| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make death scary. It just makes them useless.
This is a very bad idea. It's neither "tough" nor fair.
Now, certainly there can be penalties for "deliberately killing themselves so they could come back "- starting at one level bellow the rest of the party and with half WBL is common.
And it's your job as DM to reject any "absurd build deliberately minmaxed to peak", so that's on you.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In game solutions rarely work. Have you tried sitting down and talking with the offending players?
And no offense, but unless you are making combat more than hack and slash (ie, usage of environment, combat maneuvers, etc), or having more ways to gain XP besides combat, cleverness won't get them very far. The burden of rewarding cleverness is always on you, the GM, so you have to encourage that kind of play. Or else the game won't evolve past killing the orc and taking his pie.
And really, no matter how clever you are, a level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will do diddly squat to anything CR 12+.
sounds like you as a DM are putting your players in situations they dont like, so they roll new characters to make up for it, and you want to punish them for playing smarter
min maxing is only an issue if you let it be, and not because the players come up with a 'broken' concept, but because you as a DM not only allow them to play it, but dont do enough research on the matter to know its weaknesses and refuse to come up with a way to counter what your players are doing and complain that they are overpowered
its like you want your players to be completely unprepared for what you throw at them and then want to rub in their faces that there was nothing they could have done about it
putting your players in a no-win situation makes you the bad guy\
as a DM its your job to make sure everyone has fun, and if you only care about your own fun you should probly step down, i cant stand these "i dont know why my players want things" threads
of course your players want things, and of course they want their characters to be effective in combat, if you wanna force them to play a character that they are bored with, and that isnt effective in the current mission, i wouldnt blame them for purposely killing themselves off so they can have a chance at what you are throwing at them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sympathize with the general idea, that having new characters spring from the forehead of Zeus breaks the versimilitude of the game world.
But I think you're overcompensating a bit. Remember, that making a new character in 1e (where that idea comes from) was FAST.
I'm....an elf.
But what class?
Elf, were you not listening?
It was also the case that PCs tended to travel in hordes, with retainers, henchmen, and hirelings along for the ride.
----------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you could identify where, in your campaign world, the middle level characters are.
For example: the Scarlet Guard is known to be made of 5th level fighters who use longspears.
With the Elven Kingdom, there are mid-level rangers who patrol the borders, and a college of wizardry that focuses on Enchantment and Divination.
----------------------------------------------------------
Or, just put in the limits that probably already exist in your head.
(Maximum of three classes, including multiclassing, archetypes, and racial variants)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably bail out of a game like there. There's far too many situations where a couple bad dice rolls, or a few good ones on the DMs part can put a character in the ground. That's not the fault of the player, that's just the way the game goes sometimes. Forcing your honest players to suffer because of your annoying players is poor DMing. Don't make it a general rule, make it a case by case basis.
And no matter how clever you're playing, sitting through quite a few sessions to catch up with your 10th level party is going to be boring. Bag of tricks or not. Further, since you're arguing verisimilitude so strongly, why would a party ever willingly drag someone along with them who is little more than an XP mooch?
I do understand what you're saying, but I think you need to take your verisimilitude reasoning out of it, and talk to the players you're having a problem with.
In game solutions rarely work. Have you tried sitting down and talking with the offending players?
And no offense, but unless you are making combat more than hack and slash (ie, usage of environment, combat maneuvers, etc), or having more ways to gain XP besides combat, cleverness won't get them very far. The burden of rewarding cleverness is always on you, the GM, so you have to encourage that kind of play. Or else the game won't evolve past killing the orc and taking his pie.
And really, no matter how clever you are, a level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will do diddly squat to anything CR 12+.
Any GM who doesn't do such things has no business being a GM. Clever play is the soul of the game.
A level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will only do diddly squat against anything of CR 12+ if the bard's only plan is to stab it with a sword.
While that is true, it still ignores the game mechanics issue. The issue with skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate is that the DCs of said skills are highly dependent upon the ability score of the creature. At CR 12, you're getting into dragon territories. Some of those dragons have Sense Motives in the twenties, while other monsters (like the Jorogumo) have them in the high teens. That makes Bluffing much more difficult to accomplish.
With Diplomacy, you have a somewhat better chance against dragons (assuming indifferent) as their Charisma modifiers aren't too high. However, parlaying with that Jorogumo (CHA 24) is much more difficult mechanics-wise. And at least with most enemies that want to kill them, it's highly doubtful that they will be just indifferent. In fact, it says that creature that want to kill you and your allies are (generally speaking) unaffected by diplomacy. And having to use Diplomacy on a friendly creature will rarely come up because they are already friendly and thus don't need the skill used on them.
Intimidate would be the most difficult to do, as the DC is dependent on the Hit Dice of the target creature and the size of it. At CR 12+, we're starting to get to Huge+ creatures, so a level 1 character is going to do squat against anyone that high. The Jorogumo would be a DC 27, so if the bard had a +8 Intimidate, he could influence it if he rolled a 19 or 20, making it a 10% chance to do that. While certainly not impossible, it's highly unlikely and Intimidate has always been a high risk way of instant diplomacy. I don't really want to piss off a Jorogumo. As far as I can see, she's the easiest to Intimidate. The Rusalka has a DC 31 Intimidate and is the next easiest. The dragons are all in the 30s because of their size. So Intimidate is honestly not worth the risk.
So at this point, Diplomacy is your best bet as a level 1 character, although it really only helps with creatures that are indifferent. Anything below that and it become worthless without circumstantial bonuses, such as giving the creature an item it wants or meeting its needs). I'd say that, at least RAW wise, you are better off Aiding Another one of your allies in Diplomacy. That'd said, I'd give hints on what the creature would want, so that the player can try and figure it out and earn that +2 bonus to Diplomacy. Every little bit helps.
Purely from the standpoinnt of the villains, there is so little XP to be had from 1st level scrubs that you have to send them packing with a message: send more heroes. Diplomacy takes at least a minute anyway.
I'd probably bail out of a game like there. There's far too many situations where a couple bad dice rolls, or a few good ones on the DMs part can put a character in the ground. That's not the fault of the player, that's just the way the game goes sometimes. Forcing your honest players to suffer because of your annoying players is poor DMing. Don't make it a general rule, make it a case by case basis.
And no matter how clever you're playing, sitting through quite a few sessions to catch up with your 10th level party is going to be boring. Bag of tricks or not. Further, since you're arguing verisimilitude so strongly, why would a party ever willingly drag someone along with them who is little more than an XP mooch?
I do understand what you're saying, but I think you need to take your verisimilitude reasoning out of it, and talk to the players you're having a problem with.
You bring up really good points here. Honestly, the best thing to do is talk with the min-maxing players. A lot of times, people pull out the stops because the game has become too lethal. I had to do that once because the GM would constantly throw APL +3 encounters all the time. And that was the lowest we'd deal with. We used to lose at least 2 characters a game and it became a revolving door of death. Wasn't very fun.
Psst, friend, check the OP's posting history, and his user name (hint, acid works also) and now you know why there's no real use arguing with him.In game solutions rarely work. Have you tried sitting down and talking with the offending players?
And no offense, but unless you are making combat more than hack and slash (ie, usage of environment, combat maneuvers, etc), or having more ways to gain XP besides combat, cleverness won't get them very far. The burden of rewarding cleverness is always on you, the GM, so you have to encourage that kind of play. Or else the game won't evolve past killing the orc and taking his pie.
And really, no matter how clever you are, a level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will do diddly squat to anything CR 12+.
Hah, I just got that!
Nothing wrong with "tough but fair" so long as everyone is cool with it from the start, and you are indeed FAIR.
My current policy is "You start one level lower than the lowest-ranking member at the table", which seems to be enough of a demotion to discourage dying.
I actually know a player who insists of starting at level 1 if he dies. Even if everybody else is high level.
It's kind of a hassle to wait for him to "catch up again" sometimes.
|
I don't understand all the insinuations that I am a cruel DM. The last "rocks fall everyone dies" in my campaign wasn't conducted by me. It was set up by my players as a trap, and the resulting avalanche let them safely kill a pair of dragons far above their CR. That's because when you have plans that don't revolve solely around running up to a monster across an open field and slashing it with a sword, you can accomplish more than someone looking at your character sheet and typing numbers into a spreadsheet would expect.
Which is awesome and fun, but is that how every combat plays out? Because anytime they have an actual fight, those low level characters are at risk of a quick death. So then you're punishing them for dying with death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget:
- Gaze attacks
- Auras
- Energy Drain 1+
- Insufficient funds
- Diseases
- Poisons
- traps
- swarms
- farting in their general direction
- Hillbilly half ogres
- DMPCs
- Highwaymen
- poo flinging anything
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand all the insinuations that I am a cruel DM. The last "rocks fall everyone dies" in my campaign wasn't conducted by me. It was set up by my players as a trap, and the resulting avalanche let them safely kill a pair of dragons far above their CR. That's because when you have plans that don't revolve solely around running up to a monster across an open field and slashing it with a sword, you can accomplish more than someone looking at your character sheet and typing numbers into a spreadsheet would expect.
I don't think you're cruel. I just don't think you're thinking it through the full way. Sure, players can be clever and smart and take down things like crazy. But you gotta remember that sometimes, the best laid plans of mice and men are shat upon by circumstance and sheer luck. I'm sure bad guys will get the drop on them occasionally, and people roll ones on saves. And as you get higher and higher levels, that gap between the high level guys and that 1st level guy is getting larger and larger and much more noticable. It'll get to a point where they will die from most anything you throw at them. They'll be dragging this level 1 peon when they take on dragons, balors, and other terrors of the planes. Starting them at a lower level is fine. But level 1 is pretty harsh.
My biggest issue is that in trying to punish the munchkins, you are also punishing the players that are trying to play they way you want. People fail saves and get killed, especially at higher levels. Why should these players feel the same punishment that the min maxers are getting because of bad luck? It's tough, but far from fair. The best thing you can possibly do is talk with the munchkin players. Don't mince words or pull out any passive aggressive b@&%!*%~ or guilt tripping. Just be frank and let them know that you don't want suicidal characters being played by bored players with character ADHD. If they do not want to compromise and work something out with you, then frankly, you need to replace them. But these kind of issues need to be handled outside of the game, face to face.
|
My players and I have come up with great plans, plans that have changed catastrophic scenarios into memorable and splendid adventures. We do not lack imagination or ingenuity. We also dont need to macgiver through every scenario. Because when you cause extaordinary measures or instances to become ordinary and common you kill the magic, the moment when you make your pcs feel like they achieved greatness, when they surmounted the odds beyond any expectation. No my friends are not to be mistaken for idiots and dunces but none of us are tyrants behind the screen.
Vulnerable to Fire, I salute you!
Min/maxed characters have fatal flaws. Each and every one of them likes to create some sort of goofy chain of feats etc to make them unbeatable in combat. Only trouble is, they NEVER think defensively, and are by definition unbalanced. Take a look at their characters, and pick on their weaknesses mercilessly via the appropriate encounters. Eventually they will get the concept that they need to start building more logically, instead of offensively.
Second, I personally wouldn't have a problem with starting out replacement characters at a low level. However, if I were you, I would mitigate that somewhat by taking a look at the level distribution among the populace in which the death occurred. Then give them a xp level which would reflect them coming from that area, and limit their choices (race, religion, etc) accordingly.
Third, in order to give these dramatically lower level characters a shot at staying alive long enough to level, when they first start out give them maximum possible hit points. Thereafter, grant them exactly average hp upon leveling, at least until they reach the same potency as the rest of the party.
You misunderstand. I actually argued for HIGHER than level 1 if a character dies/retires. And I argued for more hp than they would normally get.
Might want to reread the thread, Wind Chime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm fairly certain the original post was designed as flame-bait, I still find myself biting the hook. Here's why... I've had a couple of different moments in a running campaign where character ennui at mid-levels had players making inordinately stupid character decisions. Interestingly, neither of the these players hid the fact that they were thinking about new character ideas. Also, in both situations, the players had had conversations with me outside of the game asking questions like, "So, if this character dies..." I handled it both times the same way. I told the players that if this character that they'd designed from the ground up and poured so much blood, sweat and tears into was no longer exciting to them, I'd be more than happy to let them make a new character to bring in to the campaign (at an appropriate level), should their character die, for whatever reason. I would, also, though, want to really make sure that they would not become bored of this new character. So, in order to facilitate my own certainty, I would allow them to sit out of the next three to five sessions, after their character's death, in a row, so that they could do the appropriate amount of research, and know for certain that they would never bore of this new character. In both situations that statement ended their character ennui rather quickly.
Incidentally, I also have a rule that if a character does in fact die, which has happened even though a player didn't want it to. The new character you bring into the campaign cannot be of the same race or class as your previous character. So far, none of my players have ever had a problem with that.
Rather than argue (as so many have done) let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. What happens when a 1st level character created as a result of this rule dies (as is bound to happen)?
2. What would you do if, over an adventure, everyone in the campaign dies once and ends up 5-10 levels below the average CR of the adventure?
I don't understand all the insinuations that I am a cruel DM. The last "rocks fall everyone dies" in my campaign wasn't conducted by me. It was set up by my players as a trap, and the resulting avalanche let them safely kill a pair of dragons far above their CR. That's because when you have plans that don't revolve solely around running up to a monster across an open field and slashing it with a sword, you can accomplish more than someone looking at your character sheet and typing numbers into a spreadsheet would expect.
First and formost I should preface this by saying I would leave your game so fast it wouldnt even be funny. I've played in games where there was something like this, and there is absolutely no fun in playing a 1st level character in a party with 12th level characters. Also in pathfinder, there isnt a way to catch up anymore. You will ALWAYS be behind in xp if you are a lower level. At the very least you should look to putting back the additional xp if you are bellow average party level. Because being 145,000xp behind another party member sucks. Plain and simple. Sure they will level faster, but they will never catch up in pathfinder. And even if they could catch up they are playing second fiddle for a long time.
That said, I can agree that I hate when characters deliberately kill themselves so they can replace them with something else. And it sounds to me like there is a serious play style conflict in your group that needs to be addressed in a less passive agressive way. Because honestly, an in game solution to player behavior is always terribly way to go about correcting it. All it does is create resentment and conflict.
|
If you're a party of say, level 10, and after some members died/left, you've got a few new level 1 "PCs" hanging around, taking care of the horses, washing dishes and doing laundry an all that while you fight... if they get a share of the XP, will you denounce them as level-draining undead? Because unlike "NPC" cannon fodder these guys somehow steal your XP...
---
So if you use the "lowest PC level -1" mechanic, does the campaign transition into an undead campaign at some point, with each new PC more powerful than the last one?
---
And it may have slipped my mind, but is march Player Entitlement Awareness Month?
---
Seriously. I tend to play the highest-level character in campaigns where new PCs come in at lowest-level -1 because I'm not prone to dying. Frankly, it's annoying; my archer was eventually forced into playing tank to protect the newbies.
We also had a string of people one by one making new characters because they wanted to try something new, turning a 4/5/5/5/6/7 party into a 2/3/4/5/6/7 party. And THAT's when one of the remaining PCs died... with me as the level 7 PC. I mean, I was playing this arrogant superior elf bastard, but this is a bit much...
Somehow I get the feeling that nowadays there are a lot of one-way GMs out there. And with one-way I mean GMs that you game with until your PC dies and which you discard after that because to game with them is not fun anymore.
I think if your PC dies most of the time you are penalized enough by the fact that your char is dead, you don't have to be penalized again by being a lower level. More so as PF doesn't seem to have any mechanics to let you catch up.
Because of that, if a GM in a game tells me that I have to build my new pc at a lower level than the rest of the party I leave and look for a new GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember back in the day when we started characters at 1st level. It was actually kinda fun. :)
But there were a few things that helped with this.
First, we always played more than one character. So if one died you could still play your second character at full level.
Second, even though the new character always came into the game naked and chained to a wall (seriously, the DM had to get creative sometimes in order to figure out a plausible reason for a person to be naked and chained to a wall, whatever the environment) they would quickly be outfitted with the best second-hand gear the party had. So that 1st level Fighter would get magic armor, cloaks, rings, a weapon, etc. Also he would get whatever protective magics we could throw on him, anything that could absorb or prevent damage is great.
Third, you would only be 1st level for one game session, odds are you get so much experience in the first game that you would level to 2nd, if not 3rd!
Still, all that said things have changed in the last 30 or so years. Nobody seems to play games where people run more than one character anymore. Making a character requires a lot more time and investment. Raising the dead is, frankly, easier.
And finally, I agree with what is said above. Why doesn't the character just leave instead of committing suicide? Even in a world saving adventure you can come up with a reason.
"Listen, I know the fate of the world is at stake, but even if we succeed my homeland will be destroyed! I must go and do what I can. You have a new ally now." Nods towards the new character. "And I am sure with his help you will prevail. I must go and do what I can for my people. May the gods smile on you!"
Tada! New character! And now you have a powerful ally in some land that you can fall back on (with the DM's permission) or that can pull you into a new quest (plot hook).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't deserve to get even. You died.
Character death is not always a product of player stupidity. Sometimes the dice just don't roll your way. Sometimes they epically roll against you. Penalizing a player because of bad dice rolls is like pouring lemon juice in a paper cut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess I've never had the problem that the OP is stating he is having in his game.
My group has never done anything like that and I doubt anyone would. We know that sometimes deaths do happen, none of us purposely try to kill our PC's off. If for some reason a person decides that they don't like a PC, they talk to the GM and they discuss what the problems are and either work them out or are allowed to retire the character and roll up a new one at the same level as the party w/ WBL. No one would think to abuse this and try to build a new min/max OP over-optimized character just to have a more powerful character than their last one.
If I was in a group with people who did do the offenses that the OP has said happens in his group, I'd tell the other players to knock it off. If I was GM'ing it, I'd not start them at level 1, but I would probably put them a level behind and at like 50-75% of WBL to stop that kind of play. It just sounds like your players are perhaps a bit immature if they are killing off characters on purpose to get better gear, more wealth, and more powerful characters. It comes down to having open communication with your players and being up front with what you allow and disallow in your games. If you don't like power gamers tell them that and if they continue to do so, find other gamers to take their place(s) at the table. Everyone should be having fun, including the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...you are doing it wrong.
I didn't realize you were the authority on how I should have fun at my table. So sorry to disagree with your absolute authority on how one should play this game. I will refrain from argument in the future, and make sure to kowtow to your esteemed and incomparable opinion.