Have you had a problem with "character dumping"

[Dice4Hire]

I have to admit I am pretty bad about changing characters and I do it a lot, a lot mroe than the otehr player in my group. One guy is on the third incarnation of his fighter./cleric (we are playing 4E gestalt), the second guy on the 2nd incarnation of his Fighter/Wizard, but I ahve played

Paladin/cleric
Ranger/Cleric
Rogue/cleric
Warlock/Rogue and maybe one more.

I like trying out new things.

 

[Jhaelen]

My problems with 'character dumping' were greatly reduced after using point-buy instead of rolling for stats.
After allowing characters to retrain the problem was pretty much gone entirely.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Can't really blame them. Certain classes such as the hexblade just plain stink, and players should not be made to bear the consequences of incompetent game design, IMO. Others, like the warlock, are one-trick ponies and quickly become dull and repetitive to play when you keep spamming the one same tactic over and over again.

FWIW, both those classes (and Fighter) make for a pretty good "passive" side on a gestalt character. In my current game, I've got a gestalt Fighter, had a gestalt Hexblade before he decided he wanted to do sorcerer//dragonfire adept, and just got a new player doing rogue//hexblade. She's a petal pixie with Evasion, Mettle, +6 cha to saves vs. spells, plus stuff like tiny size and DR 5/cold iron (race), and...d10 HD. She's by far the party's best tank and is nearly indestructible, largely thanks to Hexblade's goodies.

 

[Mallus]

I don't see character dumping as a problem. Play the character you really want to, that's my motto as DM. If it takes a player a few tries to get that character, so be it. Want to switch back to a previous character? Fine.

That's how I ran 3.5e World of CITY campaign for several years. It went swimmingly.

 

[Dragonbait]

Character "dumping" is a big problem for several players of my group. One player will make a character, then want to change him AFTER the first game, then want to change him several times months later. Often its just over having skill points for a particular skill or some other trivial thing (I -knew- I should have put skill points in Profession Bookbinding! Dragonbait, I had established that I was a book binder in the past. Could I move the skill points from a skill that I used regularly early in the campaign to Profession Bookbinding). Now that we play 4E, the retraining is a godsend for him.. For now.

The other player makes a character, thinks his character is the shiznitz, then right when he hears someone do more damage than him he wants to change to a copy of said character, only better.. And he'll try to let the other play KNOW that his character is better whenever possible.

I have had to impose penalties on players who make a new characters because of these two people.

 

[S'mon]

Which is the sort of "solution" that the beginning of the article mentions. One of the tips even mentions starting them at the beginning (remember, the tips are not just for D&D).

Of course I let players redo their existing PCs without penalty (possibly using the PHB2 retraining rules) - as long as name, sex, race and age stay the same, I don't much mind if a Wizard turns into a Sorcerer or a Cleric into a Paladin. Penalty is just for new characters, same as if PC was killed.

 

[aboyd]

Has this been a big issue in your games?

Yes. When I started my game, I allowed constant switching of characters until we hit 3rd level (which took 6 sessions). So if they wanted to try a new character concept every game, that was fine. However, at 3rd I wanted them to pick something and try to make that character survive. They did not. Instead, they ran headlong into overwhelming odds, died, and spent hours mid-game rolling up new characters. Then they got greedy and started killing each other just for the loot. (New characters using the wealth guide in the DMG come into the game with a few gps more than the existing characters, so they had $$$ in their eyes).

So eventually I had to use what I call the Raise Dead rule. That is, if a character dies usually the Raise Dead spell brings that character back, and in so doing, the character loses a level. That's just a limitation of the spell, right? So my rule is that if you die and DON'T want to be brought back to life, then your new character still has to lose a level. And that's relative to your own character, not the party. So if one person dies a lot, that person will end up really low level.

So I have one kid who died and fell back to 3rd level for his new character, and then died again and had to create a 2nd-level character, and then as we introduced that character into the game -- before ANYTHING had happened -- he wanted to toss that character sheet and create a new character. So I said, "OK, but it has to be a level lower than the current one, so that means you'll play a first-level character in a party of 4th level characters. If you die, you'll have to play a 0-level commoner."

Hearing that he might end up playing a 0-level commoner is the only thing that has abated his indecisiveness about what to play.

In addition, I've started introducing alignment shifts and XP penalties for intra-party assassination. Without it, some of my players would have "lawful good" paladins that behave chaotic evil, and they wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Greg K]

I have only had one player that character dumped in twenty plus years of DMing. It was back in 2e and it did become disruptive.

These days, I will allow a player to make character changes or tweaks within the first few adventures. I would, probably, allow them to retire a character once without penalizing the player. If they deliberatelly killed off a character, the new character would come back with a penalty. And, someone routinely attempted to dump characters would be asked to leave and not invited back.

I think that dumping has not been a problem with the people with whom I have played are:

1. Not everything published is allowed. The DMs take the time to consider the races and classes that they allow for the campaign prior to the players making characters for the campaign. For the most part, the players pretty much know the options up front so the latest shiny race or class to appear in a supplement is not going to be a temptation, because the DM is most likely not going to be allowed unless it either

a) better represents the DM's idea of how an existing race or class should work mechanically for the setting ;or
b) it is something that the DM wanted in their world, but there were no mechanics for it. Usually, this is the case for specific classes.

2. The focus of the game is on the characters not the dungeon or monster of the week. Characters get subplots that come to the foreground with adventures based around them.

3. The people I have played with are not focused on powergaming (and, before anyone says that they would simply play a Cleric, Druid or Wizard in such a game, those classes get nerfed). So, if your character sucks, it is most likely not for mechanical reasons, but the personality you gave it and how you play it. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with powergaming with the right group, but it is not an area of primary interest and, therefore, we don't play with such people unless they conform to our playstyle.

 

[Obryn]

I allow it pretty freely. There's an argument for continuity, but I don't suspend character deaths in interest of greater continuity, either.

I do give a slight XP penalty - generally half the XP between now and the minimum for their level.

-O

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In 3.5 its easy: if you die and be resurrected: you lose one Level... so you lose one level when you switch your character...

but: with Forgotten realms 3.0 and later in 3.5 IIRC, lower level PCs get a bigger share of the xp (not really a bigger share, but a little bonus) so they will get theit xp back over short time...

If party already has inequal experience i have a different ruling: when you die, you lose one level or you are set back to the most inexperienced character, wichever is lower...