Player Deaths


Advice

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

What should I do about characters who die and want to re-roll a character? I know this seems like a silly question, but when you think about it, there are penalties for resurrecting a character. For instance, a raise dead spell costs a lot of gold. Not only does it cost a lot of gold, but the character comes back to life with 2 negative levels, which costs gold to get rid of. However, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for re-rolling. When I suggested that the player re-roll a character with a smaller point buy they seemed offended at the idea. What should I do? I don't want to promote the idea that players can make poor tactical decisions, die, and have no negative repercussions because they simply made another character.
The reason I ask this is because I come from a school of thought that characters in my role-playing games are the main characters in a story. I hate a story were 'main characters' come in and leave without any impact. A death in the party was always something that had a significant impact on the party. We usually scraped together every bit of gold we had to bring the character back to life and back up to par. Now, I am DMing for a group that doesn't seem to care about PC deaths and think that they can continue without negative consequences. Any advice?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems your expectations and your player's are very different. You need to have a conversation with your players about how you feel about it and listen to their concerns and comments. Compromise a solution and move on. Next time, be sure to have these sorts of conversations ironed out ahead of time.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm so sorry that one of your players died.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any player that doesn't value their character's life isn't truly roleplaying IMHO. In a fantasy setting, not many people (especially hero-types) are truly suicidal. Now that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes, such as poor tactical decisions from time to time, but the character should evolve and learn from these mistakes. If the player has grown bored with a character, suggest to them that they retire the character as an NPC and move onto a new character, so long as they can come up with a plausible history and background for the new character that doesn't affect the story too adversely.

IMO there should definitely be penalties for deliberate suicidal acts simply because the player wants a new character to play. In my RP group we often start new characters to the story one level below the rest of the group. Over time these new characters might 'catch up' to the rest of the party, but only after performing several notable acts in the process. Bottom line as GM - reward good roleplay, don't reward bad roleplay, and suicide for the sake of a new character is bad RP.

Sovereign Court

Mostly the problem, this kind of conversation are done before the game even gets started as you establish your expectation and house rules if any. Yeah my buddies and I have noticed that there is like no huge repercussion for dying, even less so, if your group allows shenanigans like Blood Money. One of my DM for example, make it a quest actually, as you don't resurrect all willing nilly.

But anyway as Drogos suggested, you just need to talk with them and find something that seems fair for you and your party.


If your player isn't having fun with a character and this is leading to suicidal behaviour, why not forego the shenanigans and just let them make something they might like more instead of forcing them to play a character they don't like or trying to punish them? OTOH, if your player was enjoying a character but made a poor decision, had some bad luck or was betrayed by the dice, the penalty is the loss of that character. What more does there need to be?

I do understand that a revolving door of characters can be disruptive to the story you are trying to develop but the main point of the game is for everyone to have fun, not to make sure everyone feels sufficiently chastised for playing wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a PC dies, I ask the player want they want to do. They have a few choices

1. Create a new PC
2. Bring the same character back with a cost.

Most of my players choose option 2. To put it simply, if you take so much damange that it would kill you, instead of dieing you can pay a cost and continue playing with the same PC.

I let the players choose the cost, the group usually has a short discussion about the context of the situation and what would be appropriate.

As an example, Togomor the wizard took massive amount of lethal damage from an Orc Barbarian with a big axe. The group discussed it and created 4 possible conditions, rolled a d4, and Togomore lost his left leg from the thigh down instead of dieing.

Eventually Togomor saved up enough gold to have a clockwork leg crafted for him. It made his character more interesting, satisfied the need for some kind of death consequence mechanic, and allowed the player to continue on with the character he loved.


Detoxifier, I like that. I think I am going to make some sort of penalty for the character rerolling. I don't like the idea of characters being expendable. Meaning that the players don't care whether their PC dies or not. If they can just make a new character at no penalty instead of paying the substantial amount of gold required to resurrect the PC.

I have no problems with players retiring a character in order to make another, but in game death is a different can of worms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the lower points buy may have been part of what put them off; that's a change that'll put them permanently behind the rest, whereas if they resurrected, from the sound of it, the group might club together to pay for it.

Also, there are some players who see that point of death as being the natural time to stop playing a character, so that they can play new things across the course of a game; not actively seeking death, but when it happens, going for playing a different character.

TBH, I've always rather disliked the idea that there needs to be a 'penalty' for death. If people are playing well, they'll avoid death regardless of the presence or absence of a penalty, and such a penalty will kick them when they do cool things like last stands to save others, or similar.


I guess the real question is how to balance ~8,000g and 2 negative levels for a raise dead, versus just getting a new character sheet. I feel like a heroic death is a death nonetheless. I think a heroic death just means that the party will be more willing to chip in and help pay the cost.


And another thing... once you get to higher levels, I find it hard to believe that a level 15 character just happens along and joins your party. I feel like re-rolling and character deaths interrupt the continuity of the story.


I can certainly understand your point of view TrustNo1, but I had a couple characters die recently in a game I was running through no real fault of their own. Just the way the dice landed that day (At one point I think I had something like 10 consecutive rolls of 18 or higher for the bad guys attacks).

The players were very attached to their characters, they hadn't gone out of their way to get killed off or anything. One of them wanted to be brought back, however the other felt that death should be final for his character, regardless of how much fun he'd had playing that Sorceror.

I didn't particularly feel like that player should be penalised just because he felt from a story point of view it was the end for that character.

Yes charcter deaths do interrupt the continuity of a story, but surely they should. The characters live in a violent world, only natural that some will fall by the wayside. Also only natural that their former party members might seek out new allies to aid them in their ongoing quest.

I tend to find the revolving door to the plane of death using 'Raise Dead/Reincarnation/Resurrection' more jarring on a story front(remember it being something of a standing joke in the X-men comics)

As long as players aren't deliberately using poor tactics and choices to get killed just because they got bored I see no problem allowing a new character to be introduced....as long as both player and GM can come up with a storyline for their arrival.


TrustNo1 wrote:
I guess the real question is how to balance ~8,000g and 2 negative levels for a raise dead, versus just getting a new character sheet. I feel like a heroic death is a death nonetheless. I think a heroic death just means that the party will be more willing to chip in and help pay the cost.

The devs themselves don't even like that there's a cost for death. Most advocate either doing away with the monetary cost for the Raise line and the extra cost to Restoration to remove the negative levels, or making it a temporary cost (WBL by design is more mutable...things spent on consumables should be recouped once they're used).

It's not really necessary.

So maybe you're thinking in the wrong direction? Remove the permanent mechanical costs for resurrection.

Then they're even/

Raised: Negative levels, mental scarring

New char: Lots of time spent building, lengthy introductory scene.


As another example, we had a Gunslinger who played as a sniper. In a series of ongoing fights I had him challenged by another gunslinger ala "enemy at the gates" style. He lost, taking lethal damage. The PLAYERS decided it would be way cooler if instead of dying the PC simply lost his shooting eye and was disabled while the other shooter escaped thinking he had just killed him.

This sparked an awesome adventure for that character where he had to overcome his new weakness by learning to shoot with his other hand, and hunt down his nemesis. It was far better than losing the character and all the history, rerolling, or simply taking 2 negative levels.

I would encourage you to think outside of the box that is negative levels or ability damage and allow the players to come up with creative solutions that add flavor and history to their characters while simultaneously satisfying the need to have consequences without giving up continuity.

There is a win-win-win solution to the problem of PC death.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Our usual house rule is that you start off one level below the current party level. This helps curb off character swapping and makes it far better to take the less permanent negative level for a week.

In unusual circumstances our GM will prearrange a death and let the player bring in a new character at full party level, but it seems like it should be worked out ahead of time.


Sometimes it isn't feasible in-story or setting to just resurrect a character as opposed to rolling up a new one, especially at lower level.
But it seems like resurrection is an somewhat easy thing to do in your game? (Ignoring cost.)

Instead of making a newly rolled player come in with a lower point buy you could just have them come in at a lower level.


Are you sure that is their way of thinking? Could you have just liked playing their character and just decided that they maybe wanted to try a different type of character and that's why their not raising their characters? Maybe they felt like that character's story was at an end and it would make sense for them to stay dead or maybe provide extra motivation for the other characters for them to stay dead.


Similar to justaworm, if you make a new character, you'll use the same ability generating procedure as at the campaign's start, but you will start one level below the lowest surviving party member.

Living has its perks.

OTOH, if a player opts for resurrection, I take them aside, alone (which I very rarely do) and describe in as much splendid detail the glory of their afterlife as the spell calls them back to their mortal shell. Its been interesting, not often, but maybe one out of five times I actually talk the player OUT of resurrecting and they choose to reroll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, you punish players for re-rolling, and then actively try to talk them into re-rolling?

...Cool?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the things I like about Pathfinder is that it's much easier to keep the party at the same level; I've never been that fond of the whole "You missed a session, so you're on less XP" and other stuff where it's never really going to equal out — in our current PF game, the GM tells us when we level, and that's it, no XP book-keeping required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The groups I play with usually start the new PC off a level lower (or, if they're using XP, at the minimum for the lowest level in the party). But we've been discussing something else.

As a rule, we feel there needs to be some penalty for a new PC because they're usually significantly more powerful than original party members. One of the main reasons has to do with wealth by level; when you're a PC being leveled, a lot of your wbl is taken up by random things you've found, or DM thought would be cool, or items that were the best things you could afford when you bought them... even in games that have well-stocked MagicMarts on every corner.

...but a high level PC gets exactly what it wants; it can afford the big-ticket items without having to spend no gold for six levels. It can buy custom magic items without having to leave its belt in town for three adventures. It can also skimp on very common items that it knows will turn up immediately.

So we've been discussing having replacement PCs join at the regular party level but with NPC wealth (since they've been NPCs until now). So far it's only been a threat, so we don't know how well it would work in practice.


TrustNo1 wrote:
I guess the real question is how to balance ~8,000g and 2 negative levels for a raise dead, versus just getting a new character sheet. I feel like a heroic death is a death nonetheless. I think a heroic death just means that the party will be more willing to chip in and help pay the cost.
TrustNo1 wrote:
And another thing... once you get to higher levels, I find it hard to believe that a level 15 character just happens along and joins your party. I feel like re-rolling and character deaths interrupt the continuity of the story.

Uh, 8,000 GP is nothing for a 15th level character. 2 negative levels is cured with a spell.


I would also find a stat penalty for a new character offensive. A stat penalty permanently effects the usefulness of that character.

In your kind of situation I'd use the same rules you use for a totally new player joining. Personally, I like new characters joining with one level less than the lowest level player in the group.

As for the player not caring about his dead character, that could be for lots of reasons. Maybe he just fell out of love with his old concept. It's not like main characters don't die in literature all of the time.


Rynjin wrote:


Raised: Negative levels, mental scarring

New char: Lots of time spent building, lengthy introductory scene.

New guy:Hey I heard about your group and want to join up

PCs:He looks dependable. ;)

I have met some GMs on other boards who have a 'don't get attached' view so having the PCs stumble on a guy captured by orcs and tied up in a tent is perfectly viable.


Melkiador wrote:

I would also find a stat penalty for a new character offensive. A stat penalty permanently effects the usefulness of that character.

In your kind of situation I'd use the same rules you use for a totally new player joining. Personally, I like new characters joining with one level less than the lowest level player in the group.

This is an a bit odd. You're not on board with a stat penalty (a permanent decrease in effectiveness) but you are on board with a level penalty (a permanent, even more significant decrease in effectiveness)?


Rynjin wrote:
This is an a bit odd. You're not on board with a stat penalty (a permanent decrease in effectiveness) but you are on board with a level penalty (a permanent, even more significant decrease in effectiveness)?

One is a penalty to potential. The other is not. And if you are using XP for leveling, then the player will eventually catch up.


Melkiador wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
This is an a bit odd. You're not on board with a stat penalty (a permanent decrease in effectiveness) but you are on board with a level penalty (a permanent, even more significant decrease in effectiveness)?
One is a penalty to potential. The other is not. And if you are using XP for leveling, then the player will eventually catch up.

No, they won't. That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".


I think players wants to re-roll because:

1. Negative levels - If you are going to kill them but you want them back, make sure you give them a way to get rid of negative levels. With really low cost. Unless they were being idiots.

2. No attached to their characters - It's as much of the GM's job to keep the players attached to their character as the player should keep in character. If you can make the feel attach, they don't want to be that loser any more.

3. Sign of failure - If the player characters died, you might make them see it as their failure of character build. You are encouraging them to metagaming and min maxing more. If you have a level 12 fighter consistently fighting things he can't hit because he doesn't have magical items, of course you are giving him to message that he should only play casters. Many GM failed to balance the team by giving out fair encounters to each members. Just like early game, you should throw out things fighter can't hit once in awhile just to keep bard and other caster entertained. Otherwise the barbarian will just kill everything.

4. Boredom - If the players don't care about the negative levels because they are good! You did your job to keep them attached to their characters. And the fight was fair, they are just unlucky or not smart enough. They might still want to re-roll because they just go bored of the things their characters do. You can fix it by giving them new abilities or new way to play their characters once in awhile. Have something tied to their characters, so if they re roll, they don't get their something special. I have a GM who had us draw the harrow deck, now my character is very special because it's new, it's unexpected. Even though I drew the mountain man and can't use any of my gear...

So yeah, I hope that would help.


Well he will catch up for just a tiny bit before they'll level again. But that's if you're getting picky with the exp and things fall just so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".

This is a pretty common misconception. The XP needed for each level increases so drastically that a character who is behind catches up in levels without catching up in XP.

Here's an excerpt of the XP track:
Medium
2000 (2nd)
5000 (3rd)
9000 (4th)

Imagine that the party is 2nd level, at 2200 when Bob dies and is replaced with Bill, who gets set back to 1st with 0xp (the minimum). Bill catches up to 2nd level at +2000xp, before the rest of the party reaches 3rd level (+2800xp.) They may continue to level just before Bill does, but it depends on how big the chunks of XP get; his missing 2200 xp becomes less and less likely to make him fall just out of range as the numbers get bigger and bigger.


Mykull wrote:

Similar to justaworm, if you make a new character, you'll use the same ability generating procedure as at the campaign's start, but you will start one level below the lowest surviving party member.

Living has its perks.

OTOH, if a player opts for resurrection, I take them aside, alone (which I very rarely do) and describe in as much splendid detail the glory of their afterlife as the spell calls them back to their mortal shell. Its been interesting, not often, but maybe one out of five times I actually talk the player OUT of resurrecting and they choose to reroll.

My Rise group started with this stated ideal. From low to mid levels it worked fine. At the mid levels, though, once a couple "lucky" deaths happened, it actually started forcing us to regress in levels. It also started a cycle of PC deaths practically every session. This happened to the point where the GM to basically award free levels by the time we slogged (literally, over almost 2.5 years, most of that spent from about level 10-14) our way to book 6 since it declares that your group shouldn't even attempt that material unless you're at least 16th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Penalising players because their characters are dead can lead to an ongoing circle of failure and further death. If the new PC is artificially behind the rest of the party they are then more likely to be killed again because they are not as advanced as their peers and are more vulnerable. Do you then penalise them again, so they fall further behind? Do the players eventually end up playing cohorts of the surviving party members, then followers, then passers by?


threemilechild wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".

This is a pretty common misconception. The XP needed for each level increases so drastically that a character who is behind catches up in levels without catching up in XP.

Here's an excerpt of the XP track:
Medium
2000 (2nd)
5000 (3rd)
9000 (4th)

Imagine that the party is 2nd level, at 2200 when Bob dies and is replaced with Bill, who gets set back to 1st with 0xp (the minimum). Bill catches up to 2nd level at +2000xp, before the rest of the party reaches 3rd level (+2800xp.) They may continue to level just before Bill does, but it depends on how big the chunks of XP get; his missing 2200 xp becomes less and less likely to make him fall just out of range as the numbers get bigger and bigger.

Yes but what if they were at 8900 exp and you came in at 3rd with 5000. Now they'll be two levels ahead and it will be 4000 exp before you level to be their level -1, in that time putting them 2000 exp from the next level. It'll take you till reaching 7th level before you can be on the same level as them for any length of time. And even then they'll level soon putting you behind again.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Yes but what if they were at 8900 exp and you came in at 3rd with 5000. Now they'll be two levels ahead and it will be 4000 exp before you level to be their level -1, in that time putting them 2000 exp from the next level. It'll take you till reaching 7th level before you can be on the same level as them for any length of time. And even then they'll level soon putting you behind again.

This happened often in the group I mentioned above. It was nothing strange to have a character be on the cusp of leveling and die just having to go lowest level - 1 on the new character. It was so incredibly frustrating. My GM had the gaul of saying "quit dying" in response to my stated dismay at restarting whole levels after month after month of this happening.


A level is a big deal in Pathfinder. Forcing one player to play a level behind isn't just unfair to that player, it's unfair to his/her party members; now they have to carry a significantly limited cohort and try to treat them like an equal.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
This is an a bit odd. You're not on board with a stat penalty (a permanent decrease in effectiveness) but you are on board with a level penalty (a permanent, even more significant decrease in effectiveness)?
One is a penalty to potential. The other is not. And if you are using XP for leveling, then the player will eventually catch up.
No, they won't. That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".

The Down Time rules in Ultimate Campaign very specifically allow a character to catch up.


Those rules are different than catching up in-game.

If you're going to allow those, then why impart a penalty at all?

Shadow Lodge

I rather like the idea of replacement characters starting with NPC wealth. Especially if the party still has the old PCs equipment to divide up among themselves.

Note to self: must have Qakisst write out his last will and testament.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:

Those rules are different than catching up in-game.

If you're going to allow those, then why impart a penalty at all?

Using the catch up rules takes time and active actions by the character that other characters can spend doing other things. So there is still a penalty of sorts, but the PC can mitigate the level disparity. I was simply pointing out that there is a mechanic for catching up.

In games we run; new PCs and replacement PCs start at the lowest XP total by any party member, so the difference in level is always minimal. Players are then rewarded for good play. If a PC has a particularly good in play death and is not raised the player starts a replacement PC at the lowest XP total and them the GM gives that PC their role playing reward. It has to be a really good death scene though. It's worked for us and rarely is any mid level PC ever more than 500 XP from all other PCs in the game.


Usual Suspect wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
This is an a bit odd. You're not on board with a stat penalty (a permanent decrease in effectiveness) but you are on board with a level penalty (a permanent, even more significant decrease in effectiveness)?
One is a penalty to potential. The other is not. And if you are using XP for leveling, then the player will eventually catch up.
No, they won't. That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".
The Down Time rules in Ultimate Campaign very specifically allow a character to catch up.

Got to it first, darn

Sovereign Court

A level behind is frankly not much, compared to the ability of bringing of a fresh new character with his wealth perfectly spent as he sees fit, even his feats carefully chosen and planned. Maybe even able to have magic items that are not normally available in the campaign (especially during adventure paths).

Currently in one of my parties, if some were to die and come back 1 level behind, they would be level 13 (game confirmed to go to level 20).

From level 14 to 15, you need 190 000 xp.
The guy who came at level 13 to hit 14, needs 130 000 xp.

Yeah they will level before him, but he is only 60 000 xp behind.

Now let's check the next level:

15 to 16, needs 255 000 xp.

By the time, he catches up the 60 000 xp, he will be the same level as the party, as they eventually level before him.

At high level, being a level behind, essentially is nothing.


Being a level behind is detrimental. Every other level you're behind is a level of magic unavailable to your party. This limits the options you have, options APs are written to assume you have. This requires you to expend even more resources to accomplish the same task which can easily overextend the group. It's a "chink in the armor makes it easier to shatter" paradigm. At higher levels, the WBL difference from level to level can afford you even more options you otherwise don't have. The implications are many when you start dropping levels.


Usual Suspect wrote:

I rather like the idea of replacement characters starting with NPC wealth. Especially if the party still has the old PCs equipment to divide up among themselves.

Note to self: must have Qakisst write out his last will and testament.

Our groups tend to run under the law of evaporating equipment. For a while we had a player who made new PCs every three months or so, so that group in particular tends to be strict on such things.

It might be an interesting house rule that the new PC has the same equipment as the old PC. It's limiting, yes, and it would encourage players to continue filling the party niche that they had previously filled. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.


threemilechild wrote:
It might be an interesting house rule that the new PC has the same equipment as the old PC. It's limiting, yes, and it would encourage players to continue filling the party niche that they had previously filled. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.

I, personally, wouldn't like that. The same role can be filled by many classes and many builds. Changing things up can be rather refreshing.


Personally, I think the DM should be guided strongly by how the players think this part of the game should be handled. To some extent, that's true for pretty much any rules topic, of course, but in my opinion the impact of this facet of the rules will be almost invisible to the DM and prey on some players' minds constantly - to the point of reducing their enjoyment.

There may be an intellectual "it doesn't feel right" element for the DM, but will it really impact on the DM's enjoyment at the table if Jack has been through half a dozen characters and is playing a character of notionally similar power as Jill who is still on her first? In contrast, there will be many players who find it downright annoying to have to roll up a new character with objectively less scope of action.

In contrast, I think things like genre and mood should be more skewed towards DM preference as I find it easier to play in a game whose genre I don't really love than to run one.

As some people above mentioned, this kind of stuff is best discussed beforehand in a new group. No matter where the compromise is, it's much easier for everyone to get on board and stay on board if they go into it knowing what's in store.


Buri Reborn wrote:
threemilechild wrote:
It might be an interesting house rule that the new PC has the same equipment as the old PC. It's limiting, yes, and it would encourage players to continue filling the party niche that they had previously filled. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.
I, personally, wouldn't like that. The same role can be filled by many classes and many builds. Changing things up can be rather refreshing.

It would probably encourage "Ugg the Barbarian mark seven" too which can easily trivialise PC death.


Steve Geddes wrote:
... if Jack has been through half a dozen characters and is playing a character of notionally similar power as Jill who is still on her first? In contrast, there will be many players who find it downright annoying to have to roll up a new character with objectively less scope of action.

The thing is, "similar power" is what we're arguing for. A PC built at 10th level is going to be more powerful than one built at 1st and organically leveled to 10th. Having perfect equipment alone does it. If you add in having perfect feats, and that repeated character change favors optimizing for a given level, and greater knowledge of the campaign... there's no reason to keep your character alive besides "story."

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

If your players don't feel emotionally invested in their characters, that's something you should discuss with them.

Death costs just put you into a sort of negative spiral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is this is more of a GM/Player difference on how they play the game. Similar to the casual and the invested. It might just be a difference in play styles. My suggestion would be to get everyone together/ poll the other players and see what they think. If all the players feel it's fine to bring in new characters than maybe you should give in on this and let them. If They all say there's should be a penalty for a new guy then there'll be a penalty.


threemilechild wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
... if Jack has been through half a dozen characters and is playing a character of notionally similar power as Jill who is still on her first? In contrast, there will be many players who find it downright annoying to have to roll up a new character with objectively less scope of action.
The thing is, "similar power" is what we're arguing for. A PC built at 10th level is going to be more powerful than one built at 1st and organically leveled to 10th. Having perfect equipment alone does it. If you add in having perfect feats, and that repeated character change favors optimizing for a given level, and greater knowledge of the campaign... there's no reason to keep your character alive besides "story."

My point is that I think this is an area with more player relevance than DM relevance. If the players want to reduce point count, WBL or have a few random magic items - go for it. If the players don't see the "imbalance" the DM does, is it really an issue? If they do, then they'll have a good perspective on how to address it.

People get too bogged down in this stuff as if there's a "correct" ideal we're all striving to emulate. In reality, everyone wants different things and I think it's important, as DM, to run a game your players enjoy - not the game you'd enjoy, if you were a player.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Player Deaths All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.