Weaker 1st level characters

[DEFCON 1]

Or you could just wait for about 2 weeks after the game is released and then come here onto ENWorld and find a probable "5E House Rules" forum... and find probably two or three "Play Level Zero PCs" threads that will gotten created by people for rules on how to play those kinds of characters.

 

[ferratus]

What the OP is describing (removing a few spell slots but not HP) are a grand old tradition in the game going back to 1e. They are 0-level characters, and sometimes it is fun to start with characters that are apprentices to their class, or haven't decided what their class is yet.

 

[KidSnide]

The power level of first level characters should be based on the designer's opinion on the right place to start new players, not the weakest characters experienced players might want to play. WotC should provide a level-0 module for experienced players wanting to start from "completely untrained."

Personally, I think the BECMI / AD&D 1st-level characters are too weak for a good default starting power level, so I think D&DN is heading in the right direction. Right now, D&DN seems to be targeting the 3.x starting power level. That's still a little weak for my personal taste (my groups started 3.x games at level 3), but seems like the right ballpark for a default.

Complexity also seems about right to me. Characters get more abilities than in 3.x, but Backgrounds and Specialties make character creation easier for new players. I ran two playtests with intelligent adult players who had played D&D before but couldn't remember which edition (2e or 3e), and it seemed like about the right complexity for them. I worry that it will be a little much for brand new players, but I think it would be easy to create a "new basic" red box with even simpler characters (e.g. no backgrounds/specialties, combat superiority is always deadly strike, etc...).

-KS

 

[tuxgeo]

Not really.
< snip >
I doubt however that the desigers would do something like that, it's too late already from a design point of view. So at this stage the best they could do is add a "0th-level" option, it shouldn't take more than a page or even less. It was done before in 3.0 and it was ok, although it gives quite a small window for such playing style.

There was also a "0th-level" option for 4th Edition; it appeared in the (online) Dragon magazine, and was written by Phil ("Chatty DM") Menard, complemented by a "0th-level" adventure in Dungeon by the same author.

 

[nightwalker450]

I worry that it will be a little much for brand new players, but I think it would be easy to create a "new basic" red box with even simpler characters (e.g. no backgrounds/specialties, combat superiority is always deadly strike, etc...).

-KS

I'd rather not see a red box with different creation rules. I'd prefer it to be built more as a choose your own pregen. It just makes it more difficult to transition them into the players, and it also makes the beginner set a pointless buy for anyone who plans on getting into the full game.

I could see reduced rules for some things, for example opportunity attacks, rolling hit points (just take the avg number), etc...

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If only they came out with a "modular" edition, so that options like this could be non-standard and yet readily accessible in the core rulebooks...

I feel like zero-level characters are dead simple in 5e: everyone gets a race and background. You could use that to represent the first step on the path from village priest (or library-bound sage, or bumbling peasant, or whatever) to hardened adventurer.

If the goal is mechanical, and you want old school, extra-dangerous dungeon crawls at low level, I'd just take away wizard cantrips, cleric orisons and domains (except for armor profs), fighter CS, and 1d6 of the rogue's Sneak Attack, along with Skill Mastery.

 

[howandwhy99]

As a way of being more inclusive of different play styles I would like to see the power level of this play test's 1st level characters get moved to level 3 (except for hp) and make the first couple levels more old school (I.e. wizards and clerics get 1 spell at first, no CS for fighters until 3rd, only 1d6 sneak attack damage at 1st and 2nd levels, etc.).

I would personally start my games at 3rd level (or higher), but I am willing to give up 1st and 2nd levels in the spirit of inclusion.

That's a wonderful position to take, but I think the majority of gamers will prefer, like you, for level 1 to be something more historically balanced to a level 3.

And that's okay. With the flatter math it probably shouldn't be too difficult to have 0-level "levels" as an option for those who wish to start with less complexity early on and work up to the multitude of options later.

In other words, I think an old school, earlier-levels module would work just as well.

I've been of the mind that LEVEL 1 = Starting Level for D&D for some time now. But then I start every character at the same level, PC or NPC, late in the campaign or just starting.