kitsune9
Adventurer
Really nice idea. It's like setting your own difficulty settings. We can renamed them to: I'm too young to die, Hey not too rough, Hurt me plenty, Ultra-Violence, and Nightmare!
I'm a 4th level fighter Nightmare!
A sacred cow to slay: starting at 1st level
- Thread starter NN
- Start date
Really nice idea. It's like setting your own difficulty settings. We can renamed them to: I'm too young to die, Hey not too rough, Hurt me plenty, Ultra-Violence, and Nightmare!
I'm a 4th level fighter Nightmare!
kitsune9
Adventurer
I like this idea too. I even created a "yokels" campaign where everyone at 1st level has to start out as a commoner, then 2nd level, they can take an NPC class, and then at 3rd level, they can take a level in a core class. I'm also a fan of negative levels that Unearthed Arcana did for Cavaliers.
saskganesh
First Post
First level characters can be pretty fragile. So for continuing play, I'd rather start either at 2nd level or <maybe better> 2/3 of the way through first level. Largely, I think it's important that experience gets earned. And "Breaking a Level" for a new character should be a huge, happy, event. I wouldn't want to take that away.
For one offs and module runs, we've done all level beginnings.
For one offs and module runs, we've done all level beginnings.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I think a lot of people (though not everybody) are missing the point, which isn't that the original poster doesn't like starting at level 1, but that he doesn't like the lack of granularity for characters in the world who are less powerful that trained PC's.
A level 1 character is a professional. They've finished whatever basic training and journeyman periods they need to go through. All aspects of level 1 should reflect that.
Level 0 would be for the apprentice and journeyman level. All classes, both PC and NPC, should have Level 0 abilities. Thus, when multi-classing, you have to go through Level 0 in a class.
Each class's Level 0 would also take a particular amount of time to complete. A fighter can pick up those skills in a few months. A wizard might have to take a few years to learn the basics. At character gen, I think it would be fine for a character to have completed level 0 for up to two classes, but probably with some penalty.
The general assumption of the setting should be that children grow up, then sometime in their youth they become apprentices. Some take PC classes, some take NPC classes. All Level 1 characters are thus newly graduated professionals. Trained, but inexperienced, and thus have 0 XP.
Everyone in a fantasy setting has to learn to defend themselves, at least a little. So a commoner, by Level 10, will have more Hit Points than a Level 1 fighter, probably because he's 47 years old and has been in a few scuffles, monster attacks, and town riots. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have ten levels in any class.
A level 1 character is a professional. They've finished whatever basic training and journeyman periods they need to go through. All aspects of level 1 should reflect that.
Level 0 would be for the apprentice and journeyman level. All classes, both PC and NPC, should have Level 0 abilities. Thus, when multi-classing, you have to go through Level 0 in a class.
Each class's Level 0 would also take a particular amount of time to complete. A fighter can pick up those skills in a few months. A wizard might have to take a few years to learn the basics. At character gen, I think it would be fine for a character to have completed level 0 for up to two classes, but probably with some penalty.
The general assumption of the setting should be that children grow up, then sometime in their youth they become apprentices. Some take PC classes, some take NPC classes. All Level 1 characters are thus newly graduated professionals. Trained, but inexperienced, and thus have 0 XP.
Everyone in a fantasy setting has to learn to defend themselves, at least a little. So a commoner, by Level 10, will have more Hit Points than a Level 1 fighter, probably because he's 47 years old and has been in a few scuffles, monster attacks, and town riots. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have ten levels in any class.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Unless you prefer playing in the realm of kung-fu theater, a peasant doesn't just become a more fearsome fighter just by virtue of being older (with or without eyebrows longer than his beard
) . An old farmer with proper training will have warrior class skills. I never took the 3E levelled commoner class seriously. A normal person without formal martial training should form the baseline against which the first level adventurer is compared.
It made more sense in the old days that "normal" folk who could tangle with adventurers were former adventurers themselves. The notion of an 8th level expert innkeeper with more hitpoints than the cleric is laughable.
When in doubt, you can't beat the old retired fighter tending bar.
FireLance
Legend
Who uses his frost brand to keep the beer cool*.
That was an actual NPC in one of my early campaigns.
* Note: this was a retcon. The retired fighter NPC had a frost brand, but when I first created him, I had absolutely no experience with alcoholic beverages.
Agreed and I mentioned this before.
agreed
Many fantasy books and movies would disagree.
No more laughable in my opinion than the 8th level wizard, who's taught all his life at the academy, being able to best trained soldiers or street fighters in a knife fight.
The rules use classes; classes lump together a bunch of abilities. They are necessarily sort of averages.
ExploderWizard
Hero
How did that wizard reach 8th level if he never left the academy?
Levels above first are an indication that some adventuring, and thus experience at facing danger has occured.
Similar Threads
