Proposed Apprentice (Zero) Level

[Marnak]

I am surely in the minority, but I actually liked the fact that in previous editions of Dungeons and Dragons your character was not uber-powerful at first level and had to be careful when adventuring into dungeons. Made playing a character feel brave because there was real risk of dying. I made up a quick and easy "apprentice level" for anyone who might be interested in starting off a 4e campaign with some not yet heroic tier characters. I still think the characters are more powerful than earlier editions, but they won't be going up against old edition monsters, so I think it will be plenty dangerous.

Anyone think like me that 4e characters starting out so strong is a negative for character background, etc.? Thoughts on my house rule below?

Apprentice (0) Level

Having mastered the basics of your chosen class, you set out to prove yourself a true adventurer, knowing full well the dangers that lie between the title of apprentice and the title of hero.

Racial Traits: All
Class Features: All except for hit points and healing surges, which are both 50% of what they would be at first level.
Ability Scores: Use 20 Point Buy or the Following Array: 16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10.
Trained Starting Skills: +2 instead of +5.
Feat: No choice of Feat (unless Human or from class feature).
Powers: Choose one at-will power. Choose one encounter power as a daily power.
Equipment: Spend 75gp on equipment, weapons, and armor.
Experience Points Needed for First Level: 750

 

[Grazzt]

I may try out 0 level PCs because Level 1 does seem to start way stronger than they did before (not that I'm looking for frail PCs that can be killed in a single shot mind you)...just we (me and my players) always liked the "rise to hero" stuff.

Couple of peeps were discussing this on the Necromancer boards:

http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/9542?page=8

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Question: Are you expecting your characters to survive their periods as apprentices? If not, why bother? If you do expect them to survive, why even use any rules? I would be pretty miffed if my painstakingly crafted character (the personality and background, not the numbers) was killed off by a rat in the inn's basement before he even got to start his career as an adventurer.

If you want to play through what happened to the characters to make them heroes I suggest you leave the books closed and the dice in their bag and just talk it through with the players. Nobody likes getting poisoned by a spider in the outhouse before they meet the others at the inn for their first real quest. Anyone getting killed in the prelude would just have to spend more time making a new character and keeping everyone else waiting to start the real fun.

One of my friends manages to play a distinctly unheroic character who doesn't like fighting (despite being a well-trained fighter), he prefers to run away (but will always stay behind to let the rest of the party get away first), and he's pretty much still an "apprentice". Instead of using rules to weaken his character he's simply roleplaying it out, which works much better for everyone.

 

[Pickaxe]

Question: Are you expecting your characters to survive their periods as apprentices? If not, why bother? If you do expect them to survive, why even use any rules? I would be pretty miffed if my painstakingly crafted character (the personality and background, not the numbers) was killed off by a rat in the inn's basement before he even got to start his career as an adventurer.

If you want to play through what happened to the characters to make them heroes I suggest you leave the books closed and the dice in their bag and just talk it through with the players. Nobody likes getting poisoned by a spider in the outhouse before they meet the others at the inn for their first real quest. Anyone getting killed in the prelude would just have to spend more time making a new character and keeping everyone else waiting to start the real fun.

One of my friends manages to play a distinctly unheroic character who doesn't like fighting (despite being a well-trained fighter), he prefers to run away (but will always stay behind to let the rest of the party get away first), and he's pretty much still an "apprentice". Instead of using rules to weaken his character he's simply roleplaying it out, which works much better for everyone.

i think you're missing the point.

in 3e (and to a certain extent all previous editions), first level was difficult, challenging, and dangerous. It was also the level where fairly mundane challenges meant something. A lot of people apparently didn't like having first level characters killed, so 4e made 1st level characters a lot tougher. That's fine.

Some of us, however, liked the challenging aspects of low-level play. For one thing, you didn't need uberpowerful foes for a challenge. Progression as a character felt like you were going from a bit exceptional toward being heroic, legendary, etc. Low-level play also required players to use all of the resources at hand-- not just class abilities and powers, but also their own wits and all the mundane items in the long lists of the PHB that every character is able to ignore after a few levels. One of the highest compliments I recall receiving during our 1e games was "good first level player." In fact, most of the campaigns that I've been in have petered out before 12th level, because high level play just wasn't as interesting as low-level play.

Marnak is not suggesting a level of "what happens before you start adventuring;" he is suggesting a way for the adventure to start when you still have the kind of vulnerability that characterized 3e first level characters. "Nobody likes getting killed" is not really an argument against this. if the chance of death or failure is minimal, why are you even playing?

--Axe

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

i think you're missing the point.

Perhaps. I think I get his point.

in 3e (and to a certain extent all previous editions), first level was difficult, challenging, and dangerous. It was also the level where fairly mundane challenges meant something. A lot of people apparently didn't like having first level characters killed, so 4e made 1st level characters a lot tougher. That's fine.

Yes, 4e characters are tougher from the get-go. So are the opponents. Whether a challenge is mundane or not isn't really a matter of level though, is it? I recall playing several 3.5e characters at level 1, facing undead, kobolds, goblins... are these threats mundane? They seem monstrous to me. What is mundane? The non-fantastic?

Some of us, however, liked the challenging aspects of low-level play. For one thing, you didn't need uberpowerful foes for a challenge.

I don't think 4e foes are "uberpowerful". They usually have more options than in previous editions, but so does the players. It balances out.

Progression as a character felt like you were going from a bit exceptional toward being heroic, legendary, etc. Low-level play also required players to use all of the resources at hand-- not just class abilities and powers, but also their own wits and all the mundane items in the long lists of the PHB that every character is able to ignore after a few levels. One of the highest compliments I recall receiving during our 1e games was "good first level player." In fact, most of the campaigns that I've been in have petered out before 12th level, because high level play just wasn't as interesting as low-level play.

I can't argue with that. 3.5e characters had very few options compared to 4e characters, that is true. I don't think it's necessary to remove options in order to create a challenge though, and I don't see how more options suddenly removed wits from the equation.

Marnak is not suggesting a level of "what happens before you start adventuring;" he is suggesting a way for the adventure to start when you still have the kind of vulnerability that characterized 3e first level characters. "Nobody likes getting killed" is not really an argument against this. if the chance of death or failure is minimal, why are you even playing?

--Axe

I'm not saying that death or failure should be impossible. I'm just saying that if a character can die before it even gets started, why should we bother playing? Can't we just say that we all somehow managed to survive through our apprenticeships and became accomplished fighters, wizards, clerics or whatever. The game is about the people who survived to become heroes, not about the guy who flunked out of wizard school, never learned magic missile, and got killed by a rat because of it. That might be a cool character though, if you skip the dying part.

I could go on about how nobody would want to hire adventurers who can't tie their own shoes, swing a sword or even cast cantrips. It would be a very irresponsible innkeeper who would ask a bunch of kids to clean out his rat-infested cellars. What cleric could demand that some snot-nosed children go and exorcise the animated skeletons from the old crypt? What fully grown miner would send poorly armed amateurs and novices to defeat the kobolds that have invaded his mine? I'm trying to point out how characters of the level suggested would look to the rest of the world - young, untrained, under-equipped, more dangerous to themselves than to their enemies.

Of course, if there are mundane threats to handle, the mundane npcs can handle it themselves. Extraordinary people like the PCs are supposed to deal with the extraordinary. If the PCs are mundane too then there is no demand for their services.

I would recommend roleplaying instead of rules to deal with the idea of inexperienced characters. Personally I think it's the wrong game for it entirely.

 

[Marnak]

Mr. Svanberg and I are looking for different things in our gaming experience. I am not seeking a level of clearing out rats out of the cellar but rather a level where one's resources are half what they are at first level in 4e. Half of those resources still make a character way more powerful than the average NPC. Such PCs would have between 10 and 20 hits points, one at will power, a good daily power, all their racial bonuses, basic attacks equal to first level characters, etc. They would not be challenged by clearing out the rats from a cellar or the other mundane tasks you mention. However, they would need to be considerably more careful against first level monsters and even minions than is the case with 4e first level characters. They might actually choose to use a basic attack instead of their one at will power, something that seems unlikely in the 30 levels they are about to embark on. The zero level I am suggesting as a HOUSE RULE only is supposed to be a fun level that will add real memories to later adventures. I started off the thread by saying I doubted I was in the majority. I think most folks like starting off very powerful with lots of options (and facing opponents that have the same), but there are some of us who like starting off more slowly and building up our abilities. I consider "levelling" to be one of the signature aspects of DND, and I am happy to add another level to the process, especially as I don't expect it to be deadly for tactical, experienced players. I would not suggest such a rule for new players or convention play, merely in my HOUSE game with fellow veteran players who like the same things I do.

"I don't think it's necessary to remove options in order to create a challenge though, and I don't see how more options suddenly removed wits from the equation."

You are right. More options can increase the tactical aspect of play, but this is not always the case. U.S. Grant had a lot of options in 1864 but decided that his best strategy was to smash into Lee's Army with his superior numbers to prevent it from reinforcing elsewhere. Grant was at his most creative, however, when his options were limited at Vicksburg. There he took the daring risk of invading Mississippi with tentative supply lines. Paucity of options led him to choose a path that others would not have considered. Similarly, a paucity of options for a zero level character might make them consider creative uses of mundane equipment or positioning or aid another that otherwise would never be on the table because of a multiplicity of good at will, encounter, daily, etc. options.


"I'm just saying that if a character can die before it even gets started, why should we bother playing? Can't we just say that we all somehow managed to survive through our apprenticeships and became accomplished fighters, wizards, clerics or whatever. The game is about the people who survived to become heroes, not about the guy who flunked out of wizard school, never learned magic missile, and got killed by a rat because of it. That might be a cool character though, if you skip the dying part."

Here, you totally misunderstand me, perhaps because of the word "apprentice" in the thread title. I simply want another level of play before what is level one in the Player's Handbook. I would enjoy playing and DMing that level, not because I want to kill players or because I think a character I play has a good chance to die, but because I think it would be fun and different and would give my character a fun, not completely scripted, backstory.

"I could go on about how nobody would want to hire adventurers who can't tie their own shoes, swing a sword or even cast cantrips. It would be a very irresponsible innkeeper who would ask a bunch of kids to clean out his rat-infested cellars. What cleric could demand that some snot-nosed children go and exorcise the animated skeletons from the old crypt? What fully grown miner would send poorly armed amateurs and novices to defeat the kobolds that have invaded his mine? I'm trying to point out how characters of the level suggested would look to the rest of the world - young, untrained, under-equipped, more dangerous to themselves than to their enemies."

I am not sure how what I suggested comes close to this characterization.

"I would recommend roleplaying instead of rules to deal with the idea of inexperienced characters. Personally I think it's the wrong game for it entirely."

We simply disagree here.

 

[Sphyre]

I am surely in the minority, but I actually liked the fact that in previous editions of Dungeons and Dragons your character was not uber-powerful at first level and had to be careful when adventuring into dungeons. Made playing a character feel brave because there was real risk of dying. I made up a quick and easy "apprentice level" for anyone who might be interested in starting off a 4e campaign with some not yet heroic tier characters. I still think the characters are more powerful than earlier editions, but they won't be going up against old edition monsters, so I think it will be plenty dangerous.

It may be in the minority, but having the choice of running that without requiring it (like asking if all the players would like to do that) I could see as quite a fun endeavor.

Racial Traits: All
Class Features: All except for hit points and healing surges, which are both 50% of what they would be at first level.
Ability Scores: Use 20 Point Buy or the Following Array: 16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10.
Trained Starting Skills: +2 instead of +5.
Feat: No choice of Feat (unless Human or from class feature).
Powers: Choose one at-will power. Choose one encounter power as a daily power.
Equipment: Spend 75gp on equipment, weapons, and armor.
Experience Points Needed for First Level: 750

I would think changing the powers to something different might be fun. Instead of getting to use one at-will power over and over again, they'd have to resort to using basic attacks, like previous editions.

As such. I'd be interested in seeing how this may play out:

Powers: Choose your class derived powers (2 at will, 1 encounter) Your 2 at will (or 3 if you're human) are now encounter powers. Your encounter power is now daily. Other race derived powers are not affected (such as the half-elf dilettante.)

This would bring back the "Wizard casts his one spell and is out of spells and has to use a crossbow" feeling of 3e, if that's the flavor you're looking for.

 

[mattdm]

So, having DMed my first actual 4E session, I've got to say it really did feel like playing 4th or 5th level in 3E. Meanwhile, one of the players in our group notes that the epic tier powers seem very restricted and not near godlike at all. That's not necessarily a bad thing from my point of view — I've always enjoyed levels 6-14 or so of 3/3.5E the best, and it seems like 3E basically takes those levels (maybe plus two or three on either side) and spreads them over thirty.

But I know people who really enjoy the low level stuff, and people who like the existing epic rules (at least well enough to enjoy playing 'em). This suggests to me that there's room for a 30+ "deific" tier — not necessarily as core rules or even from WotC, and maybe with a decided focus away from combat and into really epic rituals. And likewise, rather than just having a level zero, there may be room for an entire "potentials" tier — starting at an array of 11,11,10,10,10,8 and buying up from there, with no class abilities and only some of your racial ones....

 

[Marnak]

Powers: Choose your class derived powers (2 at will, 1 encounter) Your 2 at will (or 3 if you're human) are now encounter powers. Your encounter power is now daily. Other race derived powers are not affected (such as the half-elf dilettante.)

Thanks Sphyre! I do think this is an improvement over my original and will make that change.

 

[kenmarable]

Thanks for doing this! Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I'm one of the people who likes the very low level challenges for a short bit.

For example, back when I played Sunless Citadel, all I remember from it was that my dwarf monk failed his climb check and almost died, there was a dragon-keeper kobold named Meepo, and the villian was a druid (I think). The rest of the adventure was definitely fun and well run at the time, but didn't really stick with me.

The fact that my dwarf monk nearly died from a Climb check, his first roll of the entire game in fact, stuck in my memory in a fun way. It when to to define much of the character. Although he probably fails checks about as often as anyone else, his stand out more especially when they fit the "highly graceful monk with bouts of utter clumsiness" image I have for him. And that is 100% from failing that Climb check.

Yes, I could talk through all the early stuff, but I didn't get into D&D to talk through adventures.

So, really low powered characters aren't for everyone. But some of us do enjoy them, and these are some fun rules for us.

If the players are willing, I could even see having them make some check to be able to first use a power. For example, the new wizard trying to blast off a magic missile but still not getting it right (a failed attempt is a free or minor action, so they don't lose a whole standard action). Definitely not for everyone, but I know I would enjoy a couple sessions like that.