If a character dies, and a player rolls up a new character, what level is the new character?
I feel like the new character shouldn't start at the exact same place as the other character who have survived to this point, but I also don't feel like a heavy penalty is appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no official answer, just whatever the GM and group agree on. Sometimes I do a % of their previous character's experience, other times I do one level lower than the lowest PC in the group. Makes PC death more meaningful IMO.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever keeps the game flowing. Often I just let them hop back in at equal level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same level as lowest level party member with minimum XP's for that level.
Tormsskull, what is the percentage method you eluded to?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is up to each individual GM.
In my experiences as both player and GM all player characters should always be the same level. There is already enough power level difference between certain classes, putting players a level behind (or more) leaves that player feeling more like a sidekick than a meaningful member of the party.
What I'm really hearing Aaron is that you want death to be a meaningful event to the player and the party, and I too have had that same thought. And even made a thread about it here where I got some really good input. Check out the thread here.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like bringing them back at the same level as the party. Otherwise it makes the party weaker, and if they are at a lower level it makes it harder to survive individually also. It could start a downward spiral.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the new character shouldn't start at the exact same place as the other character who have survived to this point, but I also don't feel like a heavy penalty is appropriate.
In my view, creating a character takes enough time and effort to constitute enough of a penalty. Not only do I give the replacement character the same number of XP, I also give his/her full share of the XP from the fateful battle that killed the previous character.
I like bringing them back at the same level as the party. Otherwise it makes the party weaker, and if they are at a lower level it makes it harder to survive individually also. It could start a downward spiral.
Yeah, particularly if you're going through a big module / module series / AP which assumes the party is at a certain level at any given point.
I prefer to have them come back as 1 level lower, starting experience for that level. The minimum being 1 level lower than the lowest member, but keep a minimum level or that could downward spiral as someone said. Adjust the difficulty and you don't have to worry about AP or modules.
I agree it does harm the party to see a character die, which I think lends to the team mentality. If it matters to the whole party, perhaps they should work together to avoid character death.
I've enjoyed Pathfinder, but I've found death to mean less in my opinion.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say - bringing a character in a level lower worked better in 3.5 when the EXP system was set up so that a character at a lower level would get more EXP out of the same encounter as their higher level buddy, which led to an inherent catch-up mechanic.
Pathfinder did away with that when they simplified the EXP system, so being any amount of EXP behind is permanent.
I'll second what a lot of people are saying about how it handicaps a player to come back a level lower than everyone else. Death already hits players hard, having them come back at the same level as the rest of the party with minimum XP for the level is how I would run it.
There is no right or wrong answer to this question in RPGs in general. Many games work just fine mixing a character freshly generated with veterans. Most of them aren't level-based games with substantial increases in power and ability as characters advance.
For level-based games like D&D and Pathfinder, that's a bit of a tougher question. Back in 1e days, we usually brought new PCs in at 1st level when we could. But under that system, XP requirements to reach the next level tended to approximately double, so it really didn't take long for a PC to catch up most of the way. Also, in a lot of ways, character advancement wasn't as steep as it became in later editions, particularly when compared to monsters they'd be fighting.
With the introduction of 3e (and running through PF and 4e) including mixed character levels is much harder. The XP requirements for level advancement don't allow for such easy catch-up as in 1e days, character power increases more steeply in a number of ways, and monsters are powered up and more closely matched to the level of the PCs. Lower level PCs (at least lower by more than a couple of levels) are going to struggle a lot harder in the typical 3e/PF or 4e game and are going to die a lot more often. In many ways, given the number of powers and synergies in the highly customizable characters of these editions, it would be nice to play through a whole character's career, to learn how to better master the character as they add new powers if nothing else, but sadly, the mechanical demands of survival don't easily allow it for ongoing campaigns with higher level PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same level with wealth by level and purchase cap restructions. Old char's loot is returned to family, sold to donate to charity or loaned out to make enough interest to ressurect the dead pc eventually. PCs should have a death plan.
Of course, plans can only cover so much. In the Start at the End adventure, when my character fell into a trap and plunged into a lava pool, both he and his loot were lost forever. The same would be true if the party was forced to run for their lives and abandon their dead comrade to looters.
I have the new PC at the same level as the rest of the party. In my games, PCs will often gain bonus feats or skill points for completing quests or defeating a major enemy, the PCs are also usually a bit ahead in WBL, so the new PC will have less feats and less money even at the same level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same level but less gear.
Levels is not really something that is importantly "earned", it merely measure of progression in the campaign.
Magic items are something you found usually and are more "earned".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one correct answer to this question. Whatever is the most fun for everyone at the table.
Please note that that is everyone, not just the Game Master.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same level always. I despise level disparity, it is the devil. I don't even hand out XP anymore. All character level at important plot points at the same time, no one is ever a different level.
Yup. This.
Level disparity is fun for nobody and serves no good purpose unless people are switching up characters every session and you want to punish them.
Which is trying for an in-game solution to an out-of-game problem, something that is basically never a good plan.
Wealth...wealth is a slightly different matter and depends on the nature of the game.
Same level as the lowest level pc with the minimum xp for that level.
I've not see this method result in more then a two level spread among the pcs more then once or twice. Having a party with a 4th level pc, 2 3rds and a 2nd doesn't generally cause me balance issues.
Personally I despise that everyone levels at the same time withe the same xp table. Insisting on this is one of the barriers to fixing the balance between the classes that seems to bother some people. It also is what killed multi-classing from 2nd edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep everybody at the same level, period. It's just easier on bookkeeping, it keeps down any feelings of favoritism, and it just makes things better with my groups.
I'm also in the same level camp, not only is it easier, it is also fairer. You wouldn't give one PC 50% of the loot and let the rest share what's left would you? Well by making everyone different levels that's basically what you are doing. Also why are they different levels? Are some people missing games and you play without them? Is one PC really good at roleplay, and gets experience from that? Or does one PC do solo adventures? Or perhaps does everyone at the table die like really often?
If PC die really often it's probably the GM's fault, unless the players are really incompetent. in which case it's everyone's fault. Solo adventures should be rarely allowed and never rewarded with xp. It encourages spotlight hogging. Roleplay is important but shouldn't be rewarded with xp, or if it is there needs to be some balancing mechanic for the shyer players. If you reward the expressive player exclusively, you are punishing the shy player in a sense by pushing him/her down the ladder little by little. If people are missing games, why are they missing games a: a good real life reason, b: poor/no reason. A: they shouldn't be punished for a real life situation. B: Punishing a player who does this is not the right way to go about fixing the problem.
I don't really see other reasons why people would have different amounts of xp. Although it's fun to earn xp for different things it shouldn't unbalance the party in general, it's more fun if everyone contributes equally. The fact that you can have different amounts of xp is a weakness of the system imo.
Of course ymmv
If you want authority for your answers, Gygax's suggested guideline was one level below the group average, to encourage players not to get themselves killed off.
On the other end of the spectrum, Erick Wujick of Palladium and Amber fame believed that experience comes from failure as much as success, everyone should get equal exp for concluding a series. He wasn't much of a thing for level-based games, so the question would be moot.
...experience comes from failure as much as success...
True dat.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level disparity is fun for nobody.
That's pretty much my point of view as well.
"All right, Ted, your rogue died last week, so your ranger will be coming in a level lower than everyone else."
"A level lower? This will be AWESOME!" -- who, in history, ever said that?
The best reaction I could hope for would be someone saying "well, that sucks, but I suppose I should take my medicine." But why the hell am I giving people medicine that they don't have to take?
Tormsskull, what is the percentage method you eluded to?
I generally separate PC deaths into two categories - bad luck or poor choices.
If a PC dies because of bad luck, I award the new PC 90%.
If the PC died because of poor choices (as in, the player made a poor choice, was asked if they were sure they wanted to continue with the poor choice, they proceeded anyway), then usually 75% with a few really egregious examples resulting in 50%.
One note of caution - This method works when the GM has a more or less constant group of players and everyone is informed of the rule and agrees.
If you have a situation where players will quit playing if their new PC loses experience, the rule will fall apart as soon as a character dies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving a new PC a level penalty is as much of a punishment to the rest of the party as it is to that player; now you have one PC that is going to be weaker than the rest of the party, from now until forever, which means the rest of the party has to deal with a weak link they are required to focus on protecting (and if they don't focus on protecting that character, they will just die again and come back even further behind).
I bring them in at the same level as the rest of the party but with slightly below WBL gear. So it stings a bit, but it's not long-term. Plus - as they didn't buy gear as they level, they can often purchase stuff more efficiently.
Generally speaking this is a larger penalty than you may be intending. In my experience characters are generally somewhat above the stated wealth by level. Particularly when they've been that level for a while.
WBL is often a 10+% pay cut for new characters, which is good enough I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level disparity sucks.
Either your group is invested enough in their characters as characters that the death will have impact, or they're not- in which case you simply cannot make them care and it's folly to try.
In general I strongly discourage gms from penalizing players for what happens to characters. The player has earned their respective level, there isn't a reason to penalize them for something that already sicks (losing a character).
The only thing something like this accomplishes is creating antagonism between players and GM. You are encouraging power gaming, because if they don't optimize the most powerful character they can and get killed you are going to pointlessly punish them for the rest of the campaign (you will never 'catch ups in pathfinder. There just isn't reason to do this.
If you want players bot to needlessly suicide characters to play another, just don't let them do that. That is the only legitimate reason that ever existed for a level penalty, and that can be overcome by simply talking to your players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level drag can easily result in a downward spiral that can end campaigns
I favor a starting wealth penalty. Starting with half WBL can still make a decent character and the disparity basically vanishes in just a couple of levels.
I like that idea. Disparities in wealth are easier to overcome than disparities in level/XP.
I really hope those who run with a level disparity give the poor sucker a chance to catch up.
Even with that it doesn't sound like much fun to me.
By downtime rules, you're not going to be behind forever if you invest the time, and may even be able to catch up fairly quickly. XD There's no reason to be permanently behind unless your GM demands it, and since it's downtime, it's not even particularly hard.
Except you're still going to be behind in something because everyone else is still using downtime for something.
Even something as simple as the 10% WBL penalty means that you have less money than everyone else and if you split the treasure equally, you will always have less money than everyone else.
Why the need to put people behind in the first place?
Generally when a GM feels the need to apply an arbitrary level penalty, they're not inclined to allow a way around it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to concern myself more with "who the hell is this new person and why are they allowed to hang out with the others?"
'Cause aside from groups explicitly set up as professional mercenary companies, they tend to need a reason to trust the new guy to watch their backs.
After sorting that out, I see no reason to impose further handicaps.