Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't speak to the appropriateness of adopting the rule or the reaction of your players, but I did run my last campaign with a "replacement characters come back at 1st level" rule and didn't find it to be a very good house rule. Even with extra house rules granting additional xp for the low level characters, they leveled pretty slowly, were largely useless in most encounters, and could be taken out entirely with a critical hit or powerful area effect. I suppose it is one way to go if the players are suiciding their characters to create new and more degenerate builds, but we didn't have much fun with the rule. Subsequent camapigns have returned to the more typical rule, in which replacement characters are roughly equivalent in level to the existing party.
@OP. How does wealth by level work in your campaigns? For example, if PCs find a lot of treasure, is the rerolled PC's WBL going to limited by his current level, or can he keep any extra gear?
That rule is older than me it seems...
But there is an extreme likelihood that the new characters will die in one round if too far below APL. Might I suggest baby steps? Perhaps a normal restart at APL but with gear equal to a level 1... or starting one level below the lowest party member and give them standard NPC treasure.
|
|
Not sure if this is a troll or not from the OP, but I'll chime in just to address the situation:
From a legitimate or valiant death I actually reward the new character with a small boon or stat perk. I consider this a minor roll-over from the effort and work they put into their last character that unfortunately died. This was a feature of Gamma World 3rd ed (the 1985 version) and was so appreciated that I incorporated into all my other game systems. The new character would get a +1 on their stat/extra points to build their guy (system dependant) and some hero factors already in the bank for playing their character heroically, even though he died. I know - it's a meta thing, in effect the player is being rewarded since the character is dead, but it works.
When new characters usually come in, it's at group class level -1 or -2, but if the campaign or mod is harsh they may come in at class level.
Luckily I have never had anyone suicide just to build a new character, I did have a fighter player retire his character in favor of playing a caster (he liked spell casting more, always did). He came in with some good gear, but was -1 level behind (and quickly caught up). We discussed the change, why he wanted to do it and I made it happen.
The OPs problem is a little different - and I can offer a solution of sorts. Bar any new PC related releases in product (the new shiny) as a character option until the current campaign or module is over. If a character dies they don't get to create a new character from the just released book(s)/resource material until the current AP or module is over (end of story or major transition time).
I allow some re-builds or changes to Characters to add/change a new feat/ability if the player finds a new feat/ability that he was trying to simulate in the first place. Because I want my players to have the type of characters they were trying to build (in theme or intent) with the rules we had at the time that he built it. If some new content facilitates that theme or intent better than what he currently has I may suggest the change to his character as a retcon to the character. I tend to read and buy more books than my players so I may notice a rebuild option to get the player closer to what he originally intended.
The suiciding PC thing is a little too nutty to wrap my head around TBH. I'm seeing this as the players are doing silly things and the DM in question is bringing down the hammer (also a silly response) - both of which fail to address the problem: Players being happy with their characters as they exist and how to implement new material into the game without disrupting the existing campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eventually, I got sick of players deliberately killing themselves so they could come back with some absurd build deliberately minmaxed to peak at their current level or just because their attention span was too short for them to bother playing a single character for more than a few levels before getting distracted by some other shiny feat or something. So I brought back the oldest rule in the book:
New characters are new characters. They start at level 1 with starting equipment.
This also makes death scary. Even with this edition's insanely easy access to guaranteed resurrection, at least it makes recovering the body important - and removed the ridiculous scenario of "Oh no, our eighteenth-level cleric Bob just died, he was the best cleric in the entire land and we're running out of time, wait what's this, here comes another high-level hero of whom we've never heard before despite his supposed power and importance, goodbye verisimilitude forever."
It's tough, but fair. Low-level characters need far less experience to level and get more experience than their high-level allies, so they catch up in levels quite quickly, especially if they go off on a sidequest. Besides, to players with actual cleverness and imagination, their most powerful weapons aren't what's written on their character sheet, and even a first-level character can be a powerful asset to a twentieth-level party. And it just makes sense; you shouldn't have a high-level character if you haven't done anything with that character yet.
But when I reintroduced this rule, a couple of my players started to grumble. Yes, they were munchkins, and I explained to them that it was my game and my rules and they could take it or leave it, but I wonder if any of you have had similar reactions?
I have an easy answer for this. I would just quit. I admit it is subject to abuse but I really don't see a lot of people doing that. Personally, I think you may have a problem as a GM, you need to find a way for players to actually care about their characters, that is what roleplaying is for. Otherwise you might as well be playing WoW.
|
We had the "making a new character to try some new build thing, every other week" once. If a game system has a lot of different things you can play, is it really all that wrong to want to experiment with a few things before settling down?
Admittedly, it was disruptive to the story, to have people join and leave the party all the time. But it was mostly the same players, so after a while some of the other players become the "core" party, who set the direction plot-wise, and the new guys didn't really have the "seniority".
It basically ended when as a group we decided this had to stop, because it was getting too disruptive story-wise. This wasn't done with hard rules; it was mostly through actual person to person communication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once played in a game with this rule.
The party ended up with a level 14 druid (me), a level 11 figher, a level 4 wizard and a level 1 whatever that died repeatedly.
Never again.
tl;dr although extreme, i don't find the method completely unreasonable. death has consequences.
First, I've played with and am playing with people who frequently get bored with characters and want to make new ones, seeking death or at least behaving as if it has no consequence. Rather, they play as if dying is their chance to make a new character without having to struggle through early levels. One problem with this is that death should have consequences, or else nothing matters. How do you become invested in a character whose life and death have no meaning or impact? Another problem is some of these people get excited by concepts they don't completely grasp and end up making mid to high level characters whose mechanics they don't understand. So...I get the frustration as a DM and fellow player.
Second, a first level/low level character can heal and buff their fellows without penalty. Being stuck in town crafting/gathering information could be quite useful. Yes, it takes you out of combat pretty effectively, but it doesn't make you useless. And if you're getting an equal share of xp, you're going to level up very quickly, so this won't last too long. It definitely sucks, but death should have consequences. Even in a game.
Our DM has just started enforcing a one level drop for characters. Some of the more butthurtable players found this unreasonable, so I can see how going all the way to level one could make people leave the group entirely. We are at level 4 currently, and running Runelords, so we've all got an opportunity to take characters to high levels. Also, starting at level 3 gives us a chance to start playing with multiclassing, which can be tiresome at low levels.
Ive ran it both ways. With the rule in question and without, and I have had no problems either way.
I do however what rules are in effect.
I usually run with (death = level 1) as default.
also...(warning: personal rant), every campaign i've been in has started at level one and rarely gets past level 5. i've run some campaigns where i allowed characters to start at 5 or 6, and although making higher level toons is fun, you just don't get a grasp of the mechanics like you would if you started at level one. this is especially true in games where some players are less experienced. this is why i A) am jealous of all these people in high level games and B) tired of hearing about people complain about low levels. if you want to start the game as a demigod, play Marvel Superheroes, maybe Exalted.
But when I reintroduced this rule, a couple of my players started to grumble. Yes, they were munchkins, and I explained to them that it was my game and my rules and they could take it or leave it, but I wonder if any of you have had similar reactions?
Unless you were literally the only game I could possibly play in, I think I'd leave it.
YMMV.
When my players bring in a new character, it's with the penalties for:
Reincarnate (randomly-rolled race, 2 permanent negative levels, -1000 GP)
Raise Dead (2 permanent negative levels, -5000 GP)
Resurrection (1 permanent negative level, -10000 GP)
That way they're not gaining an advantage over their old character.
Starting at first level is harsh. 1st level PCs are basically useless unless the rest of the party concentrates solely on keeping that member alive. It also makes no sense at all for random commoner (for all intents and purposes) to join a party of 18th-level characters.
In all honesty I see this rule as incredibly Verisimilitude breaking.
Why would a party of level 8 adventures, (Just low enough not to have raise dead), ever recruit a lvl 1 anything to fill the spot of a lost companion of 8th level?
The level one character would be extremely useless in any situation where the level 8 characters were challenged, therefore unless there was some extremely important RP reason to include said character it would be very very stupid of the 8th level Characters, not players, characters to allow the level one to adventure with them.
The only ways this could work that I see are as follows.
1.) The entire party takes a break from their important higher level work/story so as to go help the level one gain some experience by clearing a level 3 or 4 dungeon. Something where the level one PC is not at as much risk at getting caught in a random AE and gibbed.
2.) The new PC is a bottle-washer/Horse-holder, and does not gain exp as he never participates in anything. This effectively means the new PC = new NPC stuck at level one.
3.) The GM using Handwavium >9000 to create situations where numbers on a character sheet do not matter at all and the new level one character is effective. Then grants the new character experience from said situations. Effectively this means the GM is saying "You died! Suffer for some game sessions until I feel like letting you play again!"
This Trope is an example of model three Example
If I am wrong please explain a situation or method that does not fit into one of these three models to allow a PC to be relevant again.
As my personal opinion I find this rule repugnant, as it will definitively cut into the fun of my players, and I feel my job as a GM is not to be all "I am the Law" and more "I am the road you walk, and the air you breathe! I am also the goblin eating your liver! ;-)"
I do not like rules that can allow small amounts of randomness to make a player useless.
I.E. I do not use the 20-20-20-dead rule, I do not use the critical hit or critical fumble decks.
I feel with spells like phantasmal killer, flesh to stone, and finger of death in the game their is enough chance for a player to suffer from a simple case of one or two bad dice rolls and it is not my job to add more.
Please realize that all of the above is opinion and my view, I am willing to be convinced otherwise with facts or good logic.
Also to those who enjoy more randomness, you are NOT having badwrongfun, such is just not to my liking.
When my players bring in a new character, it's with the penalties for:
Reincarnate (randomly-rolled race, 2 permanent negative levels, -1000 GP)
Raise Dead (2 permanent negative levels, -5000 GP)
Resurrection (1 permanent negative level, -10000 GP)That way they're not gaining an advantage over their old character.
What would you do with a level 3 replacement char? Would he have to choose reincarnation or would he start without any equipment, 2 negative levels and a 2000gp debt?
I once had my pc die at third level and having him raised destroyed a geart part of the party's wealth. It took a long time for the party to recover from that.
Sure, sometimes level 1 players can be clever. But in an actual combat situation they're extremely at risk to die again. And they'll be far enough behind the rest of the party (unless the rest of the party is low-level) that they won't be able to contribute nearly as much as higher level party members in almost every situation.
Like I just said, a level 1 player can be clever. But there's a reason you don't throw a level 1 party at a CR 20 monster, and you seem to be ignoring that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eventually, I got sick of players deliberately killing themselves so they could come back with some absurd build deliberately minmaxed to peak at their current level or just because their attention span was too short for them to bother playing a single character for more than a few levels before getting distracted by some other shiny feat or something. So I brought back the oldest rule in the book:
New characters are new characters. They start at level 1 with starting equipment.
This also makes death scary. Even with this edition's insanely easy access to guaranteed resurrection, at least it makes recovering the body important - and removed the ridiculous scenario of "Oh no, our eighteenth-level cleric Bob just died, he was the best cleric in the entire land and we're running out of time, wait what's this, here comes another high-level hero of whom we've never heard before despite his supposed power and importance, goodbye verisimilitude forever."
It's tough, but fair. Low-level characters need far less experience to level and get more experience than their high-level allies, so they catch up in levels quite quickly, especially if they go off on a sidequest. Besides, to players with actual cleverness and imagination, their most powerful weapons aren't what's written on their character sheet, and even a first-level character can be a powerful asset to a twentieth-level party. And it just makes sense; you shouldn't have a high-level character if you haven't done anything with that character yet.
But when I reintroduced this rule, a couple of my players started to grumble. Yes, they were munchkins, and I explained to them that it was my game and my rules and they could take it or leave it, but I wonder if any of you have had similar reactions?
I think this is a brilliant idea. Have your high level characters dropped to level 1.
Then watch your players leave your game one by one.
Eventually you will be a GM that nobody will play with. Problem solved.
|
The problem, as I see it, isn't with characters that die; it's with players who think that they can kill off their current character whenever they want to just because they want to try something different, and a GM who wants a consistent storyline with a regular cast.
That's mis-matched expectations, which always leads to trouble.
Personally I'm firmly in the second camp. In my campaign I hope to not have the problem. because my players want to develop and grow their characters over time; if a character does die the first thing that is tried is to find some way to bring the character back.
If I have a player who is not happy with his current character we'll work together to try and remedy the situation (I'm open to the possibility of partial rebuilds, as long as the overall character concept stays the same). I'd also consider letting a character leave the party at some plot-appropriate point, whereupon the rest of the party would probably look for a new adventuring companion.
In a campaign like that, it's rather unlikely that a player with the mindset that characters are little more than disposable toys would be asked back after one too many 'accidental' deaths; it's just a bad fit with the expectations of the table. Equally, I can envision campaigns where the party makeup changes after every trip back to the tavern.
I would even contemplate a hybrid, where most of the party stays the same, but one player runs the specialist character recruited for this mission. We usually handle that by having an NPC or two available, but it would work equally well if a player character were to be used instead. That wouldn't allow free reign to create any cool-sounding concept character; the new character would have to fill a role chosen, at least in part, by the other players at the table.
character creation takes such a freaking long time, and characters can die quite easily from a single full attack. plus a character who is behind by a single experience point or even copper piece, is behind for life.
if you force a new character to start 1st level, no matter how much secondhand bling they start with or how creative they are. they are still useless in a party of 3rd level or higher.
in fact, a character of a single level lower has huge issues surviving. because the wealth of being 1 level lower cuts your surviveability drastically.
in fact, being behind by a single spell level reduces your ability to function fairly drastically as well. as does being behind by a single point of ability modifier.
When my players bring in a new character, it's with the penalties for:
Reincarnate (randomly-rolled race, 2 permanent negative levels, -1000 GP)
Raise Dead (2 permanent negative levels, -5000 GP)
Resurrection (1 permanent negative level, -10000 GP)That way they're not gaining an advantage over their old character.
What would you do with a level 3 replacement char? Would he have to choose reincarnation or would he start without any equipment, 2 negative levels and a 2000gp debt?
I once had my pc die at third level and having him raised destroyed a geart part of the party's wealth. It took a long time for the party to recover from that.
I generally give every party member 1 "freebie" where the character miraculously evades death (as if he had used 2 Hero Points using the Hero Point system). It's so easy to die at 1st level (and 2nd level if you're squishy) due to a critical hit or bad rolls and, as you mentioned, it would basically cripple the party if they had to reincarnate him at those levels. Also, when you're just getting started, it sucks losing a character so fast as those are the ones that have the full background and the players spent weeks creating. I'd rather preserve the character that has time and effort put into him/her than have a player try to quickly scribble up a new PC to get back into the game.
If your PC dies and you bring in a new PC with full average wealth by level, it renders the reincarnate, raise dead, resurrection, and true resurrection spells useless, IMO, so that's why I put the rule in place. I'd MUCH rather have my players want to bring their fallen comrade back to life (as mentioned, these are the PCs with time and effort put into them) than to just say, "Oh, he died. That sucks. Oh, look, is that a similarly-powerful humanoid walking towards us? Let's ask her to join the party!"
So, generally speaking, this rule gives the party a reason to utilize those spells and we spend less downtime waiting for a new character to be created so he/she can join the party. Should they not be able to bring said character back to life or if that character just isn't working out or if the player wants to play a new PC, that's when this rule gets utilized; they don't gain any advantage over the existing character.
Nitpick: At 3rd level, average wealth is 3000 GP. So, assuming the PC died twice within the first 3 levels (which is pretty difficult to do in 3 levels) and wasn't reincarnated, the new character would start with a randomly-rolled race, 2000 GP, and 2 permanent negative levels. Of course, I've never actually had a PC die twice in the first 3 levels.
So is that permanent permanent negative levels or "permanent" negative levels in game terms (i.e. permanent until removed)?
If B that system doesn't sound too bad as a replacement to replacing characters.
and removed the ridiculous scenario of "Oh no, our eighteenth-level cleric Bob just died, he was the best cleric in the entire land and we're running out of time, wait what's this, here comes another high-level hero of whom we've never heard before despite his supposed power and importance, goodbye verisimilitude forever."
Yes but it creats a even more ridiculous scenario..."We need to replace cleric Bob...the best cleric in the land in our battles to save the world...I know lets go get Bill the cleric he just got ordained...he should be able to cast miracle right? If not he can learn on the job. We are only trying to save the world after all lets not look for the best we can find."
and get more experience than their high-level allies,
Not true in Pathfinder atleast. The person will be forever behind the part in exp. Excepting sidequests.
But when I reintroduced this rule, a couple of my players started to grumble. Yes, they were munchkins, and I explained to them that it was my game and my rules and they could take it or leave it, but I wonder if any of you have had similar reactions?
Yes...I have had very similair reaction as your players. I don't play the game to be a cloak holder while the rest of the players do awesome things. I can live with a 1 or 2 even a 3 level difference I have...anymore that that it becomes futile.
I am curious what clever things can a 1st level character do to aid a 20th level party? and how does survive any collarterl damage?
So is that permanent permanent negative levels or "permanent" negative levels in game terms (i.e. permanent until removed)?
If B that system doesn't sound too bad as a replacement to replacing characters.
Until removed
Edit: Sorry to Umbranus (and others). Upon re-reading my first post, I realize I probably wasn't as clear as I originally thought I was. When I put -1000 GP for Reincarnation, I meant the average wealth for that level (as listed in the CRB) -1000 GP.
The player's new character would come in with the same XP as everyone else as well as the average wealth by level (CRB), but take the penalties that the spell would normally incur (including the cost of materials to cast the spell but not including the cost of spellcasting services).
I use a lower level rule but I also bring the monsters down.
Urm ... then why bother? :/
I use a lower level rule but I also bring the monsters down.Urm ... then why bother? :/Because the other PCs don't like it when they don't get any XP for fighting low level creatures so they make more of an effort to stay alive.
Death, in my opinion, is a punishment.
Yes death most certainly is in RAW. If you're tacking on a level hit while "bringing the monsters down", isn't the net effect a wash?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of you that are talking about leaving his game.
What makes you think you would be invited in the first place?
I use a lower level rule but I also bring the monsters down.
Sigh...he came here on a public forum to ask people's reaction to a houserule he is using. So in theory he did invite us all to his game. And for alot of us it is a deal breaker.
But if it works for you and your players go for it.
|
All of you that are talking about leaving his game.
What makes you think you would be invited in the first place?
I use a lower level rule but I also bring the monsters down.
Sigh...he came here on a public forum to ask people's reaction to a houserule he is using. So in theory he did invite us all to his game. And for alot of us it is a deal breaker.
But if it works for you and your players go for it.
It does work to be honest.
