People make such a big deal out of it, as if removing demi-human level limits is a radical act of disobedience that is going to derail their game if not handled correctly. Iv'e seen people fret less over handling samples of ebola virus than some people fret over how to "fix" the "problem" of removing demi-human level limits. I mean dear god, if it's that horrendously dangerous a move to make, then simply keep the rule intact. Every time I see the topic come up, I want to grab someone by the throat and say: It's not gonna kill your game! Relax! There's nothing to 'fix'. Just ignore the rule. Nothing bad will happen!".
Look, it's been proven time and time again in these debates that the only thing that removing demi-human level limits is going to do is (at worst) - perhaps - cause a greater percentage of players to choose demi-human characters over human characters. Is that a problem, really? Removing those silly rules has zero impact on the campaign world, and the oft-repeated, silly, cliched, unfounded and illogical nonsense about 100th level elven wizards conquering the world has been disproven so many times that you'd think people would have stop fretting over it by now. Instead, they create lists of charts and percentages and levels and compensations and engage in contortions to the point that you'd think if they didn't do so, the gaming table would burst into a pyre of spontaneous combustion, consuming all attending.
I glanced through the thread I saw (at DF) and at least one person spoke with common sense (which is a rare thing over there these days). Phantasm72 wrote:
I haven't used level limits for 20 years, so I guess I have some experience with it. I don't do any of the things you suggest. I don't penalize demihuman characters in any way, I don't give a bonus to human characters either. Game works absolutely fine
Bingo! Same here. Never had a problem. Look, you can give a 10% or 25% xp penalty to demi-humans to go above their "limit" (slow advancement rule), you can give human PCs a bonus to an ability score or give them extra specialization or whatever...bottom line, your damned human is still not going to gain infravision, chances to detect slopes/secret doors/depths, enjoy enhanced resistance to poison or magic, gain a bonus to hit with a sword or bow, gain thaco/AC bonuses against giants, etc, etc. Suck it up buttercup! Your human is a freaking human for god's sake! End of story! He can't do what demi-humans do. No matter how you f#<k around with xp or proficiencies or ability scores.
So my take is this. If for some reason you fear removing demi-human level limits like humans fear ebola virus, leave them in the game. If you don't want the rule, discard it. End of story. No need to go through the extreme machinations I see so many people going through. It's not going to unbalance your game or change the racial make-up of your world. If it's that problematic and you think it will, don't be a DM. You're not fit to handle it. Just keep the damned rule in place.
Now granted, I know there are DMs who, with legitimate reasons, may want a predominantly human party. An example I've given is a DM who wants to involve the PCs extensively in Underdark adventures. That DM may not want most of the party to have infravision and the ability to detect slopes and passages and depths. I get it. Fine. I'd feel the same way. But the obvious (and simplest) solution is to simply tell the players: "For this campaign, I need to have at least 75% or the party human, not demi-human." Let them work it out. But I see these posts and I think: "Jesus H. Christ, people! It's mental masturbation to the extreme! You're doing cartwheels trying to find a solution to a non-problem."
Argh! Rant over! I throw my hands up in frustration! I'll never understand why people feel compelled to turn a "2 + 2 = 4" math problem into a 40-page trigonometry exercise.