Starting at "level 0" ?


Advice


Hi

I think I read this a while ago, and thought it was an interesting idea, but I have no idea how it plays out and if it's fun.

Basically it goes like this:
Player start at -1000 XP
They only have access to the NPC classes at the start. There's also a Sage class, which is pretty much an arcane Adept.
They'd only start with average HPs for their NPC class (rounded up, PFS style). So yes, a Commoner has 4 HPs + Con mod.

Once they reach 0 XP they trade the NPC class for their real class and get max HPs. After that it continues as normal.

I dunno. It sounds interesting, but has anyone ever tried something like that? It would make the first few encounters more dangerous as they lack important abilities and have less HPs, but possibly also more memorable.

I think it might make "random people thrust into a dangerous adventure" more real, instead of when everyone just starts with a PC class already.


I've done it, i dont particularly care for it. I honestly dont even like starting at 1st level. Characters are way to fragile, and have very limited abilities. The roleplay can be interesting, but the game aspect of it becomes extremely dull. When you can do almost nothing, your solution is generally to roll a die and hope to roll high. Not my idea of fun generally.

You might want to check out the genius guide to Apprentice level characters. Basically does what you are thinking, with a 0th level character, but does it for all the core classes and the agp classes (as well as a few from the genius guides).


I've done something similar in the past. It was interesting and definitely provided a non-super hero feel to the beginning of the campaign. The success of it really depends on your players though. If your players are open to being fragile nobodies in the beginning of the campaign, it can work well and make the players appreciate their characters as they ascend the levels.

With players that want to start as heroes at level 1, it turns out poorly, as you can imagine.

Liberty's Edge

I've never understood, players get one little thing that they can control in a game world, their characters and said character's creation, why do people want to take part of that away from them?

/shrugs

Like Kolo I'm not a fan of 1st level characters.

Shadow Lodge

I think it might be interesting to start a campaign early in the character's lives[like when they are apprentices], and have 1 or 2 higher level NPC " instructors with them to help them. Might let your characters develop friendships with eachother.

Though I'd instead have them have average stats[give a stat array they can arrange, with nothing above 14 or below 8], 1/2 the base saves, +0BAB, HP as you described, and only class-granted feats for the first level, and I'd let them choose a PC class that would be their normal class [granting all class features as if their total level was 0, and eliminating minimum 1 limits]. I'd also make it a fixed number of fights as opposed to XP based, and simply have the campaign pick up a few years later after they've all finished apprenticeship. That way they get to experience being members of a group and still learning from their classes.


ShadowcatX wrote:

I've never understood, players get one little thing that they can control in a game world, their characters and said character's creation, why do people want to take part of that away from them?

/

They had something like this in AD&D, and I hated it with a white hot passion. It's just a way for a control phreak DM to tell you who & what to play.

Horrible, horrible idea.

Now, we did have a campaign where everyone had a free "bonus level" of Aristo, Commoner, expert or Warrior, to give flavor. It also very slightly nerfed spell casting a tad, giving a little bonus to martial classes.

The Exchange

I've used 0-level play for very limited situations. Used it once in a 'prequel' adventure set when the adventurers were all about 11 years old, to set up plot points that would come to fruition in the actual campaign. (For the curious, there were some rules in 3.0 about "1st-level multiclassing" which I retooled to make "1/2-level" characters with, heh, 0 point buy. The "Young adventurers" rules from Ultimate Campaign are quite a bit more forgiving.)

But because the characters are virtually powerless, the adventure can't feature combat (especially not against a cat!) This does limit one's options, so I can't say I'd recommend it for more than a one-shot.


ShadowcatX wrote:
I've never understood, players get one little thing that they can control in a game world, their characters and said character's creation, why do people want to take part of that away from them?

I'm not trying to take that away from them. Once they reach 1st level they can build their character like normal. They can even build the level 0 ones themselves, they're just a bit more limited in that phase.

It's basically supposed to be for the first session or so.

Kolokotroni wrote:
You might want to check out the genius guide to Apprentice level characters. Basically does what you are thinking, with a 0th level character, but does it for all the core classes and the agp classes (as well as a few from the genius guides).

I'll look into that, thanks


In my current campaign I did something similar:
started the players as young characters (max 18 yrs or equal)
with 3 classes to choose from: expert, aristocrat and warrior.

they played a 2(&1/2) session module in an abandoned house that also was the launch point for the main campaign (they released something horrible ).
I also used the fast track for the first levels so they ended up leveling to 2nd after the first session.

when we started the campaign, a year later in the game, all the characters gained 3rd lvl and were allowed to pick from some of the core classes (barring full casters) and we started using they medium xp track.

for a introduction module it was fun and scary, and it allowed the characters to start with some extra skills an hp.
It also allowed some of my players with less system mastery to get into the swing of things without (f&#!ing) class features confusing them.
Seriously, sometimes there is just to much special rules and "remember to ... if... when" -stuff.

my players loved it, but YMMW.


Isn't this covered by the PCs starting at level 1 NPC class, and then, when they hit a certain threshhold they "graduate" and gain a free retraining of their class to an actual class?

Seems like the easier option to me.


Yes, they'd exchange the NPC class for the PC class.


We could use these progressions:

Aristocrat --> Paladin / Cavalier / Rogue

Commoner --> Adept --> Cleric / Druid

Commoner --> Expert --> Bard / Rogue / Alchemist

Commoner --> Sage (arcane adept) --> Wizard / Witch / Summoner

Commoner --> Warrior --> Fighter / Ranger / Paladin / Cavalier

I don't see Barbarians and Sorcerers fitting into this so neatly though. Of course spontaneous powers like those of a Sorcerer or Oracle could just 'spring up' from nowhere, so we'd also have Commoner --> Oracle / Sorcerer.

I guess for lvl 1 in an NPC class to lvl 1 in a PC class, you'd require 1000 XP on the medium track, and from Commoner to specialist NPC class you'd require 500 XP on the medium track.

I don't think I'd use this other than for creating 'apprentice' NPC's though; as others have opined, level 1 ability/survivability is lowly enough already.

EDIT - random observation. It amuses me that the Commoner level tables goes up to level 20. I can't envisage the circumstances under which that would happen.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Starting at "level 0" ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.