Failed 1st level classes?

[JayBrickwall]

In creating a character of a higher level (i.e. not starting out at 1st) would there be any variants for showing a dead-ended career path?

In my particular instance, I am creating a dual-caster/MyTh type character, and as part of the backstory I have him being a 1st level monk, albeit one who didn't have a high aptitude for the monk-ly life. I would like to work the "I was an ascetic-style monk" into the character, but I don't see this character being ABLE to pull off Flurry of Blows, or having Improved Grapple, etc.

I guess (as weird as it may sound in this era of "gimme gimme gimme") what I am asking is... is there any GOOD way to "waste" a level, in order to make a better character?

I was thinking about using slome PHB II/DMG II/UA traits and flaws... and making him unhealthy, "murky eyed", etc to help explain WHY he changed careers, but I think the one level of monk would be a fun roleplaying oppurtunity... any OTHER crunch I could use to justify this fluff?

 

[Slapzilla]

Never justify a neat role playing idea in this era of "gimme gimme gimme".

The Paladin who was always late to prayers 'cause he was hungover.

The Druid in her fancy new mithril chain shirt.

The Barbarian who learned to read and went to college.

The orphan left at the monastery as an infant who had the daydreamy wanderlust growing up.

The agnostic Cleric.

A good idea is never a waste.

 

[JayBrickwall]

I agree, Slap

I just wondered if there was some way to "work with" or "massage" that 1st level class to show that it was a "failed class" but still keep the flavor of the class?

And this question is for any class... much like the classes that have the "ex-such and such" section at the ends of them in the PHB. Maybe there could be a "failed career" option should you take a class at first level, and then deviate away from it and never return?

 

[Arkhandus]

Put in a level of Expert or Adept, or Cloistered Cleric.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Pick the class you want to play, and the background you want to work with. Arrange skills and goals accordingly. No need to add in uselessness to your build for story purposes. It seems like it's just doing the opposite of what people in my games want to do. They go for survivability at first level, and take things like Barbarian1/ WizardXX.

I say the class(es) don't matter, just be a contributing part of the party.

 

[Nifft]

Agreed. I don't see the need to waste a whole level just to show a lack of aptitude.

Play a Rogue. Take Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword). There, now you're a "failed" knight who can't take a punch, hates heavy armor, and prefers to stab people in the back.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WhatGravitas]

...roleplaying oppurtunity...

NPCs don't see your classes. Whether you take a "failed class" or not, it will make no in-game difference whatsoever. Except for being worse mechanically.

Or to put it in another way:

You successful experiences (in form of XP) make your character (in form of classes). If you've tried an ascetic life, but never really grokked being a monk (flurries and so on), they you never "got the XP" to even reach 1st level - it's just your background.

Or an example:

Whether I'm playing a wizard 3 with craft (basketweaver) or a expert 1/wizard 2 with craft (basketweaver), people will NOT look at my character and say "you're not a real basketweaver, because you have no levels in expert". Replace basketweaver by any other class/background.

To be more specific: Your failed monk - if he has now levels in monk - other people won't point at him and say "you've never been a monk because we don't see monk levels". They'll just note it and be finished.

It's not even about "gimme gimme gimme" - if you're wasting a level, your character becomes weaker than the rest of the party, and hence a liability for the rest of the group. And the DM has to adjust his stuff, because a member of the group is weaker. Don't do that, if possible.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JayBrickwall]

To the responders...

Thanks, I see your points. In the brainstorming-EN-houserules-forum sort of way, I just thought maybe there would be a call for some sort of mechanic that could represent those "odd" 1st level character choices, instead of a roundabout roleplaying fiction. Just a thought.

I'll keep working... basically, for my individual needs, I wanted the "failed monk" flavor, because my DM is allowing us (well, me) to try the Vow of Poverty from BoED. The "ascetic"ness was to be a big part of his character, Eschew Materials for his casting, etc, etc.

For now, I'll just take the level of monk... and continue working with my DM to figure out how to handle the "story" side of things.

Thanks for all your input!

 

[Plane Sailing]

You may got everything well decided by now, but my suggestions would be

a) best solution, since he started as a monk but flunked out and can't do any monk stuff, is that it is just part of his backstory (and spend some of the initial skill points in a couple of monk-flavoured skills - at 1st level with a high Int you'll have quite a few skill points, so you can put 1 rank in a lot of monk skills like tumble, move silently, jump, hide etc; very few in traditional wizardy skills like knowledge skills).

b) if you really want to waste a level to make the point, make his first level a level in the Expert NPC class, so you can get monk type skills without any of the salient monk abilities.

 

[Nadaka]

One option that you might take is to take the improved unarmed strike feat. It won't cost you caster level, but can represent some early martial training.

On the plus side, it isn't a total waste of a feat. You can channel a melee touch spell through an unarmed strike for a little extra damage.