The Concept of Level 0

[DigoDragon]

I finally got into a local group again and the GM will host a D&D 3.5 game starting at level 1. He added a house rule that I've never seen before. We're building our characters starting with a "Level 0". This level represents what we learned in our back stories and we can pick from the generic NPC classes (Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior). We don't get the x4 bonus for skills, but this Level 0 doesn't count against multi-class calculations.

Anyone ever tried something like this? It's interesting.


As far as my character concept, I'm bringing back my wizard Sparks. Transmuter specialist with a pony familiar (GM okay'd that choice). Sparks' background is that he came from a family of blacksmiths and was an apprentice for a few years under his father before he began his arcane studies.

[atemu1234]

Never heard of it. Sounds mildly interesting, but probably a pain.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder actually has rules for this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters) in Ultimate Campaign. They're aimed at players wanting to play children but they can be adopted to merely represent an inexperienced NPC class (e.g. a farmer or merchant) who ends up training in a PC class as the demands of adventuring are thrust upon them.

[VoxRationis]

I think the 3.0 DMG had rules for level 0 so you could have multiclass level 1 characters.
AD&D had it for NPC guards and the like.

[HunterOfJello]

I haven't played in a game with it, but i've heard of the concept in a few places before. I think the general idea is to attempt to establish your character before choosing a class or before being forced to choose a class. Under normal rules you don't really start out as a (usually) humanoid person in a magical land, you start out as a member of some sort of class with preset fluff and powers that lives in a magical land.

Class defines a character's limits and abilities so overwhelmingly that you lose out a bit on the idea of just being a living, breathing person in a magical land. Starting out at level 0 and then changing to level 1 can create a start as a person in a magical land who progresses into being a person with a class in said magical land.

If everyone starts out as a commoner 0, then it can also give you a better feel for the world from the proper perspective of a weakling in a highly hostile environment.

[Anxe]

I've had my players do it before. It generally did nothing. They all already had ideas of what they wanted to play. They just went ahead and played their characters like Rogues or Barbarians or whatever.

I could see limiting player power as another argument for it, but player power is already as low as it can get at level 1. Why make it lower?

The feel for the world argument sounds better to me. It doesn't work in my specific case as my players already know my world really well, but that can't be the case for every campaign.

[DigoDragon]

The feel for the world argument sounds better to me. It doesn't work in my specific case as my players already know my world really well, but that can't be the case for every campaign.

Could be the angle my GM is looking at it from. His map of the explored world is a large collection of islands with a lot of seafaring and piracy going on, so it'll feel a bit like Pirates of the Caribbean. We start off as farmers and tradesmen who decide to get on a ship and go places... hopefully not get squished on the way. :3

[Larkas]

I think the 3.0 DMG had rules for level 0 so you could have multiclass level 1 characters.

That's not exactly what it was, but it might be of interest to the OP nonetheless. It described a variant where 1st level characters could be "apprentices" at two classes, getting a few, but not all, features from both. If you remove half of that, you get "1/2 level" characters that could be good stand-ins for 0 level characters. The variant is at pages 40-41 of the 3.0 DMG, for those interested.

[Seerow]

In my experience level 0 doesn't work too well in 3.X/PF because level 1 starting hp is already so low. But the method described in the OP of starting with NPC classes is one that I don't have much problem with.

I've toyed around with doing something like the average person has 3 hit dice in an NPC class, and every other level you sub out one of your NPC class levels rather than gaining a full new one. So you might have something like Commoner3 becomes Commoner3/Wizard1 becomes Commoner2/Wizard2 becomes Commoner2/Wizard3 becomes Commoner1/Wizard4 becomes Commoner1/Wizard5 becomes Wizard6. That way you gain a PC class level every level, and your average person doesn't start out so squishy. It also has the benefit for working well with E6, giving you your 6th level at the same time you lose that last NPC class level. Not having any NPC levels at all is a sign that you're a real badass. From there, you can have your gritty "level 0" campaigns be starting at NPC Class Level 1, and working your way up to 3 before progressing normally.

The real issue with it, and the reason I never ran it, is because it's kind of unintuitive and confusing. Also it can cause some problems if you allow NPC classes besides commoner where you retrained an Expert level to a Fighter level after leveling up, and now you're less skilled than you were (and very possibly gained nothing). Class balance issues really make it hard to work with. (Though simply banning the weakest classes can make it work, or making everyone have commoner as those first 3 hit dice).

[ericgrau]

Expert is good to get all the class skills you want. Warrior is good for the low level hp plus a point of BAB, since at low level it is hard to hit things even with touch spells. Adept lets you use a lot of wands that you couldn't normally use, such as cure light wounds and restoration. At level 1 it's also 1-2 extra spells, which is really nice. Aristocrat starts with a huge amount of money for level 1, but I'm not sure if your DM is letting that fly. Also has some class skills and weapon proficiencies. Aristocrat or warrior could get you fast entry into eldritch knight, with only 1 lost caster level caused by the PrC itself.

Your fluff sounds like expert but really anything could be made to fit.

Commoner isn't good for anything except silly stuff like chicken infested shennanigans and tastes good to monsters tanking.

[RedMage125]

I had a buddy played in a game that did this.

Basically, all the level 0 players were "in training". Their actions during the "level 0" sessions determined what class they would be in the game as they advanced.

...which is how he ended up as a minotaur (Dragonlance) Wizard.

[Vaz]

Why not just take Commoner levels and then retrain them after completing the obligatory Tutorial level?

[DigoDragon]

Your fluff sounds like expert but really anything could be made to fit.

Yeah, I went with expert. Helps out because this GM has a couple house rules with the Crafting system (nothing too weird, just have to a couple skill ranks in some craft skills to make certain magic items).

[Coidzor]

I finally got into a local group again and the GM will host a D&D 3.5 game starting at level 1. He added a house rule that I've never seen before. We're building our characters starting with a "Level 0". This level represents what we learned in our back stories and we can pick from the generic NPC classes (Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior). We don't get the x4 bonus for skills, but this Level 0 doesn't count against multi-class calculations.

Anyone ever tried something like this? It's interesting.


As far as my character concept, I'm bringing back my wizard Sparks. Transmuter specialist with a pony familiar (GM okay'd that choice). Sparks' background is that he came from a family of blacksmiths and was an apprentice for a few years under his father before he began his arcane studies.

Interesting, certainly. The bit where it's implied that you're actually using Multiclass XP penalties is sort of ominous though. I can never remember exactly how Level 0 is supposed to usually work out, since I seem to recall having stumbled across 4 or 5 different ways to do it for D&D 3.X/3.P just on GITP, but it's been something I've considered, along with some other houserules to increase the durability of lower-level PCs.

For Pony, eh? Fun fun. So going to invest your skillpoints from Level 0 into crafting for the most part then?

[Chronos]

I've also seen some DMs require that everyone have a handful of NPC class levels (3 or so) that count towards your total level and never get traded in. This doesn't have much effect on rogues (who can take expert for only a small loss of skills) or fighters (who can take warrior for no loss of BAB), but it serves to reign in the casters, who can't stack anything (at most, they could take their required levels in Adept, and get some additional spells, but they won't stack with their main class's spellcasting).

[nedz]

Level 0 was a concept in previous editions. It was kind of like Human RHD. Level 0 characters were normal civilians and had a 1d6 HD.

[Jormengand]

D20 40k does this to allow you to play Eldar, an LA+1 race, in a normal game at first level.

"An Eldar who takes no skill ranks and no talents, no base attack or save bonuses and hit points equal to 3 + Con modifier and no other bonuses of any sort except racial ones can be counted as a Level 0 character. In this way he can be balanced with starting level humans. At the Eldar’s first level his Class Hit Dice replace his Level 0 hit dice. He gains skills as a first level character."

Swap "Talents" for "Feats" and "Eldar" for something else and bam, level 0.

[TuggyNE]

I had a buddy played in a game that did this.

Basically, all the level 0 players were "in training". Their actions during the "level 0" sessions determined what class they would be in the game as they advanced.

...which is how he ended up as a minotaur (Dragonlance) Wizard.

I've heard of something like that, although I'm frankly puzzled as to how one could act like a Wizard (or any caster, really) without having spells yet. Did he attempt strange gestures and try to spout complicated gibberish before falling back on ineffectual crossbow plinking? Did he recite random bits of nerdy jargon in a fashion that made it clear he couldn't be a Bard? Or what? :smallconfused:

[VoxRationis]

I did that once. The character had three tests to do, all of which in total were supposed to move them to the path of the ranger. However, the character failed miserably at them and only barely avoided going to commoner. As it is, they're now a sort of half-level ranger/fighter multiclass.
The player is a little munchkinly, so they didn't take it very well.

[Psyren]

I did that once. The character had three tests to do, all of which in total were supposed to move them to the path of the ranger. However, the character failed miserably at them and only barely avoided going to commoner. As it is, they're now a sort of half-level ranger/fighter multiclass.
The player is a little munchkinly, so they didn't take it very well.

Being miffed because you got screwed out of the class you wanted to play by very odd houserules makes you a munchkin? :smalltongue:

[malonkey1]

I ran a game using level 0 as a prelude once. What I did was just give them their HP, BAB and saves from their eventual level 1 class, no class skills, and some limited class features from their class (this was for Pathfinder, mind):


Babarians get Con rounds of rage per day
Bards get their cantrips, Cha rounds of Bardic Performance/day, and Inspire Courage
Clerics get Orisons and Channel Energy (1d4)
Druids get Orisons, Nature Sense and Wild Empathy
Fighters get Weapon Focus, and can trade that for a different fighter feat at Fighter 1
Monks get Unarmed Strike and Flurry of Blows (-2/-2)
Paladins get Smite Evil 1/day
Rangers get a Favored Enemy (which only offers +1 bonuses until Ranger 1, and then improves to +2) and Track
Rogue gets Sneak Attack (+1d4)
Sorcerers get their first bloodline power and Cantrips
Wizards get their Arcane Bond and Cantrips

[VoxRationis]

Being miffed because you got screwed out of the class you wanted to play by very odd houserules makes you a munchkin? :smalltongue:

No, he's munchkinly in other ways too; the personality trait makes it more likely that he wouldn't comply with the idea. He tends to put roleplaying a character who makes sense in the world second (though he's actually gotten better about that in the last few sessions) to his desired mechanics and character concepts (such as playing an Australian in a world with no Australia or even an Australia-analogue, for instance).

[Coidzor]

Being miffed because you got screwed out of the class you wanted to play by very odd houserules makes you a munchkin? :smalltongue:

The nerve of some people, wanting some tiny level of control over their own characters.


No, he's munchkinly in other ways too; the personality trait makes it more likely that he wouldn't comply with the idea. He tends to put roleplaying a character who makes sense in the world second (though he's actually gotten better about that in the last few sessions) to his desired mechanics and character concepts

You should stop and think long and hard when you start throwing around terms like compliance in this sense and context.


(such as playing an Australian in a world with no Australia or even an Australia-analogue, for instance).

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk)

[VoxRationis]

The nerve of some DMs, placing limits on characters to fit the setting and story.
I DM with a setting in mind, a setting that has a tone that needs to be kept consistent and basic facts about the setting that need to keep consistent. My setting has no comet Alhazarde and no starmetal, so I don't let them take Green Star Adept. My setting is based on the Mediterranean classical period, so there are no monks or paladins. The DM has a right—in fact, it's explicitly stated in the DMG—to impose limits on character options if it fits the world and story.
I'm hardly shutting down the character entirely or leaving him without "a tiny bit of control"—he's diverged mechanically and in personality from how he originally was, assuming a loyalty to a family of NPCs I never expected him to feel and picking up a two-weapon throwing style he pulled more or less out of thin air. He could even multiclass to rogue or something if he wished, or do something else unexpected.

[atemu1234]

I feel like the only good reason for it is if you want to run a character starting at a young (ish) age, but as DM I'd have no problem with throwing the minimum starting age out the window for an interesting character idea. I mean, there wasn't much of a purpose behind it to begin with, other than making your characters seem to age. They still can, I'm not saying they don't, but most often if a player wanted to run a byronesque character who had watched his parents die and is only thirteen, then I'd let him.

[Psyren]

No, he's munchkinly in other ways too; the personality trait makes it more likely that he wouldn't comply with the idea. He tends to put roleplaying a character who makes sense in the world second (though he's actually gotten better about that in the last few sessions) to his desired mechanics and character concepts (such as playing an Australian in a world with no Australia or even an Australia-analogue, for instance).

How the heck do you "play an Australian," anyway? Is his character just talking with a funny accent? I don't see the problem with that. :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

I feel like the only good reason for it is if you want to run a character starting at a young (ish) age, but as DM I'd have no problem with throwing the minimum starting age out the window for an interesting character idea. I mean, there wasn't much of a purpose behind it to begin with, other than making your characters seem to age. They still can, I'm not saying they don't, but most often if a player wanted to run a byronesque character who had watched his parents die and is only thirteen, then I'd let him.

I suppose if a DM created some way for a PC to have a minion of some sort at level 1, then a level 0 NPC-class might even be somewhere near appropriate. :smallconfused:

[VoxRationis]

Well, plus some annoying catch-phrases, but mostly an accent. An accent, mind you, that no one else in the setting had. You can't have an accent without a speech community to pick it up from. And no, the Australian thing wasn't an egregious thing, certainly not enough to demand a different character or anything, but it shows that the player doesn't try to fit the setting.

[Coidzor]

Well, plus some annoying catch-phrases, but mostly an accent. An accent, mind you, that no one else in the setting had. You can't have an accent without a speech community to pick it up from. And no, the Australian thing wasn't an egregious thing, certainly not enough to demand a different character or anything, but it shows that the player doesn't try to fit the setting.

Why on earth would your setting be mapped out in such minute detail that there's no possible place where a non-standard accent could emerge from?

And what on earth would you do if you had a player who could only speak in an accent you hadn't approved of? :smallconfused:

[VoxRationis]

Well, for one thing, it wasn't my setting; I was playing in a campaign with the same guy.
Secondly, in your hypothetical, I would pretend they were speaking with the same default accent as everyone else from their character's background. You are falsely conflating my distaste for someone going out of their way to affect a trait in-character that does not exist in the game world with a prejudice against people who have that trait out-of-character.

[jedipotter]

Oh, this goes way back to.......1E. The idea was to start at ''0 level'' as normal people. Then adventure and pick a character class at 1st level. And best of all....wizards started off at -3 level. So they needed many times the XP a fighter needed to get to first level. I can remember having lots of groups with -2 level wizards(at -2 level they could cast two cantrips a day). Oh the fun.....

[Banaticus]

Well, plus some annoying catch-phrases, but mostly an accent. An accent, mind you, that no one else in the setting had. You can't have an accent without a speech community to pick it up from. And no, the Australian thing wasn't an egregious thing, certainly not enough to demand a different character or anything, but it shows that the player doesn't try to fit the setting.
I'm not going to comment on whether this is good or bad, it's not my table and the DM can make those decisions for the group. I meet several hundred new people a month in my job. Australian is really just a slower form of speaking, they hold on to their vowels longer than most people do. I've met people who hold on to their vowels longer than normal and sound like they're from Australia and have never even been close to Australia.

This is D&D. Classical, medieval, etc., right? If you travel 50 to a hundred miles, you should get slightly different accents or at least different colloquialisms. There's no TV to homogenize accents. The only newspaper people might possibly read is one published in their own home town. The only contact most people will have with the "outside world" are going to be wandering peddlers, or the odd person who brings new supplies to their town, and most people will only visit a small town once a week at most.

Look at the US now and consider the Midwest/Northern accent (Minnesota down to Illinois), and the Southwest accent (Virginia to Louisiana). Is that drink called soda, pop, or Coke? Even if you go to Spain or France, who are both really protective of their language and don't want it to change, you have regional variations on accents and how words are pronounced and even what words are used to describe things, and all these examples are within their own language -- we haven't even gotten into what happened back in England when you had the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons living on the same island together and they ended up blending their languages into a bastard dialect that became the English that we now know and love.

No paladins or monks in the Mediterranean classic period? Just mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salii Also, in very early Greek society, a priest in Delphi who had shed blood would have been expelled from the temple, but fast forward just a little bit and you had the "coward" who wouldn't shed blood to save his friend being expelled from the temple. Then again, you couldn't really have any character classes other than rogue, fighter, and maybe barbarian if you really wanted to be "true" to the idealized classic society of that period. After all, ain't nobody got time for fireballs back then. Besides, monks suck compared to just about every other character class. They're a tier 3 character at best. If a player wants to play a character that won't be as uber as other characters at the table, let him.