Maybe I just don't feel that character death should be irrelevant. If you can sacrifice a character without consequences then the value of life drops quickly and the game resents from it IMO.Character death is only irrelevant without penalties if your players don't care about their characters. If your players are actually invested in their own characters, they aren't going to like having their character die. There's no need to artificially punish something that they already don't want to have happen.
I agree, with players committed to their characters and the story this should'nt be an issue and merely losing a loved and well developed PC should be penalty enough. But not all players see it this way.
In retrospective I suppose that last comment is due to my late experiences in the table; I'm DMing for a new group since christmas and one of the players did'nt even name his character until half into the first session, where I had to slap him with the manual and make him pick one of the generic names for his race.
The truth is that I still think in 3.5 terms regarding some things and I have not yet had any PC death with the new PF rules. The new permanent negative level mechanic on character death falls into this category. I'll cross that river when I get there.
Maybe I just don't feel that character death should be irrelevant. If you can sacrifice a character without consequences then the value of life drops quickly and the game resents from it IMO.Character death is only irrelevant without penalties if your players don't care about their characters. If your players are actually invested in their own characters, they aren't going to like having their character die. There's no need to artificially punish something that they already don't want to have happen.
I agree, with players committed to their characters and the story this should'nt be an issue and merely losing a loved and well developed PC should be penalty enough. But not all players see it this way.
In retrospective I suppose that last comment you're quoting is due to my late experiences in the table; I'm DMing for a new group since christmas and one of the players did'nt even name his character until half into the first session, where I had to slap him with the manual and make him pick one of the generic names for his race. Fortunately it's only one of six.
The truth is that I still think in 3.5 terms regarding some things and I have not yet had any PC death with the new PF rules. The new permanent negative level mechanic on character death falls into this category.
I'll cross that river when I get there.
|
Well, my question is when a PC dies and decides not to raise dead / reincarnate, but create a new character. At what level do you let the new PC join as?
Their previous level?
Their previous level -1 ?
The lowest level of the party?
Level 1?Usually I let the new PC be the same level as the lowest level party member. Which often ends up having the new character be the same level as most of the party. I've never been a fan of "punishing" players who've had characters who die and had to replace them by forcing them to come back lower level than everyone else, because that's a great way to set up a self-fullfilling prophecy that means that player's character will die more often than normal since he/she will be less powerful and less able to deal with what everyone else is coping with!
And yeah... I let the new character get all the XP for the session, even if he came into being halfway through the game.
I understand what you are saying, James, but I've had issues in the past with trying to set up story line around players, only to have them die, because the player has the cavalier attitude of "Doesn't matter, I'll just make a new character." Very, very frustrating. Once lost 6 months of story line because someone had that attitude.
Also, there's the issue of more treasure coming in, since, in theory, new characters would come with new equipment, and depending on the way the old character died (and therefore whether the old gear survived), this new influx of gear can start to unbalance the game, especially if it happens again and again, like has occured in my games.
I once killed 67 characters in a Shackled City campaign. It was... messy.
As to the original question, I've had to vary my penalty. I've gone from "restart at level 1" to "no penalty". Basically, SirUrza, you need to decide now disruptive the death of the character was, whether or not it was intentional for personal gain (ie. this character is too weak, I want a wizard now), and whether or not it will disrupt the game to have a lower level player. It can be a dicey thing, and really comes down to personal judgement IMHO.
|
My house rules (great players make this possible):
1. Start out at party level with $$$ for that level (which should result in inferior equipment to the party)
2. Dead PC may "will" one item to a current party member, but only if they can justify it, and never to the new PC.
3. Remaining items and wealth will go to friends/family/a charity/pay for the funeral, etc.
4. This avoids abuse of "offing" PCs just to keep getting cash and items, though my players would never do this anyways.
I try to envision folks stripping the boots off their best friend who just died (they're magical of course!), and it doesn't work. It also doesn't work for me to have a 1st level nobody invited to join a heroic 10th level group. ("Eh, you can cast 1 magic missile? Awesome, we really need a mage to take down that dragon and his manticore army.")
With the new rules to raise dead-type spells, the need to hold punches on character death has gone. My policy is still the same from 3.5:
New characters made by seasoned players (everyone currently in the group) begin at *the beginning of one level below* the previous character. Example: If you were 500 xp away from level 8, your new character begins at the start of level 6.
This is the exact rule from the 3.5 DMG.
Character death should be something that is undesirable for everyone. If a player consistently gets themselves killed making poor choices, the player's lower level will lower the party's APL and the corresponding CRs the party will face. This should "cushion the blow" of having a player constantly make poor tactical choices. Will it make the game easier/crappier/more boring for everyone else? Yes. But then you ask, is it worth it playing with such a liability in the party? If so, then on average you'll need easier encounters.
|
I tend to simply reset them to the beginning of the level that they were at, unless they were about to level. Essentially I won't penalize them much. If they were 10.9, I might put them at 10.5.
The only exception to this rule is if they simply "want to switch characters." Unless the person is having an absolute miserable time playing that character (which I'd let them switch up feats/classes etc. before it go to this point), I'd dock them 1 full level. This would happen each time that they wanted to switch. This was mostly made people of certain players that I've DMed for that tend to make a character and next session want to change, and then next session want to change again, etc.
I really like continuity of characters and/or story through a campaign, and don't appreciate when my players essentially spit at the work that I've done to incorporate their characters into the world/story.
In my games if player dies the new Character comes in at the average XP level of the party. Which in my games I try to keep everyone at the same XP is the current XP level of the characters when the PC joins the party. I don't penalize for death as in my game dramatic deaths are part of the story. To punish players like that would be mean.
|
|
I'm running an AP at the moment which assumes the players are at a certain level at certain points in the game. Also the obituaries thread has shown me character deaths just lead to more character deaths with level punishments. So when one of my players died a Very Dramatic Death (TM), i told him to roll up a new character at the same level and experience total as the dead PC. He could will one item to each PC and the new character could start with the NPC wealth package from the Player's Handbook II. Seems to be working fine. Overall my players get invested in their characters and having a weak character on the team punishes everybody. I don't feel any need to arbitrarily punish anyone a second time for the loss of a beloved character.
Except that, in the game, the charge will be as powerful as you in a few levels.
The problem is that it presents two scenarios:
1. The party continues doing what they were doing before their companion died.
2. The party stops what it was doing and helps this random new guy out.
In scenario 1, random new guy is utterly and completely outmatched and isn't likely to last a single combat, let alone enough to catch up to the party.
In scenario 2, there's nothing to challenge the players who didn't die (because the challenges have to be appropriate for random new guy, which means they're wildly inappropriate for the rest of the party), not to mention they lose time on whatever major plot they were working towards solving.
Neither is a good outcome, IMO.
|
Except that, in the game, the charge will be as powerful as you in a few levels.
How so? If you're so far ahead of someone, unless they're gaining some sort of increased rate of experience, equipment, and treasure (at which point I would look at my GM and ask why I never got these opportunities) I will always be that far ahead of that character.
In the meantime, you are going through roleplaying having someone weaker in your party - someone to look out after and show the ropes to.
At the same time, the charge must wait for several levels. It sucks not being able to contribute, or worse having to be protected. You're also assuming that the party in question won't be looking down their noses at such a character, or outright shunning them. I think Rezdave's points above stand true.
|
|
Or scenario 3, you keep getting the same things done, but you change tactics and things become harder because you've got this extra guy you need to nurture until he's gotten to the point where he can take care of you.
Everyone loves to have things become harder on them during potentially life threatening situations like dungeon delving. They've already lost one member of the party... so lets take on someone who isn't nearly as capable as the last person who died. :(
Except that, in the game, the charge will be as powerful as you in a few levels.The problem is that it presents two scenarios:
1. The party continues doing what they were doing before their companion died.
2. The party stops what it was doing and helps this random new guy out.In scenario 1, random new guy is utterly and completely outmatched and isn't likely to last a single combat, let alone enough to catch up to the party.
In scenario 2, there's nothing to challenge the players who didn't die (because the challenges have to be appropriate for random new guy, which means they're wildly inappropriate for the rest of the party), not to mention they lose time on whatever major plot they were working towards solving.Neither is a good outcome, IMO.
Or scenario 3, you keep getting the same things done, but you change tactics and things become harder because you've got this extra guy you need to nurture until he's gotten to the point where he can take care of you.
That's scenario 1, not a new scenario. It's also punishing the entire party by making things harder for them for things that at the very least are not their own fault and may in fact not be anyone's fault. If a character dies because he rolled a 1 on his save vs death, that's not his fault. There is nearly nothing he could have done to prevent it. Punishing everyone in the group because one person (who is already being punished because the character he liked just died to s*!#ty dice luck through no fault of his own) had bad luck is a really bad idea.
|
|
How so? If you're so far ahead of someone, unless they're gaining some sort of increased rate of experience, equipment, and treasure (at which point I would look at my GM and ask why I never got these opportunities) I will always be that far ahead of that character.er..no you won't.
Because the exp chart isn't linear.
Gear and treasure aren't, though. And your statement is only true of levels lower than six. After that individual xp rewards are the same.
Neither will a character several levels behind be able to catch up to the bulk of the xp load. They're behind in too many categories, and as a result present a liability.
We've done it for years (pretty near a decade) and noone has had an issue with it. In fact, as I've said, it has helped the game immensely compared to how we used to do things (which is how you all do things). We're friends who don't power game. Other than that, I can't guess what the difference between why it works in our group and why it wouldn't in yours.
Care to elaborate on how this helps in a fashion that isn't completely meta-game? You're saying this helps roleplaying, but essentially only works in very specific games that assumes everyone is good aligned and nurturing in nature. That's not roleplaying, that's utter meta-game.
We've done it for years (pretty near a decade) and noone has had an issue with it.
(laughing)
Well what the hell was everyone else thinking?
It's also punishing the entire party by making things harder for themIn what way is it "punishing" exactly?
I guess I'm just not getting that.
They are doing action A of difficulty D, which is intended for a party of average level L. The party is average level L.
After the character dies and starts over again at level 1, they are now doing action A of difficult D, which is intended for a party of average level L; however, their average level is now L-x.Their job got harder through no fault of their own, through no interaction of their own. If an adventure is designed expecting (just for example's sake) a 10th level party with the four iconic roles (fighter, trap finder, healer, controller) all filled with 10th level characters, and one of them dies only to be replaced by a 1st level character, the party is pretty well doomed. Depending on which role is now unfulfilled, they will die to brute creatures that they shouldn't have had any problem with (if the fighter is outclassed), die or be prevented from advancing by traps the rogue can't do anything about, be unable to survive the amount of damage and status effects they take, or simply get overwhelmed by encounters.
This is true even for non-restart-at-level-1 characters, I'm just using level 1 as an extreme example.
I'm not sure what you're driving at...
What I am driving at is your personal experience is trumped by everyone else's personal experience. Fail.
Your system works for your group. Cool. It would not work for me, and I am pretty sure it would not work for pretty much everyone I have ever gamed with.
I'm a big proponent of starting a campaign at 1st level to get the maximum amount of roleplaying and background out of a character. That having been said, I generally don't have as much of a problem with a character starting at higher level if the previous character died, because most of the other characters have, at that point, fleshed out their characters, and it provides a bit of a sounding board to allow the new character to define themselves against and bounce off of.
I don't even know what "difficulty D" means. What determines the difficulty level? Is there a meter I can get somewhere - like a tricorder - I can scan the GM's notes with?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I'd think anyone who was 40+ years old would be able to recognize a variable declaration. It doesn't matter what D's actual value is or even if it has a measurable value. All that matters is that D is the same in both equations.
Except its not the same.
Except it is. If they have to retrieve the Foozle of Power, they have to retrieve the Foozle of Power. Having a party member die doesn't remove that need, nor does it remove any of the Foozle's guardians that the party hasn't defeated yet. The remaining tasks are identical, but the party will have a much harder time accomplishing them.
They get all of the experience they would have gained during the session they died in. Sometimes I give the level just above that. I don't see it as a punishment. I see it as giving the player an opportunity to connect with their new character and grow with it. It won't be the same as playing from level 1 and progressing naturally, but it'll be something.
|
|
We found that, by having characters start at 1st level, the existing characters would nurture them until they could pull their own weight.
This helped to build teamwork and helped get character stories tangled together as there is a mentor-student relationship between the characters. What we found is that the role playing became much more multi-dimensional and the character concepts much richer than the earlier way we were doing things.It did cause conflict with one player (whose munchkin style of playing - even if we hadn't started doing this - was a snow balling problem) and he left (which benefitted the table).
So your play style didn't work for all of you. It also seems to have driven off a player. I would question that playstyle, if I were in your shoes.
@ OP
When a player dies in our group (large now, about 7 players with 2 more starting soon), I have them come back in with just enough XP to have attained the lowest character level of the party. Most of the time all PCs are at the same level anyway. Treasure, is generally standard, but I put strict limits on the amount of gold that can be used for a single magic item.
In the event that the rest of the party has leveled up in the session that the PC expired, then I allow the player to come back in at party level, but I'm considering changing this to be one level behind party average. I do not use a subjective system such as suggested by some, where how a character died determines the level of the new PC, as I have seen this cause hurt feelings at the table. "You should have done X instead of Y" discussions don't make for a happy player who just had a PC they have been playing for months go down the dragon's gullet.
I've thought about the level 1 option, but my concern would be that it doesn't really work for the verisimilitude of our game to have a level 1 PC join a large group of high-level heavies. Likewise, I would hate to be the player who has a string of bad luck and ends up going back to level one repeatedly while the rest of the group continues to advance at APL.
Obviously, in the event of a TPK, back to level 1 with the lot of you!
Depends on how they die, what level everyone is and what's going on in the game. but for the most part i just let them keep their XP, as said above no reason to punish them for bad rolls. though i do for bad role-playing.
I generally let the player make up a character of the average level party level -1.
BUT as for every artificially leveled character, he will have to reimburse his XP before leveling.
XP are not free. You have to deserve your levels.
It occurs to me that I worded my earlier post poorly. Here's a correction that should hopefully be clearer:
The party must do action A. Their average party level is L. The combination of the two yields difficulty D.
L=D.
Now, one of the four party members is replaced by a level 1 character. That gives us the following equation:
L-X=D, where X = reduction in average party level.
Let's say that X is 3, just for discussion. That gives us:
L-X=D
L=D+X
(A is the same in every case, so it's factored out)
In other words, as the average party level decreases, the difficulty of the same action increases. This is simple mathematical fact that anyone who has been playing D&D for 40 years should recognize.
The remaining tasks are not identical. The remaining goal is.
So you're saying that if the party consisted of a 10th level fighter, a 10th level rogue, a 10th level cleric, and a 10th level wizard, they have to do different things to get the Foozle than a 10/10/10/1 level party? They don't actually have to cross the Bog of Eternal Stench because their wizard died?
That really IS metagaming.
|
|
I wouldn't. The guy was a munchkin. Even if we weren't using that rule, there would have been problems (in fact, iirc, there were problems before we instituted that rule). A guy who takes his character sheet and spends away-from-the-table time pouring over books to figure out how to maximize the scratches on his character sheet didn't fit at our table.So your play style didn't work for all of you. It also seems to have driven off a player. I would question that playstyle, if I were in your shoes.We found that, by having characters start at 1st level, the existing characters would nurture them until they could pull their own weight.
This helped to build teamwork and helped get character stories tangled together as there is a mentor-student relationship between the characters. What we found is that the role playing became much more multi-dimensional and the character concepts much richer than the earlier way we were doing things.It did cause conflict with one player (whose munchkin style of playing - even if we hadn't started doing this - was a snow balling problem) and he left (which benefitted the table).
Right, so he was having bad wrong fun because he likes the same game that you do and has direction that he wants to take. That doesn't sound like fun at all to me, and it seems you've driven him off because you don't like him. That's not an issue with the game, that's totally personal. I wouldn't want to game with you guys either if I couldn't have the character that I wanted to play.
Still, what problems does that cause? I'm not really seeing an issue except that you didn't like one guys play style.