Zero Level Characters

What's so big about a 0th level character? What's the mystery? Isn't everybody - with notable exceptions for those who are already higher level - a 0th level character in third edition (3e) D&D? Perhaps, though it greatly depends on how one defines the term.

I wish to define them a bit differently than you may have seen before. This is done for functionality and realism within 3e's system, and mostly to avoid the problems of 'Sudden Development.' If you wish to read more about this problem and why it is a problem for many roleplayers, follow the link below:

The Problems Of Sudden Development (What Is Sudden Development, And Why Is It A Bad Thing?)

A 0th level character is not any old Tom, Dick, or Harriet with zero training or zero experience points in a particular class. Nor are they commoners or other 'lesser' character classes. Then what are they?

In short, a 0th level character is someone who has studied, or has been instructed in special techniques - probably in secret ways, mystic ways, spiritual ways, or even other occult ways - all born of long, hard won knowledge throughout the centuries.

This training is not just 'self-taught' stuff, but the dissemination of vast experience to the student as they slowly begin to absorb the intricacies of the class's skills. It is the difference between picking up a sword, and actually being shown how to use it by a master, between uttering gibberish, or casting a true spell with real power, between sticking a piece of metal in a lock and hoping for the best, or knowing how locks work internally and what must be done to open them, and even between well intentioned heavenward pleas to the powers that be, to specific ones framed within proper understanding and respect and a mutual understanding between oneself and a higher being.

The basis of a beginning class is not a collection of self-taught bits of fluff one can pick up any old place in under a fortnight. Perhaps a few skills may be like that, but not the whole package, and if you ever wish to progress beyond low-levels in any class, the tried and true methods of most D&D societies have these traditional paths available for the would-be adventurer.

Thus, one does not start out as a 0th level character in most classes by default. If you have had NO wizard training, for example, you are NOT a 0th level wizard, despite common misconceptions to the contrary. It is usually only after years of hard work and instruction that one might qualify to be 0th level in any given class - apart from commoner, which is the default class in 3e, assuming you are at least an adult.

The commoner, I must point out, is also not a 1st level character by default. Adult commoners are, but not children. Children, then, are the default 0th level commoner characters, and unless something really wicked cool is going on, that is where we all start when we are born or hatched. Also, unless one gets very specialized training while young, when one enters adulthood and matures, 1st level commoner is probably where they will end up, and pretty much stay their entire lives.

Even if a commoner managed to acquire some small amount of special training along the way, that wouldn't make them 0th level in a specific class most often associated with that skill, and certainly not something other than a commoner.

For example, though you may learn how to fence with a rapier and even get quite good at it, you might be a higher-level commoner than most, but would NOT be a fighter of any level, 0th or otherwise, just because of decent training with the rapier. Surprisingly enough, this may even be true of an Olympic class fencer. He or she may be fantastic with the foil, rapier, or epee, under the rules of the sport, but that one skill - no matter how good - hardly qualifies them to be an adventurer, or a first level fighter. A 'fighter' is far more than just one who is good with a sword or any single weapon, or even just good with weapons in general. It is much more than that.

There are myriad other skills associated with each class, and a great deal of basic training common to all classes, that make up each of the 11 D&D adventurer classes.

Now, with a decent education, one may change from a commoner class to an expert class. They wouldn't be multiclass commoner/expert, mind you, since superior training always supersedes the commoner class - unlike all other classes. That is, a better class overwrites any remaining commoner class. That is why no one is an Nth level commoner / Mth level rogue, for example.

The normal path of most D&D adventurers is being born as a 0th level commoner, but through luck or happenstance or privilege, good fortune smiles upon them and they receive special training. Thus, they do not end up as 1st level commoners.

This special training normally begins at childhood as soon as they are able to know what's what - about 7 years for a human, or the equivalent in longer-lived races - but it may occur later in life for 'late bloomers' or those who just don't have the opportunity or a reason to train before that time. Thus, they may go from 0th level commoner to 0th level in one of the 11 major classes, or even from 1st or higher level commoner to 0th level in a better class if they got a late start.

NOTE: A 1st level commoner's hit dice is 1d4, and it is NOT 'maxed out' - usually. If any commoner gains training in a greater class, their first hit dice is REPLACED with a better hit dice, and probably one that is fully trained, or 'maxed out' as well. Other commoner hit dice, if any, will be over written as they acquire higher levels in their new classes. They actually retain those hit points, however, until those dice are over written.

0th level? Why 0th level? Why not instantly become 1st level?

Well, zero is just an arbitrary point, after all. Isn't it? It's not like having 0 experience points at first level means your PC has zero life experience, for example. They have a lot of experience at that point - just not something worth measuring on a particular 'Adventurer Scale.' In fact, they already have vast experience at that point - perhaps decade's worth.

So the transition between 0th level commoner to 0th level cleric, for example, represents the long, hard work of the acolyte in training in learning the ways of their lord and church. They are not instantly 1st level clerics as soon as they sign up for divine training and instruction. It takes time to learn this specialized collection of skills and knowledge. Nothing springs into existence out of nothing, and rarely does one acquire incredible skills or vast knowledge overnight. It all takes time.

But how much time does it actually take? Perhaps it takes years - perhaps half a lifetime to learn a single system - but usually it is best measured in years. I guess it's possible to pick up some impressive training rather quickly, but we usually frown upon this notion since it makes ALL adventuring characters commonplace, less epic or less heroic, and not really anything special.

Remember, if it's easy to do, then anybody and everybody can, and will probably do it. But if it's hard, rare, expensive, tedious, overly intricate, or what have you, then few will have opportunity to follow that path, let alone the raw, naked ability to become great at it, let alone the desire or driving ambition to get it done. Few. Not most. That is why adventurers ARE really something special - not because they are easy, but because they are hard. As players, we sometimes forget this since we didn't have to do the struggling for our characters and just stepped into their lives, so to speak.

Adventurers, for the most part, are exactly this. For myriad possible reasons too numerous to list, they acquire this rare training, and endure perhaps years of exacting discipline, hard work, suffering, and frustrations, before they are more than one-trick ponies, or just someone really good at only one or two skills, like most commoners.

Remember, a wizard, for example, learns more than just how to cast a spell. They learn about magical theory, how to fend off magical attacks, why magic works, and they learn about the universe and the deities in it, as well as other powers that exist, and what to do, or what to avoid doing. And they learn about physical training in mind and body and other basic training, as well as many other things all adventurers have in common. This is all part of the vast training required to become a true wizard - not just some skill at spell casting.

In D&D terms, the student adventurer learns base attack bonuses - BAB - saving throw bonuses, hit dice, a few healing skills and first aid techniques to 'bind wounds,' and all the other skills common to all adventurers. They are learned to greater or lesser degrees of emphasis in each different class, sure, but they all learn it. Commoners hardly ever learn this stuff. Even basic CPR might be beyond their skills, let alone knowledge of the technique's existence. And that's just the minimum of 'binding wounds,' a single assumed skill all adventurers share in common, let alone the many other standard and assumed skills that ALL adventurers have in common.

This is why a commoner can actually be better with a rapier than your fighter, for example, but also why that same commoner will go down like a ton of bricks if you hit them even once with a decent shot, or feel quite out of their depth if open melee were to break out. Or in D&D terms, their attack bonus with THAT one weapon may be huge, but they have 1 hit dice - and it may not even be a fully trained hit dice - and probably no saving throws worth mentioning beyond most 0th level commoners, and might be clueless what to do in any setting other than a narrow playing field. In short, they'll probably get killed pretty quickly, even if they get in a decent shot or two before falling.

So what does all this mean? Well, it means long before one becomes 1st level in a class, they become 0th level in THAT class, and that the 0th level class designation is NOT the default for people at large, but represents the preexisting groundwork, the fundamentals, the basic training and skills, and the very foundation upon which one will build all subsequent skills and feats within that class. All of that takes a long time to acquire and develop.

Each class has a basic package of skills they have earned, but not at 1st level, as you may have thought. No, these skills were acquired BEFORE 1st level.

Cantrips, for example, are acquired at 0th level wizard, sorcerer, or bard, and not at 1st level. This is why a commoner is NOT a 0th level wizard. A 0th level wizard is 0th level because of years of 'wizard' training, and so far, all they have mastered are the basic skills and talents necessary to cast simple cantrips. They aren't capable of casting 1st level spells - yet. Classes are hard, recall, and not easy to master.

Players may easily be confused on this point since, more often than not, they pick up a character for the first time, or make them, right AT 1st level, and thus picked their 0th level cantrips and 1st level spells at the same time, so these separate skills 'seem' to happen simultaneously. Or they may wonder how one can apparently be lower than 0th level in a class at all, and may simply not grasp the arbitrary nature of a number line's origin. But I assure you, the whole idea behind cantrips and orisons is that they were learned long before the 1st level spells, and are supposed to be the foundation and practice of magical talents that helped the spell casting student learn how to eventually be able to cast 1st level spells. So they come first.

Orisons are similar to cantrips, but for clerics, druids, and probably even paladins and rangers, despite 3e's lack of granting paladins and rangers this orison ability - which was a mistake, in my opinion.

Any class eventually capable of casting 1st level spells ought to acquire 0th level spells first. That is what 0th level spells are all about. Otherwise, just call the first spells one gets level-1 spells and be done with it. But older editions carry over to 3e and retain cantrips and orisons, and these cantrips and orisons are thus what one practices and masters BEFORE they move on to 1st level spell capability.

If this is so, it makes little sense for paladins and rangers to instantly acquire 1st level spells and never be able to cast orisons. Why? If one can learn 1st level spells without practice, why aren't the other classes doing it too? Obviously, it would make more sense if anyone eventually capable of 1st level spells would acquire cantrips or orisons first.

NOTE: DMs may have to decided what spells may be used as orisons for rangers and holy warriors if they use these rules. I recommend, however, that holy warriors be limited to something within their deity's domain, and that rangers pick from the druid's list of orisons.

Rogues and bards do not instantly acquire vast knowledge and skills, but have been paying attention, practicing, and adding it to their repertoire for years.

Languages are rarely learned in a few weeks or months, but usually over years of study, or at least a year or so of being immersed in the native culture where necessity forces one to acquire the tongue more quickly.

Barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, and even monks acquire lots of 0th level skills before they get their 1st level stuff. These skills represent training in weapons, armor, shields, tactics, disciplines and techniques, fighting styles, and more. This stuff doesn't spring up overnight, which is why many have a problem with 3e's method of multiclassing, just as many roleplayers dislike any apparent 'sudden development.' It SHOULD take time, perhaps years, to acquire a new class.

Alas, it's not so fun to shelf a character for years of game time while they acquire a new class or classes, so provisions are made concerning how they may acquire these basics as a sort of 'on the job' training using the N level rule. But I digress. If you wish to see this N level rule, check out the link below:

The N Level Rule (How To Fix 3e's Biggest Problem. The N Level Rule Helps Prevent Abuse Of 3e's Multiclass System.)

NOTE: Earlier editions of AD&D were not much better on some fronts; so don't mistake me as someone who claims only 3e has flaws. Earlier edition multiclass characters, in particular, were silly inasmuch as they were forced to maintain ALL their classes on equal levels - i.e. split xp evenly between all their classes - and never pick up a new one, or drop one for further training, and they were never allowed to learn new things in new combinations. The only reasons 2e was superior in this regard is that years of training were already assumed for all one's classes, so no sudden development for a new class kept rearing its ugly head with the regularity it does in 3e, and it was assumed even more years of training would be required to pick up a new class.

So the reason one 'couldn't' just start to learn a new class was ostensibly because that would necessitate taking years and years of time off, and they ultimately would choose not to do this. They could do it, you see, but probably wouldn't do it. If a player did insist, fine, they could do it, but the rest of the party was unlikely to wait years for them to do this, so the game would move on without that character. Chances are, the campaign would close before enough game years had passed to include that character again, thus effectively putting that character out of the game if they chose to follow this path. When the player realized the truth of this, they usually thought better of picking up a new class at THAT time, as the REALISM of not being allowed to INSTANTLY acquire a new class sank in. Thus, they chose to continue adventuring rather than knock off for a handful of years to acquire new and further training. Anyone who says 2e didn't 'allow' someone to pick up a new class - and was therefore unrealistic - was probably not considering this problem very closely, since it does allow it - you just have to take a few years off, that's all.

Finally - through tweaking or simply ignoring some rule 'guidelines' - one could easily allow the non-human multiclass 1e or 2e characters to split their xp unevenly, if they wished greater or lesser emphasis on any of their existing classes. That was acceptable and made sense. Special rules for handling hit dice, however, needed to be introduced, and DMs had to disallow mini-maxers from entering with new characters that had a half dozen classes, for example, only to ignore them later. But it took only minor adjustments to 2e and the exercise of common sense to achieve all this. Tweaking 3e's better-integrated system, unfortunately, is a tad more difficult. But I seriously digress.

Suffice it to say, if you wish to see which skills are 0th level and which are 1st level for a class, you'd normally have to carefully read the class write up and decide for yourself what skills or feats a class is assumed to have as standard. These are probably the 0th level skills. The actual first level ones are in the tables and acquired AT 1st level, like base attack bonus, saves, hit dice, and specific 1st level abilities, like 1st level spells, or specially mentioned skills listed at 1st level, like fast movement, certain knowledge, turning undead, nature sense or animal companion, bonus feat, unarmed strike, detect evil, sneak attack, summon familiar, scribe scroll, and others.

Some 1st level skills, however, may make more sense to acquire them at 0th level, though for many it would be fine to wait until 1st level. Ask your DM. But wisdom suggests the DM could always give your 0th level PC those skills, but at half the bonus or value, or as incomplete training in progress, so you CAN use it - though it might work only half the time, at half the bonus, or some similar penalty for the time being. At 1st level, things settle down to their natural full bonuses and skills.

Players of starting characters are asked to spend points on skills - a vast number of points for a vast number of skills, in fact - particularly when playing rogues. Most of these do NOT spring forth at 1st level, but would more likely be 0th level skills and were thus picked up during those years PRIOR to becoming 1st level. I handily decided this should be 3/4th of one's staring points at 0th level, and the last 1/4th on or about the time they finish their 1st level training.

A nice way to stave off some of the problems of sudden development is simply for your players to decide if they are going to be multiclass characters BEFORE they begin the game. If they think this likely, then it might be wise to add a few years to their starting age and assume they have all the 0th level skills of their next class already.

For example, the player who wishes to play a wizard is thinking that she'll want to multiclass into cleric later, and thus be a formidable wizard/cleric most of her life. OK. Then she would take wizard as a 1st level character, but be a few years older to start out. She'd be a 1st level wizard with all their skills, and a 0th level cleric with orisons, etc.

NOTE: A 2nd level character - i.e. 1/1, or 1st level each in two different classes - would have the same number of skill points and look identical to a standard character made one level at a time under standard 3e rules, but with one notable exception. Rather than a product of sudden development, this method makes them older, and explains how those base skills were more gradually acquired in that time.

Such a character would be assumed to follow a specific path, and thus MUST become a 1/1 wizard/cleric when they become a 2nd level character. All this comes form those extra years added on to her beginning age, so this avoids the problem of sudden development.

NOTE: These suggestions 'appear' to violate the N level rule, but they do not. Players truly wishing to play a dual class, or a double multiclassed character from day one, would essentially be considered tied to two masters, or two disciplines, and would be locked in, or committed, to those two classes only - at least until they were 5/5 or N/N, or 10th level or 2xNth level, as the case may be if N is chosen to be other than 5 by the DM, or even with any split, such as 9/1, 8/2, etc. where the levels total 2xN. After that, if they take the time off and study, they 'could' acquire a third class - but they rarely do this during an active campaign since it would take years of game time.

NOTE: It is possible, therefore, particularly long-lived races could have 3, 4, or more classes already under their belt and ready to go as 0th level skills as starting characters, thus avoiding sudden development for the simple cost of a few dozen years, which is next to no stinging payment for that kind of power since even a few dozen years means little to an elf, for example. Thus, while it is possible for a character to do this, it should NOT be allowed for a PC to be generated thus since this is simply unfair to the other players and violates the assumed fair play standards and starting conditions of most games. After all, why should one player be allowed more advantages than others when starting out? They shouldn't be. That would be just as wrong as allowing one player to start with $3000 and a property of their choice in Monopoly while all the others had to start with $1500 and no properties. We do insist our games be played on as level a playing field as possible, after all, lest they be avoided as "unfair" and not fun. Thus, while possible for NPCs, having more than 2 starting classes is USUALLY not allowed for PCs unless ALL players are asked to, or allowed to, make such characters, and all players, therefore, fairly start in the same boat, so to speak. But I digress.

The first class, however, should be the one of major emphasis, and thus that class's level should always be greater than or equal to the other class's level. To do otherwise suggests the player is taking a class not so much to honestly roleplay that class, but to mini-max and use the class's benefits, probably only to subsequently ignore it. This should be frowned upon by roleplayers.

Mini-maxers may think they can add many years and dozens of 0th level class skills - particularly if their PC's race is a long-lived one - or perhaps just ignore their PC's age or not roleplay their character's age properly, but I wouldn't count on a DM letting them get away with that. After all, though it is possible a character could conceivably spend years longer learning all sorts of powers and skills before they really go adventuring, the game assumes most PCs are on par with one another to begin with. Besides, most characters have genuine reasons to go adventuring as soon as they feel they are ready. If nothing else, this is usually an economic one - you gotta pay the bills, after all.

Thus, though some NPCs may sit around for decades before adventuring, PCs are required not to. This is not a law of the universe or world requirement, you understand, but a game requirement, so there is no reason for a PC to think something untoward is happening on the IC level because they 'can't' do something they want. The player is prevented, not the character, so problems of revealing the gamer's footprint are avoided. NPCs are, in fact, allowed this option, even if PCs are not. But I digress. If you wish to learn more about the gamer's footprint, please follow the link below:

The Gamer's Footprint (Why Some Rules Designed For Game Balance Leave Something To Be Desired.)

Of course the DM might simply frown already at allowing a 'beginning' 1st level character to have more base skills than a standard 1st level character, simply due to a few more added years under their belt to account for their 0th level training in their upcoming second class, but ask your DM. If they are more of a roleplayer at heart and seriously dislike sudden development, chances are they will not mind beginning characters having these few extra base skills - and, I might add, those extra roleplaying opportunities to use those skills. They hardly represent raw power, after all, but additional diversity and further opportunities, instead.

Since I dislike characters that have three or more classes, I've never had a serious problem allowing an honest, genuine desire to play a dual class character - two classes - on the part of a player. I dislike mini-maxers, however, who are all about squeezing power out the system and abusing the rules in 'clever' ways that often totally miss the point of roleplaying games and roleplaying in general, and who thus have no particular interest in playing the class, but only wish its power or bonuses. I feel most DMs who care can tell the difference between an honest desire to play a class and a mini-maxer's honest desire to get something for nothing, and trust that they can keep a handle on this problem. If you wish to read more about the folly of mini-maxing, please follow the link below:

The Problems Of Mini Maxing (Why Mini-Maxing Is At Odds With Good Roleplaying.)

Under 3e standard rules, of particular concern would be allowing anyone to play a rogue in any manner unless they really wished to play a rogue, and not just capitalize on the 1st level starting rogue points the flawed 3e system allows - and it's a pretty big flaw, if you ask me. So unless you feel they wish to honestly play a rogue as their primary concern throughout your campaign, NEVER allow them to take rogue as their first class, only to virtually ignore it later in their adventuring career.

Also, if they do take rogue as their first class, the DM should insist about 3/4ths of all skill points are spent solely on traditional rogue-like skills from the following list:

Balance, Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Locks, Pick Pocket, Search, Spot, Tumble, and Rope Use.

This is not ALL the rogue skills from table 4-2 on page 59 of the PHB - some skills are omitted. If they want those other rogue skills, or even other non-rogue skills, they must use the last 1/4th of their points or wait until they gain more levels.

The above rule prevents one from taking rogue as their first class - a class they don't really care about - just for the 32 skill points that no other rule really prevents them from spending on non-rogue skills, despite the fact rogue is their first class. Even at cross class prices, that's still a lot of skills. This is why, unless the DM does something about this flaw, a 1/1 rogue/wizard is vastly more powerful than a 1/1 wizard/rogue, for example - not to mention probably many, many years younger than a 1st level wizard, to boot - even though both are 2nd level characters and 'should' be comparable in power. But I digress.

In the hopes of offering a complete and usable house rule, below please find the complete list of the 11 standard 3e D&D character classes. Each class's skills are categorized as 0th level skills, or as 1st level skills. Each class also indicates how many extra years a PC should be aged if they wish to include the groundwork for that class and have it as 0th level, in addition to their 1st level. For additional examples and a look at the new starting adult ages, your may read that article by following the link below:

Starting Ages (Revised Starting Ages For 3e Characters - An Improvement.)

NOTE: Most Feats beginning characters have coming are finally completed at 1st level, and not at 0th level. Most languages they have probably were acquired during their 0th level training, and should probably be 'purchased,' if they need to be, at that time, and not at 1st level. The same is true of most difficult talents or vast bodies of specialized lore.

NOTE: Most skills and/or feats that are acquired due to one's race or culture are acquired before or during 0th level training.

NOTE: The years after each class heading is the number of years you should add to your first level PC's starting age, if they commit to that class in addition to their first class. Even with INT Mod adjustments, a minimum of one additional year is required.

BARBARIAN
(+1d4 - INT bonus) years.

0th Level Skills: A 0th level barbarian is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, shields, light and medium armor. They may become 'Enraged' as a 1st level barbarian, when they need to. They acquire most skills that they can buy with (4 + INT Mod) X 3 points if this is their first class. If this is NOT their first class, they do not gain any more skill points, but do gain the base skills belonging to this class.

1st Level Skills: A 1st level barbarian finally trains enough to acquire 'Fast Movement,' +1 BAB, +2 FORT, and adds 1d12 Hit Dice. They acquire most skills they can buy with (4 + INT Mod) X 1 points.