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.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
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.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
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.
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.
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.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
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.
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.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
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.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Yeah, I don't have DDI, so I can't check it out in depth, but it sounds like a cool way of getting the zero to hero feel, if that's what you're after. I'm still not sure if that's exactly what the OP wants, but that's his decision.
