| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 13 Nov 2011 : 21:17:27
Why is it that the long lived races and beings i.e. Elves, Undead, e.t.c
are not comprised of more high level or epic level characters in relation to the shorter lived races? Do the shorter lived races learn at a higher rate? Or are they just more dedicated? Or perhaps the longer lived races ARE comprised of more high and epic level charactesr but it's not noticeable because those races are fewer in numbers? Comments? |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Seravin |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 16:47:03
I like race class restrictions, dwarf mages don't sit well with me for instance.
But in play, I never imposed level limits on characters based on race. Way too restricting and the lore seemed filled with high level NPCs of every race in 2nd edition. If the creators ignored the rules, why shouldn't I? |
| Zireael |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 15:32:23
Love the topic. Brilliant. So informative.
I like some of the class/race restrictions, and some do not. I don't like completely unlimited leveling, as it reminds me of a MMORPG, but I like the fact that all races can achieve similar levels. |
| The Simbul |
Posted - 22 Nov 2011 : 19:38:52
Adventurers, by nature of their profession, do NOT live very long. Eventually you roll a 1 on a saving throw, and your high and mighty world comes crashing down. More importantly, NPCs--as a general rule of their role in the world--are rarely resurrected.
Long-lived races are going to be more apt to guard their lives and take fewer risks when they have so much to look forward to. Likewise, individuals who have taken extraordinary and costly endeavors to extend their lifespan will be all the more guarded in how they use it. Humans mature faster than any other race, and have a relatively short timespan in which to explore the world and enjoy their lives before old age sets in. Thus this motivates them to take more risks in their adventuring days before age penalties require them to become (yet another) retired, double-digit-level adventurer, running an inn no-one but Volo has ever remembered visiting ;) Therefore human adventurers are likely to take more risks,--and therefore reap more rewards and experience--than their long-lived counterparts. More importantly, even when they fail, their numbers are far more easily replenished in the world (minimum starting age for human sorcerers, barbarians, and rogues was 16 in 3E. Compare that to minimum age of 114 for elves of the same classes). That last bit makes human warfare and conflict (and thus, adventuring) more common, and perhaps even sociologically essential in regulating population numbers and weeding out troublesome misfits.
Moreover, simple age does not intrinsically warrant experience. Doing the same thing day after day does not constitute learning or taking a risk, and after a while there are diminished returns (i.e. no XP) even in “dangeous” situations like combat against enemies below a given level, or skill use in 'perilous' tasks below a given DC. Experience is intended to represent the learning-curve reward for taking dangerous risks, trying new things, and putting oneself in mortal peril. A more significant leap of experience can occur in a short time frame of high danger than a steady but minuscule increment of experience that accrues in a long lifetime.
A perfect example: Within the canon timeline of the Forgotten Realms, a party of characters of any race can go from 4th to 17th level in a span of roughly a month or so (Cormyr: the Tearing of the Weave, Shadowdale: the Scouring of the Land, Anauroch: the Empire of Shade). Those same characters can also easily get themselves killed by facing down so many deadly (CR above party level) encounters.
Beyond that, even with limitations on maximum level removed in 3E, there still is an intangible “level cap” in terms of how many epic level adventures, adversaries, and threats actually EXIST in the world/locale an NPC inhabits. At some point you run out of great wyrm red dragons to slay, liches to imprison, and demigods to outwit. Hence the reason why most normal city-states rarely have individuals above 20th level, and more populous or perilous regions have characters rarely exceeding the 30th+ level tier.
It even has less to do with race at all, and more to do with ambition and adventurousness. Here is a fairly simple example of how ambition, persistent activity, and the ever-presence of deadly adversaries in a given lifespan can result in characters achieving comparable (or higher) levels than their elder counterparts within a shorter time frame:
* Szass Tam (human/lich; Nec10/Red17/Acm2; CR 31) born 1104 DR
* The Simbul (human/chosen; Sor20/Acm2/Wiz10; CR 36) born 766 DR
* Elminster (human/chosen; Ftr1/Rog2/Clr3/Wiz24/Acm5; CR 39) born 242 DR
* Telamont Tanthul (human/shade; Wiz20/Sha10/Acm5; CR 37) born -645 DR
Despite the vast differences in lifespan (so far at least) these characters are all more or less within the same tier of power. A brief glance of their biographies, daily life, and roles in 3E era novels/events clearly demonstrates why some have progressed farther in shorter time-frames. I would include more, but Larloch, Halaster, and other comparable ancient, somewhat-human archmages do not appear to have scribed-in-lore birth years, despite falling into equal levels of relative statistical power.
Szass Tam: had to strive and prevail in a society where betrayal and might are the utmost means of survival, and assasination/usurpation are ever present and the surest way to power. At any given time during the 2E-3E era he would have been facing, and engaging in, innumerable plots from other zulkirs, lesser necromancers, outsider archmages, demon lords, and invariable lesser conspiracies against him.
-The Simbul: as a personal compulsion was more driven master magic than any of her contemporaries, peers, or sisters in her early centuries. Beyond those early years she spent centuries wandering the planes, and dwelled upon the periphery of a powerful hostile magocracy (see above) of her later centuries--a magocracy for whom she was their most insuperable foe.
-Elminster: is older than most human mages, yet took to magic with far less enthusiasm or zeal, and for a time didn't care for it at all. He has spent centuries in stasis, centuries more working behind the scenes, and has had many allies, patrons, and pawns to shield him or work through over the years.
-Telamont: has always been the unquestioned ruler of his domain, at least on the surface of things, and by all estimation has spent the majority of his existence entrenched within his enclave. Defending it from outside threats, or commanding his forces from the confines and wards of the Palace Most High may yield experience over time, yet does yield the kind of perilous daily existence that younger human adventurers have contended with (and reaped the experience awards from). |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 16 Nov 2011 : 00:31:24
Heh. Tell that to a certain cat I had once, MrH. He was a friggin feline Einstein. I kid you not. He understood (and could even almost speak!) quite a bit of English, taught himself several games, knew how to work door-knobs, child-proof latches, and even dead-bolt locks (he used to get out from our balcony door, even AFTER I started locking it!) and I'm pretty sure he could read. He used to sit behind or beside me on the arm or top of the couch while I read a book, and he would put his foot on the page if he didn't want me to turn it yet. no, that is not a joke. He really did all ofthose things. And he once OD'd on catnip that was in a sealed bag inside a canister with a screw-in lid. Don't ask me how he got it open, but you should have seen his face when I caught him! LOL! Stoned to the bone! |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 15 Nov 2011 : 19:42:39
As I said level caps for certain races don't make any sense to me. Why can't Matron Baenre be level 25? Or there be a level 18 Halfling rogue? ...because...???
In the real world things which are born with more instinct are ultimately capable of less. Humans learn very slowly compared to a cat. But in the end the learned processes can be much more complex than those of a cat who was born able to do many things. I learned this in cognitive psychology but don't know how to explain it beyond that ...
I would say half-orcs or even orcs do learn faster than Elves. A level 20 barbarian chief of a tribe could be like ...25 (I don't remember the age spans of orcs) but a 25 year old elf is a small leveless child. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Nov 2011 : 18:44:38
Awhile back, on the WotC site, I posted a table of how I see aging working (In other words, HOMEBREW) in the Forgotten Realms, based on some of my very early theories/observations regarding the Weave, it's nature, and some surprising NPCs. I no longer have the computer I created the table on, and I can't find the thread anymore - when they went 'Vomit Green' (I forget what that awful thing was called) for a short time, they completely re-arranged their site and lost A LOT. Then they re-built the site yet-again, and lost even more, so all those old fan-created goodies are gone now (and I don't know how to use the way-back machine).
One of my suppositions was that time was 'shorter' in the Realms - a Realms day was only about 21 hours - something that wouldn't be noticeable if you were native, and visitors would experience a jet-lag like state for a couple of days until they got used to the rhythm of the world. This would account for the 'why' of things, in regards to how folks in a fantasy medieval-tech leveled world can live long, healthy lives, as compared to our own RW historic lifespans. It isn't much of a difference (an FR person of 40 would actually be 35 on Earth), but it works for me. It also helps explain some of the time-differences in the way our time flows compared to game-time (I think officially it was 1 year game time for every 3 years RW). That would be a bit much if we tried to turn it into a working mechanic as I did (a 90 year old woman would still be fertile!). Then again, Toril 'aged' almost a century in a matter of days, Earth-time (which means Ed Greenwood's house would be an old, possibly abandoned ruin, if the Wizard's Three were to visit him). 
Anyhow, I could probably re-create the table I had that relates magical levels to longevity, if anyone were interested. In Ed's Realms, The Weave = 'Life', so it would make sense that someone practicing arcane magic would be literally 'charged with life'. It even took into account being a Chosen. I know that's not how the canon mechanics work, but its how I worked things out for my own game. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 15 Nov 2011 : 14:04:26
I only played 2nd Ed but the unlimited leveling of humans was always just the best bonus of being a human. Human did not get stat modifiers, infravision, inate spell abilities, etc. We always would let non-human characters level up beyond their stated "max" anyways though, usually for 1.5x the experience. |
| Idamar of Thay |
Posted - 15 Nov 2011 : 13:53:55
I was always under the impression that the reason humans are considered to have more potential is because they're always doing something, whereas longer lived races are much more relaxed and take much longer to do certain things, due to their different perspective.
A human blacksmith in Suzail might rush his orders before the deadline in a few days, while a dwarf craftsman in Mythril Hall might spend weeks creating a single masterpiece weapon.
Also think of it this way, if you live for hundreds of years, how long before you master your own skills and do just that your entire life? How many goblins would an elf archmage need to kill to gain a level? |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 15 Nov 2011 : 03:10:50
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Yeah, but their capacity is far lower, so they may learn FASTER, but they also can't learn AS MUCH....  
A smaller cup fills up more quickly type scenario?  |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 23:23:31
Yeah, but their capacity is far lower, so they may learn FASTER, but they also can't learn AS MUCH.... |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 21:54:39
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Race class restrictions never made any sense. Why wouldn't a half-orc be a bard? I don't follow the logic of any of this argument at all.
I think longer lived races might actually be generally higher level, looking at drow. But most beings regardless of their race never do much that would cause them to become "higher level". Also we're talking about NPCs who's levels are chosen by the DM/game writers. I would say there are more higher level long lived races than humans, humans just outnumber them and are more dynamic or whatever. An NPC doesn't really gain experience the way a PC has to. I could just say that a teenage sorceress is level 10 and then an wizard who is dying only ever became level 3 - because that is how the author of the universe chooses the world to be.
Humans (and other short lived races like half-orcs) might have more drive and urgency to learn faster. Or they may just learn faster.
Looking at the real world I am fairly certain there are more able 24 year olds at things like physics (I know someone who is in their their PhD in Physics when they are 24) than most mature adults. Age has nothing to do with it. Levels don't really make logical sense regardless. How could ANY warrior regardless of what training they have be so strong as to fight a dragon, for example? The D&D world is essentially a game not a logical working universe.
Half-orcs learn faster than elves?  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 21:11:41
I did feel that class limits were good, in 2E. Yeah, I know elves like to take time and smell the roses -- but that doesn't mean that a rare elf won't have the same drive as a human. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 21:08:10
Race class restrictions never made any sense. Why wouldn't a half-orc be a bard? I don't follow the logic of any of this argument at all.
I think longer lived races might actually be generally higher level, looking at drow. But most beings regardless of their race never do much that would cause them to become "higher level". Also we're talking about NPCs who's levels are chosen by the DM/game writers. I would say there are more higher level long lived races than humans, humans just outnumber them and are more dynamic or whatever. An NPC doesn't really gain experience the way a PC has to. I could just say that a teenage sorceress is level 10 and then an wizard who is dying only ever became level 3 - because that is how the author of the universe chooses the world to be.
Humans (and other short lived races like half-orcs) might have more drive and urgency to learn faster. Or they may just learn faster.
Looking at the real world I am fairly certain there are more able 24 year olds at things like physics (I know someone who is in their their PhD in Physics when they are 24) than most mature adults. Age has nothing to do with it. Levels don't really make logical sense regardless. How could ANY warrior regardless of what training they have be so strong as to fight a dragon, for example? The D&D world is essentially a game not a logical working universe. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 15:54:04
One really has to disassociate the rules of D&D vs. the aspects of real-life (or in this case, fantasy real-life). People receive experience in various ways (in Fantasy RL) and this is shown by their advancement in their class/level. Elves and other longer-lived races tend to pursue one aspect to it's fullest potential or their own. An elven mage might find something interesting in alchemy and spend 25 years perfecting a few receipies or formulae while a human wizard might spend 2 years doing this with more dedication.
Personally I feel it's based on one's own perception of time. An elf/dwarf/dragon all see years pass by differently than shorter lived races such as humans and orcs. For a human, a year is a LONG time in which you expect to accomplish a lot of things. Elves, by comparison, only accomplish i'd say 1/4 the amount a human might yet spend the rest of the time in contemplation of the natural world, magical art, dance, and other aspects that just don't yeild more experience (in the XP sense).
Additionally, their cultures are much much different than shorter-lived races. To keep the example with the elves, they tend to stick to their homes, woods, and the like without actively going out to change the world and adventure. Humans, by their very nature, are explorers and love finding and experiencing new things. They have a greater want to change the world. Humans have a sharper perceiption of time and know that with only about 15-20 good adventuring years in them, they had better make the best of them before they become too old to go about the world. Elves have the same physique throughout old age so 300+ year old elves are spry, quick, and dangerious where as a 65+ year old human (if they live that long) is more frail and thus couldn't stand to the rigiors of adventuring.
Just my 2-cents. |
| Abenabin Gimblescrew |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 14:38:11
It is indeed. Personally, I see it by an individual basis. Just like there are people with different perspectives so would the adventurers (the 1%) that actually go out and do something. The Realms does have say a greater number of adventurers then most settings most only do go adventuring for a one time trip or every so often when the need arises. That being said most people, just like here on Earth, probably do progress slowly along through life in levels, but after reaching a certain point of being content with where they are simply stop at that point.
Nothing wrong with that no matter what D&D race you are playing. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 13:50:06
Yep all about balance. A 20th level human wizard walking around with 500 year old 60th level elven wizards is a little unbalanced |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 05:52:21
I still permit (very rare) exceptions to the race/class restrictions, things like an halfling paladin for example. And the maximum level cap can be increased several ways ... it also does not absolutely halt experience gain, it merely slows it down. Although I use it as an explanation for the comparative lack of the otherwise expected preponderance of high level elven wizards and such, I do not disallow nor prevent the possibility of a level 54 elven Srinshee.
I can understand 3E's quest for uniformity, preferring simplicity in this matter over numerous pages of charts and tables indicating allowable combinations of race, class, level, and attributes ... such things add flavour and complexity but were always a bit cumbersome and arbitrary during the 1E/2E era. No less arbitrary than my own bias against dwarven mages, of course; in my games the maximum mage level a dwarf can normally reach is level 0, so any dwarven mage class automatically starts off having to earn double the base experience, effectively progressing in level at half the normal rate.
In an attempt to address the OP ... I think a better perspective is not to say an elf has lived for 600 years while kingdoms rose and fell, but instead to say the elf has lived into his middle-age. He should be approximately as accomplished as, say, a human who is also middle-aged. Elven perspectives - great and small, here and now, looking to the past and future - tend to focus on much longer spans of time than human ones; a human does not enjoy the elven luxury of letting a decade or two idly slip by, an elf is not driven by the imperative rush of short-lived races. This is not to say that elves all squander the passing years admiring flowers and seasons instead of their craft, only that the idea of fanatically burning up to level 20 before even finishing elven childhood is something akin to human children who get university doctorates before reaching puberty. Too much intense focus on one thing means lack of attention to other things, and the elven mindset seems to prefer a more seemly and balanced manner of life which allows one to gracefully observe and appreciate the cycles of natural things. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 05:16:48
quote:
Originally posted by Huerin Illance
Well, one of , Greenwood's highest level NPCs was an elf... The Srinshee.
Indeed.
During 2e, the Srinshee was a 30th-level wizard. Ed later provided some brief 'unofficial' 3e stats/rules advice for the Srinshee in the "Realmslore from Elminster in Myth Drannor" of The Annotated Elminster. Those stats declare the Srinshee as a 54th level character [Wizard29/Sorcerer16/Archmage9]. |
| Huerin Illance |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 05:03:49
Well, one of , Greenwood's highest level NPCs was an elf... The Srinshee. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 04:16:46
Hmphf, ideas like dwarven mages and half-orc bards never sat well with me, race/class restrictions were never abandoned in my gaming. Insofar as the maximum level caps; they too remain in place, my very deliberate answer to the dilemna posited by the OP. Strictly homebrew, of course. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 03:26:25
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Maximum level caps, as described in the rules? Supposedly one of the great advantages possessed by lowly humans is their capability of (essentially) unlimited level advancement in almost any class.
Level caps went away when 3E came about, along with class/race restrictions. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 00:58:09
Maximum level caps, as described in the rules? Supposedly one of the great advantages possessed by lowly humans is their capability of (essentially) unlimited level advancement in almost any class. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 13 Nov 2011 : 22:28:01
Game design reason, balance
Within world reason, because looking at such a long life there is no reason to achieve powers like the short livers. |
|
|
