Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6111787" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't think there's a very appreciable difference. Characters should always be quite capable, you are just IMHO reinforcing my point. "0 level" is traditionally the label for a 'almost commoner' type of starting character variation. Even 2e had a pretty well developed set of rules for this (albeit I don't recall them showing up in a book, they were in Dragon though). There is no such thing as a "level 1 commoner", commoner isn't a class because PCs aren't ever commoners, so no such class is needed, nor is the giant headache of 3e's nonsensical insistence on trying to mush class rules into NPCs/Monsters a good idea, it was horrible in fact. So, given that you agree that the literary characters you mentioned all (or virtually all) begin as highly capable characters then you would agree that 4e depicts them quite adequately. I'm not real sure there's a disagreement here. Ged is quite adequately (modulo the huge differences in magic systems) modeled by a level 1 4e wizard for instance, etc. OTOH 1e AD&D characters represent these types not so well in most cases.</blockquote>