AD&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, Dungeons & Dragons, Learn the Game

Class Restrictions and Level Limits in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition

Level restrictions and class limitations were always concepts that eluded me when I played Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition (D&D 3e) and that I imagine tend to be even more alien for players who have begun with Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition (D&D 5e). For us the demi-human races have always been unfettered. So when I began reading the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition (AD&D 2e) Player’s Handbook I was hoping that there would be some sort of explanation for why such limitations were placed on demi-humans. The Player’s Handbook provided an answer:

“. . . The limits also exist for play balance. The ability of humans to assume any role and reach any level is their only advantage. The demi-human races have other powers that make them entertaining to play – particularly the ability to be multi-classed . . . These powers balance the enjoyment of play against the ability to rise in level . . .”

Cook, 27

According to the TSR AD&D 2e Design Team the answer is “game balance” but as D&D 3e would show us there was no reason to make that assumption as you could remove those restrictions and still balance the game. It’s an answer that leaves much to be desired as declaring that something has been done for game balance doesn’t inspire much loyalty to the concept.

Gary Gygax provided a different reason for the restrictions in Dragon Magazine:

“. . . Demi-humans were limited in the first place (in the original rules) because I conceived of a basically human-dominated world. Considering their other abilities, if most demi-humans were put on a par with humans in terms of levels they could attain, then there isn’t much question who would be saying “Sir!” to whom . . .”

Gygax, 8

Now that’s a more compelling argument as to why demi-humans should be restricted: because otherwise they would dominate the game worlds to the point where humans were an afterthought – which is exactly what happened in later versions of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). Another assessment of demi-humans would make the argument as follows:

“. . . Characters of the major demi-human races begin their AD&D game lives with distinct advantages. Some advantages, such as infravision, resistance to magic and poison, and bonuses to attack rolls inhibit the attrition rate of these 1st-level characters. Thus, a demi-human character often has a greater chance of surviving to advanced levels than an identical character of the human race. The lifespans of demi-humans are nearly always longer than those of humans as well. To offset this, the demi-human character is limited to relatively few classes and cannot advance to the highest reaches in most of these . . .”

Prager, 24

This line of thinking creates a compelling argument for limiting a demi-human’s advancement which was the standard from 1977 – 2000 (23 years). D&D 3e would ignore this and would instead argue that by providing humans with equitable powers (additional feats, skills, and so forth) to the demi-humans that they could still dominate the game worlds and keep them human-centric. It’s an argument that I have often been at odds with over the years as the powers demi-humans retained (darkvision, magical resistances, longevity, et al) over their human counterparts have made it hard to argue that humans would dominate their fictional worlds. How could humans with their short lifespans and countless frailties overwhelm the rest of the world and become the driving force?

It’s a question there are no easy answers to as multiple settings have attempted to deal with it by arguing that humans breed too quickly, demi-humans too slowly; that demi-humans have been overcome by costly wars with each other and monstrous races.  I’ve even seen some settings where humans are in the ascendance because demi-humans can’t exist with technology and humans represent its rise.

There’s not a good reason why humans would come to dominance over the demi-human races that I’ve encountered.  And that may be the best argument for keeping level restrictions.

Works Cited:

Cook, David “Zeb,” et al. Player’s Handbook for the AD&D Game. USA: TSR Inc, 1996. pg 27 PRINT

Gygax, Gary. “Demi-humans get a lift the last word on level limits and abilities.” Dragon Magazine March 1985: pg. 8 PDF

Prager, John R. “Give Demi-humans an Even Break! More dice are nice when rolling ability scores.” Dragon Magazine January 1988: pg. 24 PDF

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Class Restrictions and Level Limits in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition”

  1. Here’s what often happened: The level limits didn’t dissuade players from running demihumans. Once they figured out most campaigns never reached those upper levels, they went ahead usually played some demi-human character. Why play a human fighter with a longsword when you can play an elven fighter with a +1 bonus to the longsword along with all the other elven abilities.

    Multiclassing was also popular. Players could be dissuaded by the slow advancement. But I still saw a lot of fighter/thieves, fighter/mages, or cleric/mages. I once rolled up a half-elf fighter/mage/thief which never went beyond level one in any of the classes because the campaign ended. I knew somebody else who created a half-elf fighter/mage/druid–he liked the character at first, until learned he had to divide all experience points and hit points between all three classes.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. The way experience points were award was part of it. DMs often didn’t give XP per gold piece found. So leveling up tended to be slow. The real problem, however, was the social beast. It was hard (still is) to get players to commit to a campaign which would last from levels 1-20. I remember reading somewhere (either in Dragon magazine, or most likely on the Eric Noahs Unofficial 3e News http://www.enworld.org/ericnoah/ ) that the average campaign lasted only about 8 sessions before falling apart for various reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. The number came from one of the 3e designers. It had something to do with reason why leveling up in 3e tends to be faster than in AD&D 2e.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. That makes me wonder if the design team was providing accurate information that truly reflected the way the game was being played at the time. I imagine it was harder to gather that information during the late 90s than today, but I don’t really know. I didn’t even have internet until 2000.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Level limits is one reason I moved to a point buy game, GURPS. Now the cost of all of the species based advantages are front-loaded, and for an equivalent point value, starting humans have an advantage because it costs more to have innate spellcasting, infravision and whatnot. at higher point ranges, the variety of advantages available to non humans are not accessible to humans, so they are differently powerful, but not quite equal.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I started my D&D life under 2nd Edition rules in 1994. While many campaigns were short lived, I did manage to play a Half Elf Bard to level 20. Our gamemaster didn’t see the point of level limits so long as the players were having fun and contributing to the story.

    As far as game balance/character balance- didn’t matter. Characters aren’t equal, no matter how much a developer tries to make them so. Even when the numbers and mechanics say they’re equal, the players will always bring their own factor to the equation. Party members support one another, overcome obstacles and save the day.

    A feature of 2nd Edition which was unbalancing was dual-class for humans. From the 2nd Edition Player’s Handbook, p 45, “There is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire…” The limitations were, or course, the limited lifespan of humans and the attribute value requirements, but neither of these is much of an obstacle to overcome.
    With the blessing of a former gamemaster, I played a human dual class who eventually earned the following levels: Fighter 9, Cleric 7, Thief 9, Wizard 13- quite a potent combination and almost completely self-sufficient. The only thing he couldn’t do was make his own babies.

    Enjoyable read.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.