Is it me or were elves unfairly restrained?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

zombiegleemax

Jul 24, 2003 12:49:59
I personally love elf characters. It is 98% of what I play. And I never agreed with the level restrictions. I never had a campaign where we got further than level 18. Most time, people just left the group. So it was never an issue. But when Oriental Adventures came out, I powered up my elves with some martial arts. Always the soft styles mostly, but the Gruganch elves I geared toward the harder styles.

Just my opinion, but elves and other demi-humans with racial limits on levels? Bah! I say thee nay!
#2

zombiegleemax

Jul 24, 2003 14:25:55
Switch to 3e (or 3.5e now) as all racial level limits have been scrapped, and IMHO its a better system too.
#3

zombiegleemax

Jul 24, 2003 14:37:43
Even if you stuck with 2e, there was no clear rational for the level caps for non human races. A few non human races were overpowered at low levels, but fairly equal to a human at mid to higher levels.

Convince your DM to drop the level caps, or convince your group to switch to 3e. If you can't do that, then find a new group ;) (j/k).
#4

Argon

Jul 24, 2003 17:44:49
I never liked level restrictions but if you don't limit Demi-human and Humanoid races somehow there can be an unfair balance or a world that doesn't make sense.
Humans have the biggest populations and in every AD&D product it is a human mage which is reknowned for his power. Why is that you ask? Simple their must be something different about the races which dwell on the planet.
Think about it Elves are immortal unless killed basically. If an Elvin character is allowed to progress as a human character this would be the scenario. A human character starts his career around 20 years of age give or take a few years. An Elvin character begins his career around age 125 give or take a few years. Fifty years go by the human character has lived a long and properous adventuring career and attained a level of advancement of 1 lvl for every 2.5 years adventuring over fifty years which makes the human character 20th level quite impressive but he dies a year or two later. The Elvin character if allowed to advance at the same rate would still be a spring chicken and at that rate of advancement would be 120th level by the age of 425 years old still able to rule an empire for at least another 200 to three hundred years besides having the ability to slay every human and goblinoid race on the planet.
Now lets take an Elvin approach to adventuring it is something to be studied for a long time their is no need to rush it along and you have an eternity to master it, so why not enjoy other things. Making an Elvin character pay 3 times the experience of a human character still gives them the capability of exceeding 20th level but by the time an Elvin character has achieved this the remainder of their life is the Elvin equivilent of a humans life span.
Ultimately it's up to your DM to decide what's allowed in the campaign world he or she is running. It seems to me that your DM has been far beyond generous with allowing your Elvin characters to pick up what I term the ridiculous martial arts rules of Oriental Adventures 1edition AD&D not sure if their was ever an update I could only hope that their was not one that simply duplicated its affects.
Also this encourages more human character in the campaign world if Demi-human races are more lax on the adventuring life style then it stands to reason the success of the human race. In my campaign world Dwarves need 2 times the normal experience to advance, Gnomes need 2.5 times the experience to advance, Halflings and Half-Elves require 1.5 times the experience to advance a level.
All Demi-human races begin with more proficiencies and abilities than any starting human character. But in a humans life span things equate to be the same.
Well that's my 2 cents but your free to play D&D however you like it. So if you like what I have done then use it. If you think what I have done is nonsense then pay no mind to my rantings. Either way as long as the outcome is an enjoyable game then who really cares what anyone else thinks!
#5

zombiegleemax

Jul 24, 2003 20:09:30
We've never used lvl restrictions, they never made since esp. for demi-humans. They live longer than humans, why should they be restricted? Scrap that rule!
#6

zombiegleemax

Jul 25, 2003 9:17:54
You guys should pop over to dragonsfoot.org where they argue about this all day long.

personallY like demihuman level limits. It makes up for the demihuman's natural abilities that they all have together with the one big bonus of demihumans - the ability to multiclass. This severly compensates for the level limits.

Also I play 1e and if you use the erratta'd multiclass combinations from Dragon 55 (I think) and the level limits for UA your are very unlikely to run into a real problem.

But hey, if you are the DM and don't like level limits then scrap 'em. (Although if you do this I would also suggest you let humans multicalss too, by which time you may as well play 3rd ed anyway.)
#7

Argon

Jul 26, 2003 0:22:02
Well Sardan I took away the multi-class option from my campaign. if you read my post above their are no level limits but demi-humans pay more experience to gain a level. I still allow Dual Class characters because I feel they make more sense than multi-class characters.
I had a person playing an Elf character who wanted to play a spell casting fighter. This was way back in the 1st Edition days. So I told him he could play a ranger character. But he said no I just want to play an Elvin character who is a fighter but also studies magic. Ok so you want to play a multi-class character, fighter mage. He replied no I want to pay fighter experience and cast wizard spells.
So what excuse could I use? The skills you learn as a fighter are to difficult and time consuming for you to learn magic. Then why can I play a multi-class character?
It was then that I relized two things one he was right it did not make sense to have multi-class characters especially ones with wizard abilities. And the Wizard class specifies that the training of a Wizard is so time consuming and dificult that they do not have time to learn the proper use of armor's and weapon's. The wizard class could not wear armor and was limited in their choice of weapons.
Dual-Class made more sense because one leaves a career to pick up another and never rises in level as his previous class again.
#8

zombiegleemax

Jul 26, 2003 4:33:20
Hi Argon

Each to their own and by all means play as you wish.

But I see it as multi-class and dual class simply as different ways of modelling slightly different things using the games rules. The multi-class character is a demi-human who (because demi-humans are special, different, unusual, etc.) learns diverse skills and has different abilities from those of humans. The dual class is a character who starts one career and then changes to another.

In the 1e game I am currently in there are four characters, three humans, a Magic-user, a Ranger and a Paladin and one Elf. The Elf is a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief in game terms but to our characters he is simply an Elf.

Elves are *different*, they are innately magical and all study magic - hence the magic-user class. Elves are also stealthy and dextrous (note innate Elf abilities re detecting secret doors) - hence the thief levels. We don't view him as a character with three professions, we view him as an elf with strange elvish abilities. The multi-class is just a way of modelling that.

And as an elf while he has all these abilities he has a natural limit in some of them. That's just the way it is. He's *different*. He's an Elf!

Now that all makes perfect sense to us in the way we play the game and the way in which we perceive the rules as modelling the fantasy.

But if doesn't work for you or you need to change the rules because the fantasy world you are trying to model with the rules is different from the typical Gygaxian Greyhawk D&D world, then change the rules.
#9

zombiegleemax

Jul 28, 2003 14:27:20
I use to have three continents on Oerth. Greyhawk area, Dragonlance to the east, and my own Olvenlands to the west. They were all quite large, so figure Oerth is the size of Saturn and very few went from one to the other.

But I had my elven religon set in that the elves above ground were always locked in battle with the Drow. So if dark elves had no limits either, then no limit grey elves & kin, always had their hands full with their cousins. And that the gods of Oerth had agreements in not want the world consumed in a race & religon war.

That being said, my favorite elf was a cleric/fighter/magic-user and whooped butt with his battle axe. Which was an artifact that grew in power as he did. But it was the axe was sentient and was more of a friend/mentor than weapon, now I think about those days of old.

But with an obligation and honor to join against the dark elves, and fear of punishment from above, who had time to be elf that said, 'Hey, alignment change at level 50 (for instance), I am taking over everything.' Then imagine flash from the sky and your are in a temple on Elysium. "Hey great one, I was kidding about that alignment change stuff. Uh-oh."

Thanks to all who posted, great discussion thread.
#10

Argon

Jul 28, 2003 15:56:39
Your welcome Savant of Magi. Ultimately you will make your final decision on what you allow in your campaign world. Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. What all of us have posted here are mere suggestions or things we have done in our own campaigns. Take what you would like to use and disregard the rest.
Happy gaming!
#11

ytzak

Jul 28, 2003 23:38:16
I have been playing since the first 3 book boxed set of Dungeon and Dragons. Long ago I found that Elves, in the hands of a cunning player (and with a DM who was not careful) were the most easily abused of all classes. For quite some time I have included a dislike and distrust of elves in my player characters.

In Grayhawk, similar to Middle Earth, Elves are withdrawing from the world. This is a sensible precaution because a group of immortal beings with natual magical abilities would be very unbalancing in a system. If you just twist the rules a little and make them prolific as goblins, the world would quickly be up to its pointed ears in elves. Their natually long lives means that there would be a much larger number of Epic level elvish characters. Why should they fritter away their lives like mortals. They would come to dominate economics. Patience is a virtue in business, especially if you will outlive all of your competitors and their grandchilcren.

Just think of the rarity of your elf as a bonus.
#12

Argon

Jul 29, 2003 16:13:58
Well said Ytzak, I do agree to with your take on abuseing the Elvin character. When I started my campaign one of the limits I put on the character creation process, was the fact that their could only be one Elvin character whether it be half-elf or of full Elvin blood in the party. I also had a similar restriction on Gnomes and my version of Trolls. Each Demi-human race in my campaign pays additional experience to achieve a level than it would take for a human character. Elvin characters pay 3 times the experience point cost to acheive a level while Halfling's and Half-Elves pay 1.5 times the experience point cost.
Now one of the benefits of my system was that their were no level limits. Another benefit which kind of stresses the point of Demi-human vs. Human interaction with the world. Most Players don't want to pay the experience point cost to play a Demi-human character because of the slower rate of advancement. Demi-humans start with skills and proficiences that most human characters must use slots for. In the end you have more human interaction in the world then Demi-human interaction. Explaining in further detail how humans conquered most of the known continent's.
In the end the only player's who will play a demi-human character are those who don't care about the disadvantages of the Demi-human race. But instead wish to role play their ideal character.