PDA

View Full Version : Should racial level limits be enforced?



Lawgiver
12-11-2001, 01:19 PM
Do you think that the rules for racial level limits should be enforced?

To me it makes absolutely no sense. Why would a quasi-immortal elf be stuck to a lower level than humans? The PHB argument is weak at best. I've thrown the rules for the limits out the window in my campaign.

Riegan Swordwraith
12-11-2001, 03:46 PM
I beleive they should for the reason of balance.In 2nd Ed.,humans got absolutely nothing,in most campaigns(BR,then later Grewawk being the exceptions).No bonuses of any kind.I always noticed that there were always more elves,dwarves,and halflings in my group,as noone saw reason to be a human as they got nothing,but their unlimited advancement.

Now the reason humans should practically be the only race that can rise to superior levels is because they work at it.Yes,an elf lives a long time,but what do they do with it??Hell they are not even considered adults till after a century.I would go so far as to wager that,for good or bad,one human generation does more than three or four elven.Humans live such a short life,that they make up for it.

That is just my two coppers.

Lawgiver
12-13-2001, 05:03 AM
I have never played elves as the extremely laid back frolicing twits of the forest. In a typical campaign world they do not act rashly and may take weeks to make a descision a human would make in minutes. However, elves in my campaign are closer to drow who have more ambition to improve themselves than most humans.

Halfings with limits... maybe.
Dwarves... maybe if the limits were a little higher. Since they are slow on the uptake and are rarely over ambitious.

I understand the advantages that the other races may have on paper, but it is the cultural limitations that have a greater effect on roleplaying (at least in my campaign world).

The ability to be multi-classed should be more than enough of an 'advantage' to offset being human. That rule never made much sense to me either... but that another issue for another thread...

Riegan Swordwraith
12-13-2001, 06:52 AM
I agree with you fully Lawgiver...However I must put a but to it.If every gamer were to play just for the role-playing,the system would work wonderfully as is.However in D&D,as in any game,you have power-gamers.Even the best role-players,sometimes pick their race or class based only on what they can get out of it.Power-Gamers are my bane.I hate them with a passion.It is one thing to fight in a way that is most beneficial to your character,but to only fight in that manner,even if it means you dont even make an attack,because you cant get your opponent in the exact spot you need him so you can backstab/fireball/crit him is stupid.And yes I have a player in my group who does that very thing.He one time let the wizard die because he couldn't get the wizard';s attacker in a flank.

In second edition,almost without exception,I was the only person in my group to play a human.With humans getting a little something in 3E,people in my group play humans a LOT more.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Lord Eldred
12-13-2001, 07:56 PM
Riegan, I know how you feel, we had a person in our group who would stop engaging the enemy if he ran out of his best spells even though he was able to fight with a sword decently. His roleplaying never made sense to me!

I don't really see a reason for the limitations. I do see a reason for given humans some racial benefits but it shouldn't be unlimited advancement. To argue that humans are the only race capable of advancement smacks of racism and I just don't really like to go there.

Lawgiver
12-13-2001, 08:13 PM
There are other solutions:
-withhold exp
-drain regency
-Use NPCs to do the same actions to the PC
-Punish them for their insolence! Kill PCs who refuse to play right dispite warnings and encouragement. If they quit... they were ruining the campaign anyway. ;)


Lord Eldred: As far as racism goes. I fully agree with you. I was going to use that angle early on but held off.

Temujin
12-15-2001, 02:57 AM
Orginally posted by Riegan Swordwraith
It is one thing to fight in a way that is most beneficial to your character,but to only fight in that manner,even if it means you dont even make an attack,because you cant get your opponent in the exact spot you need him so you can backstab/fireball/crit him is stupid.And yes I have a player in my group who does that very thing.He one time let the wizard die because he couldn't get the wizard';s attacker in a flank.


Tell me about it. In a 3rd edition game, I had this rogue as a partner who would just insist that my character(a Khinasi warrior who concerned himself with face and honor above his own life) would fight in the front row, take the blows, and drag the enemies in the good position so he could sneak attack them. Okay, doing it one time if needed is okay... but asking me to do that all the time just pisses me off.

Lawgiver
12-15-2001, 06:47 AM
Temujin: Just fails to be able to bring the enemy in the clutches of this petty rogue. Maybe parry indefinately... until the rogue engages. Or intentionally... keep looking over the opponent's shoulder to tip him off that some one is sneaking in behind. Accuse the rogue of trying to insult you by stealing the honor of fighting fairly.

Xander
12-17-2001, 02:06 AM
It does make sense that an elf who out lives a human by an exponential factor should be able to out gain any human level wise in nearly any class. Lawgiver has taken the racial lvl limit into account by making them a near drow existance. Long live lawgiver the "man" for all elves.:P

Strahd
12-18-2001, 11:34 PM
Orginally posted by Temujin

Tell me about it. In a 3rd edition game, I had this rogue as a partner who would just insist that my character(a Khinasi warrior who concerned himself with face and honor above his own life) would fight in the front row, take the blows, and drag the enemies in the good position so he could sneak attack them. Okay, doing it one time if needed is okay... but asking me to do that all the time just pisses me off.

ROLEPLAY my friend! How do you think the Khinasi warrior would feel? Really pissed off? Act like it. And if the rogue insists, pull a blow at him (in game, not in real life :) ), show him how pissed you are. Or grab 70%, not 50% of treasures, as you do most of the work -and let the rogue know the reason! Then watch the rogue react... I am totally against the logic "well, we are a party, so I get along with him whatever". Opinions?

Lawgiver
12-19-2001, 03:33 AM
Orginally posted by Strahd
ROLEPLAY my friend! How do you think the Khinasi warrior would feel? Really pissed off? Act like it. And if the rogue insists, pull a blow at him (in game, not in real life :) ), show him how pissed you are. Or grab 70%, not 50% of treasures, as you do most of the work -and let the rogue know the reason! Then watch the rogue react... I am totally against the logic "well, we are a party, so I get along with him whatever". Opinions?

I whole heartedly agree. Though I doubt the Khinasi would take extra treasure as compensation. Get together with your GM and set up a fight with an enemy that your theif freind can't handle alone. Insist that you would find it dishonorable to fight such a 'weak' foe two on one. :P Do anything but standby and be pushed around be a rookie player or one who abuses the rules.

Temujin
12-19-2001, 08:20 AM
Orginally posted by Strahd
ROLEPLAY my friend! How do you think the Khinasi warrior would feel? Really pissed off? Act like it. And if the rogue insists, pull a blow at him (in game, not in real life :) ), show him how pissed you are. Or grab 70%, not 50% of treasures, as you do most of the work -and let the rogue know the reason! Then watch the rogue react... I am totally against the logic "well, we are a party, so I get along with him whatever". Opinions?

Obviously I role-played. However, I'd like to point out that Khinasi honor (and the faith of Avani) is against giving in to anger. I just could not go venting my anger in a fit, nor could I act unfairly('tis dishonorable to do so after all; one must always apply higher standards to oneself than to others). However, the party did end up splitting up in the last game we played(the game's be kind of on hold for a few weeks now), as my and another's characters finally realised they did not have much compatibility with the party's rogue.

The strangest thing about our game though, is that we have no set dm, we are 3 players who also are dms depending on the game, and we're not sure how to proceed. My friend(not the rogue one) does not seems to really want to continue it much, but I've got him to think about possibly continuing it provided that we keep the party out of conflicts. We'll see what happens with that...

Lawgiver
12-19-2001, 01:20 PM
ah! tag team DMing. In a normal roleplaying session it may be easier, I find it harder to accomplish in Birthright for extend intrigues within campaign. However, a good sub once in a while is welcome ease on the brain. We generally end up switching DMs and running 2-3 campaigns at once and accompishing... well, nothing over the long run. Of course our table top group has been dispersed for a couple of years now. 2 of my players live 200 miles away and another lives about 150.

Lord Eldred
01-01-2002, 07:32 PM
We have multiple DMs but I am the main one. I run the campaign world, the other DMs run adventures within it. It seems to be working out very well!

It is comforting to know that there are other campaigns out there that one charactrer and their player can make it very difficult to continue! I have booted one player because he argued with everything that was done and other members booted another because he 1. did not play his character right and 2. was skipping out on sessions. IT is always hard to decide what to do when the campaign can not survive with one of the players especially if you have a small group.

Lawgiver
01-01-2002, 08:01 PM
With my group spilt up I've been going through withdrawals. Alas I have consoled myself to living vicariously through this site and a meager PBeM that I have been trying to run. On the upside one of my original players, Xander and I are getting together for a session this Fri. Feel free to swing by and play if your free. ;)

Lord Eldred
01-01-2002, 08:46 PM
Sure how long is the drive from Michigan to Kentucky?

Lawgiver
01-01-2002, 09:15 PM
What part of Michigan? Its 17.5 hours from Osseo, WI.

My parents are moving to WI (Osseo, near Eua Claire) next year. Maybe I can sidestep a bit or we can meet half way play a session when I go to visit.

Ariadne
07-02-2002, 01:09 PM
In my opinion level limits are the greatest rubbish the (A)D&D game ever had. I was very glad that my DM canceled this after the 3rd Edition appeared!

If someone speaks of game balance he should give a level limitation vor Awnshelien (or Ershelien) as well...

Lord Eldred
07-02-2002, 01:39 PM
Orginally posted by Lawgiver

What part of Michigan? Its 17.5 hours from Osseo, WI.

My parents are moving to WI (Osseo, near Eua Claire) next year. Maybe I can sidestep a bit or we can meet half way play a session when I go to visit.

26 Miles North of Detroit. It is over 8 hours to the Wisconsin Dells from where I live. It seems it would be quite a big side step ;)