Zero-level Adventuring

[plisnithus8]

I really enjoy zero-level adventuring because of the vulnerability of the PCs.
It’s different than a low-magic campaign because there is magic, sometimes high-level magic, but it’s not something players have access to.
They hardly have any resources and are constantly out-gunned.
This forces them to make decisions besides “Let’s attack!” including fleeing, using ingenuity, and other role-playing resources.
Resources such as NPC contacts, equipment, strategy and group tactics, and money become interesting, not overshadowed by weapons, spells, and other powerful features.

For an example: There’s a tollbooth in the road ahead. Fibinazi decides the party needs its gold to purchase horses in the next town so sneaks around to the back of the booth where a guard rests in a a hammock.
Unfortunately, Fib sucks at stealth and his dagger and lack of armor are no match for the two guards. He is sentenced to working in the nearby mine.

I usually start 0-level characters with only a race and a background. They get no class. They have no proficiency bonus or equipment (including weapons and gold) beyond those given in race or background.
Hit points are 1d4 + con mod.
I like to keep characters in this state for a while and then use miles-stone leveling at some point, probably when they find mentors to teach them a class.

1. How do you start a zero-level campaign?
2. How does your no-level campaign run?
3. How do characters get to 1st level?
4. What are the pros, cons, and/or caveats?

 

[Blue]

In an edition like 4e, where 1st level characters are already heroic, the idea of 0th level character can really shine. However in 5e, many of the concepts of 0th level have already been incorporated into the first two levels. It's not until level 3 where you really even fully have your class, and you're not of heroic stature until level 5. Even the description of the first tier (levels 1-4) is "apprentice adventurers" (PHB pg 15).

In other words, I think the concept of 0th level character can be a great fit depending on the experience you want to project, but that it's redundant in 5e because it's already be factored in to some degree.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your poll doesn’t have an option for those who like it. Either hate it, or never heard of it.

As for how I handle it, I handle it this way:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/142824/Rise-of-Heroes

One of the big advantages is that you can start playing with your group without committing fully to a class. There have been several times over the years when you start playing, and wish you played a different class based on group dynamic or how the adventure is falling into place. 0 level characters gives that opportunity.

That, and playing a PC that doesn’t already have super powers can be fun.

 

[guachi]

Check out adventure N4 Treasure Hunt, a zero level adventure for 1e, for some ideas.

Good adventure.

 

[Oofta]

I've done 0th level characters for campaigns because I wanted to start out the adventurers when they were kids. Yes, that meant that the biggest threat they faced were neighborhood bullies and a junkyard dog. They weren't heroes yet, but it was kind of like an extension of a session 0 where we were establishing characters and what they would be.

Which doesn't mean there couldn't be monsters, just that the monsters were something off-screen or something to flee from. Then again, they weren't delving into dungeons they were stealing - sorry "procuring" - apples from crotchety old man Wilson's yard.

So heavy on the RP, setting tone and style of the campaign. Figuring out bonds between the people, finding out what their home turf is like. People tend to ignore kids, so overhearing conversations that are foreshadowing for future events and so on.

Mechanically the kids stats are maxed out at 12, they don't have magic and nothing more than padded armor (heavy jackets). Knives and slingshots for weapons. How long it lasts (or if I do fractional levels because they're in adventuring school) depends on the theme of the campaign.

I can see why something like that isn't for everyone, but many people tell me later it was one of the favorite parts of the campaign.

 

[plisnithus8]

Sorry, I made the poll on my phone with 6 poll choices.
I’m not sure why only 2 showed up, don’t see how to fix it (help?).

The other options were:
3. Meh
4. I’d like to try it.
5. It’s fun.
6. I like it so much I never use classes/levels.

 

[Grognerd]

In an edition like 4e, where 1st level characters are already heroic, the idea of 0th level character can really shine. However in 5e, many of the concepts of 0th level have already been incorporated into the first two levels. It's not until level 3 where you really even fully have your class, and you're not of heroic stature until level 5. Even the description of the first tier (levels 1-4) is "apprentice adventurers" (PHB pg 15).

In other words, I think the concept of 0th level character can be a great fit depending on the experience you want to project, but that it's redundant in 5e because it's already be factored in to some degree.

I've seen comments similar to this repeatedly in this forum when 0-level adventures come up, and it consistently boggles my mind. To my knowledge, the first official 0-level adventure was Treasure Hunt (mentioned above). That was for 1st edition AD&D! A first level 5e character is monumentally more powerful than a 1st level 1e character. So if a 0-level adventure was viable for 1e, then it's certainly viable for 5e.

 

[Blue]

I've seen comments similar to this repeatedly in this forum when 0-level adventures come up, and it consistently boggles my mind. To my knowledge, the first official 0-level adventure was Treasure Hunt (mentioned above). That was for 1st edition AD&D! A first level 5e character is monumentally more powerful than a 1st level 1e character. So if a 0-level adventure was viable for 1e, then it's certainly viable for 5e.

Just because something was around for an earlier edition does not mean that it automatically is a good fit for later editions. Trying to use the comparison between 4th and 5e is not the same as between AD&D 1st and 5e.

The leveling schema between AD&D (1st) and 5e is completely different. AD&D basically topped off at "name level", around 9th. After tat you didn't eveb get more HD or anything like that, and the XP needed basically doubled leading to very slow levelling. With only about 9 level of varied play, adding in a 10th gradation so you went from 0 to 9 worked. In the 1-20 level schema of 5e where advancement slows a bit but not a lot, that's not the case. All 20 levels are available.

All of that said, I do soften my comment some. 1st level 5e characters are apprentices - they don't have full class until usually 3rd when they pick up their subclass. Levels 1-4 are the apprentice tier. If you want to play pre-teens who have not even started shaping towards a career then I could see 0th level.

Considering how 5e goes out of it's way not to have 1st level characters be too fragile because that was something that wasn't liked by the general gaming populous, you need to tailor this directly to your table and be careful about challenges that exercise other methods to overcoming besides lethal combat.

 

[Grognerd]

Just because something was around for an earlier edition does not mean that it automatically is a good fit for later editions. Trying to use the comparison between 4th and 5e is not the same as between AD&D 1st and 5e.

The leveling schema between AD&D (1st) and 5e is completely different. AD&D basically topped off at "name level", around 9th. After tat you didn't eveb get more HD or anything like that, and the XP needed basically doubled leading to very slow levelling. With only about 9 level of varied play, adding in a 10th gradation so you went from 0 to 9 worked. In the 1-20 level schema of 5e where advancement slows a bit but not a lot, that's not the case. All 20 levels are available.

I'm well aware of all of this. But that doesn't change my point at all. The question is not about leveling, or even about scale. It is about survivability. And the reality is that in 1e first level characters were exceedingly more fragile than first level 5e characters are. Even accepting the differences in the game systems, that does not change. So my point that zero level adventures were viable in 1e is absolutely valid to the current discussion. If fragile 1e characters could go through a zero level adventure, then the far more robust 5e characters could do the same.

1st level 5e characters are apprentices - they don't have full class until usually 3rd when they pick up their subclass. Levels 1-4 are the apprentice tier.

You keep mentioning this point. yes, the characters are "apprentice adventurers". However, you seem to be taking this to indicate that the characters are completely ignorant as to the aspects of their class. That is not the case, nor is that the way it is presented as written, and it is certainly not consistent with what most of us who have been playing D & D for decades would say. A first-level "apprentice" character is still a trained individual, with competency. The idea of them moving beyond an apprentice stage at higher levels suggests an independence and a coming into their own, rather than them finally becoming simply reasonably confident. To use an analogy, one might look at Star Wars episode 1. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a mere Padawan since he had not taken his trials; however, if you look at his progress in the movie he is obviously competent in his trade despite being a "mere" apprentice.

Considering how 5e goes out of it's way not to have 1st level characters be too fragile because that was something that wasn't liked by the general gaming populous, you need to tailor this directly to your table and be careful about challenges that exercise other methods to overcoming besides lethal combat.

Now this I can completely agree with. I for one greatly appreciate the increased survivability, durability, and competency of a first level 5e character. That said, if the group desires a zero level game, it is a completely viable endeavor in 5e. That has been my only point the entire time. The constant claims that 5e characters are too weak or incompetent to have zero level adventures, simply doesn't bear up.

Also, I feel it should be said, that I am not suggesting you have said or hinted at all of these things. As noted in my original post on this thread, I've seen others do the same. I'm just elaborating on it here, and responded to your post since it was the first in this thread to go in this direction.

 

[plisnithus8]

1st level 5e characters are apprentices - they don't have full class until usually 3rd when they pick up their subclass. Levels 1-4 are the apprentice tier. If you want to play pre-teens who have not even started shaping towards a career then I could see 0th level.

Considering how 5e goes out of it's way not to have 1st level characters be too fragile because that was something that wasn't liked by the general gaming populous, you need to tailor this directly to your table and be careful about challenges that exercise other methods to overcoming besides lethal combat.

I don't think you'd have to be younger than 13 before you start taking a class (and that seems to ignore the various lifespans of races.), especially since 5e uses backgrounds such as Gladiator or Pirate. If those are your backgrounds before taking a class, you probably weren't preteen. Page126 states, "Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?" If an apprentice adventurer starts at level 1 with 0 xp, then she could have been a Mercenary Veteran.

5e is not about realism in leveling up anyway: you don't have to train to level up and learn new features.
If the general gaming populous doesn't enjoy fragile characters, no problem. Most 5e games start at 1st level or higher.
That's not what we're talking about here anyway. We're talking about people who do want to start at zero-level.
And no, you don't have to tailor your game to non-lethal threats. You can still play a sandbox-style campaign with zero-level.
Players will have to do more investigation to avoid fights, find support from more allies, or flee.