Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DreadArchon 03-12-07, 03:43 PM	Intended to give the PC's an edge in games likely to have slightly under-strength parties: "Level 0" A character's first level must be taken in an NPC class (player's choice). This functions as normal for a character's first level, but it does not add to a player's total level (i.e. the hit die, while providing hit points, does not factor into future hit die or ECL calculations, nor does the class level). NPC classes are always favored classes for any character. As this level does not count towards a character's total level, each character also immediately receives a player class level, gained exactly as though multiclassing, except that a character's initial level in her NPC class does not count towards maximum skill ranks, feat progression, or ability increases, all of which remain based on class levels. (A character's initial NPC class level DOES NOT grant a first-level feat, but it DOES grant skill points as if it were the character's first class level, despite not raising a character's maximum ranks per level.) If the Commoner class is chosen, it grants a bonus feat at first level, which must NOT be eligible as a Fighter Bonus Feat.
Cyanide300 03-12-07, 03:57 PM	It's not a bad idea, but why can't the bonus feat be a fighter feat? That seems a rather arbitrary limitation.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-14-07, 02:52 PM	Looks like a very good way to keep characters survivable at first level. Also looks like a good way to encourage taking cross-class skills and languages. It's even useful, for instance characters can grab a level of warrior to improve their BAB to qualify for exotic weapon feats or simply have a slight edge in combat, or dip a level of adept to represent a modicum of magical talent or background as a gnome or elf. Best of all, it forces the players to consider their characters' backgrounds. Very cool, it doesn't look too gamebreaking. Do note that this will lead to slightly more powerful characters overall.
DreadArchon 03-14-07, 03:31 PM	Very cool, it doesn't look too gamebreaking. Good. Thanks. Do note that this will lead to slightly more powerful characters overall. Yeah, that's the idea. It's not a bad idea, but why can't the bonus feat be a fighter feat? That seems a rather arbitrary limitation. I didn't think that it made sense for commoners to have formal combat training stuff.
The_Shaman 03-14-07, 05:10 PM	I thought about it for a while myself... It can be a good way to incorporate a character's backstory in terms of skills and abilities. I wonder if you could tie it with some classes (like wizard or cleric) which start their training early... but I suppose it could happen. A good idea, overall. And yes, it will make characters a bit stronger - at first.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-14-07, 05:47 PM	I wonder if you could tie it with some classes (like wizard or cleric) which start their training early... but I suppose it could happen. The adept class could represent magical training from an early age. At low levels, it gives you a bit more stamina and the ability to invest in utility spells. At higher levels, it's free cantrips so that you can fill your level 1 slots with magic missiles and cure light wounds.
IronMouse 03-14-07, 07:32 PM	Did you consider giving a racial humanoid HD instead? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType Usually, 1HD creatures "trade" their HD for a class level. But creatures with more than one keep them. By ignoring the "trade rule", you can have level 0 characters by just making them 1HD humanoids and then add levels on top of that. That stuff like skill ranks, feats and such should still be based only on the character class, though, and the HD shouldn't count toward the actual level. All level 0 characters would get 1d8 HD (maybe rolled and the class HD is maxed?), 2+int skills (no quadrupling, do that at their actual 1st level), a +2 save (reflex by default, but maybe let them choose?) and proficiency with all simple weapons. Or scrap the proficiencies. Makes 1st level characters a bit more powerful and you don't have to worry about favored class and such.
Cyanide300 03-15-07, 04:05 PM	I didn't think that it made sense for commoners to have formal combat training stuff. I can understand that. But not all the fighter feats are really related to combat training. I mean, Improved Initiative just means you're quick to act, and it's a fighter bonus feat. Does it really make any more sense for them to have something like Spell Penetration, Combat casting, or an armor/weapon proficiency? None of those are on the fighter bonus list.
Seldriss 03-16-07, 08:07 AM	Actually, this might be an interesting idea for a campaign. It helps to develop skills according to the background of the character...
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-16-07, 12:39 PM	Actually, this might be an interesting idea for a campaign. It helps to develop skills according to the background of the character... Heck, it helps to develop background! I think I'm stealing this next time I get to start a game.
keyunp 03-17-07, 04:39 PM	Heck, it helps to develop background! I think I'm stealing this next time I get to start a game. I'll second that!
kilpatds 03-19-07, 09:27 AM	Intended to give the PC's an edge in games likely to have slightly under-strength parties: "Level 0" A character's first level must be taken in an NPC class (player's choice). This functions as normal for a character's first level [...] each character also immediately receives a player class level, gained exactly as though multiclassing Expert 0/Rogue 1 vs. Rogue 1. Bonus 3.5 hitpoints on average. Bonus Mod_Int skill points ( ((8+Mod_Int)*4) - (6+Mod_Int)*4+8+Mod_Int) +2 to Will saves. I don't think the skill focused guy gets as much of a bonus as others. I know in this system, were I playing a Fighter or Wizard I'd take my zero-th level in Expert just for the skills. As a Rogue ... there's not much for me here.
Tathas 03-19-07, 10:23 AM	So take Adept or Warrior instead. The spells from Adept can enhance a Rogue quite nicely, and the +1 BAB from Warrior will help a lot as well. If you intend to take weapon finesse as a Rogue, taking level 0 as a Warrior would allow you to do so at Rogue level 1, rather than at 3rd level. If you're an 8 str 18 dex halfling, for example, a difference of +5 on your attack roll at level 1 would make a large difference in survivability.
kilpatds 03-19-07, 10:35 AM	So take Adept or Warrior instead. But then you have 18 fewer skill points... and since skills are what you provide to the party ... I think if the level 1 skills got multiplied by 4 as normal, and the level 0 skill points just got added it, it would be more fair to skill focused characters.
DreadArchon 03-19-07, 01:58 PM	But then you have 18 fewer skill points... and since skills are what you provide to the party ... I think if the level 1 skills got multiplied by 4 as normal, and the level 0 skill points just got added it, it would be more fair to skill focused characters. Personally, I prefer the skills being based off of the NPC class. I did consider the 8-point skillhorses, but for the most part I like the way it balances as written. If I was going to change it for Rogues and Scouts, I'd probably just end up giving the Expert 8 instead of 6, benefitting everyone. I might even give +2 (actually +8 after multiplying) to all classes to allow a little more freedom (such as if the Barbarian wanted to take Warrior without losing two skill points). Edit: Actually, after thinking about it, I think I'll give all the NPC classes +2 skills (+8 skill points) at "0th" level. I don't think that's too much, especially since it doesn't apply to future levels.
kilpatds 03-19-07, 06:25 PM	Just as a quick note, this will make it easier to Gish. Warrior or Aristocrat both meet the proficiency requirements for EK (do you want skills or BAB?) You might consider that a feature, at least if you've nerfed polymorph. :)