0 Level Characters

[Tony Vargas]

The 5e take on "Apprentice Tier" is a different theory altogether, and one more in keeping with DarkSun or 4e paradigms. 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.

That's funny. I in 4e, the paradigm was very much that your character starts already a hero at 1st level, class concepts were even 'realized' at 1st to a greater degree than in most prior eds. (In 4e Dark Sun, they even added Themes to make 1st level characters that much more capable.) The complaint I remember hearing time and again was that 1st level 4e characters had too much, too many abilities, too many hps, too fully realized, and that the "Traditional D&D paradigm" was 'zero to hero,' which is exactly what 5e is shooting for with apprentice tier and very fragile, falling-short-of-concept 1st-level characters. IIRC, Mearls came out and said as much late in the playtest.

Basically it says, "Until you are 3rd level, you aren't yet 1st level."

I agree it's a little weird to have 1st=3rd (or even 5th), but, OTOH, starting at -2nd level would've been a little weird, too. I suppose they could've started each tier at 1st. Apprentice 1-4, then pick up at 1st again.

 

[Celebrim]

That's funny. I in 4e, the paradigm was very much that your character starts already a hero at 1st level, class concepts were even 'realized' at 1st to a greater degree than in most prior eds.

4e implemented this by making 1st level PCs effectively a 3HD creature. This opened up additional space beneath the 1st level character for things of much less capability. In 1e for example, a 1st level PC might well have just 1 h.p. There is no room beneath that for things that are less fragile, so it becomes very difficult to distinguish between say a man, a mouse, and a wasp. 4e doesn't have that problem, as it would be easy to come up with stats that distinguished the three. I wasn't a fan of 4e, but I admit that this was one area that influenced my thinking, although my implementation is considerably different.

The complaint I remember hearing time and again was that 1st level 4e characters had too much, too many abilities, too many hps, too fully realized, and that the "Traditional D&D paradigm" was 'zero to hero,' which is exactly what 5e is shooting for with apprentice tier and very fragile, falling-short-of-concept 1st-level characters. IIRC, Mearls came out and said as much late in the playtest.

Well, yes, I also support the 'zero to hero' concept, though as I said I think that in practice there was always at least some room below 1st level for less heroic characters than the PC's.

I don't agree however at in any edition, 1st level characters are falling short of concept. That viewpoint in my opinion comes out of players coming from video games - in Path of Exile (I'm currently playing) you might well say that your concept is, "Lays down totems that shoot ice at someone" and then be able to note that such a concept was not playable until a considerable amount of time and resources were spent. But it really has no place in my opinion in PnP games which aren't about mechanical builds. In D&D, all PC's begin with a base concept of, "I'm at the beginning of my career." Your concept is always forestoried, and not backstoried, and is set not by what is possible within the game rules, but by what is provided within the narrative. You may, on behalf of your PC, have the goal of being something great and powerful, but that's not your concept.

Other PnP games allow for midcareer concepts or even promote it as normal. Indeed, D&D could always support a midcareer concept by introducing a character of higher level with many adventures and life experiences behind him. In the Dragon Lance modules, this explicitly is true if you use the stock characters. But to expect a 1st level character to have his career behind him is strange, and to my thinking isn't part of D&D's core story of play.




I agree it's a little weird to have 1st=3rd (or even 5th), but, OTOH, starting at -2nd level would've been a little weird, too. I suppose they could've started each tier at 1st. Apprentice 1-4, then pick up at 1st again.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

4e implemented this by making 1st level PCs effectively a 3HD creature. This opened up additional space beneath the 1st level character for things of much less capability. In 1e for example, a 1st level PC might well have just 1 h.p. There is no room beneath that for things that are less fragile, so it becomes very difficult to distinguish between say a man, a mouse, and a wasp. 4e doesn't have that problem, as it would be easy to come up with stats that distinguished the three. I wasn't a fan of 4e, but I admit that this was one area that influenced my thinking, although my implementation is considerably different.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. In 5e, 1st level is really 3rd level, because when your character sheet says 3rd, you're finally at a level of competence or concept-realization or whatever that's appropriate for 1st level? But, in 4e, first level is really 3rd, because, when your sheet says 1st, you're already at a level of competence or concept-realizatoin or whatever that's appropriate at 1st level, but 'have 3 HD,' even though the game has no HD, and 1st level PC hps aren't as high as monsters that traditionally had 3HD?

And, regardless of whether 1st is really 1st, or 3rd, or -2nd, you want a 0 level - or possibly several 0 levels?

 

[Gansk]

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?

You could give them five action points each (to make it more DCC, add Cha mod, either positive or negative, and call them Luck points, to simulate a Luck stat) and let them spend a point to use a 1st level class feature. Spells should be limited to cantrips. Once they spend the point, they are committed to the class (or classes) that is capable of performing that feature at 1st level.

 

[Celebrim]

In 5e, 1st level is really 3rd level, because when your character sheet says 3rd, you're finally at a level of competence or concept-realization or whatever that's appropriate for 1st level?

No, in 5e because of this concept of 'apprentice tier' 3rd level is really 1st level. The expectation is that some people will want to start at third level so as to skip the 'apprentice' phase of the game where you are (as it were) zeroes stereotypically bashing rats in cellars (not that this usually happens in PnP). Thus, 5e says that levels 1 and 2 correspond conceptually to level 0 in earlier editions.

In 4e this was actually mechanically implemented, by making 1e level characters have triple the normal hit points (effectively 3HD) and numerous powers and abilities (compared to earlier editions). Instead of making 3rd level conceptually 1st level, 4e made 1st level conceptually 3rd level but the two work out much the same.

In 2e Dark Sun, you just started play at 3rd level because Dark Sun.

In 4e, because PCs started at 1st level with triple hit points, there was potentially a new dynamic available. If you have a 1st level wizard with say 12 hit points, rather than say 2 hit points, there is a lot more room available to differentiate small creatures. Compare 4e to the problem of 1e-3e. In 1e-3e, a farmer, a cat, a mouse and a wasp all have basically the same hit points. There is only so finely you can divide a single HD before everything ends up with 1 hit point. But you can easily divide 12 into usable smaller chunks. So a 1st level wizard might have 12 hit points, a housecat 6, a mouse 3, and a wasp 1. That might not yet be remotely realistic, but its easier to deal with than the farmer, the cat, the mouse, and the wasp all having 1 h.p.

And, regardless of whether 1st is really 1st, or 3rd, or -2nd, you want a 0 level - or possibly several 0 levels?

Yes. Even though I prefer starting PC's at 1st level (a real 1st level, not a pseudo first level as in 4e), I believe that there ought to be sufficient space below a starting PC for things less competent than a PC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, so exactly the opposite is also the same. I get it. No, really, I see it now.

I think, in the case of 5e, since 3rd level is the point at which you choose archetypes for most classes, it's the earliest you've realized that basic concept. Apprentice tier is literally apprentices, so it /is/ the one '0' level idea - but, between max hps at 1st level and Backgrounds you have room to slide in the other 0-level idea, the per-apprentice or commoner.

 

[was]

We used to just give players a free npc level to represent their backgrounds.