PlanetADnD.com

After many years of excluding the demihuman level limit rule and declaring it idiotic, I have decided that it does make sense and that I will henceforth include it in my campaigns.

Just kidding! I'm crazy, not stupid!

But now that I have your attention, I'll get to the real reason for the post. This particular rant isn't about arguing whether it causes players to choose more elven characters than humans, or how it unbalances the game and/or ironically has no effect in real terms on the game. No, this is meant to attack Gygax's silly humano-centric obsession which, by the time 2E came along, had morphed into the insane argument that:

"The world would be dominated by these extremely powerful beings [high level demihumans], to the exclusion of humans."

- PHB, pg. 14

It's become an urban legend, a meme, a false belief of almost mythic proportions. And yet all it amounts to in reality is a delusion (a persistent, false belief despite strong evidence to the contrary). It is repeated, parroted and defended without much thought. Above all, it's total bullshit. Let's recap some old ground...

First, In numerous posts here and elsewhere over the years, I've posted countless arguments detailing how and why removing demihuman level limits would not result in demihumans "dominating the world to the exclusion of humans" and how a humano-centric world (or at least one in which humans are on equal standing with other races) can be achieved without contradicting the internal logic of the game or harming suspension of disbelief.

One of the major issues I've explained (and which most people trying to "debate" me avoid addressing) is that the entire premise of demihumans dominating the world has never been established as a default state. In other words, the side arguing that demihumans would, simply because they have certain beyond-human abilities (infravision for example), "dominate the world to the exclusion of humans" has never demonstrated any such inherent desire, tendency, need or ability on the part of demihumans to do so.

Does anyone playing AD&D see elves as a world-conquering race? In Tolkein's writing, the elves are on the decline and leaving the world of man. In the Forgotten Realms setting, we see a similar situation. The elves are retreating to Evermeet, not invading the Dalelands and Cormyr!

Does anyone in their right mind see gnomes as violent, world-conquering tyrants who would invade the country next to their and enslave/eradicate humans? If so, there are treatments for that drug addiction, and sooner or later the hallucinations will stop. The very thought is absurd to the point of idiocy.

Does anyone truly believe that dwarves are so hateful and intolerant of prissy elves dancing around in the woods under the moonlight singing songs that they would leave their underground mines en masse and engage in a systematic annihilation of the elves? I thought not. Note that in the 1E PHB dwarves are listed as having antipathy towards elves, but are neutral towards humans. If dwarves are not going to engage in the genocide of a race for whom they feel antipathy, they certainly aren't going to waste time waging war against a race to whom they are indifferent.

And anyone who thinks halflings would engage in a genocidal war against anyone or anything is simply too stupid for me to communicate with.

So the racial mental/emotional make-up of each demihuman race argues against the insane concept that demihumans without level limits would destroy the human race.

And despite the fact that arguments to defend the negation of level limits in order to keep the human race intact in the fantasy milieu are not necessary, I have nonetheless given quite a few. For example, the elves being in decline and deciding to leave the world and retreat to their own hidden lands (Tolkien, FR. etc.), lower birth rates for certain demihumans making them less able to compete with the more fecund humans, demihumans' lack of desire for temporal power due to their longer lives (humans feel the need to achieve more with force due to having the shortest lifespans of the races), curses, enlightenment (the elves are so old that they've seen the folly of war and refuse to engage in it unless attacked), aversion to violence (halflings being cowardly, indulgent, non-aggressive beings - gnomes being friendly, humorous, reclusive beings, etc), and so on and so forth.

And remember, not every member of a race is an adventurer! Adventurers are rare amongst any of the races. Most are 0th-level farmers, kings, carpenters, scribes, craftsmen,sages, soldiers, etc. They don't have "levels".

And so what about those "abilities" that demihumans have? Those don't mean squat in context of going to war against the human race. Elves can see in the dark - but so can humans, if they use torches or light spells. Elves and gnomes can move more stealthily - fine, but that doesn't help them evade the trained noses of guard dogs or war dogs, nor does it afford immunity to scouts, human rangers, druids, etc. Dwarves are pretty resistant to poison - but that isn't going to make a bit of difference when they're hit with Greek fire, giant stones from catapults, a rain of arrows from human archers, or maces and swords that stand taller than the average dwarven body!

But one issue I've never argued is geopolitics. And in a related manner, geography.

Let's look at our own world as an example. America has remained relatively free of invasion by foreign enemies for the majority of her existence mainly due to the seclusion of being surrounded by oceans. And Canadians. J/K! But seriously, ignoring for the moment the mass migration problem coming from the south (Mexico), America has remained isolated and therefore pretty much not attacked. Likewise, Australia and New Zealand. It would be difficult for dwarves to sail across an ocean to invade a human kingdom - and for what reason? They're not a sea-going race! Likewise, it would be difficult for lizardmen to invade a cold northern human nation due to their metabolism. And so on and so forth.

A relatively isolated human nation or two would be difficult for any other race to attack.

And how about politics? Is a dwarven kingdom going to let those prissy elves to march an army across their lands because the elves have decided to invade and eradicate the nearby human kingdom? After all, the dwarves are neutral towards humans, but have antipathy towards elves. If anything, the dwarves would probably side with the humans against the elves - maybe take them down an notch or two and show them that they aren't as superior as the elves believe they are! Even if the dwarves stay neutral, what kingdom is going to simply let another kingdom march its armies across their lands to attack the people living on the other side? Who wants to get caught between two violent enemies engaged in a genocidal war?

Are all those bad-ass high-level elves going to successfully engage in a genocidal war against humans when the humans have made political treaties and are on good terms with the gnomes, dwarves and halflings? And whose side are the half-elves going to be on? See, it's not as simple as people want to believe. Unless they run a totally unrealistic world in which geopolitics play no role and nothing makes any sense, there simply isn't going to be some insane eradication of humans. And please...don't anyone tell me that there is some reason that elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings are going to suddenly come together and forge an alliance to kill off humans, because that destroys logic, suspension of disbelief, and sanity itself! I can see them allying to wipe out goblins or orcs. But humans? No.

I think this buries once and for all the ridiculous argument that removing demihuman level limits would result in a world where humans are overwhelmed to the point of genocide.

Just discussed this with one of my players and the subject came up about how difficult it would be to have to cross an ocean to invade another nation. Even in the real world, back in medieval times, it was a very difficult thing to do. Even being able to construct a number of sea-worthy ships would be a major accomplishment, and then there is the danger of crossing an ocean. And in a fantasy world there are dangers beyond massive storms, pirates, and other real-world dangers. Pissing off the sea god (Poseidon or whoever you use), monsters such as the kraken and leviathan, etc. Even the galleon (the most advanced ship type in AD&D according to the 2E PHB), has only a 75% seaworthiness rating, meaning about 1/4th of any fleet of such ships wouldn't even make it to the nation that lies across the ocean. The great galley, the most typically used ship in a medieval AD&D setting, has only a 45% seaworthiness rating. I'd argue it's hard to conquer a nation that lies across an ocean when you'll lose more than half your army (navy?) on the trip there in the first place!

H-BC, you probably already know this, but I read somewhere (and I can't remember where though I do remember that I found the source to be credible) that Mr. Gygax didn't even want to include the demi-human races in the game to begin with. However, apparently his playtesting friends wanted to play the races from LOTR and he decided to defer to their wishes.

I never heard that story before, but wow! That's just crazy. What was Gygax thinking? Imagine how boring the game would be with nothing but humans!

Hal, while you and i see eye to eye on a lot, you know i am one who DOES use level limits and stick TO My guns normally on them. Its not that i don't see your arguments for that "they really suck as a balancing factor etc'< its that to ME they are just as much a core part of the rules FOR THOSE races, as paladins honor codes, or mages needing a spellbook are core parts of what makes THOSE classes..

So if players want to take race XYZ for all the benefits it gives, they need to understand they ALSO have limiters on them.. level limits, racial antipathy charts, armor not fitting etc..
I liken it to starwars gaming and someone wanting to play a Jedi pc for all the kewl force powers.. THEY WILL also then have to worry about following the jedi code!

Garhkal wrote:

Hal, while you and i see eye to eye on a lot, you know i am one who DOES use level limits and stick TO My guns normally on them. Its not that i don't see your arguments for that "they really suck as a balancing factor etc'< its that to ME they are just as much a core part of the rules FOR THOSE races, as paladins honor codes, or mages needing a spellbook are core parts of what makes THOSE classes..

I see what you mean there, even if I don't like to use the rule. I can see the idea of using it because that's just how the races are designed in the game. Ultimately, it's whatever works for the DM and players. If the DM and players are ok with level limits, who am I to say no? I just don't personally see the need for them, or the sense in them outside of a few caveats we've mentioned before. The point of this current rant of mine is about how the crazy idea that without level limits the world would be overrun by elves and dwarves and that humans would cease to exist just makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not sure who in the 2E TSR designer team came up with that goofy argument, but he should be beaten with a wiffle bat for coming up with it! Using that unknown person's own argument, there should be no human or demihuman races left in the world due to dragons, liches, etc.

So if players want to take race XYZ for all the benefits it gives, they need to understand they ALSO have limiters on them.. level limits, racial antipathy charts, armor not fitting etc..
I liken it to starwars gaming and someone wanting to play a Jedi pc for all the kewl force powers.. THEY WILL also then have to worry about following the jedi code!

Your Jedi example, though, would be more related to the idea of a paladin needing to follow his code and remain LG than it would to the idea of level limits, wouldn't it? But you sorta back me up there somewhat when you mention the other issues of balance - demihumans have all sorts of balances/trade-offs. There are class limits, racial antipathies, lack of fitting armor, lack of magical weapons of proper size (dwarf/gnomes cannot swing a two-handed sword, etc), risk of magical item malfunction, ability score penalties, etc.

The funny thing is that over the years I've probably written 200+ pages worth of rants and arguments against level limits, when it all really boils down to just two simple points for me:

1. Level limits have never been needed for game balance (demihumans will not outshine humans at high levels)
2. Level limits have never been needed for setting balance (humans will not go extinct if you discard level limits - the world remains just as it is)

Like I said, there are several valid reasons to use them - your example of wanting to use the RAW (level limits are part of the rules), or a situation where say the DM plans on a lot of dungeon and/or underground adventures and prefers having PCs who need torches because they can't see in the dark (i.e. humans), to make it more challenging, etc.

But this whole crazy idea that humans will become extinct if level limits are removed...did the 2E writers just pull that one out of their asses without even bothering to think about it?

Na... They pulled it out of a rabits hat!

However i have (based on my gaming experienced) Noticed that most EVERY game i have ran/played in, where level limits were Ignored, seen 90% of the characters be Demi-humans, and in some cases ALL of them. Where as with games that used LLs, humans made up more than just a token character or two, and in a good chunk of those groups made up half or more of the group..

Hell, one group, 7 solid players, 4 semi-players.. LLs not used, the ONLY Human pc was the paladin character of one of the semi-players. ALL others were elves or half elves..
Another where they were not in use, 5 players standard, 3 others that were every 3rd or 4th session. NOT A ONE took a human character.

Now, i DO give players the option (but its a group consensus thing), that we can use LLS as is (which are an average of the low #s of 1e, and the high ass #s of 2e), OR we can't use them, but each demi-race pays a XP penalty based on their race.. Most groups i have had since adopting that rule still prefer to use the LLS..

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Just discussed this with one of my players and the subject came up about how difficult it would be to have to cross an ocean to invade another nation. Even in the real world, back in medieval times, it was a very difficult thing to do. Even being able to construct a number of sea-worthy ships would be a major accomplishment, and then there is the danger of crossing an ocean. And in a fantasy world there are dangers beyond massive storms, pirates, and other real-world dangers. Pissing off the sea god (Poseidon or whoever you use), monsters such as the kraken and leviathan, etc. Even the galleon (the most advanced ship type in AD&D according to the 2E PHB), has only a 75% seaworthiness rating, meaning about 1/4th of any fleet of such ships wouldn't even make it to the nation that lies across the ocean. The great galley, the most typically used ship in a medieval AD&D setting, has only a 45% seaworthiness rating. I'd argue it's hard to conquer a nation that lies across an ocean when you'll lose more than half your army (navy?) on the trip there in the first place!

The vikings did it many times Losing MORE than half of their armies in some cases. As elves are premier ship builders, elves could do this allot easier than humans and technically could attack across seas at will.

Garhkal wrote:

Na... They pulled it out of a rabits hat!

A hat of stupidity!

However i have (based on my gaming experienced) Noticed that most EVERY game i have ran/played in, where level limits were Ignored, seen 90% of the characters be Demi-humans, and in some cases ALL of them. Where as with games that used LLs, humans made up more than just a token character or two, and in a good chunk of those groups made up half or more of the group..

That's true for a lot of gaming groups, from what I've seen. And as I said before, if the DM wants to encourage more human PCs, then level limits are a legitimate way to achieve that goal, although personally I prefer other methods. As far as this particular argument goes though, I've always broken it down into two parts. First, if the DM wants or needs more human PCs for some reason (he simply likes having humans in the party, or has particular game/story goals that require more humans as in my Underdark/dungeon example), then I'd agree that level limits, while still making no real sense, would nonetheless be a legitimate use of the rule. But second, if the DM doesn't have a desire/need for humans in the party (or even a predominantly human party), and if the players all want to play demihumans, then I don't see the problem. If it doesn't matter to the DM, and the players are happy playing demihumans, then everything is fine. I can see most players preferring to play demihumans anyway...after all, we're all human in real life, and this is escapist fantasy gaming. So why penalize people for playing a non-human character?

Hell, one group, 7 solid players, 4 semi-players.. LLs not used, the ONLY Human pc was the paladin character of one of the semi-players. ALL others were elves or half elves..
Another where they were not in use, 5 players standard, 3 others that were every 3rd or 4th session. NOT A ONE took a human character.

I can definitely believe that. Again, if it's a problem for the DM, then by all means do what needs doing, even if it means using level limits. If I, for example, were going to run a campaign-level adventure like Night Below or something with a lot of Underdark crawling or dungeon crawling, then yes - I'd prefer more humans on the team, maybe at least a third to a half of the party to be human. If they're all elves and dwarves, that takes away a lot of the challenge of lurking in the depths. But for me, even then I would simply tell the players that we really should have a bunch of humans on the team for a specific reason. Then again, I usually try to set up campaigns with friends, not just whoever I can gather from the local gaming store, so there's a higher level of trust there:

"Uh oh! Halaster has something sneaky up his sleeve! This should be fun! Ok, some of us should definitely play humans!"

Now, i DO give players the option (but its a group consensus thing), that we can use LLS as is (which are an average of the low #s of 1e, and the high ass #s of 2e), OR we can't use them, but each demi-race pays a XP penalty based on their race.. Most groups i have had since adopting that rule still prefer to use the LLS..

To me, the idea of slow advancement makes even less sense than level limits in the first place, but that's just me.

Cole wrote:

The vikings did it many times Losing MORE than half of their armies in some cases. As elves are premier ship builders, elves could do this allot easier than humans and technically could attack across seas at will.

True, very true! The elves would definitely be more advanced than human vikings. But again, looking at the big picture - dwarves, gnomes and halflings are not very sea-going races. So they'd be no threat. And the elves...they'd need a reason to cross the ocean and assault the human kingdoms. Elves tend to be peaceful people. Even in the MM, they're listed as generally CG. It would seem so out of character for an elven nation to cross oceans to declare war on an "inferior" race. I can't picture (in AD&D traditions) elves going on a genocidal war of extermination against orcs even. Perhaps drive them out of the elven lands, slaughter them until they retreat. But I can't picture elves crossing an ocean or marching across a continent to wipe out every orc in that far away kingdom, much less human kingdoms, most of which would be neutral or good aligned overall. Elves are just not warlike creatures.

Put into real-life terms, I can see orcs as Nazi Germany - they invaded other countries unprovoked in a genocidal war of aggression. The United States would be more like the elves. Isolationist and non-aggressive, but once dragged into war, watch out!

I wish I could find who in the TSR staff came up with the idea that humans would become extinct without demihuman level limits. I'd drag him in there and make him debate me on that nonsense!

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote: I can definitely believe that. Again, if it's a problem for the DM, then by all means do what needs doing, even if it means using level limits. If I, for example, were going to run a campaign-level adventure like Night Below or something with a lot of Underdark crawling or dungeon crawling, then yes - I'd prefer more humans on the team, maybe at least a third to a half of the party to be human. If they're all elves and dwarves, that takes away a lot of the challenge of lurking in the depths. But for me, even then I would simply tell the players that we really should have a bunch of humans on the team for a specific reason.

Some other DMs i have seen, just give human PCs some benefits to 'encourage more players to them' but to me that is almost making things Worse by making it into an arms race.. Like the one DM way back when who saw no one in his group playing thieves, so he gave them some benefits.. Then he saw no one playing fighters, so he had to compensate and give THEM some more benefits.. Which peeved off those who took the thieves, cause once again they 'sucked'. SO he had to give MORE benefits to the thief class. Which in turn irked off the mage pc players, so he had to... and you get the idea... Eventually after enough prompting, he said "FINE we are going back to the BTB rules on all classes period.. And if that means no one wants a thief.. Well guess we on't have thieves... BUT i am not gonna then, be forced to removing traps and such..

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote: To me, the idea of slow advancement makes even less sense than level limits in the first place, but that's just me.

To me it makes more sense, since those races live longer, they are NOT AS IN much of a hurry to 'achieve' stuff as humans are...

garhkal wrote:Na... They pulled it out of a rabbit's hat!

However i have (based on my gaming experienced) Noticed that most EVERY game i have ran/played in, where level limits were Ignored, seen 90% of the characters be Demi-humans, and in some cases ALL of them. Where as with games that used LLs, humans made up more than just a token character or two, and in a good chunk of those groups made up half or more of the group..

Hell, one group, 7 solid players, 4 semi-players.. LLs not used, the ONLY Human pc was the paladin character of one of the semi-players. ALL others were elves or half elves..
Another where they were not in use, 5 players standard, 3 others that were every 3rd or 4th session. NOT A ONE took a human character.

Now, i DO give players the option (but its a group consensus thing), that we can use LLS as is (which are an average of the low #s of 1e, and the high ass #s of 2e), OR we can't use them, but each demi-race pays a XP penalty based on their race.. Most groups i have had since adopting that rule still prefer to use the LLS..

Yup, I use LL's for that very reason.

I think the thing Hal is missing here is "Breeding" aspect, the demi-Human races would simply out live, thus out breed the human race. Now, I'm not talking over a small time of say 100 years (which most campaigns would be or less), I'm talking about 10,000 years and up.

For example; When I started my new world "Arkuth", I had to consider ALL of my world geography, populations, topography, history etc all at once. I wanted to have a large section of "evil" orcs, but needed to test out their breeding capacities. I started out planning the start point with 10,000 Orcs over various areas (all near each other) and then started doing the math. I didn't take long and myself and a close friend of mine through basic D&D research figured out the whole eastern seaboard of my largest continent would be OVERRUN in only 5 years! No elven army or human army would be able to stop them. They BREED like rabbits literally.

So, back to the drawing board I went. I had to reduce these hordes to a significantly smaller number, so that they could survive their own areas, and slowly grow into a menacing force, but still balance out the world where the other races could live, battle and perhaps hold them off and try to create a perpetual war that will last for centuries (as any good DM will do).

Here are the exact figures for D&D
http://www.padnd.com/arkuth/races_orcs.php

In my example I use 1000 orcs, instead of 10,000 and that becomes 6,400 orcs in just 7 years. YES IT's THAT FAST!

My argument with Halaster's point of view wouldn't matter for 99% of all DMed worlds, as most people don't care about realism or history that derives from the beginning of time. Level Limits don't matter IF your campaign is not keeping a perpetual time line, historical records or realistic population growths, wars, or ever evolving borders and immigration shifts.

For me, being part of the 1% of DM's that DO considered everything in an attempt to bring my players ultra detail and realism, then you MUST have level limits. Any race, like the elves, who can live 6,000-10,000 years each, will simply our breed and out colonize humans if they are allowed to avoid level limitations. Even with 4% of the population being adventurers, that still equals 4% every generation and OVER hundreds of generations that adds up to 1,000's of powerful adventures that would absolutely dominate any human counter-parts.

If, for example; At 60 years old a human maxed out at 15th level fighter (on average), that same elf would also be 15th level as well, but the human dies of old age and the elf gets to do that 100 MORE TIMES ... on average with 4 levels being gained every 15 years that Elf would be 150th etc level. Nothing could stand in his way

Now if you use birth rates and death rates, you have this human generation that is dying off after 4 generations or so (maybe less) and these elves who are cranking out more babies because they are just young adults. Simple math will tell you that IF this world started out in equal parts that elves, dwarves etc would simply overrun all other races. (You technically could stunt this by saying your elves don't breed often, or have kids rarely)

Halaster, you made tons of good points, like the thoughts about the Elves not being war mongers and even wanting to wipe out the humans, but IF you consider populations, expansion, interbreeding, migration and death/birth rates, you will soon see why level limits matter. It's simply only a matter of time where these 40,000 - 150th level warriors (1,000,000 elves at 4% as an example) will become hostile/bored/vengeful/forced/bribed/segregated/religiously motivated or a million other reasons to wipe out the "Evil" humans in the next kingdom and for DAM CERTAIN their tiny army of 1st level warriors with a handful of 5th level captains and a few knights can't stop. Hell, those same elves have another 300 generations of soldiers ranging from 4th level to 135th level and that's JUST 4% of their TOTAL population.

Now think about the other 1% of this elven population that are wizards, 3% that are clerics (healers), 2% that are specialty warriors (elven archers etc) and that's shooting really low. My math isn't meant to be exact here, but I'm just making a point. Without level limits I indeed agree with Gary that any "realistic" world would be overrun with Elves, Dwarves and the like. Human's would be extinct within 100 generations or so. Even IF you play the "Elves won't attack humans card", interbreeding would simply eradicate the human race. Eventually everyone would be a half-elf.

BUT, as I mentioned above, level limits are not required for 99% of campaigns. If you only play on occasion, and you use pre-made adventures and don't keep a detailed timeline, then who cares... I would drop the LL's as well.

Garhkal wrote:

Some other DMs i have seen, just give human PCs some benefits to 'encourage more players to them' but to me that is almost making things Worse by making it into an arms race.. Like the one DM way back when who saw no one in his group playing thieves, so he gave them some benefits.. Then he saw no one playing fighters, so he had to compensate and give THEM some more benefits.. Which peeved off those who took the thieves, cause once again they 'sucked'. SO he had to give MORE benefits to the thief class. Which in turn irked off the mage pc players, so he had to... and you get the idea... Eventually after enough prompting, he said "FINE we are going back to the BTB rules on all classes period.. And if that means no one wants a thief.. Well guess we on't have thieves... BUT i am not gonna then, be forced to removing traps and such..

See, to me that's meta-gamers crying about not having "kEwL PoWerZ". 3E-type players. I myself have never played a human character while demanding extra benefits for the character simply because the character couldn't see in the dark or detect slopes. And as a DM, I'd be hard pressed to think of a time when I've had a player complain about his human not having "kEwL PoWerZ". If one had, I would simply say: "Well you can be a paladin or a monk or a druid - and then you'll have all sorts of 'kEwL PoWerZ' that the elves and dwarves and gnomes don't have".

Humans have so many advantages - they can be any class (including several powerful classes that other races can't have), they don't suffer from ability score penalties upon creation, there is far more armor and weaponry made for them, less racial antipathy, etc.

I get it that there are players out there like that, I'm not denying it. I'd simply say those players are immature. I've never seen a game where the human characters (at any level) could not compete with the demihumans in the party, short of the player of the human being a poor player (vice versa as well).

To me it makes more sense, since those races live longer, they are NOT AS IN much of a hurry to 'achieve' stuff as humans are...

I've never understood where that assumption comes from either. If you think about it, there's no real basis for it. Just because a race lives longer does not necessarily mean they're not aggressive or driven with ambition, nor does having a shorter lifespan necessarily equate with a greater desire to achieve. Half-orcs have shorter lifespans than humans - why aren't they even more driven (especially given their aggressive orcish blood) than humans and therefore achieve higher levels (i.e. no level limits)?

I think the problem is that Gygax personally preferred more human PCs, so he created level limits in order to strong-arm players into preferring human PCs, but without bothering to really think about the in-game illogic of the mechanic. So it was a matter of making excuses after the fact rather than basing it on a well-thought-out analysis of the matter.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote: Humans have so many advantages - they can be any class (including several powerful classes that other races can't have), they don't suffer from ability score penalties upon creation, there is far more armor and weaponry made for them, less racial antipathy, etc.

Straight BTB that is true. BUT on the racia apathy chart, MANY people seem to not even use it. They also open up all classes to all races which kills that first part, and though yes they have no racial ability score penalties, they also have no bonuses.. Which sorts of cancels out. So that leaves the weapons/armor chart. BUT as i also see quite a few DMs who feel 'all dMS' should talor treasure to their party, that also is kinda cancelled out..
So what's left? Very little if anything making humans anything special.
BUT what about our elves.. They still get bonuses to hit with 4 of the most common weapons (long and short swords, long and short bows), secret door detection powers, and charm/sleep resistance..
Dwarves get bookou detections and major save bonuses..

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:I've never understood where that assumption comes from either. If you think about it, there's no real basis for it. Just because a race lives longer does not necessarily mean they're not aggressive or driven with ambition, nor does having a shorter lifespan necessarily equate with a greater desire to achieve. Half-orcs have shorter lifespans than humans - why aren't they even more driven (especially given their aggressive orcish blood) than humans and therefore achieve higher levels (i.e. no level limits)?

I think the problem is that Gygax personally preferred more human PCs, so he created level limits in order to strong-arm players into preferring human PCs, but without bothering to really think about the in-game illogic of the mechanic. So it was a matter of making excuses after the fact rather than basing it on a well-thought-out analysis of the matter.

Based on info from both the dwarf and elf handbooks..

Cole wrote:

I think the thing Hal is missing here is "Breeding" aspect, the demi-Human races would simply out live, thus out breed the human race. Now, I'm not talking over a small time of say 100 years (which most campaigns would be or less), I'm talking about 10,000 years and up.

I honestly don't think the breeding issue can, by itself, justify the rule. I'll explain why as we go through the details.

For example; When I started my new world "Arkuth", I had to consider ALL of my world geography, populations, topography, history etc all at once. I wanted to have a large section of "evil" orcs, but needed to test out their breeding capacities. I started out planning the start point with 10,000 Orcs over various areas (all near each other) and then started doing the math. I didn't take long and myself and a close friend of mine through basic D&D research figured out the whole eastern seaboard of my largest continent would be OVERRUN in only 5 years! No elven army or human army would be able to stop them. They BREED like rabbits literally.

Well, humans would be out-populated, sure. But does that necessarily translate into being dominated or worse yet exterminated? I'd say no, for several reasons.

First, the humans and elves (and dwarves, and gnomes, and...) are more intelligent and more civilized than the orcs. Better technology, smarter, more advanced. The higher level of civilization would prevent the orcs from dominating. Elves control high elven magic. Humans can achieve very high levels as paladins and monks and druids and magic users and what not. One elven wizard can take out hundreds of orcs again and again. One human druid can turn the entire forest against an army of orcs. Orcs are 1HD, classless, level-less beings. It's similar to how a highly trained Navy SEAL team of 6 to 9 members can take on a much larger enemy force and win.

Second, what happens if the orcs live on one continent and the humans on another? Or the races are separated by desert, raging rivers, mountains or other obstacles? It would be hard for either side to invade and conquer the other, though even then in every case the advantage would go to the elves or humans.

Third, while orcs may breed like rabbits, other races (such as elves) may not. So the argument would not apply to those races. Plus, you have the orcs dying off at a much earlier age, which helps offset some of their reproductive advantage. Then there's the problem of in-fighting amongst the various orcish tribes, which also reduces their numbers. Lack of sanitation leads to disease, which also speeds their depopulation.

My argument with Halaster's point of view wouldn't matter for 99% of all DMed worlds, as most people don't care about realism or history that derives from the beginning of time. Level Limits don't matter IF your campaign is not keeping a perpetual time line, historical records or realistic population growths, wars, or ever evolving borders and immigration shifts.

I don't agree there at all. I also prefer realism in my campaigns, with history and world events having meaning. But again, I've never needed level limits to achieve that. I have always argued over the years that population control in the game world can only be controlled by DM whim and design, not by game mechanics. And certainly not by level limits. In fact, with level limits being used, you might be able to argue that the elves would fall to the orcs for the precise reason you mention - the orcs breed too quickly, and if the elves cannot achieve high levels, they won't be able to overcome the population advantage.

Another point you mention is ancient history. Let's look at that. Tolkein did not seem to have trouble creating a generally humano-centric world. There was a time when the elves ruled; now they are on the decline and retreating from the world of man. Or look at the Forgotten Realms, no doubt inspired by Tolkein. The elves once had high elven magic and ran a powerful empire in Myth Drannor. Now the area is an overgrown forest of ruins, with the elves retreating to Evermeet and the surrounding areas dominated by humans. Even while the elves had more presence and more power, you still had the might of human nations like Netheril. Humans survived all of those settings. So I'm just not seeing the logic or the precedence of humans being extincted by races that live longer or breed more frequently.

If, for example; At 60 years old a human maxed out at 15th level fighter (on average), that same elf would also be 15th level as well, but the human dies of old age and the elf gets to do that 100 MORE TIMES ... on average with 4 levels being gained every 15 years that Elf would be 150th etc level. Nothing could stand in his way

Again, the ability to do something does not necessarily infer the desire to do something. For example, in real life I have a lifetime of training in various aspects of combat - from martial arts to knives to firearms. And I'm always armed. I could easily take out just about anyone I come across on a whim. And yet there is less than zero desire to do so. So while I walk down the street, no one need worry. Having the ability does not confer the desire. That's the same for most martial artists and combat experts. I do armed security work at an FDA facility. Several of the scientists there work with anthax, abrin, botulinum, and other nasty, nasty things. Very lethal shit. Any of them could easily poison or infect the entire facility if they desired to. They have the ability. Hasn't ever happened though. Again, ability does not equate with desire. The USA has enough nuclear power to destroy all its enemies and pretty much the entire world. And yet that isn't happening. Ability does not equate with desire.

Now if you use birth rates and death rates, you have this human generation that is dying off after 4 generations or so (maybe less) and these elves who are cranking out more babies because they are just young adults. Simple math will tell you that IF this world started out in equal parts that elves, dwarves etc would simply overrun all other races. (You technically could stunt this by saying your elves don't breed often, or have kids rarely)

Again, there are several points we need to consider. As you mentioned, there is the idea of low birth rates, which could simply be a part of the physiology of elves and dwarves. Or we could say that elves are careful not to overpopulate, since they know the problems that brings. Or perhaps the dwarves are militaristic and believe in having only one child per family. Or maybe the gods cursed them with infertility. Or perhaps disease is wiping out their populations. There are literally countless ways a DM can control population without the need for level limits (which would accomplish nothing, I would note, as far as controlling population numbers). Even if you use level limit, you would have so many more elves that the rare and small number of humans of higher level would not matter. Would 50 or so 18th level humans matter when facing off against 1,000 elves of 9th level? No.

Halaster, you made tons of good points, like the thoughts about the Elves not being war mongers and even wanting to wipe out the humans, but IF you consider populations, expansion, interbreeding, migration and death/birth rates, you will soon see why level limits matter.

The population count isn't relevant though. Only if humans live in indefensible areas and are surrounded by openly hostile demihumans would you possibly have a problem. You're also overlooking the fact that dwarves really don't like elves and vice versa. If you had a nation of elves who wanted to destroy a nation of humans but who had to cross a dwarven kingdom to get to the humans, then the elves would be going up against an alliance of humans and dwarves. They're not likely to succeed.

It's simply only a matter of time where these 40,000 - 150th level warriors (1,000,000 elves at 4% as an example) will become hostile/bored/vengeful/forced/bribed/segregated/religiously motivated or a million other reasons to wipe out the "Evil" humans in the next kingdom and for DAM CERTAIN their tiny army of 1st level warriors with a handful of 5th level captains and a few knights can't stop. Hell, those same elves have another 300 generations of soldiers ranging from 4th level to 135th level and that's JUST 4% of their TOTAL population

Again, in order for your argument to hold water, we must make the assumption that the elves are and/or will become evil - very evil! Evil on the level of Nazi Germany where the normally reclusive elves for some inexplicable reason as a nation become fanatically hostile towards all humans. This goes against most literature and the standards for elves set in the game system (they tend to be good-aligned, reclusive, and not aggressive).

We further have to make the assumption that the elves have easy access to invading the human kingdoms - that the humans live in an indefensible area, not protected by mountains, oceans, plains, or other non-human kingdoms who would ally with the humans.

And then we have to assume the opposite of your argument *, i.e. that a very tiny and insignificant number of higher level humans can balance out thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of low to mid level elves. An army of 30,000 elves with just several hundred in the 5th-to-9th level range will destroy a human army of 5,000 with just a few dozen 18th level human characters. So level limits fail on that level as well. How are a handful of humans of somewhat higher level going to compete with hundreds of mid level elves per high level human? I mean, sure, a group of 6 Navy SEALS can probably take on and win against 50 or so normal soldiers or marines, but they won't likely survive a fight with just 20 rangers or green berets.

So that's a lot of assumptions we have to make, just to hold that argument together. And most, perhaps all of those assumptions have no grounding in the game as designed, or the rules as written.

Now think about the other 1% of this elven population that are wizards, 3% that are clerics (healers), 2% that are specialty warriors (elven archers etc) and that's shooting really low. My math isn't meant to be exact here, but I'm just making a point. Without level limits I indeed agree with Gary that any "realistic" world would be overrun with Elves, Dwarves and the like. Human's would be extinct within 100 generations or so. Even IF you play the "Elves won't attack humans card", interbreeding would simply eradicate the human race. Eventually everyone would be a half-elf.

Not necessarily. In AD&D, half-elves are sorta discriminated against. Half-orcs even moreso. And how many races interbreed with dwarves? Race mixing in AD&D terms is a lot more rare than in the real world, because in the real world every race can interbreed, and in most areas it's accepted. In AD&D, half-orcs are shunned by just about everyone, and half-elves are merely "tolerated" by humans. Humans and elves are mutually neutral, defined in the PHB as "N [neutral] shows that the race is thought of neutrally, although some suspicion will be evidenced". It would seem obvious that interbreeding isn't going to be that big an issue. Beyond that, if it were, the DM has countless better ways to alleviate the problem that work better than level limits. Level limits won't discourage interbreeding - it would literally have no effect.

On top of all that, we see that humans and elves interbreed more readily than other races. So what you would actually end up with, according to the interbreeding argument (and as you noted), is a world overrun by half-elves! Which means that not only would humans cease to exist, but so would elves!
____________________________

* The argument I mention above refers to the effect of high level characters on populations. This has never been argued with any logic (or success) by anyone, at any time, that I've ever seen. Here's the gist of it...

The argument for level limits is that because elves live longer, there will be more high level elves - and elves of much higher level than humans can ever achieve due to shorter lifespan. While both are true, the former is meaningful while the latter is meaningless. The latter is meaningless because by game design and assumption, very, very few members of any race go on to become adventurers who go adventuring and gain levels. So while there would be more extremely high level elven wizards, for example, than humans, that would not matter because elves as portrayed in AD&D are reclusive and of good alignment. So for these mythical 100th-level elven wizards to be a threat to human existence, we would have to make numerous unfounded assumptions:

1. That those very high level elves are all (or all become) aligned towards evil. We must assume that a reclusive, good-aligned, advanced race would uniformly turn evil simply because they achieved high levels of power.
2. That no good high-level elves come into existence to fight the high level evil elves - i.e. no elves who reach 30th or 50th or 100th level are good. They all become inexplicably evil and also inexplicably violent and aggressive/genocidal.
3. That even if those rare very high level elves become evil, the entire nation of reclusive, good-aligned elves will inexplicably choose to side with these powerful, evil elves against the human race as opposed to purging the evil from within.
4. That the dwarves, gnomes, halflings and other races would not team up with the humans, as each race is equally threatened by the elves [I noticed that no one ever speaks of ultra-high level gnomes or dwarves taking over the globe - it's always "Look out! Here come the elves!"] And if the elves are powerful enough (with or without level limits) to overcome an alliance of humans, dwarves, gnomes and halflings, then what are we even talking about? All worlds would simply become exclusively elven worlds, so why worry about it?
5. That elven populations are not on the decline as presented by Tolkein, the Forgotten Realms, and even the core AD&D 2E rules (noted under "Elf" in the MM - it also refers to elves leaving the world of man). If the elven population is on the decline, then there are even fewer high level elves (even with level limits being in place) and eventually the human population explosion would eradicate any advantage the few high level elves had.
6. That the elves had easy access to human kingdoms, which would lack allies, natural barriers (oceans, mountains, friendly kingdoms, etc).
7. That the elves would have any compelling reason to eradicate humans. Remember, the elves are generally good aligned, and they are presented by Tolkein, Forgotten Realms, and 2E as being in decline and retreating from the world, not going out to conquer it.
8. That the elves would allow interbreeding to eradicate not only the human kingdoms, but also the elven kingdoms so that both races would cease to exist and it would become a world of half-elves (and perhaps halflings, gnomes and dwarves, but no humans or elves). Somehow the proud elves, who are so very haughty and protective of their bloodlines, would simply allow themselves to be bred out.
9. That humans, who are suspicious of half-elves and not totally trusting of elves, would also give up their race to an interbreeding program that turned all of their descendants into half-elves.

I could go on and on, but I think that suffices to show how many inexplicable, illogical, unfounded assumptions we have to make in order to back the argument of high level elves conquering the world. All of these assumptions (or at least most of them) would need to be true in order to establish the idea that the existence of some very high level elves would threaten the existence of mankind. And just about all of them are not only absurd, they all also go against the rules and standards set in the game as well as the literature the game is based on as well as the situation as defined in several world/game settings.

Now, why is the former (that there will be more high level elves than humans in total, as opposed to elves of much higher level) meaningful? Let's assume we use level limits. In 2E, elves top out at 12th level as clerics, 12th level as fighters, 15th level as mages, 15th level as rangers, and 12th level as thieves. Humans have no level limits. The rules, however, only cover up to 20th level. And given the much shorter lifespan of humans, let's assume 20th level is a realistic achievable limit.

Humans begin adventuring at a minimum of age 16. They can live to a maximum of 130 years. Humans hit middle age at 45 and lose 1 point of STR and CON. By age 60 they hit old age and lose 2 pts. of STR and DEX and another point of CON. By the age of 90 (venerable), humans lose another point each of STR/DEX/CON. So by age 60, humans have lost a cumulative total of 2 pts. of CON, 3 pts. of STR, and 2 pts. of DEX. By age 90, they've lost 3 pts. of CON, 4 pts. of STR, and 3 pts. of DEX.

Guess what? Elves are still in the prime of their lives and do not lose any ability scores until at least 45 years after those humans are all dead and buried (i.e. at 175 years of age). So even assuming we use level limits, the humans will be able to achieve higher levels in general. But few of them will live long enough to reach anything beyond 20th level (the 2E game was originally designed to go only to 20th level - but we can even ignore that, it changes nothing). Worse yet, the humans lose shitloads of ability scores (along with the associated loss of hit points, thaco, damage, AC, etc.) while the elves are still in the prime of their lives. Before the elves lose a single ability score, the humans have lost 3 pts. of CON, 4 pts. of STR, and 3 pts. of DEX. That very much neuters even very high level humans. The fact that those humans will all be dead and buried before the elves lose a single ability score means the elves will always have the advantage.

Now, if we look at lifespan, we can see that elves will achieve levels of around 12th-15th level and be at full youth and vigor by the time most humans hit 20th level and have lost multiple points of several ability scores. A human fighter who is old and had an initial CON of 18 will lose 9hp at 45 years of age, 18hp by the time he hits 60, and 27 hp total by the time he hits 90. Humans get weaker much faster than elves.

So we have a bunch of 20th level humans, but many of them are already losing ability scores and associated benefits (hp, AC, etc). Even so, very high level humans will be few and far between. Elves, having much longer lifespan and therefore spawning more children who will reach adulthood and remain in the prime of life long after humans deteriorate, will eventually outnumber the humans. Vastly so over the years, as has been pointed out. So we quickly see a situation in which, over the centuries, the elves have produced thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of 12th to 15th level fighters, wizards, etc. And they are all still in their prime! In the meantime, there are far fewer 12th to 15th level humans simply due to old age, and even those who reach 12th to 15th level, or even 20th level, are much weaker due to ability score loss while the elves are in their prime.

Now who wins here? Thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of elves of 12th - 15th level with full vigor and ability scores, or dozens, perhaps hundreds or even (at most) a few thousands of humans of 20th level, but most of whom have vastly diminished ability scores? Level limits here are so utterly meaningless as to be absurd. Higher orders of magnitude of relatively high level elves in their prime will always overcome lesser numbers of slightly higher level humans with severely diminished ability scores.

Once again, levels limits simply do not stand up to the challenge of logic and common sense.