Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 3953341" data-attributes="member: 1645">As I said on the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3952605&postcount=46" target="_blank">other thread</a>, I think we're conflating a number of separate ideas here.I think first-level characters should be fragile, but I don't necessarily think first-level player characters should be fragile.  Player characters have fate (plot-protection) on their side.Also, I think first-level characters should merely be competent, not awesome, but I don't necessarily think starting player characters should be first-level characters.  If a character's supposed to be a kick-ass hero, he shouldn't be first-level.If a stormtrooper is supposed to be an elite soldier, he should be higher level than typical conscripts.  Similarly, if an Uruk-hai is supposed to be elite, he should be higher level than a typical orc or goblin.If our PCs are supposed to be as good as those elite soldiers, they should be the same level.  If our PCs are supposed to be nowhere near as good as those elite soldiers -- like Merry, Pippin, etc. versus the Uruk-hai -- then they should be lower level.If we want lesser warriors to keep up with superior warriors, because we want them to have fate (or plot-protection) on their side, then we should offer them extra hit points, or fate points, or whatever.</blockquote>