Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5309730" data-attributes="member: 75712">Hmmm, my interpretation of Alexander's essay is that virtually everyone is a 1st level character-- and probably in a measly NPC class, to boot!&nbsp; With respect to physical skills, frex, the essay actually says Olympians are 3rd-4th level, while 1st levels are like college athletes-- and that assumes max ranks in the relevant skill, as well as a good score in the relevant ability.&nbsp; (I'll also say here that I don't fully agree with the essay, but only because the d20 system is limited in certain respects at low levels, not because Alexander's analysis is particularly lacking!)In any event, though, you're quite right that there's something funny at 1st level when using &quot;half-levels&quot;.&nbsp; There is no &quot;0.5th&quot; level, as that's completely undefined, and technically so is &quot;1.0th&quot; level.&nbsp; You could just say everyone starts with a &quot;full&quot; 1st level (ie, they start at &quot;1.5st&quot; level in the oddball terminology!), and start the half-level advancement scheme only at 2.0nd+ level.&nbsp; However, with some consideration of how stats and class-features are doled out at each .0th and .5th level, this problem can be eliminated, thus allowing for a real &quot;1.5th&quot; level differentiated from &quot;1.0th&quot; level.That way your apprentices are 1.0st level, journeymen are 1.5th or 2.0nd, and masters are 2.5th or 3rd, depending upon exactly how you structure things.&nbsp; And this more or less holds to the premise of Alexander's essay: the most highly trained people end up around 3rd or so, and true geniuses progress beyond even that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Theo R Cwithin, post: 5309730, member: 75712"] Hmmm, my interpretation of Alexander's essay is that virtually everyone is a 1st level character-- and probably in a measly NPC class, to boot! With respect to physical skills, frex, the essay actually says Olympians are 3rd-4th level, while 1st levels are like college athletes-- and that assumes max ranks in the relevant skill, as well as a good score in the relevant ability. (I'll also say here that I don't fully agree with the essay, but only because the d20 system is limited in certain respects at low levels, not because Alexander's analysis is particularly lacking!) In any event, though, you're quite right that there's something funny at 1st level when using "half-levels". There is no "0.5th" level, as that's completely undefined, and technically so is "1.0th" level. You could just say everyone starts with a "full" 1st level (ie, they start at "1.5st" level in the oddball terminology!), and start the half-level advancement scheme only at 2.0nd+ level. However, with some consideration of how stats and class-features are doled out at each .0th and .5th level, this problem can be eliminated, thus allowing for a real "1.5th" level differentiated from "1.0th" level. That way your apprentices are 1.0st level, journeymen are 1.5th or 2.0nd, and masters are 2.5th or 3rd, depending upon exactly how you structure things. And this more or less holds to the premise of Alexander's essay: the most highly trained people end up around 3rd or so, and true geniuses progress beyond even that. [/QUOTE]

Verification