Oh, good lord did I love the idea of the Apprentice level system. A great way to make certain character concepts work at first level, even if they'd normally only work with multiclassing. I think the biggest trick is that, unless you provide guidelines for how to generate them, it's hard to do them with additional classes being released. After all, you'd pretty much have to provide apprentice level rules for every class you released after the point the rules were published, so I can see why they were dropped. But I'd love to see them back!
I like them but they are so obviously a power up.
I hope they don't reintroduce them. Getting around experience requirements by reworking when you had the experience degrades the balance of the game. Bolting it on after the game system is made is cheese.
That said, its tasty cheese, but I think it hurts in the long run.
I used to have converted rules, but I lost them in the last HD crash, I really do not see where Sigurd finds the powerup. Past level 1 they are plain multiclassed classes. At level 1 they are weaker then either class straight up.
I myself still allow them in play and would love to see em back in a book
Creative Director
|
An apprentice-level system I've been thinking about using now and then is to have the PCs start 1st level as NPC classes. I'd set up an adventure for them that let them score "class points" that they'd earn as they make choices and take specific ways at solving problems. At the end of the adventure, total up every player's class points, and whatever class wins the race, if the player decides to "cash in" his 1st level NPC class to replace it with 1st level in a real class, he gets a bonus trait or something like that to go along with his choice.
I never got around to really working out the details for it though, since few of the folks I game with seem interested in the concept, alas... but it might serve as a good foundation for others to try out.
In any event, I'm pretty sure there's no apprentice-level stuff going into the Advanced Player's Guide, mostly because the game already HAS a starting point. Adding options to that starting point erodes its value as a starting point.
James I think your thinking a different apprentice-level then we are. In the 3.0 PHB there were apprentice-level rules for starting out as two classes. With ablitys from them both , but oth level in each so 0/0 power level was about the same as a normal level 1 PC and at 2nd level you gained the ability from each class you missed and become 1/1 level after that you gain level as normal
It was a nice rule for those that wanted to start as both( fighter/ wizard) then build from it
James I think your thinking a different apprentice-level then we are. In the 3.0 PHB there were apprentice-level rules for starting out as two classes. With ablitys from them both , but oth level in each so 0/0 power level was about the same as a normal level 1 PC and at 2nd level you gained the ability from each class you missed and become 1/1 level after that you gain level as normal
It was a nice rule for those that wanted to start as both( fighter/ wizard) then build from it
Exactly.
When I upgraded to 3.5, I kept my 3.0 DMG solely for the apprentice level rules. They were a terrific way to make certain concepts (like a wizard/rogue) that just don't work normally in 3.5 at first level.
Agreed. I hope that some form of the 1st level multiclass rules find their way into the APG or GMG.
I'm not sure why they were dropped on the way to 3.5. They were a nice, flavorful way to describe many multiclass concepts without changing the character's power level.
|
Creative Director
|
James I think your thinking a different apprentice-level then we are. In the 3.0 PHB there were apprentice-level rules for starting out as two classes. With ablitys from them both , but oth level in each so 0/0 power level was about the same as a normal level 1 PC and at 2nd level you gained the ability from each class you missed and become 1/1 level after that you gain level as normal
It was a nice rule for those that wanted to start as both( fighter/ wizard) then build from it
Ah... right! I remember those rules now.
I'm honestly not sure how heavily multi-classing stuff will figure into the APG, actually. It probably should, though, in some way or another. Writing for the non-base class part of the book (which was on an accelerated schedule due to the playtests) is about to begin on the book, if it hasn't already; I'll make sure there's SOME sort of multi-class stuff in there if there's not already some on the schedule, but I suspect these apprentice-level rules won't be in there. We'll see.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm not sure why they were dropped on the way to 3.5. They were a nice, flavorful way to describe many multiclass concepts without changing the character's power level.
I'm not sure either, but I suspect they were dropped because there was other new information that needed to get into the 3.5 DMG and WotC didn't want to increase the word count too much... and probably because the rules were a bit too wonky and weird, honestly, especially when you started having more than just the 11 base classes.
'Apprentice' wont cut it, no disrespect to anyone else but his title is "Editor-in-Chief". Definitely a prestige class not a multiclass (Editor and American Indian).
:)
Sigurd
A couple of us posted apprentice level systems down in the Conversions forum.
I like them but they are so obviously a power up.
The beauty of the system is that there's exactly one level where the apprentice rules apply at all -- level 1. So unless your game is stuck at level 1 permanently, any imbalance goes away very quickly.
|
I like them but they are so obviously a power up.The beauty of the system is that there's exactly one level where the apprentice rules apply at all -- level 1. So unless your game is stuck at level 1 permanently, any imbalance goes away very quickly.
The problem is that it opens a can of worms. If you can be Fighter0.5/Wizard0.5, then level up to Fighter1/Wizard1, why couldn't you then level up to Fighter1.5/Wizard1.5? You avoid the back-and-forth leveling process at 1st level, but what about the other levels?
I've never actually seen anyone suggest this...I'm just playing Devil's Advocate ;)
The problem is that it opens a can of worms. If you can be Fighter0.5/Wizard0.5, then level up to Fighter1/Wizard1, why couldn't you then level up to Fighter1.5/Wizard1.5? You avoid the back-and-forth leveling process at 1st level, but what about the other levels?
I've only ever seen it suggested as an option for levels 1 -> 2 (or 0/0 to 1/1, if you want to put it that way), so I can't comment on any other potential extrapolationss.
|
|
The problem is that it opens a can of worms. If you can be Fighter0.5/Wizard0.5, then level up to Fighter1/Wizard1, why couldn't you then level up to Fighter1.5/Wizard1.5? You avoid the back-and-forth leveling process at 1st level, but what about the other levels?I've only ever seen it suggested as an option for levels 1 -> 2 (or 0/0 to 1/1, if you want to put it that way), so I can't comment on any other potential extrapolationss.
Ahem.
I've never actually seen anyone suggest this...I'm just playing Devil's Advocate ;)
;D
How about this for a solution. Allow your PC to actually be second level, that is, Fighter1/Wizard1. However, start him with 0 XP and give him a negative level that can only be removed by gaining the XP to reach level 2.
In my current game, I started everyone at level 1. Two players wanted to play an aasimar paladin and a tiefling abyssal sorcerer. I couldn't say no to having those guys in the same party >:D So I started them at -800 XP and gave them a negative level with the stipulation that they didn't die from it. It worked out really well, though both of them ended up taking Toughness in order to offset the -5HP from the negative level.
An apprentice-level system I've been thinking about using now and then is to have the PCs start 1st level as NPC classes. I'd set up an adventure for them that let them score "class points" that they'd earn as they make choices and take specific ways at solving problems. At the end of the adventure, total up every player's class points, and whatever class wins the race, if the player decides to "cash in" his 1st level NPC class to replace it with 1st level in a real class, he gets a bonus trait or something like that to go along with his choice.
I seem to recall that there were some rules to this in the old Greyhawk Adventures hardback - right, there they are: Appendix 1, p. 117 ff. It seems to contain rules about starting hp, alignment tendencies (not yet fixed alignments), rules for training specific class abilities and more. Some of it won´t apply, as the book was written for 1st Ed. AD&D, but it might be worth a look. I had pretty much the same idea of apprentice characters after reading Crypt of the Everflame - the background story would be ideally suited to this kind of starting game. Of course, you would have to be careful about the challenges presented - the adventure is challenging enough already, I think.
Stefan
|
|
The problem is that it opens a can of worms. If you can be Fighter0.5/Wizard0.5, then level up to Fighter1/Wizard1, why couldn't you then level up to Fighter1.5/Wizard1.5? You avoid the back-and-forth leveling process at 1st level, but what about the other levels?
First of all level 1.5 makes no sense. Apprentice level is used for ROLEplaying. Being able to call yourself a fighter/wizard at level 1 and have SOME of the abilities to back up that claim. Not suddenly be able to start casting at level 2... when you coudn't before, or be able to pick up a sword and use it.. but you couldn't in the last fight.
Sure you can just multiclass when you get to level 2, but that whole time you're level 1 you'll be critically missing something, in the case of a fighter/wizard.. proficiencys or spellcasting.
I usually use the Adept, Expert and Warrior classes.
For NPCs i use them as lesser clerics, mages, rogues and fighters.
For PCs i treat them as level 0 characters, which can be useful for children.
Once i also used the Grimm rules for a group of kids. Good times.
|
Oh, good lord did I love the idea of the Apprentice level system. A great way to make certain character concepts work at first level, even if they'd normally only work with multiclassing. I think the biggest trick is that, unless you provide guidelines for how to generate them, it's hard to do them with additional classes being released. After all, you'd pretty much have to provide apprentice level rules for every class you released after the point the rules were published, so I can see why they were dropped. But I'd love to see them back!
I'd like to see these too.
House-ruling for other classes case-by-case is possible. I did this for a campaign where fellow players wanted to take an apprentice artificer and .. something else, I forget. There are only a few different patterns. The whole point of new base classes, though, is that they use new and unique mechanics, so I don't know how well explicit guidelines would hold up.
I'm at least a level -3/-3 wizard/psion in real life!
First of all level 1.5 makes no sense. Apprentice level is used for ROLEplaying. Being able to call yourself a fighter/wizard at level 1 and have SOME of the abilities to back up that claim. Not suddenly be able to start casting at level 2... when you coudn't before, or be able to pick up a sword and use it.. but you couldn't in the last fight.Sure you can just multiclass when you get to level 2, but that whole time you're level 1 you'll be critically missing something, in the case of a fighter/wizard.. proficiencys or spellcasting.
You contradict yourself here. First of all, you can use any weapon in the game at 0 level, regardless of class, you just have a penalty associated with it. You can also "roleplay" that you have some arcane ability but, for example, haven't actually learned any actual spells yet(and practice sparking fingers and other magic drills). "Roleplay" does not have to equal out to game rules, and vice versa. The point is, the apprentice system is a niche ruleset used by a tiny minority for a very small portion of the game, with alot of controversy surrounding them in terms of power levels. Work with your DM, get a cantrip or something for your Fighter, and please, don't berate devs for responding to your wishlists.
|
|
The point is, the apprentice system is a niche ruleset used by a tiny minority for a very small portion of the game, with alot of controversy surrounding them in terms of power levels. Work with your DM, get a cantrip or something for your Fighter, and please, don't berate devs for responding to your wishlists.
Controversy? What controversy? One of them devs didn't even know what rules this thread was talking about. Guess the controversy was confined to your table. If the rules aren't there, they aren't there, I hate most homebrew, nothing to work with the DM (as I DM a lot.)
As for the berating devs, I don't see any of that going on. While I commend your effort, the paizo defense force isn't needed here.
That said, if they don't make it into the book it doesn't matter. It's one of those optional rules that were available in 3.0, got dropped in 3.5, and since I've used them and have known people in various groups that use them, I think should be brought back. Particularly since this is an optional rules book.
I can't promise anything at this point, but there is a chance Pathfinder specific apprentice rules might be seeing print somewhere soon ...
Uhh..... does it begin with a k?
|
An apprentice-level system I've been thinking about using now and then is to have the PCs start 1st level as NPC classes. I'd set up an adventure for them that let them score "class points" that they'd earn as they make choices and take specific ways at solving problems. At the end of the adventure, total up every player's class points, and whatever class wins the race, if the player decides to "cash in" his 1st level NPC class to replace it with 1st level in a real class, he gets a bonus trait or something like that to go along with his choice.
I never got around to really working out the details for it though, since few of the folks I game with seem interested in the concept, alas... but it might serve as a good foundation for others to try out.
In any event, I'm pretty sure there's no apprentice-level stuff going into the Advanced Player's Guide, mostly because the game already HAS a starting point. Adding options to that starting point erodes its value as a starting point.
I actually did something like that once, my goblin commoner was one of the favorite characters I ever played our system had you go to level 4 commoner before you could get a PC class and you didn't start out with x4 skills (basically your 4 commoner levels became class level 1). I was working towards making him a swashbuckler and it was a great experience, when playing an NPC class skills become much more important than abilities, but with pathfinders revision to skills I have to wonder how it would work, special rules for turning skills into class skill and no starting class skills I guess.
|
|
I can't promise anything at this point, but there is a chance Pathfinder specific apprentice rules might be seeing print somewhere soon ...Uhh..... does it begin with a k?
It might ....
An apprentice-level system I've been thinking about using now and then is to have the PCs start 1st level as NPC classes. I'd set up an adventure for them that let them score "class points" that they'd earn as they make choices and take specific ways at solving problems. At the end of the adventure, total up every player's class points, and whatever class wins the race, if the player decides to "cash in" his 1st level NPC class to replace it with 1st level in a real class, he gets a bonus trait or something like that to go along with his choice.
That's actually what I want, the equivalent of the old "zero level" rules from Greyhawk Adventures etc. Sometimes, especially in 3.5, level 1 is just too powerful...
Perhaps one thing that could be used to that effect is the "buy the numbers" stuff, found here and here. This does basically change the 3.5 rules into a point-buy system. You get a certain amount of starting points to buy class features, giving you roughly the same as 1st level characters, but allows for variations. If you always wanted to play a rage cleric, this is your chance. You could easily reduce the starting points given to make new PCs the equivalent of commoners. It is written for the 3.5 rules, however, and would need to be fitted to the PFRPG (hit dice, skills, some class features etc.)I love the idea, but did not have the chance to use it in play - I don´t think it makes sense to introduce it into a running campaign. Of course, balance may be an issue- you could have a 20ieth-level wizard with 6 hp under those rules, or a 200 hp PC with a BAB of +0, but these extremes will probably correct themselves.
Stefan
That's actually what I want, the equivalent of the old "zero level" rules from Greyhawk Adventures etc. Sometimes, especially in 3.5, level 1 is just too powerful...D&D might not be the game you want for that sort of game. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay does that really well.
I don´t think that he wants to play at a low(er) power level all the time, just for a certain part of the game - otherwise, the term "apprentice" would be off. It implies a temporary, learning situation. I can see where that notion comes from, as D&D sometimes can convey the feeling that the heroes come "out of nowhere", and an apprentice level game can remedy that, by not just writing, but playing the backstory.
Otherwise, D&D 3x is quite a heroic game, with powerful heroes. So, if somebody is looking for less powerful heroes, XD&D is probably not the right game for that kind of gaming.Stefan
I suppose I've had different experiences with 1st level than some people, then. I generally don't find first level to be terribly powerful, and I really don't find the idea that a first level character has had meaningful experiences that compelling or convincing, either. Playing lower than first level isn't what I'd be looking for as an apprentice level rule.
|
|
I think one of the big reasons for these rules is that they allow a character to begin the game at 1st level as a multi class character. Sometimes, either from a character background standpoint or just from an overall concept standpoint, it stinks to not be able to begin as a multiclass.
Imagine this fairly typical conversation:
DM: I really like your character's background Stanley. A boy who was an apprentice to a wizard but who was caught trying to steal from his master and banished, forcing him to live on the streets where he learned pick pocketing and other roguish skills. Cool idea ... I assume you are going for a Wizard / Rogue character, right? Don't forget, even though your background says you have basic training as both a Wizard and Rogue, from a rules perspective, you'll have to start as either a 1st level Wizard OR Rogue and then pick the other class up once you hit 2nd level.
Player: Well, that kind of stinks. What, did my character just forget what he learned as an apprentice wizard and then he'll suddenly remember it again when gets to second level? That doesn't really fit my background and it's not very realistic ... can we fudge something or ... ?
DM: The rules only let you start off as a single class, so we'll just have to kind of hand wave it away ... you know, don't think about it so much ... sheesh
Admittedly, these kinds of situations don't come up all the time, but they DO come up and having simple rules to handle them make sense.
James could you please ethier
A. Tell us which book you plan to release this in the next players guide or whatever the book maybe called
or
B. Release this as some sort of bonus.
The reason I ask is I love the idea of the natural leveling.
D&D seemed to lack that and also by following it pathfinder does as well.
You get better at swiming because you killed alot of kobolds?
Not to metion the bonus in hit points and all of the rest...
If someone wants to use a skill in my game I say do you want a bonus to this roll?
They say yes ofcorse...
I say if you do you must put a point in this skill when you level.
I really like the idea of a 'fable' style leveling system where you get better at stuff you use.
I mean I know this is not realism but the leveling bussiness does break the fourth wall... alot.
James could you please ethier
A. Tell us which book you plan to release this in the next players guide or whatever the book maybe called
or
B. Release this as some sort of bonus.The reason I ask is I love the idea of the natural leveling.
D&D seemed to lack that and also by following it pathfinder does as well.
You get better at swiming because you killed alot of kobolds?
Not to metion the bonus in hit points and all of the rest...If someone wants to use a skill in my game I say do you want a bonus to this roll?
They say yes ofcorse...
I say if you do you must put a point in this skill when you level.I really like the idea of a 'fable' style leveling system where you get better at stuff you use.
I mean I know this is not realism but the leveling bussiness does break the fourth wall... alot.
While I agree, a natural leveling system I don't think would work very well for a pen and paper game. You'd have to keep track of how many times you swing your sword, how many times you use each individual skill, how much you get hit, etc.... It'd just be too much paperwork for each character.
If anyone here is really that motivated to play two classes at first level, check out the Gestalt build from the Unearthed Arcana. It's way powerful but if your game has only 1 or 2 players it's a lot of fun and actually works out. I've run a couple games with the concept and it would allow for the two-class concept at first level, albeit like playing two characters in one.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
An apprentice-level system I've been thinking about using now and then is to have the PCs start 1st level as NPC classes. I'd set up an adventure for them that let them score "class points" that they'd earn as they make choices and take specific ways at solving problems. At the end of the adventure, total up every player's class points, and whatever class wins the race, if the player decides to "cash in" his 1st level NPC class to replace it with 1st level in a real class, he gets a bonus trait or something like that to go along with his choice.
Since players would be making class choices through playing instead of before playing, something like that could be designed to give new/young players an introduction to the game. Put it all in an adventure along the lines of The Haunted Forest and I'd buy that product.
|
|
I suppose I've had different experiences with 1st level than some people, then. I generally don't find first level to be terribly powerful, and I really don't find the idea that a first level character has had meaningful experiences that compelling or convincing, either. Playing lower than first level isn't what I'd be looking for as an apprentice level rule.
I believe we have 2 trains of thought going on in this thread.
1- the people that want a beginner level that you roleplay into a class that you would gain when you finally become 1st level.2- the people that want to have a 1st level character that is multiclassed. Like a Mage/Rogue that only has cantrips and no access to sneak attack yet but has all the rogue skills and a mage's arcane bond and scribe scroll but no school powers or something like that. Then when they level from level 1(or .5+.5 basically) to level 2 they become a typical Wizard 1/Rogue1.
FH, I think you are spot on with that observation. If you have rules that allow characters to learn their first-level skills as well, and these have some flexibility in them, you will get a multi-class effect automatically. As I said before, the "Buy the numbers" stuff could do just that.
The idea mentioned above that skills should get better by usage has its merits, of course, but definitely leaves the ground of 3.x rules. The Chaosium rules have something like that (found in Call of Cthulhu or Runequest): If you use a skill successfully, mark that on the sheet, and next time the GM allows it, you may roll to see if you get better. The rolls are easy: the skills themselves are percentiles, and you have to make a percentile roll better than you current skill. If successful, add 1d10 to your skill. This has the effect that it gets harder to get better if you are good already, but it is hard to learn anything if you have no idea what you are doing - all in all, quite a realistic representation. Of course, learning things outright is always possible as well. I love that system, but it is not close to the 3.x rules ideas.
Stefan
I suppose I've had different experiences with 1st level than some people, then. I generally don't find first level to be terribly powerful, and I really don't find the idea that a first level character has had meaningful experiences that compelling or convincing, either. Playing lower than first level isn't what I'd be looking for as an apprentice level rule.I believe we have 2 trains of thought going on in this thread.
1- the people that want a beginner level that you roleplay into a class that you would gain when you finally become 1st level.
2- the people that want to have a 1st level character that is multiclassed. Like a Mage/Rogue that only has cantrips and no access to sneak attack yet but has all the rogue skills and a mage's arcane bond and scribe scroll but no school powers or something like that. Then when they level from level 1(or .5+.5 basically) to level 2 they become a typical Wizard 1/Rogue1.
It should be noted that the two need not be distinct though. You could have rules for basically 0.5 level in a class and thus you could use that to build up to first level or if you were at first level you could use two of them to multiclass at first level.
I've never quite found the idea of doing "0-level" NPC class -> 1st-level PC class thing very satisfying. The NPC classes are just different enough that they don't quite convert immediately into appropriate PC classes. For example, if you use adept for spellcasters, then it doesn't make much sense for arcane casters since adepts are divine. So say they are arcane in those cases, right? But the spell list is a bit off. Then narrow/change the spell list as appropriate, right? How much has to change before you decide it just isn't worth it because it doesn't really work? Same thing with a warrior and a ranger. You suddenly lose your tower shield and heavier armor proficiencies? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Here is my very rough idea for apprentice levels (I play 3.5, but they should fit for the most part in PF).
I'm sure I've forgotten something, but that is generally how I run it.
|
|
I believe we have 2 trains of thought going on in this thread.
1- the people that want a beginner level that you roleplay into a class that you would gain when you finally become 1st level.
2- the people that want to have a 1st level character that is multiclassed. Like a Mage/Rogue that only has cantrips and no access to sneak attack yet but has all the rogue skills and a mage's arcane bond and scribe scroll but no school powers or something like that. Then when they level from level 1(or .5+.5 basically) to level 2 they become a typical Wizard 1/Rogue1.
Right you are. I fit into #2. Option 1 doesn't work for me since option 1 does NOT work in a game where not everyone is using option 1 rules. Option 2 WORKS where everyone else is level 1 and working their way toward level 2. Basically option 2 is for NORMAL games, option 1.. well not what my original post was about.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
While I agree, a natural leveling system I don't think would work very well for a pen and paper game. You'd have to keep track of how many times you swing your sword, how many times you use each individual skill, how much you get hit, etc.... It'd just be too much paperwork for each character.
Burning Wheel does this, and it actually doesn't come out to much paper work.
Mouse Guard has it as well (being part of the Burning Wheel, but uber-simplified), and honestly that is one of the most beautifully designed games I have ever played.
Honestly, its not something I'm super keen on porting into PF, I'm fine with the leveling system as is, but I don't think its impossible.
It might ....I can't promise anything at this point, but there is a chance Pathfinder specific apprentice rules might be seeing print somewhere soon ...Uhh..... does it begin with a k?
While we are at it, honking for Ryan Dancey and the OGL for creating the welcome environment for the community to crowd source the little things that make this game fun :D
And to and Jason and the mighty Paizonauts for keeping it alive!
edit- oops
*takes his man-love to the man-love thread...
While I agree, a natural leveling system I don't think would work very well for a pen and paper game. You'd have to keep track of how many times you swing your sword, how many times you use each individual skill, how much you get hit, etc.... It'd just be too much paperwork for each character.
Wile keeping track of that maybe hard, I have heard of systems where critical success and/or failer make it cheaper to upgrade those skills because you learn from your success and failers.
But I have no idea how such a system could work in D&D but I am guessing that Jason does and that would be interesting to read if nothing else...
While I am not advocating 4e they do have the hybrid class system which is an intriguing method for natural leveling. The system works well in 4e since there really isn't any multiclassing to speak of, but perhaps it could be modified to work with pathfinder. The hybrid system looks a lot like the apprentice level rules extended throughout all levels of game play. It would be alot of work though because it requires hybrid versions of each base class and each subsequent class released there after.
Just wanted to add my request for official rules to multiclass at 1st level. They don't erode the value of the game's current starting point, they add to it. Why? Because the game's current starting point starts with a character concept. And limiting a character concept to a single class with a "plan" to acquire some other skills later (or which suddenly materialise after an intense few hours of monster killing) isn't a great solution. By permitting multiclassing at 1st level, you add a lot more workable initial character concepts to the mix. They can probably be added as an AP article if not in the APG.