Do you expect your character to be at their full potential at lvl 1?

Since this is a playtest, and it involves geeks on the internet, there is bound to be complaints. In the end, it will hopefully make D&D Next better.

One thing I seem to observe though, and I could be wrong, is that some people SEEM to want to be pretty tough and capable at lvl1. They want to be the hero they have envisioned. I always envision lvl 1 characters as more capable than the average dude, but still weak and undefined in a dangerous and huge world.

We see a lot of complaints about what a class has or doesn't have. Part of this is valid, other parts probably silly nostalgia tied to a specific class or character from your past. That's fine, but how much of this has to happen at the start?

Is your rogue a master lock picker at level 1? Does your wizard always have the right spell for the situation at level 1? Can your fighter withstand the brunt of a dragon's breath?

My personal taste, is to have players be a little weaker than they currently start, but I know thats just taste, and easily house ruled with some sort of level 0 option. Still I can't help but wonder how alone I am?  I see my rogue being a "good" lockpick at level 1, but not truly great until later. I see my Wizard being truly excited on the day that he gets through the day without having to resort to spamming some crappy at-will. Maybe it's less fun though?

So an example, would you be cool with not picking a specialty until level 2 or even 3?
Do you need your character to be the hero you envision from the start, or is that goal (even a short-term one) to work toward?

Just curious. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.

My short answer is no I don't.


I expect a lvl 1 character to have all the components of their niche, but I don't expect all of them to be at their full potential. In fact, I'm disappointed when they are.

Full potential:No

Be able to perform in their archtype from level 1:Yes

By the seocnd part I mean I don't want to have to wait 4-5 levels to finally get the class feature that lets me function as my class.
Full potential:No

Be able to perform in their archtype from level 1:Yes



This.

I think of a first level character as, well, a badass.  A normal guy doesn't look at him and think 'he's pretty good', a normal guy looks at a PC and thinks 'DAMN'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Full potential:No

Be able to perform in their archtype from level 1:Yes



This.

I think of a first level character as, well, a badass.  A normal guy doesn't look at him and think 'he's pretty good', a normal guy looks at a PC and thinks 'DAMN'.


I always feel like it's more fun when that's something earned. To me, lv 1 guys are uncommon and exceptional, but not that much more uncommon than level 3 and 4 enemies and npcs. It's not until after maybe level 5 that we're really getting into the territory of the sort of dude you've never seen before.

So for example, a thief with a focus on sleight of hand who can also boost is with an ED is an order of magnitude better at it that seems like we're already in fantastical skill levles compared to your average joe. Any growth from there just feels like math to me.

Just getting +5 was impressive enough to me. Or just having the ED. Having both makes me feel like he skipped  a level. Same with a Rogue whose initiative is completely bonkers with bonuses to start.

I'm just trying to gauge what exactly  it all means.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
At leel 1, a PC is "good" at what ever their class and race is good at. "Expert" is possible but it should require extreme specialization.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Staccat - many people like starting at "just fell off a turnip truck". Many people also like starting as a adventurer - who doesn't know his place in the world yet, but does have combat experience.
I don't think either are wrong. I think historically, classes weren't designed for interesting choices, so early levels can feel boring to those who like combat choices. So, some one who likes fighters having ED may not relish playin a level 0 fighter with no ED or manouvers. It's easy enough to make a level 0 though, so there's no reason Wotc shouldn't release it.

For me though - I like my character to be competent and interesting. If that can be accomplished by a level -2, fine. If that can only be accomplished as a level 10, fine.
What I would want the general game assumption to be is that a character is qualitatively a member of their class from level 1, but quantitatively a very weak one. An example of doing this right (even if the design has other issues) is the 3.5 fighter. The 3.5 fighter is, from level 1, a fighter. He has a (small) attack bonus and an extra capability related to combat, plus the ability to use all of the weapons and armor. He's clearly a full fighter, just a weak one. The most prominant example of messing this up is the 3.5 druid. Whether or not you think that sahapeshifting should be one of the druid's most defining abilities, it was one in 3.5 -- but it wasn't something you got until well into your career as a druid. When combined with how spellcasting scales in 3.5, the end result is that a level ten druid wasn't remotely identifiable as being a member of the same class as a level 1 druid. If a level 10 druid is a dire-tiger-shifting dire-tiger-summoning dire-tiger-commanding badass calling down the wrath of nature on their foes, a level one druid should have a limited-but-relevant ability to turn into a bobcat, a bobcat companion that's barely more than an ordinary bobcat, and the ability to call on the forces of nature to aid in combat in limited ways. It shouldn't be a dude with the bobcat, but other than that just a sling and an alignment restriction.

It's fine for classes to evolve as they level up, and in some cases that's essentially inevitable. They should just not, where, possible, transform significantly. A level one elephant should be a baby elephant, not an elephant with two of its legs and its trunk lopped off.

Note that this is not the same desire at all as the desire to play superman at level 1. It's the desire to play a scaled-down version of superman at level 1 - one scaled down enough to be a level 1 character.

I also recognize that there's some cost associated with this. Part of managing the game's complexity is introducing new options and systems to a player not all at once. Druids in 3.5 have just an absurd amount going on - they're prepared spellcasters who prep from their entire spell list (and can then spontaneously convert to a broad-utility spell), they have an animal companion to deal with, and their spells/day is shrimpy enough that a druid player has to understand how physical combat mechanics work fairly well. That's a ton for a new player. It's totally understandable that a designer would look at that and decide that a uses/day mechanic that utilizes one of the more complicated and confusing game subsystems in the whole edition and exposes a bunch of DM content to the players is the last thing that such an already complex character needs to have dropped on them at level 1. There's always going to be a tradeoff of sorts between concept pacing (how fast you introduce new concepts to players) and class realiztion pacing (how long it takes before the class actually is what it is instead of a trunkless elephant.) Carefully pacing the rate at which you expose players to new mechanics is something that's taken for granted as something you should care about in electronic game design, and I hope that it's something that D&D designers think about as well. It's very, very difficult for a lot of people to get into the head of a new player, especially one that's taking a little longer than average to pick up on how the game works, but pacing of new mechanics is at least somewhat important.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Lesp pretty much summed up what I was thinking as well.

I use 4E examples because, to me, they do a great job at what Lesp is talking about. For example, I have a 1st level Human Were-bear Berserker. When he goes "berserk" he transforms into a Bear-Man hybrid (it's all fluff though). I facilitate this with is Theme power to bite a target with the maw of a bear. It's hard to maintain a level of composure while in a hybrid form so he usually just looks intimidating (no mechanical beneftis had, BTW) and fights with more ferocity and anger. This character isn't really any more powerful than a run of the mill 1st level Elven Ranger or a 1st level Dwarf Fighter or a 1st level Halfing Rogue. It's exoitic, sure, but balanced well.

That's what I'd like to see. If I want to play a Bear-Warrior, I should be able to do so from 1st level and grow into that archtype as I gain "power". To me, it's not about numbers and hard-coded better mechanics than standard options, it's about flavor and interesting elements that fuel a creative mind. If I can play a Were-Bear berserker or a Noble human vampire or a Drow Swordsman at 1st level and be on-par with traditional choices as far as balance and mechanics go, then I'd be extreamly happy.     
Full potential:No

Be able to perform in their archtype from level 1:Yes

Agreed.  Although I fall closer to the turnip-approach than many, the level 1 character still needs to be able to perform the same role as it will perform at level 5 or 15.  

Particularly egregious failures in 3.5 include the druid (as mentioned), the paladin (who lacks healing of any sort until level 2), the savant (a sort of generalist that crams 7 levels of fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric into 20 levels, but doesn't gain arcane spells until level 5 or divine spells until level 10), and the dragon shaman (a marshal/dragonfire adept/paladin who was just an aura until picking up an at-will breath weapon at level 4, and then healing of any sort at level 6).  Failures in 3.5 or 4E include any sort of multi-class character concept.

Even with my cantrips and backstab, though, I don't expect my level 1 fighter/mage/thief to survive more than a single hit, but neither would I expect the same of my foes.  (I would also expect the rules to make unconsciousness survivable, especially at low levels, but that's tangential to the matter at hand.)



The metagame is not the game.

perhaps some classes (like the Paladin) should begin at a higher level than level 1...
I usually expect my character to start at level one as a competent professional at their main "role". They may get better at that, but not by as huge an amount as they have in previous editions of D&D. Starting at between 50-75% of their peak potential would be about right. I also expect them to get more breadth of abilities as they level up, rather than greatly incresed depth, though they won't be as skilled in the new things they learn to do for some time. And if my character concept is someone who dabbles in lots of things without being skilled at any, I expect the rules to support that too rather than start me off as someone who dabbles in one field and then starts to dabble in others later.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

perhaps some classes (like the Paladin) should begin at a higher level than level 1...



Prestige classes?



The BECM Paladin worked that way.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

Note that this is not the same desire at all as the desire to play superman at level 1. It's the desire to play a scaled-down version of superman at level 1 - one scaled down enough to be a level 1 character.


You know, it's a pity that the d20 Modern superhero book got cancelled back when WotC started gearing up for 4e.
You know, it's a pity that the d20 Modern superhero book got cancelled back when WotC started gearing up for 4e.


Oh, yeah, definitely, I was really looking forward to that (get my Marvel Super Heroes on, d20 style!), there must be material somewhere.


It's probably all on WotC computers somewhere. I doubt they would have thrown it all away. Apparently Mearls was one of the authors, though, so maybe someone should ask him in one of the Q&A sessions.
perhaps some classes (like the Paladin) should begin at a higher level than level 1...



Prestige classes?



The BECM Paladin worked that way.





That's true, is there another class (ranger) that worked like that?

I like that I can see some BECMI D&D in 5th Ed; the designers (Mearls & Co.) said they played all editions of D&D as part of the design (pre) process for 5th Ed, I would love for them to post their experiences/likes/dislikes of the various editions.



There were two other Fighter "prestige classes" that you could go into (one for each alignment), but the Ranger wasn't one of them. Neutral (or non-religious) was Knight, and I think the Chaotic one was Avenger iirc. I think one of the Gazeteers had something very like the Ranger, but it was a full class.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

I'd like to start with a competent character who is played right now about how he will be played on a high level though some special stuff might be added.
What I NOT want to play is a fighter who sucks at maneuvers right now because he has to wait for level 5 until he got the feats that make maneuvers viable. Of course a lvl 1 character is fresh but he learnt his maneuvers already, he should be worse than him on lvl 5 but not suck (in 3.5: provoking AoO)
Just alike that, my lvl 1 wizard should be able to cast about the same spells but in weaker versions. Let's say a lvl 1 necromancer can raise a single corpse as a zombie while the lvl 5 necromancer can summon an army of them instead of a lvl 1 necromancer cannot raise zombies but cast some lame ray of weakness spell. Characters should have a signature.
About the master lockpicking rogue, yeah. A lvl 1 rogue has completed his basic training and should be able to work any mundane lock, he's an expert. Think of a bachelor degree - if you lost your key, you don't want the lockpicker to say "I can pick it with 60% probability". However, magical enhanced locks are probably not what his training was about. That said, rogue does not equal lockpicker, so it might be a feat or specialisation or skill setting. For that reason, while at first I liked the 4E learned skill system, now I see the advanteges of the 3.5 ranked skill system (or better, the PF ranked skill system) - but it has to be worked on, especially at first since you suck at stuff that favor other attributes (they should have influence but not that much)
I usually consider a 1st level character as someone who just completed a specialized training. This training could have lasted only a few years or many years depending on the class.

So I do not expect him to be at his full potential but to be on the rails toward achieving it. He needs to have the basic functions of his class (core abilities or features) and express them as soon as his training is complete.

A 1st level charatcer shouldn't be able to be a master in his class at 1st level. To improve, he needs to be confronted with the challenges of the real life (in the fantasy world of course) with real dangers (most definitely different from his training experience when he usually has a mentor to assist him or teach him).
One of my "usual" replies: "It depends."

For most of my PCs I want them to be capable in the core proficiences -- my warrior can swing a decent sword or shoot arrows reasonably well. My mage can cast some spells (not just one spell). My cleric is trained enough to bless, do some healing, and otherwise aid his friends. The rogue won't get caught three steps from his starting place or will be able to unlock a normal lock. Definitely not "just off the turnip truck." They will have been trained to do something.

For others, I have a concept in mind that will take several levels to realise fully, like arcane archer, and whether that's a prestige class or not, the game rules should support it somehow.

Now, it's possible one of our DMs will run a game based on "You came home from a hard day's work in the wheat field and find your home and family destroyed." I'll take that as it comes.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

To me a level 1 PC is someone fresh out of school... he has the skills but never put them to full practical use, he is trained but inexperienced.

Which means he has the tools needed to do the job but probably isn't super good at it. This means front loading is essential, you need the appropriate proficiencies, skills and the like to have a fully playable adventurer, however, his lack of experience makes him vulnerable (hence the low Hit Points).


I don't want a level 1 character to be a hero already, afterall, he just started his adventuring career, but I need him to have the starting tools of an adventurer of his class.

My preference would be for my character to be competent enough that when the headman of a village says "I know, let's hire THAT guy and his two buddies to deal with that entire tribe of goblin raiders by themselves!" that he NOT come off sounding like a crazy person for making the suggestion.
I don't want my character to hit his full potential until level 20, higher if we play epic.  There's not much fun in playing a character who can't improve.
My preference would be for my character to be competent enough that when the headman of a village says "I know, let's hire THAT guy and his two buddies to deal with that entire tribe of goblin raiders by themselves!" that he NOT come off sounding like a crazy person for making the suggestion.



I have a few things to say on this.  First, how many times have we read books where a bunch of low level people go off to take on the things terrorizing the village.  They are not super heroes yet.  Just begenning people who have the guts to do so.  Second, first level PCs are by definition better than the average Joe NPC.  Even though in my opinion they are not full fledged heroes of might and valor yet, they are still a cut above and do not sound crazy for going after that goblin tribe.  This is true even if they are fresh out of hero school.
My preference would be for my character to be competent enough that when the headman of a village says "I know, let's hire THAT guy and his two buddies to deal with that entire tribe of goblin raiders by themselves!" that he NOT come off sounding like a crazy person for making the suggestion.


Heh, nice point.

There are two points I'd like to make here:
1) I don't want the character to feel and act like a superman at level 1 and I want there to be some real and genuine improvements as they gain levels. That's the point of playing a level-based system: each level should be important enough that getting it should feel special.

2) I want each class to "feel" like it is a member of that class from level 1. For example, adding decent at-will spells to the Wizard was a big step in this regard (for both 4e and 5e). The wizard can cast magic, not necessarily very powerful magic, but useful magic all day, which makes sense for someone that I think of as a wizard.
I prefer 1st level to be a common man, with a hint of potential towards something more. Some basic tendencies and abilities, but nothing you couldn't find in most little villages.

A blacksmith is tough because he does a physical job, and knows how to swing a hammer because he does it all the time, and understands weapons and armor because he makes them regularly. He probably also hunts a bit, and may be a member of a local militia (or at least done some training with friends and family to ready himself to be). There's a 1st lvl fighter to us.



Rather oddly, most ancient and medieval people who wanted to be full-time warriors spent years training to be such. Considering how easy it apparently is, I wonder why that would be. Perhaps they didn't know how easy it is.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

A blacksmith is tough because he does a physical job, and knows how to swing a hammer because he does it all the time, and understands weapons and armor because he makes them regularly. He probably also hunts a bit, and may be a member of a local militia (or at least done some training with friends and family to ready himself to be). There's a 1st lvl fighter to us.



To most people I know, that's statless NPC.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I would have to agree with Phoenix that I see a 1st level Pc as (maybe just a little above) a common man.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I think we should start at our max potential.  My wizard should be able to cast wail of the banshee right after character creation...ok just kidding.  Have to agree with Maxperson.  There is little to no fun playing a character that can't improve.  Here's the thing:  A first level character isn't exactly incompetent. Each class adventurer is stronger than most npcs with comparable experience.  If you are concerned with underwhelming power, competence, or durability, simply don't if you don't want to.  Have your players create 5th level characters or whatever you feel is appropriate.  If you feel that you want to start at "level 0" and "earn" your class and have a complete journey(if that's what it requires in your eyes), houserules are easily enough created if the game itself doesn't provide it
Full potential:No

Be able to perform in their archtype from level 1:Yes

By the seocnd part I mean I don't want to have to wait 4-5 levels to finally get the class feature that lets me function as my class.



This.

My preference would be for my character to be competent enough that when the headman of a village says "I know, let's hire THAT guy and his two buddies to deal with that entire tribe of goblin raiders by themselves!" that he NOT come off sounding like a crazy person for making the suggestion.



And also this.

I want to be playing the character I envision at level 1 (being verygood with weapons, starting magical fires, turning into animals, fighting uncannily well unarmed and unarmored etc), who has a decent chance of trumphing over the hazards of adventuring.

Phoenix I completely disagree with you. Not only did Gary G state from the beginning that level 1 fighters were combat veterans, but D&D had 0 level warriors that would eventually follow high level fighters. These facts mean that level 1 PCs were clearly a cut above a common townsfolk.

Combine this with the fact that a common peasant would have no training in weapons or armor, the fighter must clearly have had years of training. If that wasn't the case the wizard, rogue, and cleric should all receive full weapon and armor proficiencies. You are basically stating that a blacksmith who has no weapon and armor training has full proficiencies and must be a skilled combatant. How does that make any sense?
First level characters should be above the average common man, together with the rest of the ~50% of humanity . Okay they might belong tothe top 10% of the common man (toghether with the other 9 in that population-100-hommlet). But by being PC's they are the less than 1% that have the potential to become heroes,as long as they are able to at least clear the early hurdles like understanding what "bree-yark" means and when to use the phrase "it's okay, Gary send me".

I have no problems with certain abilities being "unlocked" at a later level, prefer it even because it broadens the class. Learn tobe a druid first for 5 classesbefore you become a rawr-bear-I-rip-your-throat-out.
The easy and obvious solution is to realize that, like with most things in D&D, class and level are also abstract.  So one player's level 1 character just fell off the turnip truck, while another player's level 1 has some training and experience.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Add me to those who want competent 1st level characters. Saying that a 1st level fighter is a guy who's just picked up a sword and figured out that the pointy end goes into the enemy is like saying a 1st level cleric is a guy who just barely remembers what comes after "The Lord is my shepherd..." 
The easy and obvious solution is to realize that, like with most things in D&D, class and level are also abstract.  So one player's level 1 character just fell off the turnip truck, while another player's level 1 has some training and experience.



While a third player's level 1 is an extraordinary hero on their first adventure. Maybe?
The easy and obvious solution is to realize that, like with most things in D&D, class and level are also abstract.  So one player's level 1 character just fell off the turnip truck, while another player's level 1 has some training and experience.



While a third player's level 1 is an extraordinary hero on their first adventure. Maybe?



Sure.  It all depends how the player wants to flavor his character and his backstory.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Sure.  It all depends how the player wants to flavor his character and his backstory.



I would say it depends more on how the DM/table wants to flavor their plot/group.


A group with Superman, turnip-guy, and something in the middle; all of whom are mechanically identical; and who go on an adventure into the cellar to kill some giant rats; is not a group that makes a lot of sense to me.

Different tables can (and should) have different styles, but as far as power level of level 1 characters goes, it's kind of a problem if the players and DM aren't all on the same page.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

Sure.  It all depends how the player wants to flavor his character and his backstory.



I would say it depends more on how the DM/table wants to flavor their plot/group.


A group with Superman, turnip-guy, and something in the middle; all of whom are mechanically identical; and who go on an adventure into the cellar to kill some giant rats; is not a group that makes a lot of sense to me.

Different tables can (and should) have different styles, but as far as power level of level 1 characters goes, it's kind of a problem if the players and DM aren't all on the same page.



Done it before.  Never been a problem.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Done it before.  Never been a problem.



I honestly don't undestand how it could not be a problem.


Do you just completely disassociate all mechanical elements from all story elements?  That is, after a combat where everyone contributed equally (mechanically), do your characters tell the story that Superman killed everything while the rest stood back and watched?  Or is every random giant rat armed with Kryptonite so the others can be helpful?

I've never played in a game where events in combat weren't woven into the story as things that happened, and as long as you do that, I don't understand how players defining A != A (two characters of identical mechanical power having different power) would not be a problem.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Pg 39 - "Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)." not that they have been successful magic using adventurers, or attained journeyman or master craftsman status.


Uh, dude? That's what a Journeyman is, by definition: someone who has completed their apprenticeship, and has permission to practice their trade on their own (but not been recognized as a Master of the trade yet).
It's a reasonably common trope in fiction that people who aren't particularly remarkable who are thrown into remarkable situations end up doing remarkable things. I would say that that describes the real majority of characters I see; they have some moderately relevant experience, but are able to be an adventuring hero because that's how fiction works.

What doesn't resonate with me at all is the notion that the archetypical level 1 [class] is someone just out of [class] school but with no practical experience. With the exception of wizards, most character's backgrounds don't include anything like [class] school at all, and when they do it's rarely the focus of what made them who they are today. I've seen a dozen variations of the blacksmith rising to the occassion and the recovering combat veteran*, but I've never seen "Hi! I just graduated from fighter school, but have no experience." Obviously that must be common in some groups, but it's not something I recognize.

*For some reason three out of four of these guys are the only survivor of their recenetly-slaughtered regiment. I don't know what it is that makes everyone come up with that as a backstory element for combat veterans.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Pg 39 - "Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)." not that they have been successful magic using adventurers, or attained journeyman or master craftsman status.


Uh, dude? That's what a Journeyman is, by definition: someone who has completed their apprenticeship, and has permission to practice their trade on their own (but not been recognized as a Master of the trade yet).



Yeah, sorry, I got in a hurry and totally screwed that up. What I meant was, 'or attained master craftsman status. They were at most a Journeyman.' I'll change it.


No worries.

This opens up a bit of a can of worms of course, since in early times journeymen were still under a master most often. It was only late medieval in some areas and some trades that practiced the 'wandering craftsmen' which a 1st lvl mage most closely resembles. Also since you had to be a Master to take on workers, have a shop of your own, charge full price, etc it stands to reason that 'master' status is analogous to name level.


I'd say that "Master" is probably 6th Level, given how it says that your PC's Master was of at least 6th level. I forget what level Name Level was for Magic Users, but I'm pretty sure it was at least 9th level.
Sign In to post comments