0 Level Characters

[TheRustyOne]

Ok, I'm a big fan of 5th edition, and of Goodman Games "Dungeon Crawl Classics". I love the 0-level funnel. I've been looking at replicating this with 5th, and I think it can be done with just a few steps.
First, a starting character is race + stats + backround. For this thought experiment I rolled some characters the hard way, 3d6 in order, then chose race and backround. I figure for 0 level, characters get a 1d4 hit die, plus their Con bonus, and a +1 Proficiency bonus for anything they are proficient with (skills, tools, weapons, etc.)
I'm not sure about how many Xp to first level. My first thought is 100xp, but that needs some playtesting.
Also, I was going to reward players for making first level by letting them adjust stats. The standard array gives a player a total of +5 stat bonus. So I figure I would let a first level character adjust stats until their stats hit a total of +5 bonus. If you rolled well and got higher than that, then thats your own reward.
I fully realize this style of play is not for everyone, but mechanically, I think it's sound. That extra 1d4+con bonus hit points I dont think will overbalance level 1.
A great 3rd edition module to try this with is Goodman Games' DCC#0 "Legends are Made, Not Born." It's built around 3rd edition NPC classes instead of PC classes, and there are several hooks in the adventure to turn someone into a Cleric, Wizard, etc.
One thing I was thinking of was giving players a chance, I just don't know how much, to try to use any given class feature, and keeping track of attempts and successes to determine what first level classes they could go into. But a) that seems like a lot of bookkeeping, and b) I don't know what would be a chance that would be worth bothering with that isn't overpowered, and c) how do I explain that you lose that at first level? (I was thinking of calling that mechanic 'untapped potential'. My first thought is you need to pass a DC 10 test with disadvantage to use any classes first level class ability.)
Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Li Shenron]

First, a starting character is race + stats + backround.

...

I figure for 0 level, characters get a 1d4 hit die, plus their Con bonus, and a +1 Proficiency bonus for anything they are proficient with (skills, tools, weapons, etc.)

Sounds like a fine way to represent 0-lv PCs to me! Probably I would have done this slightly differently: already having +2 proficiency bonus (as 1st lv PCs) and defaulting to the smallest set of weapon proficiencies by class (i.e. the Wizard's).

Of course you need to be very careful in designing an EASY adventure, because without class features, these PCs can only do ability(skill) checks, and have very few HP.

For the XP to next level, I wouldn't even count them, and just run one intro adventure during which (or at the end of which) the PCs bump into the opportunity to start training in their class, then when ready to move to 1st level, I'd just level them up.

 

[AverageCitizen]

...characters get a 1d4 hit die, plus their Con bonus, and a +1 Proficiency bonus for anything they are proficient with (skills, tools, weapons, etc.)

I'd think you could go with 1d6 HP, right? Surely wizards are as incompetent as it gets in this area? And I would suggest a +2 to proficiency, just because most of that comes from background and race anyway, which is something they are supposed to have. It makes elves and dwarves more martial than most races at lvl 0, but I think that fits in well with the theme.

That extra 1d4+con bonus hit points I dont think will overbalance level 1.

Ok, I see where you are going. Yeah I don't think its a big deal, but I would just go with 6+con mod at lvl 0 and then bump that to normal level 1 hp when they get there.

One thing I was thinking of was giving players a chance, I just don't know how much, to try to use any given class feature, and keeping track of attempts and successes to determine what first level classes they could go into. But a) that seems like a lot of bookkeeping, and b) I don't know what would be a chance that would be worth bothering with that isn't overpowered, and c) how do I explain that you lose that at first level? (I was thinking of calling that mechanic 'untapped potential'. My first thought is you need to pass a DC 10 test with disadvantage to use any classes first level class ability.)

For this, maybe you could do it for them, if appropriate? If they are about to "snap" into dragon sorcery or be called by the gods as a paladin or cleric, or something like that, I think it would be appropriate for you to give them a bonus action at some point during level 0 where they could use a class feature. Just to hint at things to come. Maybe you could give something similar to the martial classes on a crit, like, an up and coming rogue gets to add sneak attack damage to crits. I dunno. Something like that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Another thing to consider, is to have non-combat adventures at this stage.

Only social interaction, investigation, exploration, and wide use of skills.

If there's combat at some point, make it non-lethal (e.g. enemies just want to escape, or capture the PCs).

 

[Redthistle]

On leveling up from 0th to 1st level ...

First, a starting character is race + stats + backround. For this thought experiment I rolled some characters the hard way, 3d6 in order, then chose race and backround. I figure for 0 level, characters get a 1d4 hit die, plus their Con bonus, and a +1 Proficiency bonus for anything they are proficient with (skills, tools, weapons, etc.) That extra 1d4+con bonus hit points I dont think will overbalance level 1.

Over-all, I like this, and I've always liked the idea of starting out player characters at 0-level. Two notions I have about advancing the PCs to 1st level: Since you're going with only 3d6 for the initial Ability scores, perhaps the players could roll an additional d6 for each ability when they level up. They would need to have kept track of their original dice rolls and declare which Ability they are rolling for with the additional d6. If the new die roll is better than the lowest die from the original score for the stated Ability, they can swap in the newer die result. This new Ability score would then be equivalent to character creation at 1st Level using the 4d6-discard-lowest-die method. As to your concern about whether or not the 0-level 1d4 HP may overbalance the PC's relative HP total, I would suggest that the player simply disregard the 0-level hit points and use the 1st-level class full hit die plus Con mod to keep things aligned with the 5th edition rules. Thank you for coming up with this so early in the new edition release process.

 

[MortalPlague]

Another thing to consider, is to have non-combat adventures at this stage.

Only social interaction, investigation, exploration, and wide use of skills.

If there's combat at some point, make it non-lethal (e.g. enemies just want to escape, or capture the PCs).

I think the point of this exercise, if it's being run like Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is to hand each player three or four characters and see who survives the gauntlet.

I haven't done this, but from others who have, the fun is trying to keep the character with the best stats alive while using the others as risk-takers, and more often than not, having that process backfire (the risk-takers live while the protected PCs get killed).

Of course, if this is a more D&D-esque 0th level game, with each player running a single character, then your suggestions are a good idea.

 

[umarsahb]

[TABLE="width: 64"][TR] [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]1. solitairecardgame.org[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[Celebrim]

There are two basic theories on zero level characters.

The first might be described as the 'commoner' theory, where a zero level character is as bad at everything as the worst of every PC class. In this way, regardless of what the commoner decided to do with his life, he'll never get worse.

The second might be described as the 'apprentice' theory. In this view, the 0 level character has already chosen a life path and his now studying his chosen profession, but his level of study is not yet complete so he is not as competent as he would be if he was 1st level.

But theories are valid, and indeed both theories are not incompatible. You could assume if you like that the standard progression is:

0th level commoner -> 0th level apprentice X -> 1st level X

 

[Tony Vargas]

the 'apprentice' theory. In this view, the 0 level character has already chosen a life path and his now studying his chosen profession, but his level of study is not yet complete so he is not as competent as he would be if he was 1st level.

5e has a whole 'Apprentice Tier' dedicated to that.

the 'commoner' theory, where a zero level character is as bad at everything as the worst of every PC class. In this way, regardless of what the commoner decided to do with his life, he'll never get worse.

That wouldn't be too hard to work up if you wanted a 0 level. d6 HD, no armor or tool proficiencies, only weapons all classes are automatically proficient in. Presumably a Background would still be OK, so you'd get some skills and/or tool proficiencies from it.

You could reduce the proficiency bonus to +1 if you wanted.

 

[Celebrim]

5e has a whole 'Apprentice Tier' dedicated to that.

The 5e take on "Apprentice Tier" is a different theory altogether, and one more in keeping with DarkSun or 4e paradigms. Basically it says, "Until you are 3rd level, you aren't yet 1st level." This theory is at odds with the usual and more traditional D&D paradigm, that a 1st level character is fully heroic and capable - and indeed probably more capable than average.

I personally feel that 0th level is a valid concept and I frequently use it for children in my games. I've considered sometime running an "IT" style game where the first part of the adventure was the adventures of the characters as children, the 12 year old 0th level versions of their characters as literal apprentices, and the second half of the adventure was set 6 years later with the characters as young adults dealing with the fallout of their adventures as children. In particular, I've thought about using a low CR monster as a main antagonist, that has invisibility to adults - and thus is relatively speaking much more dangerous to adults than children, so that after leveling up, things are now worse.