[3.5]Level 0 "adventurers".

[Mordokai]

So I just had this crazy idea of making a campaign where PCs start as your normal folk, part of a small village and are faced with a threat of something well beyond their ability to handle... at the time.

Given that I would probably be doing a horror based campaign, I think that would actually work well with the given mood. I don't expect the PCs to do a lot of fighting, so the first few sessions would mostly be roleplaying and/or running away from something that wants them dead. I'd probably be doing another undead based campaign, or(somewhat less cliche), a fey based campaign. Evil pixies are somewhat appealing to me

The idea is for PCs to start as level 0 characters of NPC class and upon reaching level 1 they take their actual PC class they want. The problem I have with this is... how do you that? The DMG says nothing about level 0 characters, but I know I've heard it mention before. All it says is that NPCs attain levels like PCs do, but I don't want them playing entire game as a NPC class.

Do you make them reach a thousand XP and then give them the level up or go by rule zero? Is there anything else to be vary of? Has anybody done something like this before and would have any advice to offer? I'd be grateful for all the help and ideas you could provide.

[Frog Dragon]

Just make them lvl 1 commoners in the start and then at some point let them replace that level with a PC class level. There can actually be no lvl 0 character because you would have no HP because you need a level to even get con bonus.

[Eloel]

Give them 1 Humanoid HD, which you replace with a class level later. I suggest 1000-1000-2000-3000...... levelup XPs.

Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class.

[Lioness]

I thought a commoner had 1d4 HP...

[Omegonthesane]

I thought a commoner had 1d4 HP...

Humanoid HD assume you've had a hard life without picking up adventuring skills, Commoner class assumes you've had an easy one and therefore not picked up adventuring skills.

I'd let them gestalt their first Commoner level with their first real PC level for simplicity's sake, but otherwise sounds fine.

[stenver]

The way to make them:
Give all stats 10(like common folk), increase later when gaining level
give 4 HP (since 1 is just too low, rat bite kills you)

Make level up at xp 1 or 100 or 1000, by your choosing.

The good thing for PC is that they have permanently gained 4 free HP. Everyone is happy. Level 0 is possible, dmg sucks.

[kamikasei]

I thought a commoner had 1d4 HP...

I think perhaps both you and the OP are sharing a misconception... those 1d4 HP commoners have one class level, in the NPC class Commoner. They're not zeroeth-level; they just have a really crappy class. There is nothing in the standard rules to support having zero levels; even if you only have racial hit die, they're still effectively levels without class features.

[Lioness]

I think perhaps both you and the OP are sharing a misconception... those 1d4 HP commoners have one class level, in the NPC class Commoner. They're not zeroeth-level; they just have a really crappy class. There is nothing in the standard rules to support having zero levels; even if you only have racial hit die, they're still effectively levels without class features.

I stand corrected then.

Perhaps you could treat a level 0 character as a very young child. Maybe 1 or 2 HP and not a lot of skills.

[AB]

Didn`t at least the DMG 3.0 had a rule for characters starting below first level?

[Yuki Akuma]

Didn`t at least the DMG 3.0 had a rule for characters starting below first level?

No.

It had rules for multiclassing at level one, though.

[RagnaroksChosen]

The DMG has rules for it. Only for the core classes of course but with those rules you could wing the others.

I've GMed a zero level... (it was there comming of age ceramony, in a small tribe in the winterlands).

Lots of fun. I had a barbarian, ranger, sorcerer, warlock(i think).

Hp is just there con modifier. If its 0 or negative it defaults to 1.

Made them really think when they came across a wolf or a badger who could one shot them.

[Sophismata]

Yes, it did. It was designed to aid a carry-over of 2AD&D multi-classing, in that you could start with a 1/2 level in two seperate classes. In such a case, you took the better HD and skills, but had restricted spellcasting and limited class features.

[Kol Korran]

indeed the DMG 3.0 had rules for that, (though they were specifically for creating multiclass characters at first level, as in 0/0 character). i'm not sure i'm remembering everything right, but if not you can adjust things. the following is part from memory (don't have the book anymore), and part advice. lets see:

- the characters choose a class for 0 level. basically they have part of the class abilities, while some other they lack. this in itself can give you a basic framework to work upon. the rules however did not give the XP needed to gain 1st level (since as i've mentioned, characters were supposed to be 1st level with their 0/0 combo), so you'd have to decide that yourself. i suggest 750-1000, or more easely- when they finish their first basic encounter.

- no 1st level feat

- all characters has the BAB of 0... maybe those with good BAB had allready +1? don't remember.

- all had their normal HP. when they gain their first level, they don't get more hp. or you could do it like this- first level hp by class, but not by CON. at first level they get their CON bonus. or perhaps they start with half hitpoints of first level?

- the good saves were +1 instead of +2

- casters didn't have slots for 1st level spells other than their bonus spells. spontaneous casters knew just one 1st level spell, wizards knew 2 less spells in their spell book. no familiars.

- turn undead is considered to use 0 level.

-i don't remember all the abilities of the different classes, such as rage, sneak attack, favoured enemy, animal companion and so on. since you want to give the characters the impression of mostly ordinary people, i'd suggest you either give trade mark class abilities at a lessened form (such as a weaker rage), or none at all (which i actually think is better for what you're trying to achieve).

- one importent note: make sure your players like the idea and are willing to give it a shot. many players feel that 1st level characters are allready very fragile, and will consider this just as an unneeded exaggeration...

hope this helped,
Kol.

P.S. i just remembreed there was someone who allready this this- look for the "bloodlines" campaign on line. the DM started with a group of unassuming looking friends from the same village, who battled a wolf i think for their first adventure, but later grew in strength. they began at 0 level. maybe the site has details on how it was done.

[Mordokai]

I stand corrected then.

Perhaps you could treat a level 0 character as a very young child. Maybe 1 or 2 HP and not a lot of skills.

I really like this idea. It doesn't take much to imagine kids being very fragile(though they would probably still get 4 hp, least the rat being lucky enough to score a critical on bite one kills them) and it lands itself much easier to the idea of horror. Especailly since it wouldn't take much to convince them that it's better for their long term well being to run, instead of fight. And, with some creative freedom, the story continues few years later, now all of them being grown up and your regular level 1 or 2 adventurers. So yeah, this is a great idea and I thank you for it

@ Kol Korran: there are some great options and ideas in your post and I thank you for it as well. Right now, I'm really into the "starts as commoner" thing, but, like you said, if it turns out that people won't like that idea, this will be very handy for starting with weak characters, but not as weak as your regular commoner is. And I would certainly make it sure that people with whom I played would be for this. Like I said, first few sessions would include little to no combat and I would certainly make it sure that players and their characters aren't in danger of dying, just because I basically made them play gimped characters. There's no fun in that.

Thanks to everybody else as well! If you have any more advice or anything else to say I'd love to hear it.

[SilveryCord]

AFAIK in an incarnum adventure the book recommends having your characters starting with one level in fighter or some other class, and then when the wellspring opens their level changes to incarnate or whatever. So it seems even the developers have come to the same conclusion with how to start an adventure as mundane and then go to the mystical. I may be wrong, though, I'm not sure.

[Zovc]

Dijinn_in_Tonic had rules for a 0th level adventurer in one of his 3.5 revisions.

The only thing I remember players getting was simple weapon proficency and "Con-as-HP."

[Cieyrin]

I checked ye olde 3.0 DMG and there are indeed Apprentice (read: 0th) level characters. Much as Kol has said, characters get +1 for good saves, nobody has +1 BAB (not even the good BAB classes) and reduced class abilities. Casters are kinda gimped, especially Wizards who don't specialize, as they get 2 cantrips and 0 1st. HP, since it was assumed you'd multiclass, was the HD of one class and you'd get the other when you leveled, so not much help there. Maybe half max + half Con bonus?

Funnily enough, I was also considering the PCs-as-commoners idea earlier this week and trying to figure out the best method of going about it. The only thing I had really settled was that I was gonna name the campaign "Peasant Quest".

[Ostien]

My old group did a level 0 game. We called the the 'kid campaign' as we all started out as kids in this tribe who's adventure was a coming of age challenge that all youth had to perform. I think we just made up a kid class for this (it was a long time ago) that was kinda like the commoner, and we leveled up a few times in the kid levels until we completed the challenged at which point we retrained those levels over the course of a few sessions.

I liked the idea, even though it basically had you leveling up and then scraping that and leveling up again it made you more invested with those lover PC levels, because you are comparing it with being a commoner. It got the idea across that low level PCs are still powerful in comparison.

[woodenbandman]

I saw Jaronk over at BG doing a commoner campaign. The players started as first level commoners, and at 6th level, they got a level of Expert, Adept, or warrior. And from there, the would eventually grow PC classes. It looked like it was pretty epic win.

[Draz74]

I checked ye olde 3.0 DMG and there are indeed Apprentice (read: 0th) level characters.

No, apprentice rules aren't for 0th-level characters. Apprentice rules are for Level 1 characters who are already multiclassing.

0th-level characters (that the OP has heard of) are a 2E rule. Old school, yo.

[Yora]

Just make them lvl 1 commoners in the start and then at some point let them replace that level with a PC class level. There can actually be no lvl 0 character because you would have no HP because you need a level to even get con bonus.

I'd do exactly that.

[Zovc]

You could always have them play as Level 1 Commoners, but consider them "Level 0 [race] Commoners," that way they keep some benefits for adventuring as commoners--but not forcing them to be "epic at level 20."

[sofawall]

The DMG has rules for it. Only for the core classes of course but with those rules you could wing the others.

I've GMed a zero level... (it was there comming of age ceramony, in a small tribe in the winterlands).

Lots of fun. I had a barbarian, ranger, sorcerer, warlock(i think).

Hp is just there con modifier. If its 0 or negative it defaults to 1.

Made them really think when they came across a wolf or a badger who could one shot them.

But, with 0 HD, 0*con=0. They should have had 0 hp.

[FMArthur]

I am particularly fond of starting with 3 commoner levels and then each level beyond that is in a real class that replaces a level of commoner. I use it in my games partially because I like the zero-to-hero concept and because first level characters are far too squishy for my tastes.

[Johel]

According to D20 Modern :

Child (1–11)
-3 Strenght
-3 Constitution
-1 Dexterity
-1 Intelligence
-1 Wisdom
-1 Charisma

According to d20 SRD :

Medium creature who become Small
Previous abilities are affected as follow :
+1 AC
+1 Attack bonus
+4 Hide check
-4 Grapple check
-4 Strength
+2 Dexterity
-2 Constitution

My opinion :

Children :
No skill (age)
No feat (age)
HD : 1d1+Con (age and no class)
+1 AC (size)
+1 Attack bonus (size)
+4 Hide check (size)
-4 Grapple check (size)
-4 Strength (size)
+2 Dexterity (size)
-2 Constitution (size)
-1 Intelligence (age)
-1 Wisdom (age)
-1 Charisma (age)

Once they hit 15, negate the "age" malus.
They either pick a class or become "random" humanoïds for hp, skills and feat.
Negate the "size" malus after they choose a class.

[Knaight]

Yeah, cats and rats shouldn't be able to do that much harm alone, at least not immediately.

[Ravens_cry]

But, with 0 HD, 0*con=0. They should have had 0 hp.

Here's another zero, rule zero. We are already changing the rules to make this work so giving the players hit points is no biggie. If you want to stay within spitting distance though, do what they with zero level spells for cost as magic items, zero counts as half. A zero level barbarian, for example, gets 6 hit points, plus half the con modifier. There, done.

[Mordokai]

No, apprentice rules aren't for 0th-level characters. Apprentice rules are for Level 1 characters who are already multiclassing.

0th-level characters (that the OP has heard of) are a 2E rule. Old school, yo.

Really? Ho boy, didn't figure it would be that old...

Johel, like your ideas, some very neat stuff there. This will come in handy, should I need to include any combat encounters after all.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I had a vaguely defined idea for "trainee" classes. They have a limited progression (say, three levels) and when they reach the highest level that becomes level one of whatever class it is. So a trainee wizard might look like this:

Trainee Wizard
{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|0lvl Spells|1lvl Spells

1st|

+0

|

+0

|

+0

|

+1

|1

2nd|

+0

|

+0

|

+0

|

+1

|2

3rd|

+0

|

+0

|

+0

|

+2

|3|1[/table]

It was intended to be for NPCs who were still studying, but it could fit something like you describe.

[Cieyrin]

I had a vaguely defined idea for "trainee" classes. They have a limited progression (say, three levels) and when they reach the highest level that becomes level one of whatever class it is. So a trainee wizard might look like this:

Trainee Wizard
{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|0lvl Spells|1lvl Spells

1st|

+0

|

+0

|

+0

|

+1

|1

2nd|

+0

|

+0

|

+0

|

+1

|2

3rd|

+0

|

+0

|

+0

|

+2

|3|1[/table]

It was intended to be for NPCs who were still studying, but it could fit something like you describe.

They seem more like 1/3 level characters to me, rather than 1/2. I don't know whether I'd want to play one, since he seems rather weak to me.