0 Level Character Rules are up

[I'm A Banana]

I think "Normal" is more of how tough you are in relation to your opposition. If level 1-5 PCs start by facing elite monsters, then regular ones, then eventually earn the right to fight minions, you do some reverse-level-up that allows for the "in training" feel.

Actually, IMXP, it's more about how tough you are in relation to the people (NPC's) around you. Like any other tier, it's also about the kind of adventures you go on. Playing "normal tier" would be playing the average townsfolk caught up in magical mystical adventure, and having to use your few exceptional abilities to their greatest effect. It's not that you are more tough, more skilled, or more able than, say, the town blacksmith. You might BE the town blacksmith, without anything more heroic on you than perhaps a slightly exceptional rugged endurance. Yet it still falls to you to stop the goblins / investigate the child abductions / put off the werewolf.

The 0-level rules don't do a bad job of achieving that kind of "big danger, normal folk" vibe, but there's a lot more appeal in that vibe than one adventure can contain. Playing the kind of fairy tale normal ("I am a poor woodcutter, and I must deal with these faerie!") is fun for more than just one session.

It's especially true in light of the observation that D&D is, functionally, a 10-level game. The "big heroic heroes of the land" feel is great, but it's not what everyone is looking for out of their D&D experience, and having a big room to play in a more "Grimm's Fairy Tales" vibe would help to embrace a fantasy feel that should be more doable in D&D IMO.

I wonder if stretching the 0-level rules throughout two adventures would cover enough of the "regular joes" ground...

Some heroes are heroes because they can slay dragons and face goblin armies.

Others are heroes because they are clever, quick, tough, confident, and lucky in the face of great danger.

Maybe they go on to slay dragons and face goblin armies, but they start out just a brave little tailor swatting flies.

I'd like more than just a session or three to explore the stories my group can tell like that, myself.

 

[Scribble]

I really like the way the role mechanic is not tied to class. I want this for all levels. I want my rogue to be able to be a leader, if that's what he wants / what the party needs!

That would be pretty awesome if they came out with a "Gamma World" style book that re-did character creation in this fashion.

 

[garyh]

I see what you're saying, KM, but while more than one adventure like that might be okay, I wouldn't want to see "plucky townsfolk" take up a whole 10 level tier of play. It'd take too much focus away from more heroic play, and I don't see how you could stretch it out that long.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd really like to see something like this. I was actually thinking about this recently. A system where each class could have different builds for different roles.

One of the hardest things I have to do as a DM is look at a player who is very excited about playing a rogue or a warlock or an assassin, and be like, "Okay, you can, but we already have two strikers and a controller, so if you could be a CLERIC or a FIGHTER or something that is totally the opposite of the kind of slick cool character you envisioned for yourself, that would help you to not die."

I'd much rather be like, "Okay, you can be a Warlock."

What really appeals to me is the idea that your role can change from round to round depending on what the party needs at the moment. Taking a beating? Someone act like a Leader or a Defender for a round! Facing a solo? Everyone go nova with Strikers and Controllers! You can "be balanced" and have all four, or you can deliberately unbalance yourself in a gambit for early victory, or to change with the composition of your enemy party.

Gotta go think of how to do that....

 

[I'm A Banana]

I see what you're saying, KM, but while more than one adventure like that might be okay, I wouldn't want to see "plucky townsfolk" take up a whole 10 level tier of play. It'd take too much focus away from more heroic play, and I don't see how you could stretch it out that long.

Well, I think that D&D being effectively 10 levels means that those people who don't want to bother with that style can just start at a higher level, and never have to futz with it, if they don't want (like how many groups avoid Epic tier now). There's nothing to "stretch out." If you're into it, you play it (for as long as you want), if you're not, you don't.

 

[garyh]

Well, I think that D&D being effectively 10 levels means that those people who don't want to bother with that style can just start at a higher level, and never have to futz with it, if they don't want (like how many groups avoid Epic tier now). There's nothing to "stretch out." If you're into it, you play it (for as long as you want), if you're not, you don't.

In general, true. But that's less obvious to new players and DM's. Plus, if the new levels 1-10 are regular folks, 11-20 heroic, and 21-30 are epic, then the default rules pretty much have to emphasize starting at level 1 still, and that finds its way into each groups default assumptions and organized play official rules and the like.

What I'd really prefer is more tiers with fewer levels. 1-5 basic, 5-10 heroic, 11-15 master, 16-20 paragon, 21-25 epic, and 26-30 supreme, or something. I think 10 level tiers are too long for plot purposes, generally, and more tiers means more ways to customize each character tier, assuming each has some sort of paragon path or epic destiny sort of mechanic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Maybe getting rid of a heirarchy of tiers isn't a bad plan. The game is 10 levels, and you can play that in a "normal" mode, a "heroic" mode, an "epic" mode, or whatever.

Anyway, I think we're basically in agreement that the game could use more than an adventure or two with this kind of flavor! Everything else is basically a technicality.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I will start by testing to make sure my post doesn't get screwed up by recent glitches here on ENWorld.

Ok, now that that's out of the way...

This is an idea that I explored as a player in my wife's 4e campaign recently. She wanted to start us off as a group of kids, basically, on the cusp of competence. Kind of explore that area where you rise from zero-to-hero; coming-of-age. I guess a little like later Harry Potter kind of stuff.

We didn't use any special rules, but what we did do, was bake it all into backstory and role-playing. We were given the constraint that we must all start between 14-18 years of age (or demihuman equivalent) and that we must all play like the "green" adventurers that we were. Oh, and we all had to be childhood friends, and we all had to have some connection to one particular NPC.

Most of the group ended up around 15-16, and we all played like we were young and foolish. No lookouts or watches overnight on our "camping trips" and a poor grasp of tactics, even for those of us who were playing characters that were trained for fighting.

This ended up being a very fun group to play and has some very interesting party dynamics. The feeling of youngsters being in way over our heads was further enhanced by some excellent DMing by @Masaryk the Mad , part of which was having some high-heroic enemies working against us in the background (and sometimes foregroud!) that another party we were playing in a different game had as enemies.

Had there been something like this to work with, we might have used it, but I don't think our experience suffered for it not being available. I might have done things a little differently than WotC, personally. [MENTION=33291]Kelvor Ravenstar[/MENTION] had a good idea in this regard, which gave me some ideas about restructuring the game. His idea was that of a "half-tier" below 1st level, which I liked, and to add some symmetry, I thought it would be worth exploring if Epic tier could be collapsed into 5 levels as well.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Zero-level rules to me have always seemed to be a way to try (but ultimately fail) to attain the level of helplessness and grittiness of Warhammer Fantasy without spending the money on Warhammer Fantasy.

From 1st edition to 4th edition, 0th level characters have been at best a kludge. The system itself isn't really designed to handle it well, particularily not 4th edition which takes a core design tack differant than the game's original design.

Okay, yes, you can 'mathematically' make something 0th level by stripping powers, and reducing a couple numbers.... but isn't the -point- of zeroth level that you're playing something helpless against the world? 4th edition isn't -designed- to do that well. That's just not one of the strengths of the core system or mechanics.

There are many other systems that do this sort of roleplay experience better.

Almost everyone has to start somewhere and some people like this approach. Some people like to actually see their characters go from the normal Joe to the world saving heroes of legend.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Zero-level rules to me have always seemed to be a way to try (but ultimately fail) to attain the level of helplessness and grittiness of Warhammer Fantasy without spending the money on Warhammer Fantasy.

From 1st edition to 4th edition, 0th level characters have been at best a kludge. The system itself isn't really designed to handle it well, particularily not 4th edition which takes a core design tack differant than the game's original design.

Okay, yes, you can 'mathematically' make something 0th level by stripping powers, and reducing a couple numbers.... but isn't the -point- of zeroth level that you're playing something helpless against the world? 4th edition isn't -designed- to do that well. That's just not one of the strengths of the core system or mechanics.

There are many other systems that do this sort of roleplay experience better.

Sure, but if I want to do something like this as a run-in to a 4e campaign then I don't want another set of rules, I want something where the PCs are compatible with their 1st level selves and the mechanics feel like 4e mechanics.

I also think you're kind of selling it short. Using mostly minions as opponents with maybe a level 1 monster tossed in here or there, usually with some way the PCs can defeat it besides just making attacks, and it actually works out pretty well. The PCs start out with fairly low hit points, but not that bad, they can reliably survive a hit or two. Minions go down in one shot, and they have a decent attack bonus, so that's not a big issue.

Compare these characters to level 1 2e PCs. The comparison isn't bad. The 2e characters MAY be able to take a hit and stay up, most monsters go down in 1 or maybe 2 attacks, and a fight is pretty deadly and problematic, but usually survivable. The 4e 0 levels actually have it a bit better in some respects.