Page 1 of 1

Racial Class & Level Restrictions

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:49 pm
by Bravesteel
All three players in my TDD podcast group have opted to play humans, in a group where the majority if rarely humans, and I am sure that I big part of that decision for them was due to the class and level restrictions set forth in S&W Complete. I decided to sticks to those restrictions as I was not really sure how the whole game ends up jiving together and I didn't want to, potentially, overbalance anything right out of the gate.

On further study of the rules, thinking through the session that I have played so far, to pick up rules mistakes, I don't really feel like allowing races unrestricted access to all classes and levels would be that harmful. I have used the backgrounds table by Zenopus for the players in my group and I feel like something along those lines is enough to "buff" humans and still allow unrestricted levels and relatively open class access. Since I am running The Lost Lands there would be a few exceptions that would probably come into play, such as Druids only being Human, and Dwarfs not being Magic Users (and no Monks because "bleh" IMO).

I'm curious how everyone handles class and level restrictions based on race in their games?

Re: Racial Class & Level Restrictions

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:57 pm
by merias
I abide by them now, although I can only think of one time in recent memory when one of my players hit a level cap (that was an Elf fighter/MU), and no one had any problems with it. I do like the idea of removing them, as you say if you do something more for humans. I did this in the past by giving humans a 10% XP bonus, above and beyond any prime requisite/ability XP bonuses (like in BFRPG). But I think the Zenopus backgrounds is also a good way to do this.

Re: Racial Class & Level Restrictions

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:40 pm
by Bravesteel
That's an interesting way of "buffing" humans as well. I might try that next time through.

Re: Racial Class & Level Restrictions

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:03 am
by foxroe
I've always used the level limits BTB (in D&D and others). The limits never really bothered me and I always felt the explanation given by the authors of the game was satisfactory.

If one is truly playing an OS version of the game, level advancement should be sloooooooow, and there's probably only a 50/50 chance of surviving to the level maximums anyway. :P

And what if a player does hit the level limit? Will that player just cash out the character and start another? Why not just keep using the same character (so what if you aren't going to level anymore)? I suppose it may get tedious and difficult after the other player characters (humans) gain a few more levels and move on to greater challenges and the dwarf/elf/half* have to keep hiding in the back of the party, but I think that that point would be a long way off once a level limit is reached.

Here's a theory: Players who whine about level limits are missing the big picture. They're too fixated on the assumption that they will be great heroes of renown and mighty adventurers in very short order. This thinking is the very antithesis of OS gaming. It's fine to dream, but I think if they concentrate more on being good players instead, they will find that the "power curve" of their character is almost irrelevant. (Am I making sense?)

<< violently falls off soap box >>

Anyway, just my opinion. After all, it is just a rule; and we all know how we treat rules around here... ;)