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

[steeldragons]

A different DM in my old high school group also did (which applied equally for new players coming in or to new characters replacing dead ones) you come in at the bottom XP for the level of the lowest level party member?

So, in effect, if not number, "a level below" everyone.

Take a party of 6 5-7th level PCs. The 5th level mage is the lowest of the existing group. Your 7th level thief just totally blew their trap checks, saves, more saves, and well and truly bit it. Your new character starts as 1 XP above what you need for 5th level [in those days, "of your chosen class"]. So the 5th level existing PC who, say, is well on their way to 6th is still "above" your new "just turned 5th" pc. However long you remain that new/low guy on the totem pole, is entirely up to the player [and/or until someone else dies, obviously. But thankfully PC death is not that common an occurrence in my games. ].

 

[77IM]

I would start them at level 1, but with the HP and Hit Dice of the same level as the rest of the party. As they advance in levels, they wouldn't gain more HP or HD until they "catch up."

The HP bonus gives the low-level PC some basic survivability so they don't get one-shotted in the first encounter.

Bounded Accuracy means that the low-level PC can still hit and damage opponents and affect them with spells. Obviously they won't be as good but they can still participate meaningfully.

The main reason to start at level 1 is to help ease players into the complexity of a new class. All too often I've seen someone roll up a replacement character who is like a 7th-level wizard, and then when it gets to their turn in combat they're all flustered and trying to figure out which spell to use. Or the player who switches from fighter to monk and gets turned into paste because they're still trying to hold the line.

This method of handling replacement PCs is similar to the "sidekick" rules I've seen in some MMOs. It worked very well in4e (although it was more complicated because you had to add 1/2 level bonus to every damn thing -- in 5e I think bonus HP/HD are enough).

 

[Piratecat]

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,

I'll be the first to say that my pet peeves aren't necessarily anyone else's. This is a good case of "whatever works well for you." Me, I really like PCs of a standard level in most cases. I think it's cool when other DMs can make a big level split work well and be fun for everyone.

 

[MasterTrancer]

I would start them at level 1, but with the HP and Hit Dice of the same level as the rest of the party. As they advance in levels, they wouldn't gain more HP or HD until they "catch up."

The HP bonus gives the low-level PC some basic survivability so they don't get one-shotted in the first encounter.

Bounded Accuracy means that the low-level PC can still hit and damage opponents and affect them with spells. Obviously they won't be as good but they can still participate meaningfully.

The main reason to start at level 1 is to help ease players into the complexity of a new class. All too often I've seen someone roll up a replacement character who is like a 7th-level wizard, and then when it gets to their turn in combat they're all flustered and trying to figure out which spell to use. Or the player who switches from fighter to monk and gets turned into paste because they're still trying to hold the line.

This method of handling replacement PCs is similar to the "sidekick" rules I've seen in some MMOs. It worked very well in4e (although it was more complicated because you had to add 1/2 level bonus to every damn thing -- in 5e I think bonus HP/HD are enough).

I like it!

 

[Umbran]

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.

And while they are level 3, that's fine. Level 3 and level 1 aren't all that far apart, and as you note, catching up doesn't take too long. When they get to level 12 or 15 (if your game goes that high) the situation might be a little different.

It is, however, a fine thing to experiment. I hope it turns out well.

 

[Olfan]

My players usually come back as one level lower than the dead character (assuming a rez isn't available). That's enough incentive not to treat death lightly but is not too harsh. If players prefer a more brutal punishment, that's up to them to decide.

 

[the Jester]

My preference- and what I use in my campaign- is "Everyone Starts at First Level."

I think the general practice of starting new PCs at level 1, which kind of worked in 1e and 2e, got savaged by the tighter (and I'd say overdesigned) balance of 3e and 4e. It would probably work much better in 5e than it did in either of its two preceding editions.

I'll testify to that. "Everyone Starts at First Level" (ES@1) was my rule in my campaign from pre-1e to early 3.0, when I realized that it simply wouldn't work anymore. In 4e, it was even worse- the "+1 to everything per level" bonus saw to that quite thoroughly!- but 5e, by flattening the math and using bounded accuracy, has really made it possible again.

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?

There was a whole gigantic thread on this recently, of course. My answer is that using ES@1 means that each pc has a significant history, has earned every single thing on their character sheet, the player knows exactly what kind of stuff the pc has encountered, and so on. Nobody who plays the game feels like the new player gets freebies they didn't. And so on and so forth.

Obviously, ES@1 isn't for everyone, but it works for me and my groups.

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?

If you look at both history and fiction, most of the time, great heroes are accompanied by lesser figures. Apprentices learn at the side of their masters. D&D has a long history of henchmen, cohorts and followers coming in alongside their masters; why not associates, friends and allies, not all of whom are as bad-ass as the top level guys?

Think of Arthur and his lesser knights; of the group of heroes in Sailor of the Seas of Fate, which had a handful of epic guys and a bunch of warrior-follower types (IIRC); the Fellowship of the Ring, which included both the low-level hobbits and the high-level Legolas and Gimli and friends; and so on. Don't get me wrong- I totally recognize the differences between a story and a game (e.g. plot immunity), but you'll see the same thing in the old sagas and tales of myth and history (Napolean, Marius and Caesar led many soldiers lower-level than them; Beowulf had his group of men with him when they want to Hrothgar's Hall). And one of the things that is at the heart of D&D, IMHO, is the notion that you can emulate those old sagas and histories and those bits of fiction.

Obviously, YMMV, and ES@1 is clearly not for every group (and perhaps not even for many). But for me, and for some others, it isn't just a good way to go, it's downright wonderful.

(I'll add, tangentially, that some early D&D knock-offs, such as Arduin Grimoire, actually presented alternative hit point models specifically to encourage this sort of thing.)

That's not even to address the issue of how do you know a dude is a high-level fighter vs. a low or mid-level fighter on sight- I get the notion of running tests, but sometimes adventurers meet in the wild and have the "Hey, pc, join the party" conversation smoothly and easily without any of that kind of thing. So, you know, there's that, too.

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.

Last night's game we had 2 pcs at 4th level, 2 at 1st level (and only 9 xp from level 2!) and one pc at 3rd level at the start. By the end, we still had 2 pcs at 4th level, we had 2 that had juuuuust hit 3rd and one at 1st (who replaced the 3rd level guy after he was thrown in chains by the army for murdering some children). It was a long session- around 8 hours- with a lot happening in it; everyone was challenged, everyone was useful and nobody felt like they couldn't contribute.

I will absolutely grant that this may change as the high level pcs grow in level; but in this campaign, there's a good chance that everyone will eventually be playing multiple pcs (though usually one at a time) on different adventures, so groups can kind of self-select their composition and challenges. So that should help manage the issue, if it proves to be one. But don't forget that a party with high-level members can still be challenged by goblins and orcs in 5e! Just because the party has an 8th level dude in it doesn't mean that the pcs will be constantly facing CR 8 monsters.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

So far in my 5e campaigns, everyone has started at 1st level (the way we do it in 1e). That said, I think I may, in the future, have PC's start at level 3 IF the lowest character in the group is 4th or higher. So a group of 5th level PC's, a player would roll up a 3rd level character.

I'm also seriously toying with the idea of importing in some Hackmaster (4th edition; the "first" one, not the new, current one). In HM there were rules for player characters having a Protegee. They were like "secondary character", basically. If/when your main PC dies, you can immediately start play with your Protegee. There's more too it, but at least that way you have a new PC that has some relevance to the current party and not just "some new guy we met in a bar".

There's a lot of HM stuff I'm using right now, actually (horse rules, character background/family stuff, drinking rules, etc.).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[BigVanVader]

I think starting as first level has always been a silly concept to me. Why is anyone bringing this first level guy along, on their epic 12th level quest to slaughter their way through Heaven and hell? He's first level, bears are still a big deal to him.

Go home, Charlie Brown, let us deal with the Dragonking. You go ahead and slay all that Dire Dust that's been plaguing the city.

 

[was]

Didn't we just have this discussion last month?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...tarts-at-First-Level&highlight=starting+level