Level 0 characters blog post; interesting read

[SouthpawSoldier]

I've expressed an interest in the past in rewarding players with a class after they complete their first adventure. I think it provides a more interesting and believable starting point for an adventure than "___ adventurers meet in a tavern".

It was shot down pretty hard wen I brought it up here, but this blog post outlines an interesting way of accomplishing that feel without hosing players: http://ubiquitousrat.net/?p=2703

[Theodoxus]

I suppose - though it just puts another starting point that's just as arbitrary.

I've seen people use a finishing school type idea; like graduating from Hogwarts and going on your first adventure before specializing in whatever class you're desiring to spend your life doing.

But unless you have a logical starting area where all the players will have met, starting in a tavern makes just as much sense.


Really, the only reason I can see to start at 0 rather than 1 is for a grittier game; and then the question becomes, why not just play a grittier game than D&D?

[SouthpawSoldier]

I suppose - though it just puts another starting point that's just as arbitrary.

I've seen people use a finishing school type idea; like graduating from Hogwarts and going on your first adventure before specializing in whatever class you're desiring to spend your life doing.

But unless you have a logical starting area where all the players will have met, starting in a tavern makes just as much sense.


Really, the only reason I can see to start at 0 rather than 1 is for a grittier game; and then the question becomes, why not just play a grittier game than D&D?

What got me on the idea was my current project campaign; the starting adventure is based off The Goonies. An attempt to keep a fishing village from being converted to a naval shipyard and garrison. 1st level characters, especially casters, just don't fit the setting. A little too potent/amazing to be Goonies trying to save their neighborhood.

I don't think it should be used in all campaigns. I just think it's an interesting change of pace.

[LordVonDerp]

What got me on the idea was my current project campaign; the starting adventure is based off The Goonies. An attempt to keep a fishing village from being converted to a naval shipyard and garrison. 1st level characters, especially casters, just don't fit the setting. A little too potent/amazing to be Goonies trying to save their neighborhood.

I don't think it should be used in all campaigns. I just think it's an interesting change of pace.

If having only the most basic of training is too powerful, you might want to rethink your plan. Even a team of level 1 characters would find it almost impossible to do what you're suggesting, trying it with level 0 characters would be slaughter.

[Easy_Lee]

This post got me thinking that this could be a cool system. Read the blog and, aside from the BS "realistic hurr durr" house rules, I think that this is a good system.

Veterans may not like or need it. Most here can jump right into a 12th level wizard, clearly remember every spell and feature we have, and play competently immediately.

But new players can't do that. Those guys roll up level 1 variant human and end up with more features than they know how to keep track of. Just learning the system from scratch is hard enough; throwing a bunch of features in just confuses those players. This can be very bad, especially for the ones who are into RP and don't like finicky mechanics. There's a reason that most players get into D&D through a friend. I didn't have a friend to teach me, and it was freaking difficult for the first few sessions. My PC sucked, too.

Something like this could be a godsend at a table of new players. Give them a couple of level 0 humans with just a background and some skills to work with, and they'll settle in much better, I think.

[SouthpawSoldier]

.. Even a team of level 1 characters would find it almost impossible to do what you're suggesting, trying it with level 0 characters would be slaughter.

You have seen The Goonies, right? Main characters are a gang of 10-14 yo kids. Low combat, high social and puzzle based module. Not that hard or dangerous at all. Just enough danger for some dramatic tension. Also easier to explain than a party of Fighter, Warlock, Wizard, etc being emotionally invested in saving a slum from a development project. Once accomplished, they'll have enough fame and experience (not XP) for an actual level to be believable. Even 1st level PC's are supposed to be relatively rare compared to NPC population.

Easy_Lee brings up a great point I hadn't considered. Original target for this module was a friend's kids. With the dearth of 5e players in the area, building a game minimizing options definitely streamlines the process of teaching/learning if/when I manage to build a new group. I've long been into FR books and D&D culture, but my first actual session was a 3.5 game about 3 years ago. Very overwhelming to jump into a system that complex, especially when encouraged to roll up a caster. I still take forever building 3.5 characters more complex than an entry level mundane. I don't mind researching for something specific, but the cherry-picking class/feats etc isn't why I play D&D. I play for interesting story, developing a rapport with my table, and reveling in the shared inside jokes and experiences. Not calling probability math or legal research badwrongfun, it's just not my gig.

[darkscizor]

Made a simple system for lv. 0 players:
0 level players get:

All proficiencies with simple weapons, light armor, and shields if the class has proficiency with them, and other proficiencies are gained at lv. 1

Spellcasters gain their starting level cantrips, to a max of 3 cantrips at lv. 0

Hp gained is the average die result of that class's HP (example: 6 for a fighter) at level 0

And players gain one skill proficiency.from their class.

Players still have racial stuff and backgrounds, and the rest of the player's level one class features are "unlocked" after gaining 150 experience.



Of course, you could make them commoners at level 0 with simple weapon proficiency and up to two cantrips from their spellcasting class, if they are choosing one.

[Hawkstar]

Made a simple system for lv. 0 players:
0 level players get:

All proficiencies with simple weapons, light armor, and shields if the class has proficiency with them, and other proficiencies are gained at lv. 1

Spellcasters gain their starting level cantrips, to a max of 3 cantrips at lv. 0

Hp gained is the average die result of that class's HP (example: 6 for a fighter) at level 0

And players gain one skill proficiency.from their class.

Players still have racial stuff and backgrounds, and the rest of the player's level one class features are "unlocked" after gaining 150 experience.



Of course, you could make them commoners at level 0 with simple weapon proficiency and up to two cantrips from their spellcasting class, if they are choosing one.

I would actually prefer giving them a level 1 spell slot before giving them any cantrips (Unless they're from race). Cantrips are at-will magic, not "Babby's First Sparkles". But really - even that is 'too much magic'.

I would give a +1 proficiency bonus to their Background-granted skills at level 1.

Of course, old school level 1 wasn't as brutal as 5e level 0. Wizards still had a level 1 spell slot, and those were more potent than later edition level 1 spell slots.

[Clistenes]

You could let them start with one or more NPC class levels. After their first adventure they would replace their NPC class levels with a single PC class level, but they would keep the proficiencies, feats and skills of their NPC class levels as Background bonuses. You could even let them keep the hp, save bonuses and attack bonuses from their NPC class levels as Background bonuses.

That way they would start their second adventure with 1st level PC classes, but with some nice bonuses.

If you do that, the players will see that will make their characters stronger and more competent at first level, and will be more willing to do what you want.

[LordVonDerp]

You have seen The Goonies, right? Main characters are a gang of 10-14 yo kids. Low combat, high social and puzzle based module. Not that hard or dangerous at all. Just enough danger for some dramatic tension. Also easier to explain than a party of Fighter, Warlock, Wizard, etc being emotionally invested in saving a slum from a development project.

Once accomplished, they'll have enough fame and experience (not XP) for an actual level to be believable. Even 1st level PC's are supposed to be relatively rare compared to NPC population
.

I should really go back and watch that movie again. On the other hand, unlike the villains in the movie, there's nothing stopping the military from just killing them or destroying the town with brute force. It's not like they have to worry about public opinion.


Regardless of what first level PCs are supposed to be, what the actually are is a bunch of barely trained recruits.

[Hawkstar]

You could let them start with one or more NPC levels. After their first adventure they would replace their NPC levels with a single PC level, but they would keep the proficiencies, feats and skills of their NPC levels as Background bonuses. You could even let them keep the hp, save bonuses and attack bonuses from their NPC levels as Background bonuses.

That way they would start their second adventure with 1st level PC classes, but with some nice bonuses.

If you do that, the players will see that will make their characters stronger and more competent at first level, and will be more willing to do what you want.What the heck is an "NPC Level"?

[Clistenes]

What the heck is an "NPC Level"?

A level in a NPC class, like Commoner, Expert, Warrior, Aristocrat, Adept or Magewright.

[Hawkstar]

A level in a NPC class, like Commoner, Expert, Warrior, Aristocrat, Adept or Magewright.What the heck are those? :smallconfused:

[Felcat]

What the heck are those? :smallconfused:


Something from 3/3.5

Basically stripped down classes just for NPCs to use without the DM having to take the trouble of making a full Wizard, Cleric, Fight, etc.

5e doesn't have them.

[Stan]

If I were to do 0 level, I'd be tempted to do a wizard college or similar, with young teens. At the lowest age, cantrips would be once per short rest. Bards and other academic classes would be there too. PCs could also play townies or young servants working at the school. Hitting 3rd level would be full graduation from the school.

[1Forge]

I like the idea of 0th level characters, their basicly unskilled adventurers. Though that postes rules for breaking weapons are lame i have much better ones.

[Clistenes]

Something from 3/3.5

Basically stripped down classes just for NPCs to use without the DM having to take the trouble of making a full Wizard, Cleric, Fight, etc.

5e doesn't have them.

Yes, I forgot it was a 5th edition thread. Sorry. :smallredface:

[ImSAMazing]

I've expressed an interest in the past in rewarding players with a class after they complete their first adventure. I think it provides a more interesting and believable starting point for an adventure than "___ adventurers meet in a tavern".

It was shot down pretty hard wen I brought it up here, but this blog post outlines an interesting way of accomplishing that feel without hosing players: http://ubiquitousrat.net/?p=2703

WIth no class, I'd say that the have the power of a commoner, and a party of 4 commoners is not really, eh, strong. Also, with no strong abilities, the adventure cant be a bit hard.

[mister__joshua]

I really like this idea as someone who was a fan of the Unearthed Arcana 'organic' character generation in 3.5. I like the idea of a group of nobodies forced into adventure, and the idea that their abilities and circumstances shape their class rather than the other way around. It's a very Organic way. The guy that rolled high intelligence will tend towards learning magic, the slow strong guy will likely choose fighter. Providing someone isn't crap at everything I think it should work well. Obviously not for every group, but in the right circumstances.

I think the Organic rules in 3.5 UA were: Roll 3D6 for each stat individually. You could then choose to replace one roll with a 15, and swap any 2 around. It gives you a bit more customization and leeway.

I think these rules would also work great if you made some starting backgrounds such as: Farmer; Barkeep; Prostitute; Handyman; Militia; Smith; Carpenter etc.

[Person_Man]

I posted this over on Easy_Lee's E10 thread (which borrows the Level 0 idea), but its more germane here.

In old school D&D games, classes had very, very few features at low levels. Instead of resolving challenges with class features (or spells or magic items or whatever), it was expected that you would just resolve most challenges like a normal humanoid. For example, you disarmed traps by describing how you personally would disarm the trap. The Thief class feature was a special benefit that occasionally worked, not the default method of resolving every trap.

So if you're going to run a game that basically starts without class features, I think its important to resolve most challenges in the old school method. Rely on narrative solutions, not class ability or Skill Proficiency dependent Eigen Plots (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotTailoredToTheParty?from=Main.EigenPlot).

The math of the game has to support this concept. In 1E/2E D&D, modifiers were very small (IIRC, ability scores in the range of 8-16 offered no bonus, and 18, which was rare, might only offer a +1 or +2), and you often didn't role for things at all, you just described what you were doing and your DM determined the result.