Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mon" data-source="post: 6111731" data-attributes="member: 71673">Who said anything about average people? They're not (yet) heroes is all. They certainly have potential and a bit more than the average joe. It is simply a matter of degree and playstyle.... making him a 1st level sorcerer or wizard. As opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.Making him a 1st level [whatever class he fits best - cleric? monk? paladin?] as opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.On Tatooine he's maxed out skill: Pilot and has a force point (or whatever). He's not yet a fighter or force-user of any skill or renown. He can't even hold his own in a bar yet.He only manages to escape with guidance and training under the apprenticeship of obiwan.... making him a 1st level sorcerer or whatever the closest equivalent would be, as opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC. Which is precisely why I explicitly called out the hobbits (and maybe dwarfs from tH).I agree. Being 1st level in an adventuring class sets them apart. That's what it's there for.Except that starting out as a powerful hero isn't, necessarily, the norm in fantasy.I haven't read any posts in in this thread where someone advocates 0-level PCs as the starting point.I have no qualms with 4e. I won't be involved in discussing any kind of edition war sentiment.I'd prefer both be supported: the OD&D-3e tradition of 1st level adventurers being a little better and having more potential than the average joe; and the 4e tradition of skipping that part and getting right on with the heroic stuff. Both can make for a fun game IMO and IME.As I said, 4e is a fine game in my opinion so I won't engage with you on this other than to say that I agree for the most part.</blockquote>

Verification