I've debated this topic more times than I can count, at every D&D site I've ever been on, for an entire quarter of a century. And in all that time, no one has ever been able to prove - in an objective, logical manner backed by proof - that removing it would somehow unbalance the game. With every single argument presented to me claiming that removing the rule would result in demi-humans dominating the game world and also in unbalancing the game, I have been able to shoot each and every claim down as ridiculous, and I have been able to show in each and every case - using in-game logic and logical explanations that do not in any way threaten suspension of disbelief - that removing the rule has literally zero effect on the campaign or the game world in which it is set.
And yet there it is - a thread asking how to buff up humans because removing demi-human level limits would leave humans "in a nasty place" (I quote). WTF? Do people continually repeat this canard because it's an urban myth they still believe in, like the myth that lemmings commit suicide en masse by jumping off cliffs? It seems to me that no one (outside of myself and perhaps a few others) have ever bothered to look at the issue clearly, logically, and totally.
In that quarter century of "debate" (I use irony quotes, because usually within 2 pages it turns into ad hominem attacks against me, not rational arguments of fact), no one has ever been able to give me a valid example of the removal of the rule causing an "imbalance" in their campaign. The very few times people attempted to "prove" that removing the rule "unbalanced" their game, all that ever really happened was that more players played demi-humans and fewer played humans - which by itself is not by any definition "unbalancing" to the game, nor detrimental to humans as a dominant race. In fact, after 25 years of analyzing and debating this, I've revealed beyond any question whatsoever, that the only "negative" effect removing the level limits can have is that fewer players will play humans in that campaign. And that's not even a universal rule as my games never lack human PCs despite never having used level limits. I can say the same for several DM friends as well. And that effect is "negative" only if the DM desires a predominantly human party. What's more, that desire for should be - short of special circumstances I've posited in the past, such as a DM wanting to run an Underdark campaign where it would be more challenging to have a greater number of humans that infravisioned demi-humans - none of the DM's damned business! Players should be allowed to play whatever race they choose.
Bottom line, the rules exists and is "justified" (if you can call it that) because Gygax preferred his players to run mainly human PCs. Maybe it's because he was not confident in his ability to run a game with mainly demi-human PCs who gain certain perks that humans do not, perhaps he actually believed the silly and illogical bullshit excuse he made for the rule and the subsequent 2E "declaration" that a world without demi-human level limits would become dominated by demi-humans to the point where humans are a slave race. That insane and unfounded meme started in the 2E DMG and has been parroted foolishly by non-thinkers for decades since. In any case, Gygax was dead wrong. It has become, like the suicidal lemmings canard, a self-perpetuating myth devoid of fact.
I can't understand this knee-jerk reaction where people believe that if they remove demi-human level limits, doing so by default means that they must "boost" humans in some way. It's just a stupid, knee-jerk reaction utterly devoid of analytical thinking concerning the reality of the game rules. All anyone needs to do is search the past posts on the topic and read what I've written. I have absolutely obliterated and eviscerated every argument ever put to me about why it's a "problem" to remove that rule. Every one. Definitively like a prosecutor destroying a bad witness. And yet the myth persists. I'm tempted to go dig up that old hidden account there I never use and offer cash to anyone who can justify their claims in a clear, logical manner. Seriously, I would be willing to offer cold hard cash to anyone who can prove a problem exists with removing the rule, using logic, in-game logic, and suspension of disbelief rules of fantasy writing. So far, after 25 years of this insanity, no one has ever been able to do so, objectively speaking. All they can do is argue "no, Halaster, you're wrong!" and when I challenge them to prove me wrong in a logical, rational manner, they hided behind name calling and gang-up tactics. I may just have to go stir the pot one more time, for old time's sake!
