Race as Class Level Caps

[keith23]

Hi All!

Two questions about the dwarf, elf and halfling race/classes in LL:

1. Why do you think the original B/X rules (and LL) cap them lower than the regular classes? Is it a play balance issue given their extra abilities?
2. Do you folks who play LL (without the AEC) stick to the level caps? Are your players ok with that?

Back in the day I went straight from the LLBs to AD&D so never played race as class. I really like the simplicity of the LL rules and look forward to GMing it, but am wondering if I should adhere to the level caps for balance reasons (esp. the poor halfling!) despite potential player protest.

[elf23]

Yes, as I've always understood it, the demi-human level limits are as a counterbalance to their rather cool abilities and great saving throws. Especially at 1st level this really helps a lot, and gives them a higher survival rate than the human classes.

Personally I've thought that if I ever had a campaign that went on for long enough that it became an issue, that I'd let demi-human PCs continue to gain levels, but to only gain hit points, with no saving throw / attack / spell advancements from doing so.

[rabindranath72]

The Mentzer edition of D&D allows demihumans to advance beyond their level limits, but only w.r.t. attack ability. Under some conditions they may also get the special combat options of fighters (some combat manoeuvres, multiple attacks), and furthermore they get special effects on saving throws (halving or negating altogether some effects.)
But, frankly: I wouldn't be bothered too much. With the XP rates of the classes, it takes almost one year of play to get to mid levels, and two or three years to go past Expert level. If you know your campaign will last that long (lucky you!) you may start to worry. Otherwise, simply sit down and play

[bighara]

The B/X Companion also has expanded level options for demi-humans (if you want a more Moldvay-based approach).

Frankly, I don't think I've ever run (or played in) a classic D&D (LL, B/X, or otherwise) that ever reached those kinds of levels (starting from 1st). Playing by the book, with 1/week PM sessions (like most old folks), it would take a while before anybody in my group had to worry about it.

[samwise7]

I was worried about it too at first, but it seems like it will take a long time to get up to those levels. I'm currently running a game that plays only once a month so I don't think I really have anything to worry about... hehe.

[keith23]

Thanks all.

Good point about the time to level since we will only be playing every other week at best. Not to mention none of them might even be able to get a character to live long enough to reach those levels (mwaa hahahahaha).

And if one of them does make it that far I'll just house rule it as elf23 suggests. Heck I could even turn it into a big quest or something.

I'm really looking forward to playing LL, looks like its going to be a blast. After reading the rules I sold all my 4th edition doorstops back to Amazon (for reals!)

[Dyson Logos]

But, frankly: I wouldn't be bothered too much. With the XP rates of the classes, it takes almost one year of play to get to mid levels, and two or three years to go past Expert level. If you know your campaign will last that long (lucky you!) you may start to worry. Otherwise, simply sit down and play

I don't agree with this statement.

In my experience, characters advance as quickly in LL & B/X D&D as they do in 3.x - that is to say pretty quickly. If you stick to the monsters and treasure quantities suggested in the core rules or run through "classic" modules, you will find advancement can be pretty quick. I recently ran a LL/AEC game to level 9 in a four months (of weekly play).

[keith23]

Thanks for the input Dyson. I seem to remember the players leveling fairly quickly the last time I ran 3e D&D (a long time ago) now that you mention it. When I was playing 4e I got tired of trying to build properly calculated XP reward encounters (using 4e's meticulous encounter building rules) and just resorted to leveling the characters every 2 or 3 sessions.

For LL I was was just going to follow the rules as written and let the chips fall where they may XP wise.

Anyway thanks again everyone. My wife is going to be playing a halfling - if she reaches level 8 I hope I can come up with a house rule that won't lead to me sleeping on the couch later...

[rabindranath72]

But, frankly: I wouldn't be bothered too much. With the XP rates of the classes, it takes almost one year of play to get to mid levels, and two or three years to go past Expert level. If you know your campaign will last that long (lucky you!) you may start to worry. Otherwise, simply sit down and play

I don't agree with this statement.

In my experience, characters advance as quickly in LL & B/X D&D as they do in 3.x - that is to say pretty quickly. If you stick to the monsters and treasure quantities suggested in the core rules or run through "classic" modules, you will find advancement can be pretty quick. I recently ran a LL/AEC game to level 9 in a four months (of weekly play).

Perhaps the guideline on treasures and monsters are different between LL and Mentzer? Following the latter, both in terms of treasure and monster placement, it took us far more than four months of weekly play to reach name level. And this happened every time.

[scadgrad]

I simply use the Rules Cyclopedia tables once they hit the wall. We're 7 months into our campaign with weekly games, Ex Pts ran by the book, even boosted by the Carousing rules. Single class characters with easy advancement charts are currently at 6-7th. The Elf only recently made 5th so it will be some time before he gets to that point. I'm happy to keep the campaign rolling though and would love to run Temple of the Frog, a Paladin in Hell and some of the other higher level modules of days gone by.

Personally, I love the simplicity of race as class.