Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marnak" data-source="post: 4282416" data-attributes="member: 24886">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.</blockquote>

Verification