1. Do I have to give every melee class a starting weapon? I'd like at least the first encounter to be down to throwing punches or rocks.
2. What is the absolute minimum gear I can give a level 1 arcane class? I'm going to assume a spellbook, but what else?
3. What is the absolute minimum gear I can give a level 1 divine class? I'm going to assume a deity symbol of some sort, but what else?
4. I don't want the party to start off with more than a handful of silver amongst the whole group. Are there any official lists for prices of mundane items? (a room in a tavern, a meal, basic adventuring supplies, etc)
5. According to the DMG, even a level 1 party deserves a parcel of magic items for it's first adventure. Even the lowest level magic items have a value of around 500 gold. It seems that an economically poor party could simply sell their first magic item and remove any and all money woes.
Notes: Of course, I intend to provide for them. Their very first adventure will take them into a small tomb where they can find some rusted armor and weapons. I just want to have a little fun with making them do a fight or two with fists or underpowered gear, and then slowly ramp them up. I might be using old school thinking for 4e, but I don't want them to go from 'brand new' to everyone having a magic item or two within the first two adventures. However, according to the 4e rules, I'm concerned they might be underpowered if I don't do this.
Thoughts?
Not all arcane classes use spellbooks. Warlocks need armor and an implement, Swordmages need armor and a sword, bards need armor and a weapon or implement, and so forth.
Divine classes are going to need armor, implements, and weapons like everybody else, depending on the class. Avengers don't need armor, for instance, but clerics certainly do.
The prices for mundane items are in the PHB.
Yes, they could. Of course, that's because the game is supposed to revolve around heroic action and adventure, not 'can we scrape up enough money to eat on'. If you don't want to hand out a lot of magic items, use the Inherent Bonuses system in the DMG2.
2)Only wizards need a spellbook, oddly enough this is somewhat given to them via class feature. (The wording is "You have a spellbook")
3)You dont need a holy symbol to cast divine abilities. However you need one at higher levels for its enhancement bonus.
4) the PHB has a list of mundane gear, Adventurer's vault might have added some too.
5) If you really want the party poor for some reason, you could always simply lower the money value of all magic items.
And yes, it is true, even low level treasure is fairly rich by the measure of ordinary peasants. A 500gp item is probably several years of a dirt farmer's income. OTOH the 20% sale price is 100gp, still a good chunk of money, but not really the kind of cash you can just retire on.
I'd just give the PCs a good reason to want to do whatever is in mind to be done beyond monetary reward. There are always ways to keep the PCs near the edge of financial viability too. You could use story reasons, maybe they've incurred some huge debt. Maybe they need their money to support their village, or pay off something, or for bribes to the dragon to prevent it eating their family, or whatever. Also, if there's no real market for items then it is all well and good that they may have these magic swords and whatnot that have big sticker prices on them, but when you go into the tavern for an ale and all you can do is hock your +1 magic sword for it that's going to provoke some feeling of desperation on the player's part. They'll FEEL poor.
You can always give out mostly non-monetary sorts of 'treasure' too. You could have the local lord give them a reward like "OK, your uncle can run the mill" or "I'll forego your 40 days of obligatory military service for that" or whatever.
They should definitely have weapons, that's a no-brainer. Unless they're monks, they AREN'T going to go out and risk their necks unarmed and unarmored. That would just be stupid. If you want to do this, just narrate it or have it be part of the PCs' backstory. 1st level PCs aren't country bumpkins that just fell off the turnip wagon; they are special people, they are heroes.
Not all arcane classes use spellbooks. Warlocks need armor and an implement, Swordmages need armor and a sword, bards need armor and a weapon or implement, and so forth.
Divine classes are going to need armor, implements, and weapons like everybody else, depending on the class. Avengers don't need armor, for instance, but clerics certainly do.
The prices for mundane items are in the PHB.
Yes, they could. Of course, that's because the game is supposed to revolve around heroic action and adventure, not 'can we scrape up enough money to eat on'. If you don't want to hand out a lot of magic items, use the Inherent Bonuses system in the DMG2.
Thanks for the quick reply.
I've no intention of keeping them from thriving and succeeding, I just want them to have to 'scrape' for an adventure or two, no longer.
Why can't a brand new, say, fighter, start off as a country bumpkin with no more than a rusted dagger? Why couldn't a poor person decide to try their luck as an adventurer and just head out into the wilds? What happens from level 0 (if such a thing even exists in 4e) and level 1 that makes all adventurers both geared and "special"?
Surely a hero is someone who has proven themselves time and again, or at least in a very heroic fashion under special circumstances. I don't get how someone can complete a single adventure, and suddenly they are head and shoulders above the average joe.
I have to agree that money in 4E is a confusing thing. There seems to be huge piles of wealth everywhere. I think devaluation crept in, and that gold pieces in 4E are much closer to silver pieces in previous editions, more like GP, Gil or Rupees in a video game.
The only issue is if one of your players requires a weapon that's hard to improvise, like a bow. Cross that bridge when you come to it. Chances are, you'll have to get them a bow pretty quickly, or they will be relatively useless.
Why can't a brand new, say, fighter, start off as a country bumpkin with no more than a rusted dagger? Why couldn't a poor person decide to try their luck as an adventurer and just head out into the wilds? What happens from level 0 (if such a thing even exists in 4e) and level 1 that makes all adventurers both geared and "special"?
Surely a hero is someone who has proven themselves time and again, or at least in a very heroic fashion under special circumstances. I don't get how someone can complete a single adventure, and suddenly they are head and shoulders above the average joe.
Characters don't start at level 0. They start at level 1. If you want, you can have them start at level 0. It would take some house ruling and some careful design, but it's doable.
The default assumption of 4e is that the characters are already accomplished individuals. The fighter wouldn't know how to use Tide of Iron and the wizard wouldn't be able to shoot off Magic Missiles if they weren't accomplished. The first adventure your playing is simply where the players' interest in the characters begins, while the campaign world could well have been interested in them for quite some time before.
Why can't a brand new, say, fighter, start off as a country bumpkin with no more than a rusted dagger? Why couldn't a poor person decide to try their luck as an adventurer and just head out into the wilds? What happens from level 0 (if such a thing even exists in 4e) and level 1 that makes all adventurers both geared and "special"?
Surely a hero is someone who has proven themselves time and again, or at least in a very heroic fashion under special circumstances. I don't get how someone can complete a single adventure, and suddenly they are head and shoulders above the average joe.
Characters don't start at level 0. They start at level 1. If you want, you can have them start at level 0. It would take some house ruling and some careful design, but it's doable.
The default assumption of 4e is that the characters are already accomplished individuals. The fighter wouldn't know how to use Tide of Iron and the wizard wouldn't be able to shoot off Magic Missiles if they weren't accomplished. The first adventure your playing is simply where the players' interest in the characters begins, while the campaign world could well have been interested in them for quite some time before.
There actually are now optional rules for starting at Level 0. I think it's not a bad way for OP to go.
edited to add: it also includes baked-in bonuses for weapon attacks, since you won't be getting any proficiency bonuses, and none of the implement powers require an actual implement.
Why can't a brand new, say, fighter, start off as a country bumpkin with no more than a rusted dagger? Why couldn't a poor person decide to try their luck as an adventurer and just head out into the wilds?
Sure, you can just downgrade the fluff of everything.
A "longsword" is a rusty, oversides kitchen knife,
A "gouge" is the blade from your plow.
Sharpened sticks are "spears".
Shields are made from doors.
"Scale armor" is some roof tiles you put together (includes a pot for a helmet).
"+1 longsword" is an actual cutting weapon. Something a local smith put together out of scraps.
"+2" is an actual weapon/armor.
"+3" is millitary issue. You know, good, but cheap stuff.
ect...
Of course, in a world like that, 1 gold isn't worth much.
I keep hearing what you as the DM want to do to hinder and make the characters less heroic than 4th edition sets out to be...I haven't heard what the players want. Will your players want to play country bumkins, or heros? Something to remember.
I'm starting a new campaign shortly, and I want the starting characters to begin with almost no equipment whatsoever.
There are major balance issues involved, and a serious chance of a TPK. You have to do some major revisions that the very fact you posted here suggests you don't know how to do [which is superior to thinking you do, but still means you have to do a lot of work for little benefit.]
I just want to have a little fun with making them do a fight or two with fists or underpowered gear, and then slowly ramp them up. However, according to the 4e rules, I'm concerned they might be underpowered if I don't do this.
The thought is not unreasonable, but all you are really doing is increasing their adventuring career by one adventure, at the low end of heroic where there are the most complaints. That's not a great reward for the effort needed. [And as noted, your having fun is not a prime goal. Your goal should be to make sure the players have fun.]
I'm starting a new campaign shortly, and I want the starting characters to begin with almost no equipment whatsoever.
There are major balance issues involved, and a serious chance of a TPK. You have to do some major revisions that the very fact you posted here suggests you don't know how to do [which is superior to thinking you do, but still means you have to do a lot of work for little benefit.]
I don't really think so. They should be able to clobber some dudes with some rocks and crap easy enough, especially if they start with pre-racial 18s. Dial back the encounters a little bit maybe and it should be fine. If anyone is a monk they'll make everyone look bad, though. You probably shouldn't
I just want to have a little fun with making them do a fight or two with fists or underpowered gear, and then slowly ramp them up. However, according to the 4e rules, I'm concerned they might be underpowered if I don't do this.
The thought is not unreasonable, but all you are really doing is increasing their adventuring career by one adventure, at the low end of heroic where there are the most complaints. That's not a great reward for the effort needed. [And as noted, your having fun is not a prime goal. Your goal should be to make sure the players have fun.]
Doing something new could be lots of fun! Best way to find out is to try. I thought low heroic is where the game tends to be the most fun and where all the support is at. It's certainly the only place you can really have a go at unarmed PCs.
It's totally doable. Wizards need the spellbook to regain and select daily powers. Otherwise no 1st level PC needs equipment. For the martial characters, if the martial character has specialized in a type of weapon, you should make an improvised weapon available to them. So if someone is a rogue and his powers require them to wield two daggers, allow them to weild two rocks, or a rick and a pointy stick as if it were two daggers. They don't get a proficiency bonus for using an improvised weapon, but it should allow them to use powers that require specific weapons.
The only issue is if one of your players requires a weapon that's hard to improvise, like a bow. Cross that bridge when you come to it. Chances are, you'll have to get them a bow pretty quickly, or they will be relatively useless.
Great advice. I may have to use that for a future campaign. Thanks.
They should definitely have weapons, that's a no-brainer. Unless they're monks, they AREN'T going to go out and risk their necks unarmed and unarmored. That would just be stupid. If you want to do this, just narrate it or have it be part of the PCs' backstory. 1st level PCs aren't country bumpkins that just fell off the turnip wagon; they are special people, they are heroes.
Not all arcane classes use spellbooks. Warlocks need armor and an implement, Swordmages need armor and a sword, bards need armor and a weapon or implement, and so forth.
Divine classes are going to need armor, implements, and weapons like everybody else, depending on the class. Avengers don't need armor, for instance, but clerics certainly do.
The prices for mundane items are in the PHB.
Yes, they could. Of course, that's because the game is supposed to revolve around heroic action and adventure, not 'can we scrape up enough money to eat on'. If you don't want to hand out a lot of magic items, use the Inherent Bonuses system in the DMG2.
Thanks for the quick reply.
I've no intention of keeping them from thriving and succeeding, I just want them to have to 'scrape' for an adventure or two, no longer.
Why can't a brand new, say, fighter, start off as a country bumpkin with no more than a rusted dagger? Why couldn't a poor person decide to try their luck as an adventurer and just head out into the wilds? What happens from level 0 (if such a thing even exists in 4e) and level 1 that makes all adventurers both geared and "special"?Surely a hero is someone who has proven themselves time and again, or at least in a very heroic fashion under special circumstances. I don't get how someone can complete a single adventure, and suddenly they are head and shoulders above the average joe.
Sounds like you may want to consider joining the light side and checking out HackMaster 5e. PCs start out as slightly better than nothings and claw their way up to awesomeness. It's designed to have an old-school feel with modern mechanics. Besides lethality, two things really set it apart from other fantasy games: opposed rolls and real-time combat. Nearly every roll you make is opposed by another player (usually the GM) instead of just rolling against boring old AC and company. Combat takes place second-by-second with everyone able to act on every second. The two combine to keep combat so engaging that it completely eliminates "I'm getting a drink. Call me when it's my turn." syndrome. No one is ever bored.
For what it's worth, it's actually the only class-based game I really like. We've enjoyed 5e so much that we converted my HM4e game. Of course, I prefer 5e so much that I won't run 4e anymore so the players didn't have a whole lot of choice. D&D 4e is finally tolerable enough that I actually run Encounters every week. I really am glad to finally have an edition of D&D that I can stand to run and play.
Even if you don't play the game, the HM4e Gamemaster's Guide and HackMaster Basic both have great advice on running low-wealth low-magic campaigns (although it sounds like you only want them to start out poor).
My players know they aren't getting lots of treasure so they truly treasure every piece they get. When we paused my campaign while we acquainted ourselves with the new edition, the PCs had just claimed a dragon hoard that contained a previously mythological magical element. The artificer in town had been researching the element and years ago had designed an airship that would be powered by it even though he didn't think it actually existed. The PCs were so excited by the prospect that they spent almost their entire fortune to construct, provision, and man the ship.
So now they're level 5 and have less than 200 silver each to their names (HM5 is on the silver system). They did, however, have enough money leftover to comission two non-magical +1 items each. So, flat broke once again, but far better equipped than when they started, they set off in search of treasure and adventure.
1) Powers (probably mostly Fighter and Paladin) that require shields
2) Seeker powers that require bows
3) Hexblade weapon-and-implement powers require the implement (not the weapon)
Other than those, weapon powers can be done with improvised weapons, and implement powers can be done without an implement.
However, many classes and powers have huge advantages when using certain weapons/implements as opposed to other weapons/implements or improvised weapons. Rogues in particular are looking at a short list of weapons to qualify for Sneak Attack damage, and for some of their other powers - and you don't want to let them use improvised weapons for that, unless you can come up with a reason why *these* improvised weapons work and the ones they might use next month don't.
If you're concerned about that aspect of the system, your best bet would probably be to run a game with Inherent Bonuses - then you don't need to give out ludicrously expensive magic weapons, because the enhancement bonuses which make the game maths work are baked right into the characters.
There actually are now optional rules for starting at Level 0. I think it's not a bad way for OP to go.
edited to add: it also includes baked-in bonuses for weapon attacks, since you won't be getting any proficiency bonuses, and none of the implement powers require an actual implement.
This really is your best bet. What you're wanting is pretty much already built into the Level 0 rules.
I'd like to clarify I have been DM'ing since Keep on the Borderlands, and in particular I have a lot of experience with these players. I've only run one 4e campaign so far, so I asked the question out of concern there might be a balance issue.
One rule I stick heavily to, is one from page 1 of the original DMG, which says that the DM should pick and choose the rules he (and his players) enjoy. I'm a strong proponent of this.
I've just about completed this party's first adventure, which features some mostly minion zombies, and several coffins with rusty weapons and old, well-worn armor. I'll do a bit of testing, but I think my poorly geared level 1 party will do fine.
I'm having none of them start with any armor or weapons (save for one homemade sling). Personally, I couldn't care less what the rule books say about this. I strongly disagree with some of the magic item parcels the DMG wants me to hand out. Four magic items to a level one party in their first adventure? Not bloodly likely.
I also don't much care for the notion that level 1 adventurers are already 'heroes' and are 'special'. They are brave, sure, and rare compared to the many commoners that inhabit the D&D world, but there are plenty of other heroes of various levels in the game and any group I run will have to prove themselves a few times before the rabble will consider them special.
I've no worries that my players won't enjoy the game, as I've DM'd them many times. I've little patience for rules lawyers, although I'm always willing to hear their arguments and change my mind if I think I've egregiously wronged them.
At some level hit points may just be heroic luck not something you can see... I can design characters and present there abilities as a farm boy with natural talent... but the game has resurrection at level 8...and teleporting Eladrin and Swordmages at level 1, so there is some highly magical assumptions involved. But If I build a Crimson Legionaire in Plate with a mingling of Paladin and Warlocks other worlds bindings and so on... I think the ahem "little more than a farmhand" has been scrapped. Basically its a player buy in issue.
The game has inherent bonuses as already mentioned which allows you to have magic items be not significant to your characters mechanics... or you can just temper your encounter designs the same as you tempr their equipage. Boons and Grandmaster training allows you to have heros with magic items and those without any at all (I highly recommend DMG2).
I see no reason to overshadow the players characters with NPC heros of any kind myself the pcs are the center of the story.
If combat is the main meat to the adventure - but at that level I would expect more roleplay than meaningful combat.
Then why does he even need any rules? The fact remains, if there is even one combat (something that seems likely since the OP seems hell-bent on non-magic classes fighting with "rocks and fists"), the non-weapon classes will be far more useful because they are not having their damage, accuracy, and AC heavily penalized, which is what you would essentially be doing to the weapon-using classes. They wil likely have to resort to the age old D&D tradition of some classes needing to jump through hoops and impress the DM with their "creativity" to be effective, while other classes are given effectivness on a silver platter without needing to resort to "creative" measures. Of course, some people seem to think that "improves roleplaying"...
You've almost halved the damage of the weapon classes and reduced their accuracy by between 10-15%, not counting classes that gain attack bonuses from using certain weapons. Classes using heavy armour also lose a large amount of AC. Impliment-using classes, on the other hand, are not reduced in effectivness at all. The problem with this doesn't even just come from the imbalance created, something that some posters would probably brush off as "munchkin rules-lawyer whining" or something, but is also coming from it not fulfilling what the OP wants. Because the impliment users will be exactly the same as they usually are at level 1. They don't have to use rocks or fists. They lose no power whatsoever. This is not what the OP wants, which is why it should not be satisfactory.
If combat is the main meat to the adventure - but at that level I would expect more roleplay than meaningful combat.
Then why does he even need any rules? The fact remains, if there is even one combat (something that seems likely since the OP seems hell-bent on non-magic classes fighting with "rocks and fists"), the non-weapon classes will be far more useful because they are not having their damage, accuracy, and AC heavily penalized, which is what you would essentially be doing to the weapon-using classes. They wil likely have to resort to the age old D&D tradition of some classes needing to jump through hoops and impress the DM with their "creativity" to be effective, while other classes are given effectivness on a silver platter without needing to resort to "creative" measures. Of course, some people seem to think that "improves roleplaying"...
You've almost halved the damage of the weapon classes and reduced their accuracy by between 10-15%, not counting classes that gain attack bonuses from using certain weapons. Classes using heavy armour also lose a large amount of AC. Impliment-using classes, on the other hand, are not reduced in effectivness at all. The problem with this doesn't even just come from the imbalance created, something that some posters would probably brush off as "munchkin rules-lawyer whining" or something, but is also coming from it not fulfilling what the OP wants. Because the impliment users will be exactly the same as they usually are at level 1. They don't have to use rocks or fists. They lose no power whatsoever. This is not what the OP wants, which is why it should not be satisfactory.
Well I think the OP clearly specified what he or she wanted - and worrying about a 10-15% accuracy of weapons or having perfectly balanced level 1 characters was not it.
Why people get bent out of shape because someone wants to start a campaign for one adventure without the recommended starting gear is beyond me. You should try it - might be fun.
it should be basically fine if he's careful.
That's about what Junior says when he first gets his learner permit and wants to got out and try to pop some wheelies. Given that most teenagers make it to 20, he probably will be fine, but probably is not good enough odds.
it should be basically fine if he's careful.
That's about what Junior says when he first gets his learner permit and wants to got out and try to pop some wheelies. Given that most teenagers make it to 20, he probably will be fine, but probably is not good enough odds.
this is where i'd put the laughing rolly smiley but i can't find it
(if someone wants to tell me what it is i'll edit this)probably is good enough when it comes to experiments, imo
Just reflavor the mechanical concepts of "money" and "equipment" as something intangible, completely unrelated to the thematic concepts of money and equipment.
Now the characters can be thematically poor and thematically outgunned without effecting the mechanics.
If your goal is to have the characters mechanically inhibited, you can easily do so in a unilateral fashion that doesn't haphardly only impact some of the characters.
The monsters I have in the adventure are mostly zombie minions, who are quite slow (speed 4, init -2), so at least it shouldn't be difficult to stay away from them and throw rocks if they have to.
I've enough years DM'ing I'm fairly confident I can pull it off. Too often, I've seen groups find some treasure and go "meh". I just thought it might be interesting to have them be happy to find a mundane weapon, or a non-magical piece of jewellery worth 20g.
Obviously, it has to ramp up as they level up, but 4e or not, they will certainly not be equipped with 3 or 4 magic items by the end of adventure one. It's so easy to fall into the Monty Hall style of handing out loot (I've made that mistake myself), that with this approach, I can still have rewards drop with regularity without the party quickly becoming too powerful.
If you want a lower magic world, I highly recommend you use the inherent bonuses rules. Otherwise your characters will fall behind the expected power levels for designing encounters.
Lots of interesting replies. Keep in mind, as I said, I only intend for them to be weaponless or near weaponless for a fight or two. They'll find a rusty shortsword (-1), and some old leather armor, and then maybe a dagger. By the end of the first adventure, they'll all have minimal, if sub-optimal gear.
The monsters I have in the adventure are mostly zombie minions, who are quite slow (speed 4, init -2), so at least it shouldn't be difficult to stay away from them and throw rocks if they have to.
I've enough years DM'ing I'm fairly confident I can pull it off. Too often, I've seen groups find some treasure and go "meh". I just thought it might be interesting to have them be happy to find a mundane weapon, or a non-magical piece of jewellery worth 20g.
Obviously, it has to ramp up as they level up, but 4e or not, they will certainly not be equipped with 3 or 4 magic items by the end of adventure one. It's so easy to fall into the Monty Hall style of handing out loot (I've made that mistake myself), that with this approach, I can still have rewards drop with regularity without the party quickly becoming too powerful.
Right. It will be perfectly fine. The rogue can always pick up a kitchen knife and call it a light blade. Maybe he doesn't get his +1 rogue weapon talent bonus right away with it, big deal. The fighter can find a hatchet or a hefty stick and spend an hour trimming it to be a servicable club. There are also plenty of monsters that can be fought on reasonable terms (zombies particularly) even without much armor.
Yes, implement users are less gimped. OTOH it is pretty easy to set up situations where the weapon using characters can apply themselves. Dropping rocks off a ledge, pushing things off heights, knocking over stacks of crates, shelves, etc, dropping a portcullis on someone, making a simple trap, etc etc etc. A find of a vial of Alchemist's Fire can give anyone a useful one-time attack too. There are just a ton-and-a-half of ways. The casters will probably be good sticking to their powers, which will make them happy, and the non-casters can have fun improvising and getting some better toys.
Despite what you often here with people hand-wringing about this or that +1 the game won't be hurt noticable if someone has a 3 point to-hit disadvantage they need to think past for a few encounters as long as there are opportunities for them to do that.
I'm starting a new campaign shortly, and I want the starting characters to begin with almost no equipment whatsoever.
Fair enough, although take note that the PHB does mention that the 100gp is merely an abstraction of what the character has acquired throughout his pre-adventure lifetime.
Think of it this way: if the PC, as a kid, got 1 cp per day, 5 days a week, for 10 years (let's say he started adventuring at the age of 15) using the Gregorian calendar, that's a total of 2400 cp or 24gp if I'm not mistaken. This doesn't count the expenses on hand-me-down clothing and other things he may have picked up during those 10 years (even if your PC is the type that lived in his parent's basement for most of his life), as well as the equipment he may have started with, like makeshift Clubs hewn from tree branches or what not.
With this in mind, a simple houserule could be to use the weapon breakage rule from Dark Sun Campaign Setting (I love that book for the gritty feel it gives
), because whatever mundane equipment they bought using the 100gp is automatically considered subpar and easily ruined (the rule is that the wielder of the weapon or implement could reroll their attack at the cost of destroying the weapon or implement [unless they're a specific class or race, of course, but even then the option is still there for an extra reroll]); an additional houserule -- riskier to implement if you ask me -- would be that non-cloth armor bought using the 100gp could make an enemy reroll his attack, at the cost of destroying the armor. Then a third houserule: all gp not expended during character creation will be lost.With that off my chest...
1. Do I have to give every melee class a starting weapon? I'd like at least the first encounter to be down to throwing punches or rocks.
Note that you can easily have sharpened rocks be improvised daggers, branches as improvised clubs, and other weapons made from stuff that can be found in an average medieval house (e.g. brooms, pitchforks, bedposts, and other weapons that, although improvised in fluff, are mechanically actual weapons). With that in mind, as long as you're throwing brute-type minions primarily at this point, or if at the start of the story it's supposed to be a difficult battle wherein you expect the players to flee but don't mind granting them a slim chance of victory and the possibility of a TPK [total party knock-out, not necessarily kill], then sure
2. What is the absolute minimum gear I can give a level 1 arcane class? I'm going to assume a spellbook, but what else?
3. What is the absolute minimum gear I can give a level 1 divine class? I'm going to assume a deity symbol of some sort, but what else?
They'll only need the spellbook or implement if we're talking about specific feats or what not. Take note that Arcane and Divine characters can work without anything at hand -- save perhaps a weapon for classes like Warlocks and Swordmages -- although in terms of defensive armor, anything above Cloth for those who can't utilize Unarmored Agility would be useful.
4. I don't want the party to start off with more than a handful of silver amongst the whole group. Are there any official lists for prices of mundane items? (a room in a tavern, a meal, basic adventuring supplies, etc)
Player's Handbook.
5. According to the DMG, even a level 1 party deserves a parcel of magic items for it's first adventure. Even the lowest level magic items have a value of around 500 gold. It seems that an economically poor party could simply sell their first magic item and remove any and all money woes.
Look at the DMG2, it provides alternative rewards in the form of Grandmaster Training, Divine Boons, and even recommends other ways to reward the PCs without having to grant them magical equipment; in fact, it seems like Inherent Bonuses are what you are looking for, given how you want to minimize granting players uber wealth on the immediate.
Notes: Of course, I intend to provide for them. Their very first adventure will take them into a small tomb where they can find some rusted armor and weapons. I just want to have a little fun with making them do a fight or two with fists or underpowered gear, and then slowly ramp them up. I might be using old school thinking for 4e, but I don't want them to go from 'brand new' to everyone having a magic item or two within the first two adventures. However, according to the 4e rules, I'm concerned they might be underpowered if I don't do this.
Thoughts?
Seems reasonable enough, although spellcasters would certainly have the advantage here. I'm thinking: even if I was a 9 year old exploring some ancient ruin against all adult-based reason, I should at least have a stick to whack stuff with (if not the ability to run very, VERY fast).
Also, even by DMG guidelines, they won't exactly be decked out in treasure. By the end of lvl 1 a group of five characters will have a total of four items and enough cash for a 5th item amongst them. That's not exactly rolling in the dough or pimpin' the magical bling. By the book characters might have the three main items all at +1 as they're getting close to third level if not there.
I really understand what your trying to acheive, but even if it's for just a short while you're introducing a potential huge difference in character capability. If your players are cool with it then I hope you guys have a blast.
Oh scythes and pitchforks. Peasants needed a lot of them.
Also knives were all purpose tools that were used by peasants daily. And some of them weren´t tiny. People butchered their livestock themselves or one of their neighbours did it. you don´t kill animals with present day table knives.
Hammers. Considering that you have to do some manual labor, like erecting fences or building something quite regularly, it should be possible to get a bigger hammer. Not a warhammer but well, should at least do the job.
Axes. They are not only for splitting people´s skulls. Probably you had one in every household or how are you supoosed to get suitable wood for cooking? Trees don´t come in prefabricated chunks.
Unless they entered the tomb by accident, scrounging the tools of your local village should result in some serviceable weapons.
Your weapons are subpar but better than a punch. I´ve got in my modern household more than half a dozen things that I would prefer to my fists if I had to defend myself, without having something called a weapon at all at home.
Bigger problem would be armor.
The party was broke and starving. And as said; armor is a bigger issue. Of course you could always allow makeshift "chain" armor forged from thick leather with layers of iron. Just call it Chain, but slam on some extra skill check penalties and the character will be servicable but happy as they get when he gets his hands on some proper armor.
Yes, implement users are less gimped. OTOH it is pretty easy to set up situations where the weapon using characters can apply themselves. Dropping rocks off a ledge, pushing things off heights, knocking over stacks of crates, shelves, etc, dropping a portcullis on someone, making a simple trap, etc etc etc. A find of a vial of Alchemist's Fire can give anyone a useful one-time attack too. There are just a ton-and-a-half of ways. The casters will probably be good sticking to their powers, which will make them happy, and the non-casters can have fun improvising and getting some better toys.
And the impliment users can do all of those things while still having access to their powers. You aren't adding any of the mythical "extra out of the box thinking" so often touted, you are letting some people play the game while the others need to play "DM-May-I?".
Despite what you often here with people hand-wringing about this or that +1 the game won't be hurt noticable if someone has a 3 point to-hit disadvantage they need to think past for a few encounters as long as there are opportunities for them to do that.
"Hand-wringing"? I'm sure no one is losing any sleep over this. This thread has kind of become what I thought it would. OP has idea to reduce PC power level. Posters point out how it will only effect weapon-using classes and not give the desired feel for impliment users. Another group of posters shout them down and pretend they are lamenting the idea because of a few lost pluses rather than the other flaws that branch off of it, the ones they were ACTUALLY talking about. It was never an issue of the lost pluses, and it isn't even an issues of class imbalance. It is an issue that this idea will only work as intended for certain classes, which means that it is flawed since some classes will not have the desired feel.
It kind of seems like it worked, because it appears the OP is completely unaware that people ever brought up how this idea has no effect on impliment users and will not give the desired effect (or possibly doesn't care, since of course magic users should be better).
Yes, implement users are less gimped. OTOH it is pretty easy to set up situations where the weapon using characters can apply themselves. Dropping rocks off a ledge, pushing things off heights, knocking over stacks of crates, shelves, etc, dropping a portcullis on someone, making a simple trap, etc etc etc. A find of a vial of Alchemist's Fire can give anyone a useful one-time attack too. There are just a ton-and-a-half of ways. The casters will probably be good sticking to their powers, which will make them happy, and the non-casters can have fun improvising and getting some better toys.
And the impliment users can do all of those things while still having access to their powers. You aren't adding any of the mythical "extra out of the box thinking" so often touted, you are letting some people play the game while the others need to play "DM-May-I?".Despite what you often here with people hand-wringing about this or that +1 the game won't be hurt noticable if someone has a 3 point to-hit disadvantage they need to think past for a few encounters as long as there are opportunities for them to do that.
"Hand-wringing"? I'm sure no one is losing any sleep over this. This thread has kind of become what I thought it would. OP has idea to reduce PC power level. Posters point out how it will only effect weapon-using classes and not give the desired feel for impliment users. Another group of posters shout them down and pretend they are lamenting the idea because of a few lost pluses rather than the other flaws that branch off of it, the ones they were ACTUALLY talking about. It was never an issue of the lost pluses, and it isn't even an issues of class imbalance. It is an issue that this idea will only work as intended for certain classes, which means that it is flawed since some classes will not have the desired feel.
It kind of seems like it worked, because it appears the OP is completely unaware that people ever brought up how this idea has no effect on impliment users and will not give the desired effect (or possibly doesn't care, since of course magic users should be better).
Hey, if every situation where characters can do things besides use powers is a "mother-may-I" then that's true in any system anywhere anytime. Its a pointless criticism. Yes, it appears that some PCs will be more disadvantaged than others, just like they would be if the DM introduced a swarm or an insubstantial creature, etc. The whole notion that every character has to be faced with exactly equal options at all times is variety and interest killing if you ask me. For every time circumstances might favor one character over another there will be other situations where the situation will likely be reversed. It's just part of the game, learn to live with it.
I'd also observe that when I design a scenario with say some terrain powers included there's no 'asking for DM permission', the rules are right there in the scenario. If a player decides to do something beyond that? Yup, someone has to decide how it works, oh no! Isn't it strange, the game provides a DM role to take care of that... how ingenious!
Clearly if a whole campaign was imagined where one group of PCs was always permanently disadvantaged that would be a problem. Having some modest disadvantage for some of them for a short while? Big deal.
Hey, if every situation where characters can do things besides use powers is a "mother-may-I" then that's true in any system anywhere anytime. Its a pointless criticism.
It becomes "DM-May-I" when the only way to be effective is to try to get the DM to allow your creative plans to work. I have no problem with players using creative tactics. I have a problem when one group of players can do that AND has extra powers.
Yes, it appears that some PCs will be more disadvantaged than others, just like they would be if the DM introduced a swarm or an insubstantial creature, etc. The whole notion that every character has to be faced with exactly equal options at all times is variety and interest killing if you ask me. For every time circumstances might favor one character over another there will be other situations where the situation will likely be reversed. It's just part of the game, learn to live with it.
You didn't read my actual arguement. Again. Here, let me help you with that:
It was never an issue of the lost pluses, and it isn't even an issues of class imbalance. It is an issue that this idea will only work as intended for certain classes, which means that it is flawed since some classes will not have the desired feel.
Please re-read this until you understand that the issue I have with the idea is not based on class imbalance.
I'd also observe that when I design a scenario with say some terrain powers included there's no 'asking for DM permission', the rules are right there in the scenario. If a player decides to do something beyond that? Yup, someone has to decide how it works, oh no! Isn't it strange, the game provides a DM role to take care of that... how ingenious!
Using the OPs original idea, every character can use the terrain powers, but impliment users also have their own powers at 100% effectivness. I have no idea why you think I have a problem with player's using the terrain to their advantage or thinking up creative solutions outside of their powers. That was never the issue. The issue is that using the OPs original idea, weapon using classes must rely on those powers/situations while impliment users may "opt-out", meaning they are likely missing out on the flavour that the OP stated that he wanted.
Clearly if a whole campaign was imagined where one group of PCs was always permanently disadvantaged that would be a problem. Having some modest disadvantage for some of them for a short while? Big deal.
You didn't read my actual arguement. Again. Here, let me help you with that:
It was never an issue of the lost pluses, and it isn't even an issues of class imbalance. It is an issue that this idea will only work as intended for certain classes, which means that it is flawed since some classes will not have the desired feel.
Please re-read this until you understand that the issue I have with the idea is not based on class imbalance.
Yes, implement users are less gimped. OTOH it is pretty easy to set up situations where the weapon using characters can apply themselves. Dropping rocks off a ledge, pushing things off heights, knocking over stacks of crates, shelves, etc, dropping a portcullis on someone, making a simple trap, etc etc etc. A find of a vial of Alchemist's Fire can give anyone a useful one-time attack too. There are just a ton-and-a-half of ways. The casters will probably be good sticking to their powers, which will make them happy, and the non-casters can have fun improvising and getting some better toys.
And the impliment users can do all of those things while still having access to their powers. You aren't adding any of the mythical "extra out of the box thinking" so often touted, you are letting some people play the game while the others need to play "DM-May-I?".Despite what you often here with people hand-wringing about this or that +1 the game won't be hurt noticable if someone has a 3 point to-hit disadvantage they need to think past for a few encounters as long as there are opportunities for them to do that.
"Hand-wringing"? I'm sure no one is losing any sleep over this. This thread has kind of become what I thought it would. OP has idea to reduce PC power level. Posters point out how it will only effect weapon-using classes and not give the desired feel for impliment users. Another group of posters shout them down and pretend they are lamenting the idea because of a few lost pluses rather than the other flaws that branch off of it, the ones they were ACTUALLY talking about. It was never an issue of the lost pluses, and it isn't even an issues of class imbalance. It is an issue that this idea will only work as intended for certain classes, which means that it is flawed since some classes will not have the desired feel.
It kind of seems like it worked, because it appears the OP is completely unaware that people ever brought up how this idea has no effect on impliment users and will not give the desired effect (or possibly doesn't care, since of course magic users should be better).
What game out there right now gives what you are asking for? I don't know of one and D&D certainly has never ever gone that route. If someone can sneak around and someone else can't then is that person that can't at a disadvantage?
Let's take a look at the martial classes for a moment. Most of these classes have a good bit of proficiency in most weapons. There is nothing stopping that martial character from picking up a pitchfork and using it as a type of polearm, trident, longspear etc... Also, there is nothing keeping that martial character from using their powers. Will they have a harder time hitting, could be or it may not?
In battles where you have lots of minions the AoE character has an advantage over the single hit characters because the AoE guy can take out several creatures with one hit while the other guy has to hit one at a time.
I think you also assume that everyone doesn't like this style of gameplay when that's not true. You may not like it and that's fine but there are plenty of people who do. They like the notion of being at a disadvantage and having to use their wits and whatever they can find to get the job done.
What game out there right now gives what you are asking for? I don't know of one and D&D certainly has never ever gone that route. If someone can sneak around and someone else can't then is that person that can't at a disadvantage?
That was never what I was "asking for". This has nothing to do whatsoever with what I was saying.
Let's take a look at the martial classes for a moment. Most of these classes have a good bit of proficiency in most weapons. There is nothing stopping that martial character from picking up a pitchfork and using it as a type of polearm, trident, longspear etc... Also, there is nothing keeping that martial character from using their powers. Will they have a harder time hitting, could be or it may not?
The OP specified "rocks and fists", implying he wants the weapons used, if any, to be inferior to standard weapons. Even beyond that, weapon users losing effectivness in the proposed idea was never the issue.
In battles where you have lots of minions the AoE character has an advantage over the single hit characters because the AoE guy can take out several creatures with one hit while the other guy has to hit one at a time.
This has nothing to do whatsoever with my statements. I wasn't talking about, at any point, certain characters having an advantage in certain situations while not in others as being an issue. This is an arguement of your own invention trotted out, assumably, just so you could voice a complaint about an unrelated issue. That's not appropriate in this thread.
Even besides that, the actual issue at hand is a very different scenario. It isn't like "full-strength powers" is the impliment users advantage while "creative problem solving" is the weapon users advantage, since the impliment users can do that too.
I think you also assume that everyone doesn't like this style of gameplay when that's not true. You may not like it and that's fine but there are plenty of people who do. They like the notion of being at a disadvantage and having to use their wits and whatever they can find to get the job done.
I never said I disliked it. I never said he was wrong for wanting this style of gameplay. I have said repeatedly, over and over, that that wasn't what I was argueing against. I in fact want the best for OP in his pursuit of "the notion of being at a disadvantage and having to use their wits and whatever they can find to get the job done."
Which is exactly why I think it is a bad idea to use an idea that only gives that notion for a small portion of characters. It is not an issue of "fairness", and I'm really dissapointed that this thread was hijacked by people trying to make it a front for them to pretend they are defending the OP from an imagined horde of people telling him he is trying to have bad-wrong-fun. It is an issue that, as I understand it, the OP wants to characters to have to use their wits and whatever they can find to defend themselves, because they don't have their normally assumed tools, ie. weapons. Making the characters have no weapons/impliments WILL NOT have the desired effect on impliment users since they will be at regular effectivness, and will not have the same "Jumped by bandits! Do something quick!" feel that weapon users will, since they can just do exactly what they always do at the exact same level of effectivness. If the party is composed of nothing but weapon users, this idea would BE ABSOLUTLY FINE, and I would heartily endorse it! But in any other case the OP should be made aware that impliment users will not have the feel he wants. That's the bottom line.
As I mentioned before, perhaps that even is what the OP wants. Maybe he wants the impliment users to be stronger off the bat. I can't tell, because he hasn't said mch lately and has not responded to me mentioning it. If that is the case though, then this idea will be fine. I wouldn't ever impliment it, but I wouldn't stop him from doing it, and would just say that yes, that is what this idea will do, mission accomplished.
So that's it. This idea will only have the desired effect on weapon users as currently understood, and will not give the same feel to impliment users. This information can be used by the OP in whatever manner he wishes.
What game out there right now gives what you are asking for? I don't know of one and D&D certainly has never ever gone that route. If someone can sneak around and someone else can't then is that person that can't at a disadvantage?
That was never what I was "asking for". This has nothing to do whatsoever with what I was saying.Let's take a look at the martial classes for a moment. Most of these classes have a good bit of proficiency in most weapons. There is nothing stopping that martial character from picking up a pitchfork and using it as a type of polearm, trident, longspear etc... Also, there is nothing keeping that martial character from using their powers. Will they have a harder time hitting, could be or it may not?
The OP specified "rocks and fists", implying he wants the weapons used, if any, to be inferior to standard weapons. Even beyond that, weapon users losing effectivness in the proposed idea was never the issue.In battles where you have lots of minions the AoE character has an advantage over the single hit characters because the AoE guy can take out several creatures with one hit while the other guy has to hit one at a time.
This has nothing to do whatsoever with my statements. I wasn't talking about, at any point, certain characters having an advantage in certain situations while not in others as being an issue. This is an arguement of your own invention trotted out, assumably, just so you could voice a complaint about an unrelated issue. That's not appropriate in this thread.
Even besides that, the actual issue at hand is a very different scenario. It isn't like "full-strength powers" is the impliment users advantage while "creative problem solving" is the weapon users advantage, since the impliment users can do that too.I think you also assume that everyone doesn't like this style of gameplay when that's not true. You may not like it and that's fine but there are plenty of people who do. They like the notion of being at a disadvantage and having to use their wits and whatever they can find to get the job done.
I never said I disliked it. I never said he was wrong for wanting this style of gameplay. I have said repeatedly, over and over, that that wasn't what I was argueing against. I in fact want the best for OP in his pursuit of "the notion of being at a disadvantage and having to use their wits and whatever they can find to get the job done."
Which is exactly why I think it is a bad idea to use an idea that only gives that notion for a small portion of characters. It is not an issue of "fairness", and I'm really dissapointed that this thread was hijacked by people trying to make it a front for them to pretend they are defending the OP from an imagined horde of people telling him he is trying to have bad-wrong-fun. It is an issue that, as I understand it, the OP wants to characters to have to use their wits and whatever they can find to defend themselves, because they don't have their normally assumed tools, ie. weapons. Making the characters have no weapons/impliments WILL NOT have the desired effect on impliment users since they will be at regular effectivness, and will not have the same "Jumped by bandits! Do something quick!" feel that weapon users will, since they can just do exactly what they always do at the exact same level of effectivness. If the party is composed of nothing but weapon users, this idea would BE ABSOLUTLY FINE, and I would heartily endorse it! But in any other case the OP should be made aware that impliment users will not have the feel he wants. That's the bottom line.
As I mentioned before, perhaps that even is what the OP wants. Maybe he wants the impliment users to be stronger off the bat. I can't tell, because he hasn't said mch lately and has not responded to me mentioning it. If that is the case though, then this idea will be fine. I wouldn't ever impliment it, but I wouldn't stop him from doing it, and would just say that yes, that is what this idea will do, mission accomplished.
So that's it. This idea will only have the desired effect on weapon users as currently understood, and will not give the same feel to impliment users. This information can be used by the OP in whatever manner he wishes.
Why do you think it has to be all about someone getting the short end of the stick? It doesn't seem to me that he is doing this on purpose to make implement users look superior.
Anyway, the perfect thing the OP could is award the martial people with an inherent bonus due to the determination they have to survive. They will use tooth and nail or whatever it takes to accomplish their goal.
The whole caster vs melee debate reminds me, why my NPCs don´t demand weapons locked for both sides anymore in diplomatic situations. Doesn´t make much sense with half dozen casters sitting in the same room.
I still wonder why they have to use rocks and fists insead of scythes and utility knives but well, seems it doesn´t matter.
My goal is two-fold. I want them to have to think beyond the normal routine. Also, I want to give them a feel of starting from literally dirt-poor and work up. If they find a dead body wearing old crappy leather armor with some rusty short sword, (and they will), that gear would be junk not worth picking up. But if you have no weapon, and no armor, suddenly that crummy equipment is useful and, in a sense, treasure. Later, when they find a corpse with a non-magical ring worth 25gp, it'll actually mean something because that will represent 10x the money the party has on them in total. It'll seem like a windfall. At no time later in the campaign will this be possible.
So, by the end of the small adventure, they'll have some sub-par gear, but they'll have gear. And they'll have just enough money to buy a few adventuring supplies. And they'll have to carefully consider their spending for a while. In most campaigns, how often do characters actually have to do that?
It is my hope that this will impart a sense of progress from literally encounter one. Heck, by encounter five, they'll have doubled their gear and their wealth, without even having to hand out a single magic item. They'll get them soon enough.
As rustmonster is phrasing it, this isn't a question of fairness between the weapon users and the implement users. It's a question of you having some characters that are getting the "Oh, no, what do we do?" feel you're going for, and other characters answering back with, "Blast them as usual, duh!"
The point rustmonster is making, though, is that you won't get the feel you're looking for from implement users. Their powers work just as well, assuming you're not at a level that requires an enhancement bonus, without an implement as they do with an implement, with a few exceptions. The arcanist wizard's implent mastery class feature, the swordmage's swordmage warding class feature, the implement expertise feats are some exceptions, of course, but the powers still do the same damage and have the same effects whether the caster has an implement or not.
As rustmonster is phrasing it, this isn't a question of fairness between the weapon users and the implement users. It's a question of you having some characters that are getting the "Oh, no, what do we do?" feel you're going for, and other characters answering back with, "Blast them as usual, duh!"
That's a fair point. I think I'm going to impose a house-rule penalty on the casters for not having implements. Like the melee, they'll get them soon of course.
I just wanted to repeat that I only intend for them to be disadvantaged for a couple of fights. They will also have no adventuring gear.
My goal is two-fold. I want them to have to think beyond the normal routine. Also, I want to give them a feel of starting from literally dirt-poor and work up. If they find a dead body wearing old crappy leather armor with some rusty short sword, (and they will), that gear would be junk not worth picking up. But if you have no weapon, and no armor, suddenly that crummy equipment is useful and, in a sense, treasure. Later, when they find a corpse with a non-magical ring worth 25gp, it'll actually mean something because that will represent 10x the money the party has on them in total. It'll seem like a windfall. At no time later in the campaign will this be possible.
So, by the end of the small adventure, they'll have some sub-par gear, but they'll have gear. And they'll have just enough money to buy a few adventuring supplies. And they'll have to carefully consider their spending for a while. In most campaigns, how often do characters actually have to do that?
It is my hope that this will impart a sense of progress from literally encounter one. Heck, by encounter five, they'll have doubled their gear and their wealth, without even having to hand out a single magic item. They'll get them soon enough.
It'll be a very tricky endeavor that will likely put casters at an advantage, given that they're fine without anything more than the flesh of their skin 'til a certain point in the game where accuracy would be much more difficult to obtain. My suggestion is that you show the players that there are options outside that of powers -- maybe have an NPC along with them who, instead of attacking an enemy with his fists, would pull down (or at least try to pull down) the bookshelf next to him on top of the incoming enemy... or maybe even an enemy who doesn't use his powers, but instead attacks using the terrain and then hinting at those who have high enough insight that maybe the stronger folk in the group could do the same -- before leaving them to their own devices.
The point rustmonster is making, though, is that you won't get the feel you're looking for from implement users. Their powers work just as well, assuming you're not at a level that requires an enhancement bonus, without an implement as they do with an implement, with a few exceptions. The arcanist wizard's implent mastery class feature, the swordmage's swordmage warding class feature, the implement expertise feats are some exceptions, of course, but the powers still do the same damage and have the same effects whether the caster has an implement or not.
As rustmonster is phrasing it, this isn't a question of fairness between the weapon users and the implement users. It's a question of you having some characters that are getting the "Oh, no, what do we do?" feel you're going for, and other characters answering back with, "Blast them as usual, duh!"
That's a fair point. I think I'm going to impose a house-rule penalty on the casters for not having implements. Like the melee, they'll get them soon of course.
OR you could simply either grant melee classes a +2 situational bonus to their weapon attacks, or reduce the AC of enemies by 2, at least while the group hasn't obtained any weapons.
Is it really that hard for a DM who intends to remove the minimum-2-proficiency bonus?
With that, might I suggest you read up on Unearthed Arcana: A Hero's First Steps from Dragon #403, which seems to give you exactly what you want, and more, as level 0 characters are even less able to utilize equipment... at least until the initial portion of the adventure is over, and they actually get the abilities needed for a *proper* adventurer.
It's not entirely about the proficiency. What about powers that have weapon requirements, like you must be wielding a two-handed weapon, or a weapon in each hand, or a light blade? What about the 1d4 damage from improvised weapons? What if you have an Arena Fighter that deals more damage and actually does get a proficiency bonus from improvised weapons? There's a lot of ways forbidding access to weapons can affect your powers, depending on what class you're actually playing.
Point taken, which is all the more the reason why I suggested the Unearthed Arcana article, since all those issues you mentioned would instantly disappear, as none of the powers available only to level 0 characters have those issues, and the article itself caters to the starts-out-penniless idea of adventuring.
Just point out that there's a depth of complexity that I didn't see being acknowledged.
EDIT: So, to illustrate, you could have a thief that can't do anything but move around quickly and throw rocks, a slayer that can still use his stances and power strike with his improvised big two-handed stick, and a mage that literally doesn't care about this restriction at all. Each of these characters is going to a completely different feel from either of the other two in this kind of setup. I think rustmonster and, by extension, I, are just trying to make you aware that saying "no equipment" doesn't universally apply the feel you're looking for, is all.
Hmmm..... it's a couple of fights.... who cares if class x is at a disadvantage, or has to throw a rock instead of using an encounter ability, or even if some rule says I can't do that? It's a couple of fights, mostly against minion zombies, like a few hours max over the course of an entire campaign. I don't see what the big deal is, cause it's not a big deal.
I think the issue is more "if I was in that adventure, I want the best chance of survival at hand without having the DM handwaive stuff."
With that off my chest, I encourage you to get a hold of the said article; basically the gist is that the players determine their
* background, which is where you can determine their power source
* power source, which determines which at-will they get in addition to basic attacks
* race (as per normal)
* ability scores, choose between the two (this excludes racial bonuses)
** promising [14 primary & secondary, 12 tertiary, 10 the rest]
** prodigy [16 primary, 12 secondary & tertiary, 10 the rest except one, which is 8]
* trained skill, which is based on the power source (choose one)
* race-granted feats, if any
* equipment (no armor, no armor proficiencies, no weapon proficiencies), wherein you can easily rule that they get their weapon later in the adventure
* Hit points and surges; maxHP = 6 + Constitution score, Surges/Day = 4 + Constitution modifier
* alignment and deity/ies their PC worships
The at-wills essentially use the PHB3 power point system, using the term "experience token" instead, but basically it's a weapon or implement attack (the weapon attacks get a +2 to hit as part of the power, to replace the lack of proficiency in any weapon, not even simple weapons) that can be empowered to do something else, and the frequency of using that "something else" determines what role fits the player's playing style best, once the party reaches level 1.
I'm not necessarily saying "How dare you be unfair to your players for 10 round of combat." I'm just pointing out that weapons can do a lot more for a character than attack and damage bonuses, and exactly how much a weapon impacts a character's capabilities is going to depend on the character's class.
Just point out that there's a depth of complexity that I didn't see being acknowledged.
EDIT: So, to illustrate, you could have a thief that can't do anything but move around quickly and throw rocks, a slayer that can still use his stances and power strike with his improvised big two-handed stick, and a mage that literally doesn't care about this restriction at all. Each of these characters is going to a completely different feel from either of the other two in this kind of setup. I think rustmonster and, by extension, I, are just trying to make you aware that saying "no equipment" doesn't universally apply the feel you're looking for, is all.
I like what SwampDog is suggesting, and I may take his concept to my table as well, for our Eberron campaign. It's just that trying to put everyone at level 1 and then have all these makeshift methods to both try to convey the idea of the starts-insignificant-and-poor-then-becomes-skilled-and-powerful and keep it balanced is a lot more difficult than, well, using a well-written and relatively balanced Unearthed Arcana article that has already been published.
I mean in your example, the thief and the slayer would at level 0 both be martial characters who use their experience token to utilize Sparring Thrust's striker aspect, with the main difference being that the slayer would likely confront danger in the face, while the thief would wait for combat advantage first. The mage would still do 3 damage, as with a swordmage, an artificer, or any other arcane class, with the differences lying primarily in a) story, and b) where they spend their experience token (leader, striker, controller, defender).
The character creation methodology is the same for all -- much like in Gamma World 4E, but with far less HP than some might be comfortabe with -- but I can easily see the variety in play that can come from even a couple of minions taking on these adventurer-wannabes.
There is no icon for subscriber, so I assume SwampDog has no access to it.
One can always ask a friend who has DDI to show them DDI content. I am not saying they should burn a CD or something, but the rules themselves are not that hard to get a grasp of as far as level 0 goes.
Hell, I've seen them, and I don't have DDI. I know that friend of mine would let me see the rules any time I needed them.
Definitely some good advice here, thanks.
I'd like to clarify I have been DM'ing since Keep on the Borderlands, and in particular I have a lot of experience with these players. I've only run one 4e campaign so far, so I asked the question out of concern there might be a balance issue.
One rule I stick heavily to, is one from page 1 of the original DMG, which says that the DM should pick and choose the rules he (and his players) enjoy. I'm a strong proponent of this.
I've just about completed this party's first adventure, which features some mostly minion zombies, and several coffins with rusty weapons and old, well-worn armor. I'll do a bit of testing, but I think my poorly geared level 1 party will do fine.
I'm having none of them start with any armor or weapons (save for one homemade sling). Personally, I couldn't care less what the rule books say about this. I strongly disagree with some of the magic item parcels the DMG wants me to hand out. Four magic items to a level one party in their first adventure? Not bloodly likely.
I also don't much care for the notion that level 1 adventurers are already 'heroes' and are 'special'. They are brave, sure, and rare compared to the many commoners that inhabit the D&D world, but there are plenty of other heroes of various levels in the game and any group I run will have to prove themselves a few times before the rabble will consider them special.
I've no worries that my players won't enjoy the game, as I've DM'd them many times. I've little patience for rules lawyers, although I'm always willing to hear their arguments and change my mind if I think I've egregiously wronged them.
Your mind is made up why ask for advice? There was a conscious design decision to allow characters to not get killed by house cats or sewer rats at level 1.
I say that mainly in regards to the opinion about the magic items. Yes magic items are sort of rare. For the general populace. Not the heroes. They are going to be facing demon lords and gods. Finding an enchanted shield isn't a huge stretch.
Your mind is made up why ask for advice? There was a conscious design decision to allow characters to not get killed by house cats or sewer rats at level 1.
I say that mainly in regards to the opinion about the magic items. Yes magic items are sort of rare. For the general populace. Not the heroes. They are going to be facing demon lords and gods. Finding an enchanted shield isn't a huge stretch.
I seriously doubt there's much chance they'll get killed by a few zombie minions in a few fights. I'm not seeking to kill or seriously wound them, just get thinking along different lines of strategy for a couple of fights.
They will find magic items, just not on the first adventure. If you go by the PHB rules strictly, it seems very possible that a 5th level party could have 20 or so magic items between them, which frankly I find ludicrous.
They will find magic items, just not on the first adventure. If you go by the PHB rules strictly, it seems very possible that a 5th level party could have 20 or so magic items between them, which frankly I find ludicrous.
Why? Unless you're using Inherent Bonuses, that's the expected output (which, by definition, means it's not 'Monty Haul', which is providing more treasure than expected).
Your mind is made up why ask for advice? There was a conscious design decision to allow characters to not get killed by house cats or sewer rats at level 1.
I say that mainly in regards to the opinion about the magic items. Yes magic items are sort of rare. For the general populace. Not the heroes. They are going to be facing demon lords and gods. Finding an enchanted shield isn't a huge stretch.
I seriously doubt there's much chance they'll get killed by a few zombie minions in a few fights. I'm not seeking to kill or seriously wound them, just get thinking along different lines of strategy for a couple of fights.
They will find magic items, just not on the first adventure. If you go by the PHB rules strictly, it seems very possible that a 5th level party could have 20 or so magic items between them, which frankly I find ludicrous.
Are you sure your players also find it ludicrous? Be sure that you are doing things to make the game more enjoyable by all, not just you.
Anyway, the 20 items is more like 15 items + cash that can be spent on stuff (magic items, consumables, mundane things, ritual components).
Given that a party of 5 PC's uses up 3 slots per character for the very basic (weapon, armor, neck slot) items, the effect of those items is not a huge one on the game in terms of making it more complex or anything like that.
I sometimes think that the "feel" of the loot system would have been better if the low end magical stuff (currently) would have instead been masterwork stuff that gives the same game effect. That way, the DM's who think it is odd to see so much magic could maybe still give out the very same loot (mechanically), without getting too pissed off with the loot messing up their "vision" of how the game should be.
Your mind is made up why ask for advice? There was a conscious design decision to allow characters to not get killed by house cats or sewer rats at level 1.
I say that mainly in regards to the opinion about the magic items. Yes magic items are sort of rare. For the general populace. Not the heroes. They are going to be facing demon lords and gods. Finding an enchanted shield isn't a huge stretch.
I seriously doubt there's much chance they'll get killed by a few zombie minions in a few fights. I'm not seeking to kill or seriously wound them, just get thinking along different lines of strategy for a couple of fights.
They will find magic items, just not on the first adventure. If you go by the PHB rules strictly, it seems very possible that a 5th level party could have 20 or so magic items between them, which frankly I find ludicrous.
Are you sure your players also find it ludicrous? Be sure that you are doing things to make the game more enjoyable by all, not just you.
Anyway, the 20 items is more like 15 items + cash that can be spent on stuff (magic items, consumables, mundane things, ritual components).
Given that a party of 5 PC's uses up 3 slots per character for the very basic (weapon, armor, neck slot) items, the effect of those items is not a huge one on the game in terms of making it more complex or anything like that.
I sometimes think that the "feel" of the loot system would have been better if the low end magical stuff (currently) would have instead been masterwork stuff that gives the same game effect. That way, the DM's who think it is odd to see so much magic could maybe still give out the very same loot (mechanically), without getting too pissed off with the loot messing up their "vision" of how the game should be.
One could convert 2 magical items into their value in gold, and give 2 magic items out per parcel level. Or 3 magical items worth of gold, etc. And use silver pieces if you want to make them feel rich, or platinum as the baseline to make them feel poor. It seems nothing makes a party feel richer than having 600 silver pieces, even if that only means 60 gold. It's all about the amount of coins for some players and for some DMs. Also, the Draconomicon (the first one) provides ideas for odd treasure that isn't coinage that could replace the magic item worth if you feel inclined to make them poor and magicless but still stay within the realms of the parcel system. And mind the Pluses, they are expected for play, Swampy.
I think your idea will work out just fine. As others mentioned, there are actually rules to support Level 0 characters, but they are only viewable with a DDI sub. So here they are in a nutshell; hopefully this gives you some ideas.
1) Pick Power Source. You don't have a class yet, so your power source determines what you can do (each one gives an at-will power).
Arcane: Arcane Missile, ranged 10, 3 force damage as an effect.
Divine: Faith Strike, melee weapon, Str +2 or Wis +2 vs AC (they don't get prof. bonuses, so the +2 is built into the power to account for higher AC of monsters compared to NADs), 1[W] + str or wis mod damage.
etc, etc. (if you want the rest I can type it up for you).
In addition, all of the powers have extra effects based on your role. You don't pick a role in advance; instead, when you use a power you might pick an extra effect as you see fit (see below). Then, at the end of the adventure (when you become a Level 1 character and pick a class), you look back at how often you used each effect to help you decide which role you would like most.
For example, you might mark the target (defender) or deal 1d6 extra damage (striker).
2) Pick Race normally, including all powers.
3) Ability Scores. These start a bit lower than normal. The two arrays listed are: 14, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10 and 16, 12, 12, 10, 10, 8. They increase to normal scores at level 1.
4) Skill. You get 1 trained skill, based on your Power Source (each source has 3 options). For example, Arcane heroes can pick from Arcana, Diplomacy, or History.
5) Feats. You only get a feat if granted by your race.
6) Gear. Clothes, backpack, belt, 1 simple weapon, and one other item worth 5 gp or less. No armor, no proficiency in any weapon.
7) Defenses and HP. You start with 6 + Con score HP, and 4 + Con mod surges. Your defenses are calculated normally. You start with 1 action point.
Experience Tokens: instead of XP, characters get Experience Tokens. You start with 1 of them. They can be used once per round when you hit with your at-will attack; when you use one you can pick one of the Role specific extra effects. After each fight, the DM gives each player one or more tokens based on the difficulty of the fight.