AD&D 2nd Edition Race/Class restrictions

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
I was wondering, if anyone could post the Race/Class restrictions from 2nd Edition for me? I'm going to be running a converted adventure, and I want to use the restrictions from the old editions, instead of leaving it completely open like current 3rd Edition does.

Also, if anyone knows of any restrictions that Psionics had in 2nd edition as far as races go, that would be great. Thanks.
GAH! NO! BOO! HISS!!!

DEATH TO ARBITRARY RESTRICTIONS!!
:hoppingma


*passes out in a heap on the floor*
I was wondering, if anyone could post the Race/Class restrictions from 2nd Edition for me? I'm going to be running a converted adventure, and I want to use the restrictions from the old editions, instead of leaving it completely open like current 3rd Edition does.

Also, if anyone knows of any restrictions that Psionics had in 2nd edition as far as races go, that would be great. Thanks.

Humans - Any class of any level. Any multiclass combination. Human mages may specialize in any school of magic.

Half-elves - Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Mage, Thief, Bard, Cleric (or Druid)/Fighter, Cleric (or Druid)/Fighter/Mage, Cleric (or Druid)/Ranger, Cleric (or Druid)/Mage, Fighter/Mage, Fighter/Thief, Fighter/Mage/Thief, Mage/Thief.

A half-elf mage may choose to be a general Mage, Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, or Transmuter.

Dwarves - Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Thief.

Elves - Fighter, Ranger, Thief, Cleric, Mage (may not specialize), Fighter/mage, Fighter/thief, Mage/thief, Fighter/mage/thief.

Halflings - Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Fighter/Thief.

Gnomes - Fighter, Thief, Mage*
*While unable to become a general Mage, a gnome may choose to specialize in illusions (Illusionist).
They weren't arbitrary. They were Greyhawk.

A good game designer knows that its not always what you CAN do, but what you CANNOT do, that makes a character choice interesting.
Unfortunately, I don't have my 2e Psionics book with me at the moment, but I do remember that halflings could be psions, as well as multiclass psions/thieves (having played one many years ago).

I'll look tonight to see what others were allowed, I think the elf was the only other races, but I'm not positive.

Hope this helps,
Trothgard the Mad

(And no half-orcs? Or barbarians? Or monks? Or sorcerers?)
the race/level restrictions were terrible, the race/class restrictions were a little better. they were only really good for making sure that most PCs were human unless you really wanted to multi class (the only thing that a human couldnt do) and even that was a masocistic choice.
It really is a bad idea to reintroduce that garbage
Humans - Any class of any level. Any multiclass combination. Human mages may specialize in any school of magic.

Humans could not multiclass in previous editions.

Half-elves - Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Mage, Thief, Bard, Cleric (or Druid)/Fighter, Cleric (or Druid)/Fighter/Mage, Cleric (or Druid)/Ranger, Cleric (or Druid)/Mage, Fighter/Mage, Fighter/Thief, Fighter/Mage/Thief, Mage/Thief.

As an odd technicality, while half-elves had druid/ranger listed as an available multiclass option it was impossible to meet the alignment restrictions of both classes. Rangers had to be good and druids true nuetral.

Elves - Fighter, Ranger, Thief, Cleric, Mage (may not specialize), Fighter/mage, Fighter/thief, Mage/thief, Fighter/mage/thief.

Are you sure they couldn't? I thought they could, but my 2e PHBs went AWOL a year or two back, so I can't double check.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

elves could specialize as wizards, but only some schools
To those of you who have helped, thank you very much. To those of you who keep saying I shouldn't do this... Well, all I can say is, it's a house rule like any other for this one shot campaign, limiting the choices of the characters. My group has agreed to do it this way, and nothing anyone says is going to change that, so you might as well not bother to try and convince me not to.

Here's how I'm going to do it. It's not exactly based off of the old system, but, it's close and adapted for 3rd Edition. It's a little more open ended, as well. As per 3rd Edition, there aren't two methods of multiclassing. All races can multiclass any combination of the classes they're allowed. Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Monk are allowable classes. Half-Orcs are not playable. There are no level restrictions on classes for certain races, like there were in 2nd edition.

Humans - Any class (Includeing Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer)

Half-elves - Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard*, Rogue, Bard, Sorcerer.

*A half-elf mage may choose to be a generalist, Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, or Transmuter.

Dwarves - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Barbarian.

Elves - Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard (may not specialize), Sorcerer.

Halflings - Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer.

Gnomes - Fighter, Rogue, Wizard (Illusionist), Sorcerer.
the race/level restrictions were terrible, the race/class restrictions were a little better. they were only really good for making sure that most PCs were human unless you really wanted to multi class (the only thing that a human couldnt do) and even that was a masocistic choice.
It really is a bad idea to reintroduce that garbage

We never had a problem with people wanting to play elves, dwarves and whatnot. The level limits were so high (12-15 in most cases) that its not even likely to become an issue in a year long campaign.

I dont see any logical reason why everyone can do everything, neither have I heard a compelling argument that was not campaign specific, as to why it should be possible.
I use to have the PCs petition a god through a priest. Usually ending in a quest or something. Some gods require a sacrifice to over-ride class/race restrictions, such as "your character's charisma just dropped by 4 or more points, but your request is granted if you do this..."

I thought the reasoning for restrictions in 2E was a good arguement. That humans are the dominant race and if there weren't such restrictions, the dwarfs or worse, the orcs would overrun the world. Eventually gaining many 20th level or higher orcs, leading to world conquest. It does make an interesting campaign based around --save the world-- orcs have no class/level restrictions, the gods have turned against humankind because they are overrunning the world with their massive civilizations and urbanization, and their continual down trodden attitude toward other races.
We never had a problem with people wanting to play elves, dwarves and whatnot. The level limits were so high (12-15 in most cases) that its not even likely to become an issue in a year long campaign.

I dont see any logical reason why everyone can do everything, neither have I heard a compelling argument that was not campaign specific, as to why it should be possible.

Then perhaps you can explain why elves were limited in their wizard levels, and dwarves were capped around level 12 for fighter? It made no sense what so ever.

How does what you can't do make you interesting? It means that dwarven fighters are just like all of the other dwarves. Your elf wizard is just like all the other elves. There is no real options for what you want to play. The real fun comes out of having a system that can conform to your imagination, not one that makes you conform to its limitations.

On the topic of dwarves, they supposedly made amazing enchanted weaponary, but there wasn't a mage among them? Were they sub-contracting to the elves? I realize that a cleric can also make a magical weapon, but not to the variety or extent that a mage can/could.

Why couldn't a dwarf become a cleric/thief if he worshipped a god of thieves? Would the mere thought of the combination have blown his tiny dwarven mind? Halflings couldn't see the bonuses of multiclassing anything with cleric because they had killed to many brain cells on pipe weed? Gnomes that can't multiclass or become clerics because that part of their cranium has been taken for thinking up fart jokes?

On the matter of gnomes, why in the name of all that is holy, could they become illusionists (and cast spells of all but their restricted school), but not become generalists? If it was just a problem with the school opposed to illusion, wouldn't it have been easier to say that gnomes can never use spells from that school and allow a restricted generalist?

Only humans and half-elves can become druids... Half-elves I can see, but humans as a species set up big polluting cities. If there's a reason a species can't do it, you would think humans would also be forbidden from that class, their ranks taken over by gnomes and halflings, and the elves that actually live as a part of nature!

The class restriction rules were both arbitrary and idiotic. They were a cheap tool to... I can't even think of a valid reason for their existance, except that dwarves and halflings weren't mages in The Lord of the Rings.

If you feel that you have a valid reason to keep certain races from being certain class, you can go ahead and do it. But you should give your players a list of all the possible monsters they will encounter and what classes you are allowed to place on them. Fair is fair, after all, and if they can't try have a elven druid or a gnomish bard (because gnomes are bad at having a good time) then you shouldn't be able to spring an orc cleric or vampire anything (vampire wasn't a template back in the day) on them. Sure, they'll have strategies ready for anything since you can't surprise them without divine intervention, but the game is about limiting choices, right?
I use to have the PCs petition a god through a priest. Usually ending in a quest or something. Some gods require a sacrifice to over-ride class/race restrictions, such as "your character's charisma just dropped by 4 or more points, but your request is granted if you do this..."

I thought the reasoning for restrictions in 2E was a good arguement. That humans are the dominant race and if there weren't such restrictions, the dwarfs or worse, the orcs would overrun the world. Eventually gaining many 20th level or higher orcs, leading to world conquest. It does make an interesting campaign based around --save the world-- orcs have no class/level restrictions, the gods have turned against humankind because they are overrunning the world with their massive civilizations and urbanization, and their continual down trodden attitude toward other races.

Of course, if no one has restrictions, the dominant race is picked by a species ingenuity, speed of grow (both for age until maturity and population) and who they make their alliances with... Wow, that seems to give a reason for every single race to be against the orcs, yet have never wiped them out.

Of course, an arbitrary design flaw makes much more sense in-character.

"The savage orcs have never taken over the world because humans can become better fighters. All that rage just has no where to go. And the militaristic dwarves are in the same boat as the orcs, now that you mention it. Boy, its great living in a world designed by xenophobic human gods!"

Besides, what keeps the other races from ganging up on the humans? Elves and dwarves that have maxed out their mage and fighter levels would form hunting squads with their halfling thief breatheren, hunting down any human that took a single level in a class they couldn't or killing those that were a few levels away from hitting another races level cap. Hard to be a dominant species when the other races (who live much longer) can easily cut the knees out from under you (thanks to their high level halfling thieves). That makes another case for ingenuity dictating the dominant species.

If any one species was really so much better than all of the others, there would have been no way that the empires of old would have let them get organized. Its a shoddy mechanic that does not describe what is going on in-game unless the gods only put the other races there so that humans would have something to kill for xp.
Of course, if no one has restrictions, the dominant race is picked by a species ingenuity, speed of grow (both for age until maturity and population) and who they make their alliances with... Wow, that seems to give a reason for every single race to be against the orcs, yet have never wiped them out..

Look at it this way, if Elves can live for 100s of years, then they could reach extremely high levels. Much higher than humans.


Its a shoddy mechanic that does not describe what is going on in-game unless the gods only put the other races there so that humans would have something to kill for xp.

I agree, but I play the game with the game rules. Therefore my arguements are based on what the game designers intended. I'm sure that with the intrigue of racial benefits, the designers may have thought that no one would want to be humans unless such restrictions were in place. I tend to agree. Therefore I allow some to bypass the rules occasionaly by petitioning the gods.
Then perhaps you can explain why elves were limited in their wizard levels, and dwarves were capped around level 12 for fighter? It made no sense what so ever.

They dont have the ambition and drive of humanity. This is even supported by some of the campaign settings, like Mystara, where the elves are in awe of humanity's achievements.

How does what you can't do make you interesting? It means that dwarven fighters are just like all of the other dwarves. Your elf wizard is just like all the other elves. There is no real options for what you want to play. The real fun comes out of having a system that can conform to your imagination, not one that makes you conform to its limitations.

In 3e, a dwarf fighter is just like any other fighter. Its no different. However, by saying that dwarves cannot be, say, wizards, you make the dwarf race more distinct. Now anyone can be a wizard, its nothing special. Same for the paladin. By having it be human only, its something more unique and special.
As for having no options, dwarves have 4 class options in AD&D (3 in 2nd edition), before factoring in multiclassing. Given that you arent likely to play more than one character a month at the most, thats a good half year of playing dwarves, without having to play the same class twice.

On the topic of dwarves, they supposedly made amazing enchanted weaponary, but there wasn't a mage among them? Were they sub-contracting to the elves? I realize that a cleric can also make a magical weapon, but not to the variety or extent that a mage can/could.

You said it yourself. Mages make magic items. Dwarves are just good smiths, thus they work with mithril and whatnot. The rules never included anything about dwarves forging items, its merely folklore.

Why couldn't a dwarf become a cleric/thief if he worshipped a god of thieves? Would the mere thought of the combination have blown his tiny dwarven mind? Halflings couldn't see the bonuses of multiclassing anything with cleric because they had killed to many brain cells on pipe weed? Gnomes that can't multiclass or become clerics because that part of their cranium has been taken for thinking up fart jokes?

Clericism takes a certain amount of dedication, and given the traditional dwarven concepts of honour, its doubtfull that it is very compatible with thieving.
This is all racial and cultural limitations.

On the matter of gnomes, why in the name of all that is holy, could they become illusionists (and cast spells of all but their restricted school), but not become generalists? If it was just a problem with the school opposed to illusion, wouldn't it have been easier to say that gnomes can never use spells from that school and allow a restricted generalist?

Because AD&D 2nd edition was a hackjob. In original AD&D, illusionists were the only class capable of casting illusions, and could only cast illusions. The 2nd edition Illusionist was a muddled non-class, which didnt make sense.

Only humans and half-elves can become druids... Half-elves I can see, but humans as a species set up big polluting cities. If there's a reason a species can't do it, you would think humans would also be forbidden from that class, their ranks taken over by gnomes and halflings, and the elves that actually live as a part of nature!

Druids are a real life HUMAN thing. If they can do it in real life (without the spells mind you), why not in a game ?
Further, the racial ability of humans is to play as any class.

The class restriction rules were both arbitrary and idiotic. They were a cheap tool to... I can't even think of a valid reason for their existance, except that dwarves and halflings weren't mages in The Lord of the Rings.

Every game rule is arbitrary. Simply removing all restrictions is not good game design. Its just lazy catering to Diablo and Everquest fans.
Lord of the rings were never a significant influence on D&D, read the original source material and the inspiration for the game.
The limits set up game play options that were interesting, and which fit into Greyhawk, which was the default setting for the game.

If you feel that you have a valid reason to keep certain races from being certain class, you can go ahead and do it. But you should give your players a list of all the possible monsters they will encounter and what classes you are allowed to place on them. Fair is fair, after all, and if they can't try have a elven druid or a gnomish bard (because gnomes are bad at having a good time) then you shouldn't be able to spring an orc cleric or vampire anything (vampire wasn't a template back in the day) on them. Sure, they'll have strategies ready for anything since you can't surprise them without divine intervention, but the game is about limiting choices, right?

If you assume that the DM and players operate under the same rules, then you may need to read the dungeon masters guide, and actually realize how a roleplaying game is played. There seems to be a common misconception that there are some arbitrary set of "rules" in effect.
Let me ask you though, by the strict letter of the rules, what will the players encounter if they travel 10 miles north of waterdeep ?
Give me a page reference in the DMG please, so we can have exact rules, for that specific location. After all, the DM cant just make up an encounter, since the players are arbitrarily limited to playing only a single character.


Of course, your bard example is plagued by a misunderstanding of the bardic class, but since it has been mangled in D&D since 2nd edition, its a forgivable misunderstanding.



Now, since you have neglected to give me any reasons why races SHOULD be able to pick any class, maybe you could oblige us by doing so, stimulating the discussion further, instead of simply saying "idiotic" a lot.
Look at it this way, if Elves can live for 100s of years, then they could reach extremely high levels. Much higher than humans.

And for that reason, they should. If elves supposedly are so great with magic, why wasn't there one of them who could cast a 7th to 9th level spell? Did they all know how to do it in the past and those that could forgot how, or are all there great magic really simple spells that any human with ten years under his belt can learn?

I agree, but I play the game with the game rules. Therefore my arguements are based on what the game designers intended. I'm sure that with the intrigue of racial benefits, the designers may have thought that no one would want to be humans unless such restrictions were in place. I tend to agree. Therefore I allow some to bypass the rules occasionaly by petitioning the gods.

That wasn't the game designers call to make. If they wanted people to play as humans, they should have restricted the use of other races period. If they wanted to give players a reason to use humans, the should have offered something like a 5% bonus to XP awards. The would have gone up level fast than the other races, but no one would have been penalized fopr being able to tell if the floor you were on wasn't level.

The last edition was centered around what you couldn't do, as opposed to what options your character had, and the race restriction rules were my biggest beef with it. I just couldn't figure out how only one race was allowed to be something (like humans as druids), but other races who might have a stronger reason to take that class (dwarves making magical weapons and armor) would have to go on serious quests and petition gods to take a level. I just couldn't understand the uneven censoring.

Besides, if the gods were really that pro-human and could prevent other races (with their own pantheons) from learning certain things, why couldn't they just force them to serve humans as slaves. If I can keep you from ever learning a simple cantrip no matter how much you study or how intelligent you are, surely making you believe that serving my favoured race would bring you glory in the eyes of yor gods. Unless the other pantheons struck a bargin.

"If you let me keep them from learning magic or becoming good fighters, I'll make our favoured race enslave yours the hard way."
And for that reason, they should. If elves supposedly are so great with magic, why wasn't there one of them who could cast a 7th to 9th level spell? Did they all know how to do it in the past and those that could forgot how, or are all there great magic really simple spells that any human with ten years under his belt can learn?

What do you base the elves superiority with magic on ? It was never in D&D, and its certainly not in Tolkien, which you quote above. (elves were good with magic, because well, they were about the only ones that had it)

Some other source, you may care to mention ?

The last edition was centered around what you couldn't do, as opposed to what options your character had, and the race restriction rules were my biggest beef with it. I just couldn't figure out how only one race was allowed to be something (like humans as druids), but other races who might have a stronger reason to take that class (dwarves making magical weapons and armor) would have to go on serious quests and petition gods to take a level. I just couldn't understand the uneven censoring.

Why cant fighters cast spells in 3.5 ? Its game rules.

Besides, if the gods were really that pro-human and could prevent other races (with their own pantheons) from learning certain things, why couldn't they just force them to serve humans as slaves. If I can keep you from ever learning a simple cantrip no matter how much you study or how intelligent you are, surely making you believe that serving my favoured race would bring you glory in the eyes of yor gods. Unless the other pantheons struck a bargin.

I cant recall any campaign setting that was published, which had a definite pro-human pantheon of deities.
They dont have the ambition and drive of humanity. This is even supported by some of the campaign settings, like Mystara, where the elves are in awe of humanity's achievements.

One setting doesn't a reason make, especially considering all of the other settings that were out there. A lack of drive fails to explain why a race that can live for ages gives up on something so readily and then... became what, a commoner? The other races couldn't dual class like humans could (I can't even bother memorizing a 1st level spell until after I become a better fighter than I am a wizard?), nor could they add multiclass levels afterwards. As an adventuring elf could rise in levels as quickly as an adventuring human of the same class, why were they suddenly penalized. Did they fall into depression and just not care anymore? It took him 20 years to get that powerful, what is he going to do for the other 980?



In 3e, a dwarf fighter is just like any other fighter. Its no different. However, by saying that dwarves cannot be, say, wizards, you make the dwarf race more distinct. Now anyone can be a wizard, its nothing special. Same for the paladin. By having it be human only, its something more unique and special.
As for having no options, dwarves have 4 class options in AD&D (3 in 2nd edition), before factoring in multiclassing. Given that you arent likely to play more than one character a month at the most, thats a good half year of playing dwarves, without having to play the same class twice.

Mages were not unique! if you were a human, you were pretty much like every human mage. If you were an elf mage, you were exactly like every other elf mage. Dwarves were only dwarves and elves were only elves. Each race was a limit and there was no such thing as a unique character because of it. The same went for classes. Every paladin was the same, because every paladin was human and had the same point of views (at least where race was concerned). In the new system, everyone is unique (especially considering the addition of feats). You can play for twenty years and never play the same character twice, EVER.

You said it yourself. Mages make magic items. Dwarves are just good smiths, thus they work with mithril and whatnot. The rules never included anything about dwarves forging items, its merely folklore.

They are such good smiths that they make objects so good they radiate magic. Right... and how is that any more valid than 12th level xenophobic elven mages being able to raise a mythal "just because they're naturally good at magic". And no, Elminster and the Chosens of Magic did not help put them all up.

Clericism takes a certain amount of dedication, and given the traditional dwarven concepts of honour, its doubtfull that it is very compatible with thieving.
This is all racial and cultural limitations.

But they have a god of thieves. There are those that worship the god of thieves. As there was NOTHING to limit them to a lawful good alignment, it makes no sense that a cleric for a god of thieves could not multiclass in Thief, especially when other classes could multiclass cleric. Racial and cultural limitations count for the norm only, not those that refuse to or can't deal with them.

Druids are a real life HUMAN thing. If they can do it in real life (without the spells mind you), why not in a game ?
Further, the racial ability of humans is to play as any class.

You still haven't explained why elves couldn't be druids. And if you want to bring real life into that kind of discussion, the druids of our world could not and cannot cast spells, and thus are not really accepted by nature. Humans are rarely as good to the enviroment as elves are, so it make no sense to let them take the class and put the races that love nature out in the cold.

And as I said in a different post, humans should have been given xp bonuses as a class feature, instead of making restrictions a feature for everyone else.

Every game rule is arbitrary. Simply removing all restrictions is not good game design. Its just lazy catering to Diablo and Everquest fans.

Lord of the rings were never a significant influence on D&D, read the original source material and the inspiration for the game.

The limits set up game play options that were interesting, and which fit into Greyhawk, which was the default setting for the game.

Diablo has three or four charater classes, and Everquest was out after the 3.0 switch over. I agree that there are arbitrary rules, but tossing race restrictions back into place without giving the punished races another set of bonuses to make up for it (or stripping humans of everything) is not only arbitrary, but stupid and unbalancing.

If memory serves me correctly, Tolkien's estate sued DnD because halflings were called hobbits. Hmm... what folklore do hobbits come from. Right... Tolkien. If you do some really research, you'll find that a large portion of DnD was based on Lord of the Rings.

Limits also remove play options that are interesting, and that fit into Greyhawk only because the limits were in place when the setting was designed. Greyhawk was not a setting that came out with the game, it was developed around the rules.

If you assume that the DM and players operate under the same rules, then you may need to read the dungeon masters guide, and actually realize how a roleplaying game is played. There seems to be a common misconception that there are some arbitrary set of "rules" in effect.
Let me ask you though, by the strict letter of the rules, what will the players encounter if they travel 10 miles north of waterdeep ?
Give me a page reference in the DMG please, so we can have exact rules, for that specific location. After all, the DM cant just make up an encounter, since the players are arbitrarily limited to playing only a single character.

Ah... you misunderstand. Player's should be aware of what trends (and thus restrictions) exist for the races in the world. If my players want to know what to expect on the road to Waterdeep, they roll a nature check and possibly a gather information, and they become aware of what might show up in the area.

The last time I checked, there was supposed to be a piece of fairness in DnD. Players and the DM followed the same rules system. Players were bound by what the rules said they could or couldn't do, and if a NPC could do something, the players could to with enough work. At the same time, DM's could change the rules with good reason, and should inform their players when they did so. They also avoided giving their 5th level figher BBEG teleport if he was going to die at a bad time, or arbitrarily saying no if the players found a way to solve a trap that he didn't think of.

Its a lousy DM who sees the game as a power trip and applies the rules unfairly. I also find it humorous that you claim that the races restrictions are an important rule for players, but that the rest of the rules are only a minor suggestion for the DM.

Of course, your bard example is plagued by a misunderstanding of the bardic class, but since it has been mangled in D&D since 2nd edition, its a forgivable misunderstanding.

Do you mean the druidic bard of first edition, or the travelling entertainer of 2nd edition that gave birth to the current one. If I'm wrong about the travelling entertainer, please, inform me how they did not fit with gnomes.

Now, since you have neglected to give me any reasons why races SHOULD be able to pick any class, maybe you could oblige us by doing so, stimulating the discussion further, instead of simply saying "idiotic" a lot.

Let's see... it is "idiotic" to restrict something without real reason. Gnomes had gods, but could not be clerics. Dwarves made magical items, but were apparently unable to manipulate magic. Humans were the only ones who could even get a helping hand from the worship of nature or make specialize in a school of magic they found interesting. So sure, humans tended to be better druids, elves prefered to focus on magic in general, and dwarves would rather be preparing for the next orc invasion. As a racial tendency, you can make those arguments.

One the individual level, the mechanics are are different. A dwarf who grows up in an elven community can never learn magic? Why? If he is raised as an elf, with none of the dwarven influence, why can't he learn? Why can't a gnome feel enough faith to worship a god? Because the race doesn't work that way?

When you roleplay, you are NOT playing a typical example of your race. No one plays a dirt farmer, or a baker. You pay someone who is stepping outside the social norms for reasons all your own. If this was impossible, then all Dwarves would have to be Lawful good, and all elves chaotic good. No exceptions under any circumstance but divine intervention.

And what happens if a character has a change of heart half way. He learns of magic in his bloodline and want to develop it, or has realized that it would be better to stick to the shadows while fighting. Free multiclassing gives option for character development, instead of cases where the DM says no, that can't happen.

Also, as any experienced and competent DM will realize, giving the players more options gives you more ways to involve their characters in the story. Both characters and situations that could not arise from the old rules are now avaliable for enjoyment, and you truely never play the same game twice.
Every game rule is arbitrary. Simply removing all restrictions is not good game design. Its just lazy catering to Diablo and Everquest fans.

I beg to differ about restriction removal was lazy catering to Diablo and Everquest fans. Now I cannot say much about Diablo, but I have played Everquest for over 4 years. If anything, Everquest has stricter race/class restrictions than AD&D. Yes, they 'opened' up some race/class combos, but you are still stuck with certian classes if you want to be a set race and vice versa (last i checked in EQ there were still only 2 races that could be a monk, and if you wanted a dwarf you were stuck with warrior, cleric, paladin, thief).

i personally like the new restriction removal because it frees me to play what ever character concept i like and i dont have to beg, whine, conjole, or use methods of bribery and underhandedness to get my character concept to meet DM's aproval. few DM's out there restrict core class/race combinations (the people that post on these boards not withstanding).
Teaching the next generation of gamer girls
What do you base the elves superiority with magic on ? It was never in D&D, and its certainly not in Tolkien, which you quote above. (elves were good with magic, because well, they were about the only ones that had it)

Some other source, you may care to mention ?

Forgotten Realms, the fact that elves have wizard as a favoured class, just about any Dragon magazine that deals with elves, most novels that involve elves in some way... do you want me to get more specific? For example, in the Forgotten Realms, elves can make Mythals and have their own type of high elven magic that humans can't replicate.

Why cant fighters cast spells in 3.5 ? Its game rules.

But a fighter who studies wizardary can, if he takes a level in wizard. If he puts the effort in, the rules should support the ability in some way.

I cant recall any campaign setting that was published, which had a definite pro-human pantheon of deities.

Well, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms (off the top of my head) have pantheons that focus mostly on how the world works, and then there are lesser demi-human who are only for those races and sometimes have portfolios that overlap with the main gods.

Of course, I was being sarcastic. A world where other races are completely cut off with race restrictions must have gods that favour one race over the rest, and it was obvious that the developers favoured humans above all others.
One setting doesn't a reason make, especially considering all of the other settings that were out there. A lack of drive fails to explain why a race that can live for ages gives up on something so readily and then... became what, a commoner? The other races couldn't dual class like humans could (I can't even bother memorizing a 1st level spell until after I become a better fighter than I am a wizard?), nor could they add multiclass levels afterwards. As an adventuring elf could rise in levels as quickly as an adventuring human of the same class, why were they suddenly penalized. Did they fall into depression and just not care anymore? It took him 20 years to get that powerful, what is he going to do for the other 980?

Multiclassing and dual classing were different mechanics to set demi humans apart from each other, and make them each more unique. They were clunky I admit.
As for loosing drive, its assumed they never had it in that large amounts. Presumably most demihumans loose interest in worldly matters once they reach their limits, and either retire, or simply find interest in other things, letting their abilities stagnate.

Mages were not unique! if you were a human, you were pretty much like every human mage. If you were an elf mage, you were exactly like every other elf mage. Dwarves were only dwarves and elves were only elves. Each race was a limit and there was no such thing as a unique character because of it. The same went for classes. Every paladin was the same, because every paladin was human and had the same point of views (at least where race was concerned). In the new system, everyone is unique (especially considering the addition of feats). You can play for twenty years and never play the same character twice, EVER.

You can play for 20 years in a game that has only fighters, and still not play the same character twice. The players ability to roleplay is not related to the rules presented.
In 3.x, a human mage and a dwarf mage are exactly the same in regards to their magic user class. That one has a beard doesnt affect his class any one bit.
Feats is a different issue alltogether, and not relevant to the discussion of level and class restrictions.

They are such good smiths that they make objects so good they radiate magic. Right... and how is that any more valid than 12th level xenophobic elven mages being able to raise a mythal "just because they're naturally good at magic". And no, Elminster and the Chosens of Magic did not help put them all up.

Find a place in AD&D where its stated that mithril is magical.

But they have a god of thieves. There are those that worship the god of thieves. As there was NOTHING to limit them to a lawful good alignment, it makes no sense that a cleric for a god of thieves could not multiclass in Thief, especially when other classes could multiclass cleric. Racial and cultural limitations count for the norm only, not those that refuse to or can't deal with them.

If he refuses to follow the norm, then he likely doesnt have what it takes to be a cleric in the first place.
Of course, thieves cannot be lawfull good, in either edition of AD&D. Check the class section.

You still haven't explained why elves couldn't be druids. And if you want to bring real life into that kind of discussion, the druids of our world could not and cannot cast spells, and thus are not really accepted by nature. Humans are rarely as good to the enviroment as elves are, so it make no sense to let them take the class and put the races that love nature out in the cold.

Theres no good reason why elves SHOULD be druids. AD&D assumed that druids are a human concept. Elves simply live in harmony with nature, they dont need to make a big deal out of it.

Diablo has three or four charater classes, and Everquest was out after the 3.0 switch over. I agree that there are arbitrary rules, but tossing race restrictions back into place without giving the punished races another set of bonuses to make up for it (or stripping humans of everything) is not only arbitrary, but stupid and unbalancing.

How is it unbalancing for your dwarf fighter that dwarves cannot be paladins ?

If memory serves me correctly, Tolkien's estate sued DnD because halflings were called hobbits. Hmm... what folklore do hobbits come from. Right... Tolkien. If you do some really research, you'll find that a large portion of DnD was based on Lord of the Rings.

Hobbits yeah. FInd something else as well, please. Most of the creatures Tolkien used are common in nordic, english or germanic folklore.

Limits also remove play options that are interesting, and that fit into Greyhawk only because the limits were in place when the setting was designed. Greyhawk was not a setting that came out with the game, it was developed around the rules.

Greyhawk was the world that the game development took place in, along with BLackmoor. Both settings existed from the day D&D was born.

The last time I checked, there was supposed to be a piece of fairness in DnD. Players and the DM followed the same rules system. Players were bound by what the rules said they could or couldn't do, and if a NPC could do something, the players could to with enough work. At the same time, DM's could change the rules with good reason, and should inform their players when they did so. They also avoided giving their 5th level figher BBEG teleport if he was going to die at a bad time, or arbitrarily saying no if the players found a way to solve a trap that he didn't think of.

The very nature of DM'ing includes things that a player cannot do, such as have an encounter happen when it does, designing a dungeon or trap. Doing so, has nothing to do with being arbitrary or power tripping. Its DM'ing.

If the game was fair, players could play as undead beholders, and the DM could only run one character. It doesnt work like that, and I think everyone is glad it doesnt.

Its a lousy DM who sees the game as a power trip and applies the rules unfairly. I also find it humorous that you claim that the races restrictions are an important rule for players, but that the rest of the rules are only a minor suggestion for the DM.

The DM is the one that decides what goes and what doesnt. If he wants Optimus Prime in his game, he can, though the players arent likely to enjoy that.
Its even in the book.

Do you mean the druidic bard of first edition, or the travelling entertainer of 2nd edition that gave birth to the current one. If I'm wrong about the travelling entertainer, please, inform me how they did not fit with gnomes.

I was referring to the druidic bard. THe entertainer version, I never really liked all that much, since he seemed like an unnescesary class. It does however, fit well with gnomes, I agree. Halflings possibly as well, though the thief class is propably more suited for that.

One the individual level, the mechanics are are different. A dwarf who grows up in an elven community can never learn magic? Why? If he is raised as an elf, with none of the dwarven influence, why can't he learn? Why can't a gnome feel enough faith to worship a god? Because the race doesn't work that way?

A dwarf raised by dragons cant fly, and a dwarf raised by beholders wont shoot antimagic rays out of his eyes either.
AD&D assumes that magic is innate to some races, and not to others. 3.x assumes that anyone can learn magic. Its just different philosophy.
As for worshipping a god, anyone can worship something. That doesnt make them a cleric. And unless Im very mistaken, AD&D2 lets gnomes play as clerics..

When you roleplay, you are NOT playing a typical example of your race. No one plays a dirt farmer, or a baker. You pay someone who is stepping outside the social norms for reasons all your own. If this was impossible, then all Dwarves would have to be Lawful good, and all elves chaotic good. No exceptions under any circumstance but divine intervention.

If so, why have preferred classes in 3.x ? Most people in my experience play something fairly typical to their race, as defined by the campaign. The very act of being an adventurer is rather abnormal for anyone.

And what happens if a character has a change of heart half way. He learns of magic in his bloodline and want to develop it, or has realized that it would be better to stick to the shadows while fighting. Free multiclassing gives option for character development, instead of cases where the DM says no, that can't happen.

It opens more options, but its really a question of what clases mean, and the two games define it differently.
In AD&D, a class is an archetype. Its a readily identifiable type of fantasy personality, which is the defining element of your character. Class is chosen with great care, because its your choice, and players should think ahead.
In 3.x, a class is a package of powers, skills and potentials. THe game is written to reward combinations and to reward players who understand the system well, and master it, to give them the character they want.

Its two different philosophies, and we obviously disagree about which we prefer. Both are valid, however

Also, as any experienced and competent DM will realize, giving the players more options gives you more ways to involve their characters in the story. Both characters and situations that could not arise from the old rules are now avaliable for enjoyment, and you truely never play the same game twice.

Why have classes at all then ? A skill based system like GURPS does that better and much more flexible for the players than retaining the class system, without basing play on it.

Cheers!
Forgotten Realms, the fact that elves have wizard as a favoured class, just about any Dragon magazine that deals with elves, most novels that involve elves in some way... do you want me to get more specific? For example, in the Forgotten Realms, elves can make Mythals and have their own type of high elven magic that humans can't replicate.

So 3.x D&D misrepresents the elves, as humans are better mages there (due to their bonus feat).
You are referring to third edition material, which is not the standard for AD&D.

But a fighter who studies wizardary can, if he takes a level in wizard. If he puts the effort in, the rules should support the ability in some way.

Assuming magic can be taught to anyone, then yes, but he is no longer just a fighter. He is now part wizard.
Of course, in AD&D, he can just dual class, and start as a magic user, provided he is smart enough.

Of course, I was being sarcastic. A world where other races are completely cut off with race restrictions must have gods that favour one race over the rest, and it was obvious that the developers favoured humans above all others.

I would too, as humans are the one known factor, in a fantastic world. Everything else should be compared to humanity. Doesnt mean you cant change things around, and make, say, elves the dominant race. Just that as a standard for a roleplay game, using humanity as the deciding factor is easier and makes more sense, I think.
Multiclassing and dual classing were different mechanics to set demi humans apart from each other, and make them each more unique. They were clunky I admit.
As for loosing drive, its assumed they never had it in that large amounts. Presumably most demihumans loose interest in worldly matters once they reach their limits, and either retire, or simply find interest in other things, letting their abilities stagnate.

The old system completely trapped you in a class and dual classing made no sense. (I want to learn to learn to be a better fighter, but now I can't cast my 7th level spells?) Characters could not choose a different path and that hindered story possibilities. And if a dwarf and human (both fighters) adventure together from level one, why does the dwarf rise as fast as the human, only to drop off suddenly?

You can play for 20 years in a game that has only fighters, and still not play the same character twice. The players ability to roleplay is not related to the rules presented.

But you can only play a straight fighter for the rest of the game. You can never improve your abilities to do stealth kills, or supplement your abilities with magic. Your fighter is going to be a basic fighter with different equipment every time. The only difference is the weapon you use.

In 3.x, a human mage and a dwarf mage are exactly the same in regards to their magic user class. That one has a beard doesnt affect his class any one bit.
Feats is a different issue alltogether, and not relevant to the discussion of level and class restrictions.

And if you don't allow dwarves to be mages, it does not make a human mage any more special. It just means that you have no choice but to play a human if you want to be a mage, making human mages more common. In places with where human mages are common, it is the dwarven mage who is unique.

If he refuses to follow the norm, then he likely doesnt have what it takes to be a cleric in the first place.
Of course, thieves cannot be lawfull good, in either edition of AD&D. Check the class section.

And the dwarven god of thieves isn't going to be lawful good either, but other races can make that combination. You haven't explained that. And if dwarves are so bound by honor and society, they why are they able to be anything BUT lawful good.

Theres no good reason why elves SHOULD be druids. AD&D assumed that druids are a human concept. Elves simply live in harmony with nature, they dont need to make a big deal out of it.

As a race, elves live much better with nature than the humans do. They protect their forests from human logging and so forth... Are you trying to say that if nature can grant power to those that revere and protect it, it won't do it to the race that molds trees to hold houses, rather than cutting them down to make them? If the origin of the conept is that important, then whatever race thought of magic should be the only mages, while whoever first prayed can be clerics. Its just as valid a logic as what you're suggesting.

How is it unbalancing for your dwarf fighter that dwarves cannot be paladins ?

How was it balancing that they couldn't? I could be any one class that I like is not a racial feature. It comes into play once and never again, unlike the abilities of the other races. Being able to choose paladin does not make up for not being resistant to magic or the other things that the other races had. It was an excuse for not being able to think up anything as simple as a xp bonus and a human centred world was prefered.


Hobbits yeah. FInd something else as well, please. Most of the creatures Tolkien used are common in nordic, english or germanic folklore.

I believe that first edition DnD started off with only fighters, thieves and wizards, as in tolkein. Look this is a tangent that doesn't really add to the discussion, and I'm willing to let it drop, even conceed that I can't back myself up completely (since I'm too lazy to go and get the articles that mention them and reference them properly) if that will make you happy.

Greyhawk was the world that the game development took place in, along with BLackmoor. Both settings existed from the day D&D was born.

But not as setting. DnD started with a set of how to play rules and some individual adventures, not with any fixed campaign world. Greyhawk was never a published single concept in the beginning.

The very nature of DM'ing includes things that a player cannot do, such as have an encounter happen when it does, designing a dungeon or trap. Doing so, has nothing to do with being arbitrary or power tripping. Its DM'ing.

But having a seperate rules system for DM's and Players, one that DM's can bend to their will without notice is wrong. You end up with DM's who see the game as their characters versus the PC's. How many "DMPC taking over threads" show up here?

If the game was fair, players could play as undead beholders, and the DM could only run one character. It doesnt work like that, and I think everyone is glad it doesnt.

The DM is telling a story. If he can't think of a reason for the player not to play and undead beholder (to high powered for the level, no beholder's or undead, couldn't integrate you into what were doing), then he should let the player do it. I personally think that its a horrible idea, but I don't play to thwart my players fun. It could be interesting in the right campagin, but not in every one. But we are talking about restrictions on Core Races, not munchkins that want to play undead beholders. Kindly keep it at that level.

The DM is the one that decides what goes and what doesnt. If he wants Optimus Prime in his game, he can, though the players arent likely to enjoy that.
Its even in the book.

And if I, as a DM, decide that the player who thwarted my fun is ejected into space by Optimus Prime, I can. But changing rules or restricting things without a valid reason is pointless.

I was referring to the druidic bard. THe entertainer version, I never really liked all that much, since he seemed like an unnescesary class. It does however, fit well with gnomes, I agree. Halflings possibly as well, though the thief class is propably more suited for that.

So why was the entertainer restricted from gnomes?

A dwarf raised by dragons cant fly, and a dwarf raised by beholders wont shoot antimagic rays out of his eyes either.
AD&D assumes that magic is innate to some races, and not to others. 3.x assumes that anyone can learn magic. Its just different philosophy.
As for worshipping a god, anyone can worship something. That doesnt make them a cleric. And unless Im very mistaken, AD&D2 lets gnomes play as clerics..

You're being fuggin' silly. A learned trade is completely different from innate ability, and while I can understand a race not being able to use magic, restricting gnomes to illusionists instead of cutting off one school, or elves to generalists makes no sense. If they can cast from that school, why can't one who REALLY finds necromancy interesting focus on it. No society lies necromancy, so it can't be that!

If so, why have preferred classes in 3.x ? Most people in my experience play something fairly typical to their race, as defined by the campaign. The very act of being an adventurer is rather abnormal for anyone.

The favoured classes suggest what they are drawn to when they adventure, not what they have to be. They are abnormal, but some are more abnormal and interesting than others.


It opens more options, but its really a question of what clases mean, and the two games define it differently.
In AD&D, a class is an archetype. Its a readily identifiable type of fantasy personality, which is the defining element of your character. Class is chosen with great care, because its your choice, and players should think ahead.
In 3.x, a class is a package of powers, skills and potentials. THe game is written to reward combinations and to reward players who understand the system well, and master it, to give them the character they want.

You are right there. I simply found that second edition only allowed you to play archtypes and not the characters you wanted. You played someone elses game, not your own.

Its two different philosophies, and we obviously disagree about which we prefer. Both are valid, however

Agreed.


Why have classes at all then ? A skill based system like GURPS does that better and much more flexible for the players than retaining the class system, without basing play on it.

Cheers!

Ah, but then it wouldn't be DnD! ;)

I like the class system, but I feel giving it an openness gives it a broader appeal and more options. While you see horrible examples with half-x drowy kitten squishers, most players are sensible in the use of their options.
So 3.x D&D misrepresents the elves, as humans are better mages there (due to their bonus feat).
You are referring to third edition material, which is not the standard for AD&D.

BUH? Elves have been shown to be amazing mages in novels and adventures since the second edition. As for humans being better mages due to their bonus feat, that is the representation of the humans drive and ambition to go the extra mile. The bonus feat has nothing to do with their magical ability, and may not even bee represented in that way?

Assuming magic can be taught to anyone, then yes, but he is no longer just a fighter. He is now part wizard.
Of course, in AD&D, he can just dual class, and start as a magic user, provided he is smart enough.

Only as a human of course. And wouldn't be able to use any of his fighter abilities until he reached a level higher than his former fighter level. Why does time spent reading and studying more make you fight as if you had never touched a sword in your life? Sure you might fall out of practice, but not that much.

I would too, as humans are the one known factor, in a fantastic world. Everything else should be compared to humanity. Doesnt mean you cant change things around, and make, say, elves the dominant race. Just that as a standard for a roleplay game, using humanity as the deciding factor is easier and makes more sense, I think.

I agree. It still fails to explain a logical reason for the loss of leveling ability.
Ah, the next installment in our little exchange. Im off work today sick, so this is a very welcome conversation, as there's nothing else to do but play with the kitty.

The old system completely trapped you in a class and dual classing made no sense. (I want to learn to learn to be a better fighter, but now I can't cast my 7th level spells?) Characters could not choose a different path and that hindered story possibilities.

If you dual class, you will have XP penalties for using your old abilities, untill the new class level exceeds the old. You are trying to learn something new, so you learn less, if you resolve it with your old ways. Once the new level exceeds the old, the two are integrated completely.
As for choosing a path, that rarely calls for a change in class. If your fighter wants to mug people, roleplay it. He's still a fighter. Otherwise, if you wanted to play a thief, dont make a fighter.


But you can only play a straight fighter for the rest of the game. You can never improve your abilities to do stealth kills, or supplement your abilities with magic. Your fighter is going to be a basic fighter with different equipment every time. The only difference is the weapon you use.

A fighter in 3.x cant do either of those either. You can add different classes to it, which gives you other abilities, but then you are no longer a fighter anymore.
If you want to not be just a fighter in AD&D, play a dual class or multiclass character.

And if you don't allow dwarves to be mages, it does not make a human mage any more special. It just means that you have no choice but to play a human if you want to be a mage, making human mages more common. In places with where human mages are common, it is the dwarven mage who is unique.

If the campaign supports it, sure. Go ahead. The DMG for AD&D even has a section on doing this sort of thing. It was always there, just not "standard".
Assuming that dwarves cannot be magic users makes certain assumptions about their history and general capabilities (and combines nicely with the massive resistance to magic they receive)

And the dwarven god of thieves isn't going to be lawful good either, but other races can make that combination. You haven't explained that. And if dwarves are so bound by honor and society, they why are they able to be anything BUT lawful good.

Not saying that they are honour bound, but thats the archetype. Honour is not tied to alignment (a chaotic good ranger can still be honourable). If you allow lawfull good thieves in your game, go ahead, but if you are worried about the rules, a thief cannot be lawfull good.


As a race, elves live much better with nature than the humans do. They protect their forests from human logging and so forth... Are you trying to say that if nature can grant power to those that revere and protect it, it won't do it to the race that molds trees to hold houses, rather than cutting them down to make them? If the origin of the conept is that important, then whatever race thought of magic should be the only mages, while whoever first prayed can be clerics. Its just as valid a logic as what you're suggesting.

Depends on where you assume that druidic power comes from. If your assumption is that its granted by nature itself, as a sentient entity, then yeah, make elven druids. It makes perfect sense.
If its granted by a deity or immortal of some form or other, then elves have no particular edge there. AD&D assumes that druidic activities are a human endeavour, making the class distinct from a normal cleric, because they are unusual from the default. An elven "druid" would follow the rules for a cleric, with an appropriate mythos selected.

How was it balancing that they couldn't? I could be any one class that I like is not a racial feature. It comes into play once and never again, unlike the abilities of the other races. Being able to choose paladin does not make up for not being resistant to magic or the other things that the other races had. It was an excuse for not being able to think up anything as simple as a xp bonus and a human centred world was prefered.

Balance is less an issue than archetypes and flavour. By having the paladin be a human only element, it stands out as something special. Same reason that only a dwarf can pick the dwarf paragon class in 3.5. After all, thats an arbitrary restriction too.
The paladins archetype is the mounted knights of Charlemagne, as well as Holger Danske (Olgier the Dane). No dwarves there.

I believe that first edition DnD started off with only fighters, thieves and wizards, as in tolkein. Look this is a tangent that doesn't really add to the discussion, and I'm willing to let it drop, even conceed that I can't back myself up completely (since I'm too lazy to go and get the articles that mention them and reference them properly) if that will make you happy.

Go to Enworld, and read the Q&A threads with Gygax. He has stated several times that Tolkien was never a main influence. Hobbits and the likes were included simply to attract LOTR fans, which is why they were included in Chainmail.

But not as setting. DnD started with a set of how to play rules and some individual adventures, not with any fixed campaign world. Greyhawk was never a published single concept in the beginning.

Im not sure when the first Greyhawk material came out, but virtually every campaign reference in the AD&D DMG (1st edition) is to Greyhawk, making it strongly inferred that it was considered the default by the writer.
If you go back to original D&D, then the discussion is somewhat limited, as there is so little material (and the books dont include much except combat rules)

But having a seperate rules system for DM's and Players, one that DM's can bend to their will without notice is wrong. You end up with DM's who see the game as their characters versus the PC's. How many "DMPC taking over threads" show up here?

That is a fault of the DM not understanding his role of providing fun, not the medium of roleplaying.
Again, if the rules are to be the same, I trust that your DM never uses more than one NPC. Likewise, each player gets to place what magic he wants. After all, the DM gets to.

Such a concept simply does not work for a roleplaying game. A DM is free to do as he pleases, provided it makes the game fun. If it doesn't,. then he should be doing something else, than what he did.

The DM is telling a story. If he can't think of a reason for the player not to play and undead beholder (to high powered for the level, no beholder's or undead, couldn't integrate you into what were doing), then he should let the player do it. I personally think that its a horrible idea, but I don't play to thwart my players fun. It could be interesting in the right campagin, but not in every one. But we are talking about restrictions on Core Races, not munchkins that want to play undead beholders. Kindly keep it at that level.

Saying its too powerfull is rather arbitrary, dont you think ? ;)
But yes, I got side tracked a little, and I apologize for that.
Even within the core however, I dont think that everything must be unlimited and available. If the game takes place in a world where halflings were wiped out by a horrific war, then halflings should not be an available race. Now, maybe one survived somewhere, and is the "one little guy", which could be cool. But as a general option, they arent around anymore.
Similarly to how a game set in, say, Ravenloft, propably shouldnt use the monk class, as he is completely out of place.

And if I, as a DM, decide that the player who thwarted my fun is ejected into space by Optimus Prime, I can. But changing rules or restricting things without a valid reason is pointless.

Noone said anything about doing things without a valid point

So why was the entertainer restricted from gnomes?

Because the people writing AD&D 2nd edition were hacks.

You're being fuggin' silly. A learned trade is completely different from innate ability, and while I can understand a race not being able to use magic, restricting gnomes to illusionists instead of cutting off one school, or elves to generalists makes no sense. If they can cast from that school, why can't one who REALLY finds necromancy interesting focus on it. No society lies necromancy, so it can't be that!

Any discussion on the internet requires a certain amount of silly, to take seriously.

If you make the assumption that magic is a LEARNED trade, similar to say, fishing, then yes, any character should be able to learn so.
If you assume its an innate trade, similar to say, the beholders antimagic eyes or the human ability to get more feats (3.5), then no, studying real hard wont teach you how to do it.
Gnome illusionists made perfect sense for the race in AD&D1, where illusions were restricted to illusionists only. The AD&D2 illusionist was spoiled unfortunately, and I concede on that point.

You are right there. I simply found that second edition only allowed you to play archtypes and not the characters you wanted. You played someone elses game, not your own.

My retort would be that if I wanted to play my own game, I'd write my own (and have so, on a few occasions). When I play AD&D, I want to play Gary's AD&D.
Im presuming that you prefer playing the good Monte Cook's D&D.

Ah, but then it wouldn't be DnD! ;)

I like the class system, but I feel giving it an openness gives it a broader appeal and more options. While you see horrible examples with half-x drowy kitten squishers, most players are sensible in the use of their options.

I agree that common sense is all too overlooked, and that many of the sillier things could have been prevented, if the books had a bit more advise on how to do things, and what can be considered "normal"
A lot of people obviously like the open "package" solution, which is fine and great with them. I just dont feel its fair to assume it as the standard when looking at AD&D, which uses completely different assumptions.

Cheers!
this is almost two threads in one.

BUH? Elves have been shown to be amazing mages in novels and adventures since the second edition. As for humans being better mages due to their bonus feat, that is the representation of the humans drive and ambition to go the extra mile. The bonus feat has nothing to do with their magical ability, and may not even bee represented in that way?

Have they been amazing mages, or simply mages ? Magic, in itself, is pretty amazing stuff, and the games have generally shown a higher tendency of elven mages, than human ones. Something classic D&D handled nicely, by letting ALL elven PC's cast spells.


Only as a human of course. And wouldn't be able to use any of his fighter abilities until he reached a level higher than his former fighter level. Why does time spent reading and studying more make you fight as if you had never touched a sword in your life? Sure you might fall out of practice, but not that much.

As I mentioned above, you are using your old ways to tackle things. Thus, you learn less of what makes things work with your new ways. Using your fighting skill to kill an orc should be worthl ess, than killing it with a spell, if you are trying to become a spellcaster.


I agree. It still fails to explain a logical reason for the loss of leveling ability.

It fails in that, as there is no logic "in-game" to be found. Neither was that never a particular priority, Gary was always clear that the game was a game first, and would fail utterly as a simulation.
Of course AD&D 2nd edition had the option that advancement simply slows down after reaching maximum, while the Rules Cyclopedia includes XP charts for reaching level 36 as a demihuman. So it was provisioned for, at various points. Just not standard.
Wow... we could so go on and on about this, couldn't we. You've done a great job of back yourself up, and I've really enjoyed this discussion. I'll have to continue it tomorrow. One thing I think we can both agree on...

Whoever thought up Thaco needs to be feed to Demogorgan backwards.
By all means. Or PM me, if you like.

Take care
The reason for race/class restrictions is simple. If an elf could gain unlimited levels, then elves would rule the world. A 900 year old elf would rule the world, as he'd be 400th level. All demihumans, save maybe halflings, would eventually be WAY higher than any human, due to merely living longer, those that survived to a great age, anyway.
Something that has not been addressed by 3.x in any way, either.
I want to thank everybody for their help. I can't believe things got so off topic, but hey, it happens. Now, can anyone tell me any restrictions on psionics?