pulled it off, actually). Basically, enchanting a person to do anything "not natural" was extremely difficult, and enchanting an object only slightly easier. This is an easy change I'm going to make in S&W, actually - fly only affects objects. Polymorph - extremely hard.

The statement is also made that Goblin & One-Eye can get to the same place as a more powerful wizard; it just takes them that much longer.

[The Red Priest]

Yeah.. considering that Black Company magic in no way works like the Dying Earth magic, it's rough to make any comparisons at all.

[Matthew]

Level limits I can take or leave; I do not think that 3e did us any great favours in lifting them for the default game, but it does not really matter because of how they changed the multiclassing rules in any case. I do not think anybody has much in the way of grounds for complaint when an elf fighter/magician/thief can reach as high as levels 7/11/20. Personally, I would have preferred a more coherent multiclassing system, but it doesn't make much practical difference.

As for the removal of weapon type versus monster size rules, that was really nothing new; Classic Dungeons & Dragons used that very paradigm. There is something fun about facing down a troll with a long sword doing 1d12 damage, but like level limits, I can take it or leave it.

[Nellisir]

Yeah.. considering that Black Company magic in no way works like the Dying Earth magic, it's rough to make any comparisons at all.

I think you can get a good approximation just by shuffling spell levels around and eliminating a few. Fly only affects objects; polymorph goes up to a 7th level spell, etc and so forth. You can cast a spell of higher level by increasing the casting time...say +1 level = +1 hour, +2 levels = +1 day, +3 levels = +1 month, +4 levels = +1 year (or maybe 6 months)... It's on my list of things to do someday. It won't be an exact match, but that's really not my concern.

[Sigmund]

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?"

I don't agree with this at all. I have yet to ever see a reason for level limits on demi-humans that made any sense at all, and I have to say, this is one of the worst. I'm really not trying to be insulting or anything, but I really don't need some meta-game "gauntlet" scuffing up my shoes to know that I'm a great RPGer.... and one who's pretty damn great no matter which race/class/game version I'm playing. Even in games without fantasy races or classes or even fantasy, I'm pretty great. Sci-fi games, espionage games, even Western games. If I as a player want a greater challenge to overcome, I'll seek one out... in-game... no matter my race or class. I mean this sounds very dramatic and grand, but in essence is really empty and pointless, and in no way justifies level limits, to me anyway. Does anyone know an actual rational reason for the inclusion of level limits for demi-humans? One that might make sense in terms of the game world?

The idea of level limits encouraging folks to play humans never made sense to me either, because if that's the case why include the option to play demi-humans at all? IMO how powerful demi-humans can become and whether they are prone to adventuring is entirely a setting issue that DMs can deal with for their own campaigns, and including the option to allow demi-humans free reign to level as high as their human comrades is a good thing. As has also been pointed out, "game balance" is mostly illusionary, and what there is of it rarely survives contact with a game group anyway, so the level limits as a balancing mechanism is also bunk, a DM can choose to provide campaign specific ways to limit any characters through campaign specific culture and access to education that will make far more sense than purely meta-game mechanics anyway. So yeah, removing level limits is a good thing IMO.... and while I have few problems with d20 really, and can very much enjoy playing any edition of DnD prior to 4e, I think the only real "improvement" 3.x made for me was removing level and multi-classing limits.

[The Red Priest]

[quote="Sigmund"]I have yet to ever see a reason for level limits on demi-humans that made any sense at all, ...[quote]

Wow. Where to start. We're definitely approaching the game in general from very different directions. I guess the only thing I can do is explain where I'm coming from, and that may help put my POV in perspective for you. I come from a wargaming background where the rules of the game are just that. Rules for a game. Some games are attempted simulations (Rise & Fall of The Third Reich) and some are just games (Talisman). To me, O/AD&D is just a game, not a simulation of anything, not even of fantasy literature. Anyone even slightly familiar with wargames knows that any edition of D&D has some pretty piss poor combat rules, that is, if you're looking for accurate simulation. O/AD&D usually translates so poorly whenever anyone tries to recreate the world of a fantasy novel, that DMs often have to "break the rules" to make the game fit their vision. Clearly, the original intent of D&D was not to faithfully recreate combat, nor was it meant as a tool to recreate DMs' favorite fantasy worlds. So, if you come at the game with the perspective of what you can't do with the original D&D, then you're already in the wrong ballpark. There is one fantasy world to which the original D&D is inextricably tied, and that's the original Greyhawk game of the early to mid '70s. That's why you've got demi-human level limits, because that's the way they played the game. O/AD&D is a game, and it's got rules for playing the game, not for accurately simulating a darn thing.

To equate a change to the level limit rules from O/AD&D to later versions as being an improvement is nonsensical. They're different games with different purposes. This goes back to my original point in this thread, in that, once you've made enough fundamental changes to a game that the newer version no longer or only slightly resembles the original, then you are playing a different game.

So, I take the rules for demi-human level limits, and I put them into practical gaming perspective. Sometimes in a game, let's say an historical wargame, one side is at a disadvantage to another. Historically, usually the lesser side was defeated, but occasionally, the underdog pulls out an upset. Also, the underdog can still have a weapon or tactic that the superior force does not. In the game, the underdog player is there to see if he can do better than, or match, the original outcome.

And, Sigmund, I posit that my explanation of demi-human level limits is just as practical, and probably more so, than you'll find concocted elsewhere in this thread. They were just about how they played the game BITD. Remember, there were no thieves (or even demi-humans for a little while), and if you think that through, you'll understand the ramifications of how that affects how the game is played, and what a helluva an advantage it is to have a character that can see in the dark(!), detect traps, secret doors, slanting or sloping passageways, time underground, etc... with a mere roll of the dice.

Knowing me, knowing you
It's the best I can do


If someone like grodog could be convinced to chime in here, I'm betting ya'll will get the best answer ever on demi-human level limits
Certainly better than my poor, imperfect understanding.