D&D 5E What to do when Pc's die? What then for that player?

[Umbran]

The PLAYER, OTOH, rolls up a brand new level 1 PC and continues playing.

So, for the sake of conversation. Why level 1? Why not level 2? Or half the party average? Or one below the party average? Or just the party average?

Moreover, once the party is high level, why do they take this relative weakling into situations in which they need to depend on each other for life and limb? If you were playing basketball, and one of your star players sprained an ankle landing after a jump shot, and had to sit out, would you then take the weakest player on the bench to replace him? Why aren't the PCs seeking out someone more on par with their own abilities, who won't need babysitters or extra protection in order to survive?

These questions are largely why I don't often use the level-one starting point - to me it doesn't make a lot of sense, either in terms of the fiction, or the gameplay - but I'd like to hear your take on the answers.

 

[Piratecat]

When a PC dies, I start the new PC at the same level as all the other PCs in the group. I'm much happier doing it this way than coming in at first level, being resentful and/or fragile, and staying less powerful than their peers.

 

[steeldragons]

I bring them back a [1] level lower than the lowest level PC in the party at the time. That way, they always stay relevant/comparable to the other PCs, but still suffer a "setback" for dying (particularly at higher levels)...to agree/piggyback on Umbran's point, there is some inducement NOT to die. Without having to go all the way back to "0" [level 1].

That said, how to proceed from character death is totally up to the players. If they want to roll up someone new, then fine: 1 level lower than the lowest current party member. If they decide they want that character back or their PC has enough potential in the story [and/or the party is wealthy enough and/or capable themselves, at higher levels] or there's some "grand scheme destiny" thing at work or whatever reason the players [as a whole, not just the PC's player, though they have final say] want to bring the character back to life. That's fine too.

I've had characters -at all levels- promise/make contracts/deals/etc... to bring each other back to life. Thus creating automatic side quest/story for the raising/collecting of funds (or promises/pacts of service), finding a cleric of appropriate power [or item or a fountain of life or whatever] to do it. Give the player of the deceased a [1 level lower than the lowest party member] NPC or roll up some temp character themselves to play in the interim [who can just be npc'd again or "leaves" for whatever reason or is killed off -or the player then plays 2 characters, if they want/can handle it- when the original pc is alive again].

Bringing them back as is, at their former level/the party's current level, leaves no room/interest/investment in NOT dying. Especially if you can roll up a new character who is higher than you were playing before?! That's REWARDING "getting dead." That is, to my D&D senses, completely the reverse of the intentions of the game.

Maybe these times "where tactics are things other people use" that ends with dead PCs should get the players to say, "Hmm. Maybe tactics are things WE should use. Maybe we won't end up dead if we did." Yeaaah, ya THINK?!

I would also raise the question/something to think about: if that's how you did things before/"back in the day", what's stopping you from doing it that way now? 5e certainly hasn't/doesn't (from what I've seen) tell you not to. I, personally, think making them start back at 1st gets problematic, as others have noted, beyond a 3rd or 4th level party. But, as others have noted, it's your table. Do whatever you think is best for your table.

I once had a party of about 3rd level PCs lose their "leader guy/fighter." The player really liked the PC and the background/story he'd come up with, family ties, etc. etc... The other PCs really liked this guy, had built various levels of relationships and loyalty with him, etc... They decided to bring him back, but [at only 3rd level] didn't have the money...and were put on a clock for how long the temple of the death goddess [which always required traveling to] could maintain the body/put the spirit's journey "on hold" to recall.

The player of the dead PC took on an NPC (who became another group favorite) and off they went. A couple good adventures later, the party was all around 5th, as I recall, before they had the necessary funds. The fighter was brought back at the 3rd level at which he had died. They carried on and he caught up fairly quickly, always staying within the level range -and surpassing some- of the other party members.

I've had mid-level characters do the same. High level parties where keeping Raise Dead in the daily spell-pool was practically like having potions of healing.

I would simply impose SOME kind of penalty for a "do over/next/restart" character and would definitely NOT let them re-enter the game at a level higher than they were. Otherwise, there's really no threat in the game. There is no impetus to not get killed. In effect, even though they're dying, they're all "Mary Sue'd" in...even if they die, they have no limitations. You're never really "gaining" anything as you play or [more importantly to me] receiving any consequences for your decisions. You're always just the same [or even better!]...regardless of the character you're playing. I would hate that.

 

[Johnny Champion]

Death needs some consequence but the game is supposed to be fun and with family commitments, time is valuable and I can't tear up a character sheet like I used to. So our rules:

1. PCs have access to Raise Dead and Resurrection Spells in big cities. Though expensive, it does require some roll-playing from the remaining PCs
2. These spells are expensive and require a 'special gift' to appease the spirit world to return the soul. This is often a way of removing powerful magic items or wealth.
3. Raise Dead/Resurrection results in a loss of level. Raise Dead incurs a loss of 1 point on a random ability score. Resurrection loss of 2 points.
4. After all this is done, The PC rolls 3d6 and must be less than CON score or be irreparably dead (Wish is only spell that will work).
5. Revivify results in a loss of 1 point on random ability score but no other consequence.

For us, this gives consequence to death but are not campaign enders.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, for the sake of conversation. Why level 1? Why not level 2? Or half the party average? Or one below the party average? Or just the party average?

Moreover, once the party is high level, why do they take this relative weakling into situations in which they need to depend on each other for life and limb? If you were playing basketball, and one of your star players sprained an ankle landing after a jump shot, and had to sit out, would you then take the weakest player on the bench to replace him? Why aren't the PCs seeking out someone more on par with their own abilities, who won't need babysitters or extra protection in order to survive?

These questions are largely why I don't often use the level-one starting point - to me it doesn't make a lot of sense, either in terms of the fiction, or the gameplay - but I'd like to hear your take on the answers.

The other PCs in the group are all currently level 3 but not all at the same XP total. Whenever a player misses a game they have a choice of designating someone to run their character, which puts the character at risk, but also earns an XP share, or have that character left out of the session and remain safe.

The reasoning for doing XP this way and bringing in all replacement characters at 1st level is to experiment with the system to see how well characters of differing levels can work together in 5E. Last week we had a player brand new to rpgs join. He rolled a 1st level tiefling fighter and joined right in with the rest of the gang. So far I like what I'm seeing of 5E as it relates to a multi-level party adventuring together. At some points we have had 1st ,2nd, and 3rd level characters all adventuring together and it has worked out well.

When this campaign is over, I might end up trying something completely different for XP for the next game. Players are also a bit less foolhardy and reckless when they know that if they suicide their character and do dumb things they will have to work back up from level one. It is amazing what that does for the paying attention to what's going on factor. Seeing as I have 8 players at my table right now and more wanting to join (but no room ATM ) I don't think starting at 1st level is damaging anyone's fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When a PC dies, I start the new PC at the same level as all the other PCs in the group. I'm much happier doing it this way than coming in at first level, being resentful and/or fragile, and staying less powerful than their peers.

So far, I haven't seen any signs of resentment, and given how fast levels one and two go, catching up isn't as long a process as it once was. There is also the satisfaction of leveling up your characters from 1st and getting to learn the abilities gained at each level, especially if a replacement character is of a different class,

 

[Agamon]

Isn't losing your PC a consequence? It's likely a disappointment, and possibly a setback.

There are a lot of games that I've played where dying is unlikely, if not impossible unless you want to (Eclipse Phase, 7th Sea, Marvel Heroic, Edge of the Empire, off the top of my head) and threat and consequence abound in those.

 

[Li Shenron]

In 3e my habit was to let the player start a new PC at the beginning of the lowest PC level of the party. IOW, the new character starts at the bottom of the current party.

That was definitely dictated by my fears that 3e couldn't handle a party of PC with wildly different levels, but in 5e I am more confident about this possibility. As long as the game is generally low-level, I will ask my 5e players to create a new PC at level 1, then maybe if this doesn't work well I'll let them start higher.

Also, in 3e after a couple of years we settled upon level 3 being the best place to start, because it gave more room for creating interesting characters compared to level 1, particularly because of feats and spells. I'm not sure but maybe later I'll have the same feeling about 5e and always start the game at level 3 or 4.

BTW this has nothing to do with how much mortality I want in my games... that's another matter

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm not sure if I'm going to start at the current tier of play, or the one level lower than the lowest member of the party.

 

[Sacrosanct]

FWIW, in our session last Saturday, we had 3 4th level, 1 3rd level, and 1st level PC. It wall seemed to work fairly well.