Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="trancejeremy" data-source="post: 5791664" data-attributes="member: 924">It should probably depend on what "normal" people are.In AD&D, average people, even men-at-arms were 0-level with 2-5 hit points at most (for active people). So level 1 was a step up from them, unless you were a magic-user.In 3e, everyone pretty much had a level, just that NPCs had wimpier classes. So in some cases, it didn't mean that much. A 1st level Fighter wasn't that much tougher than a 1st level Warrior, or an 1st Level Expert vs Rogue.I do think it makes a certain sense for classes to start off higher than 1st.  For instance, I used to play a wizard that had apprentices. Did he let his apprentices run off when they were only 1st level? No, they pretty much stayed until they were 6th or so (he was a little overprotective, but if you spent years training someone, you likely would be, too).Same would go for a squire working for a knight - until he had proved himself - probably 2nd or 3rd level, he probably wouldn't be released/promoted.But anyway, the nice thing about levels is you can simply pick where to start. But if you start shifting the baseline (1st) then it causes problems.There should be something discussing starting levels, though. Like if you want a neophyte campaign, start them at level 0, somewhat skilled 1, competent at level 3, and so forth.</blockquote>