From: markf@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Mark Fenoglio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Level limits
Date: 18 Dec 1992 07:49:09 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu
Keywords: four-way balance

>Spurred on by a private e-mail discussion, I've decided to inflict
>my arrogant, anthropocentric views on the rest of you....
>

No comment.

>The level limits on non-humans are there purely for game balance.  If
>there are no limits, every player would choose a non-human character --
>and the game designers wanted to have humans around to be consistent
>with the genre of fantasy literature.

So what.  If all the players wish to play demi-humans, so be it.  The DM
can always insist the players choose humans for the purpose of his long
term campaign plans.  And the game balance argument is crap.  While it is
true that allowing elves unlimited advancement may seem like a death
sentence for humans, that simply isn't true.  The reason (I think)
humans dominate is the relative size of their population, which is
considerably larger than elves.  This is precisely because elves live
longer.

Since you mentioned LotR, consider a simple example there.  Elrond
had three children (Elladan, Elrohir, and Arwen) in the same time
period as his brother Elros continued with over 50 generations of men.
That's a lot of people.  Sure, Elrond was more powerful than nearly
any human lord, but that isn't enough to stem the tide of the many
men balanced against him.
>
>         (And the human characters, Boromir, Aragorn, Gandalf and
>Saruman, are definitely the most interesting)
   [stereotype stuff deleted]

Gandalf and Saruman were most certainly not human.

>Non-humans have large advantages over humans at low levels.  They have
>infravision, more languages, and special racial abilities which humans
>lack (finding secret doors, sloping passages, speaking with burrowing
>mammals, etc.).  They have bonuses (and the occasional insignificant
>penalty) on starting statistics.  The "racial limits" on stats are so
>high that they only restrict an amazingly high roll (usually).  They
>even have some small combat bonuses (halflings with slings, dwarves
>vs.  giants, elves with longsword and longbows).
>

In my campaign at least, I have several different races of Men which
each have there own advantages (since I play 2nd Ed, these generally
take the form of non-weapon proficiencies and bonuses with a particular
weapon)

I also disallow the languages initially known by elves, dwarves, etc.
The character must use NWP slots to learn languages (I use the # of
lang under Intelligence as NWP slots).

    [genetics lesson deleted]

>I can't buy the story that "elves live longer, therefore they should be
>unlimited in level."  Because the elven races live longer is precisely
>the reason why they should NOT be allowed to progress to high (14+)
>levels of clericism and magic use.  The really powerful spells (in
>AD&D1), including Wish, Limited Wish, Alter Reality, Resurrection,
>Gate, and Restoration, cause magical aging in the caster.

These are powerful spells, true.  My campaign has a simple (albeit
arbitrary) solution: there are no wishes or similar spells.  In
addition, Ressurection and Raise Dead are powers granted by a deity.
Deities (at least mine) don't make a habit of allowing those spells
to be cast in their name very often (read as almost never).

>When I was young, I sometimes wanted to be a member of another race.
>Humans can be, well, frustrating.  But as I've grown, I really started
>to like being human.  Dwarves are good drinking buddies, and a pair of
>elven maidens may be fun for a weekend.   Nobody throws a party like
>gnomes and halflings, and a half-orc can't be beat in a dark alley.
>But, believe me when I say it, there's no better race to be -- anywhere
>in the multiverse -- than a human being.

Play humans.  I like the challenge of DMing and playing characters
with a far different culture and outlook.
>

Just my $.02 worth.
Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd