Classless and handicaps for origin stories

[Eradis]

I'm going to try out a few more origin stories (short solo campaigns) in the near future. My last one turned out to be a blast. Actually one of the best game I played and made a fantastic first solo adventure since my childhood. My player decided to play a Warlock, which kind of bothered me for the simple fact that we wanted to play his background. I managed around the fact that most his abilities were from a pact he was yet to make, but using simply his stats and skills, but not his spells for the first act. This wasn't much of a problem since he never had much to fight. Peasant rarely go around messing with the guards or with the monstrosities surrounding their village.

I want to push the concept farther next time. How can I make a level 0 character? Here's what I have so far in my brainstorming process (nothing is fleshed out)

Six basic abilities are as a level 1 would be.
Racial abilities are up and running (you don't suddenly discover you have a breath attack as a dragonborn - except young ones maybe)
Skill proficiency... Well I'm unsure as to let them as a level 1 would have them or holding either those from the class or those from the background. Dropping both would feel like the PC is a perfect nobody, and I still want that heroic vibe of D&D regardless.
Hit points: I was thinking of going with a flat 4 (hit die 1d4) + constitution modifier until the class is "gained" and then adjusting the die. So for a barbarian, the 4 will become a 12 and the first hit die will become 1d12 instead of 1d4.


I'm also interested in handicaps. How will you compensate a player that decides his character is missing an eye or is crippled? Do you actually compensate? In a solo adventure I don't see the point of giving a bonus for a flaw, since we can play accordingly, but in the case that solo campaign merge with another, then it can become a real hassle if one player character can't walk.

What are your thoughts?

[Unoriginal]

How can I make a level 0 character?

Commoner statblock. Or Guard/Apprentice Wizard/Acolyte/Tribal Warrior statblock. Just change the stats to match the lvl 1 PC's ones.



I'm also interested in handicaps. How will you compensate a player that decides his character is missing an eye or is crippled? Do you actually compensate? In a solo adventure I don't see the point of giving a bonus for a flaw, since we can play accordingly, but in the case that solo campaign merge with another, then it can become a real hassle if one player character can't walk.

If the player wants their character to have an an handicap, they get an handicap, not a compensation. Some handicaps are a real hassle for adventuring, but that's kinda the point of big handicaps. Simply don't hallow characters who can't adventure.

[Eradis]

If the player wants their character to have an an handicap, they get an handicap, not a compensation. Some handicaps are a real hassle for adventuring, but that's kinda the point of big handicaps. Simply don't hallow characters who can't adventure.

I started with the World of Darkness mentally where players are partially rewarded for having flaws. The bigger the flaw, the bigger the reward. Regardless of the flaw, the benefit never were equivalent of the drawback caused by said accommodating trait. I am not saying players playing with major flaws should be compensated. On its own, thriving regardless of those is rewarding as a role-player. Something it can add to the fun to help them "fix" part of it as a rewards (ex.: starting with a wheelchair, or a mount with adapted saddle). In other words, I want to encourage bold choices at character creation, not hold back creativity for optimization purposes. I once was an optimizer; now I'm having so much more fun playing on the occasional failures than on continuous successes.

Some handicap, even big ones can be fitting of great tales. Think of Bran Stark of Game of Thrones, or Ivar the Boneless from Vikings. Hell, even the hobbits from The Lord of the Rings are mostly useless as adventurers but still make for great characters.

[Unoriginal]

In other words, I want to encourage bold choices at character creation, not hold back creativity for optimization purposes. I once was an optimizer; now I'm having so much more fun playing on the occasional failures than on continuous successes.

Being able to walk isn't "holding back creativity for optimization purposes". On the other hand, trading being able to walk for different powers is optimizing your character, because you're doing blatant min-maxing, removing "things you don't need" to get what you want.

It's also something that often happens in systems that allow taking bad traits to get more good ones, on the "not being able to read, smell or swim gives me enough points to get Superhuman Strength rank 1" school of character building.



Hell, even the hobbits from The Lord of the Rings are mostly useless as adventurers but still make for great characters.

They were never mostly useless, though. Even if they weren't the best combatants, especially not at the start, all of them contributed as adventurers a lot and they never had anything that actually handicapped them at adventuring, their inexperience aside.

[ImproperJustice]

At the end of the books, Sarumon sent a force of orcs to conquer the Shire.
As I recall, the Hobbits rode in like epic PCs and cleaned house.

[Unoriginal]

At the end of the books, Sarumon sent a force of orcs to conquer the Shire.
As I recall, the Hobbits rode in like epic PCs and cleaned house.

Saruman had bandits (some of them half-orcs or men-goblins), yeah. And the Hobbits did.

[Eradis]

Being able to walk isn't "holding back creativity for optimization purposes". On the other hand, trading being able to walk for different powers is optimizing your character, because you're doing blatant min-maxing, removing "things you don't need" to get what you want.

It's also something that often happens in systems that allow taking bad traits to get more good ones, on the "not being able to read, smell or swim gives me enough points to get Superhuman Strength rank 1" school of character building.



They were never mostly useless, though. Even if they weren't the best combatants, especially not at the start, all of them contributed as adventurers a lot and they never had anything that actually handicapped them at adventuring, their inexperience aside.


At the end of the books, Sarumon sent a force of orcs to conquer the Shire.
As I recall, the Hobbits rode in like epic PCs and cleaned house.

Oh give me a break. You know exactly what I meant. If not, you take things too far and too literally. I'm not here to start debate, I'm here to get suggestions. You don't like this approach? Well, there are plenty of other threads on this forum for you. Allowing something is not encouraging optimization. He opens the door for it, sure. But that comes down to which kind of player you are. Personally I avoid playing with people that tries to find loopholes everywhere.

[lunaticfringe]

I'm here to get suggestions. You don't like this approach? Well, there are plenty of other threads on this forum for you.

What gaming forum do you think you are on right now?

[MoiMagnus]

I'm going to try out a few more origin stories (short solo campaigns) in the near future. My last one turned out to be a blast. Actually one of the best game I played and made a fantastic first solo adventure since my childhood. My player decided to play a Warlock, which kind of bothered me for the simple fact that we wanted to play his background. I managed around the fact that most his abilities were from a pact he was yet to make, but using simply his stats and skills, but not his spells for the first act. This wasn't much of a problem since he never had much to fight. Peasant rarely go around messing with the guards or with the monstrosities surrounding their village.

I want to push the concept farther next time. How can I make a level 0 character? Here's what I have so far in my brainstorming process (nothing is fleshed out)

Six basic abilities are as a level 1 would be.
Racial abilities are up and running (you don't suddenly discover you have a breath attack as a dragonborn - except young ones maybe)
Skill proficiency... Well I'm unsure as to let them as a level 1 would have them or holding either those from the class or those from the background. Dropping both would feel like the PC is a perfect nobody, and I still want that heroic vibe of D&D regardless.
Hit points: I was thinking of going with a flat 4 (hit die 1d4) + constitution modifier until the class is "gained" and then adjusting the die. So for a barbarian, the 4 will become a 12 and the first hit die will become 1d12 instead of 1d4.


I'm also interested in handicaps. How will you compensate a player that decides his character is missing an eye or is crippled? Do you actually compensate? In a solo adventure I don't see the point of giving a bonus for a flaw, since we can play accordingly, but in the case that solo campaign merge with another, then it can become a real hassle if one player character can't walk.

What are your thoughts?

For handicaps, when we play with some, we include both physical handicaps and narrative handicaps and psychological ones ("someone important hate you", or "this other PC is your rival", or "you really really fear undeads"). Taking a race which is completely inadapted to your class also count as one.

Everybody has to take one. Experienced players are expected to take an additional one (though not forced).
The DM can allow you to can take a third handicap (or second one for beginners) for 3 creation points (used for caracs).

For level 0:
+ For me, that's already what level 1 is doing. The wizard does not yet have a school (so he did not yet graduate). And same for others: they don't have their subclass yet. Seems enough for me.
+ You should keep skills (at least those from the background). But you can reduce the mastery bonus to +1.
+ Hit points: 4 is low. Your PCs can start with 16 of Str without difficulties. Without weapons, they do 1+3=4 dmg per hit... Unless you changed the rules for below 0 HP and save against death, it seems like a very bad idea. I would give everyone 6+Con PV, but say their "hit point dice" for short rests is a d4.

[Unoriginal]

Oh give me a break. You know exactly what I meant. If not, you take things too far and too literally. I'm not here to start debate, I'm here to get suggestions. You don't like this approach? Well, there are plenty of other threads on this forum for you. Allowing something is not encouraging optimization. He opens the door for it, sure. But that comes down to which kind of player you are. Personally I avoid playing with people that tries to find loopholes everywhere.

Your OP literally ask if we think handicaps should be compensated . I answered no, and gave reasons for it, alongside providing a suggestion for your other inquiry.

You're free to ignore my post, but don't act as if this thread belonged only to people who agreed with this idea when you're the one who asked Y/N about it.

[ImproperJustice]

Oh give me a break. You know exactly what I meant. If not, you take things too far and too literally. I'm not here to start debate, I'm here to get suggestions. You don't like this approach? Well, there are plenty of other threads on this forum for you. Allowing something is not encouraging optimization. He opens the door for it, sure. But that comes down to which kind of player you are. Personally I avoid playing with people that tries to find loopholes everywhere.

I did know exactly what you meant. Which is why I took issue with your micharacterizarion of Hobbits from LOTR and posted accordingly. It’s called a counterpoint and it is a natural result of public discussion.
Since you don’t have the ability or authority to determine who engages in this public discussion, you might try to invite people to some kind of private meeting where you can be in charge of who can say what. That way you can avoid becoming this upset if someone posts something that you don’t agree with.

[Eradis]

For handicaps, when we play with some, we include both physical handicaps and narrative handicaps and psychological ones ("someone important hate you", or "this other PC is your rival", or "you really really fear undeads"). Taking a race which is completely inadapted to your class also count as one.

Everybody has to take one. Experienced players are expected to take an additional one (though not forced).
The DM can allow you to can take a third handicap (or second one for beginners) for 3 creation points (used for caracs).

For level 0:
+ For me, that's already what level 1 is doing. The wizard does not yet have a school (so he did not yet graduate). And same for others: they don't have their subclass yet. Seems enough for me.
+ You should keep skills (at least those from the background). But you can reduce the mastery bonus to +1.
+ Hit points: 4 is low. Your PCs can start with 16 of Str without difficulties. Without weapons, they do 1+3=4 dmg per hit... Unless you changed the rules for below 0 HP and save against death, it seems like a very bad idea. I would give everyone 6+Con PV, but say their "hit point dice" for short rests is a d4.

Thank you for your insight! "PV" stands for "Points de Vie" I'm assuming? (I was saying 4+con, but it is indeed low and the +2 you suggested can make a big difference. Even classless I still want part of the heroic of playing D&D. Even if the classless part isn't long at all.


Your OP literally ask if we think handicaps should be compensated . I answered no, and gave reasons for it, alongside providing a suggestion for your other inquiry.

You're free to ignore my post, but don't act as if this thread belonged only to people who agreed with this idea when you're the one who asked Y/N about it.

&

I did know exactly what you meant. Which is why I took issue with your micharacterizarion of Hobbits from LOTR and posted accordingly. It’s called a counterpoint and it is a natural result of public discussion.
Since you don’t have the ability or authority to determine who engages in this public discussion, you might try to invite people to some kind of private meeting where you can be in charge of who can say what. That way you can avoid becoming this upset if someone posts something that you don’t agree with.

I apologize. I reacted too strongly for nothing actually. Regarding the hobbits from LotR, in my head it was clear I was referring to the early part of the saga, which I never specified and they do become quite badasses along the journey.

Also, your opinions are of value. Lack of sleep and high stress situation are making me irritable to say the less and it should not reflect or be directed at other people - you two in this occurrence. I'm tired of constantly hearing about optimization as the implied "best" way to play, which was not even close in this case. Regardless everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion on the subject.

[ImproperJustice]

Thank you for your insight! "PV" stands for "Points de Vie" I'm assuming? (I was saying 4+con, but it is indeed low and the +2 you suggested can make a big difference. Even classless I still want part of the heroic of playing D&D. Even if the classless part isn't long at all.



&


I apologize. I reacted too strongly for nothing actually. Regarding the hobbits from LotR, in my head it was clear I was referring to the early part of the saga, which I never specified and they do become quite badasses along the journey.

Also, your opinions are of value. Lack of sleep and high stress situation are making me irritable to say the less and it should not reflect or be directed at other people - you two in this occurrence. I'm tired of constantly hearing about optimization as the implied "best" way to play, which was not even close in this case. Regardless everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion on the subject.

No big deal! It happens to all of us.

So constructive:

I am a huge fan of Savage Worlds, and one way they reward hinderances or handicaps is awarding “bennies” which is in-game currency for re rolls, ways to reduce damage, and in some cases assume narrative control of a situation.

The closest direct corelation would be inspiration die in 5th edition and they are handy rewards for solid roleplay.

Lastly, maybe run you origin adventures stat-less?
My wife on numerous occasions has run games with the PCs as kids. Often times the adventure has little to do with dice rolls and a lot more on making plans, luck, and role play.
It can get very Dungeon Worldy where situations are resolved via a 2d6 die roll with bonuses assigned by the factors listed above. Characters then exist is states of fine, banged up, wounded, or incapacitated.
It’s light and emphasizes the story telling your trying to create while maximizing that sense of vulnerability / lack of competancy.

Derailing:
I very much feel that the heart of the Hobbits arc is everyone laughs and perceives them to be useless as they repeatedly demonstrate courage, and physical / intellectual agility to accomplish great tasks, including but not limited to:

Securing an initial weapons cache capable of wounding the Ring Wraiths, which later contributes to the death of their leader at the battle of Gondor.

Merry and Pippin manipulate circumstances to get the Ents to enter the war and ultimately conserve resources for the Rhoadim to help turn the tide at Gondor.

Lighting the watch fires.

Somewhat shaming the other races to get off their duffs and do something.

Killing Shelob

Delivering the evil corrupting ring, on foot through miles and miles of enemy territory.