Which part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?
Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that. Which means that non-human characters can buy more power for literally free. Not only is this obviously bad design, but it has knock-on effects for the kinds of party racial compositions you are likely to see, as well, which may result in parties not demographically matching the fiction. I bring up that second point because I'm having issues with that in my games right now, where the last couple groups have been largely non-humans in a setting that is supposed to be human-centric.
Increased XP requirements to level are a staple of pre-WotC D&D, so I'm ambivalent. I personally don't like them conceptually, but I don't know of any solid argument against them and pondering it for a few minutes didn't yield anything obviously problematic in my mind. I think they make the game more difficult to balance in general, but "clunky" isn't synonymous with "bad."
Yeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.
I prefer XP penalties as a balancing factor, but agree that they feel "cluncky". Though, I'm a strong believer in the idea that you can have (almost) any character ability you want, as long as you "pay" for it somehow in-game. Point buy tends to be better for this. You could just charge races with greater abilities an extra amount of "points" equal to whatever those extra abilities would normally cost.
An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).
Build-a-bear approaches to characters typically sound good, on paper it allows for more customization and such, but in general I find they're less than ideal. Can they be functional? Sure. But character class as a game structure exist the way they do for a reason: mucking with that can have awkward and wonky results.
It's a trade off kind of thing. Greater customization adds more work during character creation (and advancement as well, if progression involves some kind of point system), and doesn't always produce consistent results. But then again I always questioned how consistently powerful or useful different classes are in class & level systems. I see people complain about the 5e Ranger being too weak all the time (in other editions as well, come to think of it).
Plus I always found class systems too restrictive, so I prefer customization options and dealing with the trade offs.
Ok Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.
Yah, I can be an asshole as well, but I usually wait till I'm locked in an argument with someone for a few posts before my inner-asshole comes out, lol