Belen
Legend
Actually, this accounts for a lot of my DM design choices. I always run humano-centric worlds and settings. I like fantasy races and I accommodate many of them; however, the worlds are always very humano-centric.
What was the reason for Demihuman level and class limits in AD&D?
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
aramis erak
Legend
IME, not just wants, but already has, with 5E... and 5.24 is simply a cleanup to force the changes made in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything into the core, and change a few classes to fit the actual intended design standard, even if it does narratively feel «bleep»ing messed up to not select subclass to 3rd...
or so I've heard. I've not personally looked at (and have no plans to do so) 5.24.
Voadam
Legend
Advancement is for adventuring PCs and not NPCs.
This way you get zero to 20 PC humans at the same rate as zero to 20 PC elves and equal level PC parties.
Old NPC dwarves are just old, not continually advancing in levels based on accumulating xp. NPCs just get whatever level they get. D&D communities are not warped to be dominated by powerful elders unless an individual DM says they are for that game.
Even in TSR D&D you did not have communities of elves where most everybody except the youngest was maxxed out in their character classes. Higher level people were generally leaders or subleaders of warbands or exceptional individuals and most are just level 1 people.
aramis erak
Legend
except in late D&DOE, AD&D (1e and 2e), and D&D 3e... where there are specifically classes for NPCs only. Oh, and Palladium, The Atlantean System (The Arcanum), Rolemaster, Talislanta, etc.
Many NPC classes with XP tables and level titles exist in SR and Dragon. Most of them got 2E treatments in a specific Blue-cover splat.
So, while Gary claimed classes and levels were only for PCs, he sure signed off on printing a lot of NPC classes.
Also, in OE and AD&D, there's XP for making money...
Last edited:
Jack Daniel
Legend
▯
Last edited:
That's what I heard too. A gamist answer to a narrative question that solved nothing narratively and merely raised fi=urther questions
The problem is that this is a doylist fix to a watsonian problem. It's deus ex machina. (Or perhaps even worse than deus ex machina, because deus ex machina at least implies some in-world explanation, however contrived.)
EDIT:
Rather than even being deus ex machina, it's closer to something like this:
In a certain kingdom once lived a poor miller who had a very beautiful daughter. She was moreover exceedingly shrewd and clever; and the miller was so vain and proud of her, that he one day told the king of the land that his daughter could spin gold out of straw. Now this king was very fond of money; and when he heard the miller's boast, his avarice was excited, and he ordered the girl to be brought before him. Then he led her to a chamber where there was a great quantity of straw, gave her a spinning-wheel, and said, "All this must be spun into gold before morning, as you value your life." It was in vain that the poor maiden declared that she could do no such thing. AND THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER, THE END
EDIT:
A Lion was awakened from sleep by a Mouse running over his face. Rising up in anger, he caught him and was about to kill him. And they all lived happily ever after, THE END.
EDIT:
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean
And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Edit:
I'll stop now, but the point is that level limits haven't actually done anything to explain away the problem. On world the setting is no different than if it had no level limits and you simply didn't include any high level demihuman NPCs
Last edited:
howandwhy99
Adventurer
D&D originally is a game of unknown abilities. The players are given a body, not a personality, not an identity, but a creature they control. This creature has abilities, strengths and weaknesses, needs and desires, that are built into its design. That is, a designed game element. Many, if not most, of these abilities are unknown to the players. All rules and designs (builds) are hidden from them. This is the core conceit of the game.
D&D is now considered humanocentric because players were presumed to be able to guess all of the above for their character piece. D&D defaults to Human because the players were presumed to all be human.
Demi-humans were the ones which lost human abilities. Or this might be seen to be as gaining variations of unknown abilities and needs, et cetera, for everything else the game includes. These are also all unknown, but not easy to guess. However Demihumans gained a number of rather magical abilities to make up for these losses. But they weren't the default (or assumed game players)
D&D is now considered humanocentric because players were presumed to be able to guess all of the above for their character piece. D&D defaults to Human because the players were presumed to all be human.
Demi-humans were the ones which lost human abilities. Or this might be seen to be as gaining variations of unknown abilities and needs, et cetera, for everything else the game includes. These are also all unknown, but not easy to guess. However Demihumans gained a number of rather magical abilities to make up for these losses. But they weren't the default (or assumed game players)
santosud37
Villager
I am confused about something I found in the Unearthed Arcana p9 that Elven Thieves r Unlimited in Level?
I have another question.
Does Magic Armor give Saving Throw bonuses as well as AC? If so, which Saving Throws does this bonus be given to?
Thanks in Advanc,
David
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Exactly, this had nothing to do with balance. It's just meant to discourage players from choosing demi-humans, while leaving it as a choice for those who insist, and as a source of stats for NPCs that matches with Chainmail, as noted.
If balance was a concern, then fighters and wizards would have similar power levels, which is not even remotely the case.
Similar Threads
