Replacing dead characters with similar ones

T

Tyler Dunn

Explorer

• Feb 26, 2019

• #1

How do you feel about players who replace their dead characters with similar ones (Such as a dead War cleric being replaced by a tempest cleric). I feel like its uncreative, but if your dead character filled a certain party role, it would be necessary for the new character to be able to fill that role themselves.

So how different would a new character have to be to be an acceptable replacement to the old one? Would a simple change in race, subclass, or personality be enough, or would you rather you get a wizard in your party after your main tank dies?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Swarmkeeper

Hero

• Feb 26, 2019

• #2

It's really up to the player, IMO. If they really thought it would be fun to play the twin of the dead character, that's fine. If they want to go in a completely different direction with the new PC, well, that's equally as fine. I don't necessarily subscribe to the whole "characters need to fill roles in the party" paradigm. There is enough overlap among the various classes (and subclasses), races, and backgrounds that I don't see the imperative to fill the "cleric" role, for example. There are myriad straightforward and creative ways to get the healer-type or stealthy-type or damage-dealer or face or... and the same PC can fill multiple roles. And multiple PCs can fill the same role as long as they are all willing to share the spotlight.

TLDR: As different or not-different as the player wants the new PC to be. It's all acceptable.

 

T

The Crimson Binome

Hero

• Feb 26, 2019

• #3

This isn't 4E. There are no codified party roles. If your paladin dies, and you want to make a wizard next, then who am I to stop you?

I've never been in a situation where someone wanted to replace a dead character with another character of the same class. Most players see death as an opportunity to try something different.

 

aco175

Legend

• Feb 26, 2019

• #4

I find some players like to play certain races or classes for whatever reason. I tend to let them. Same for roles in a party. My normal group tends to fill each role and I can see something where the tank does and the new PC is another tank of some form or even the same type. One of my players just seems to play champion fighters, and in 4e just a fighter. They each have a bit different backstory or even being a dex build vs strength build.

I do not have a problem with keeping the same class. In a 'real' world example I would want a fighter to join my party if the last one died. If another mage showed up and applied to my ad for a fighter, I would most likely turn him away. Most likely not a good way to play if the player wants to play something else since 5e tends to be able to overlap more than last edition.

 

Legatus Legionis

< BWAH HA Ha ha >

• Feb 26, 2019

• #5

.

 

Last edited: Feb 12, 2022

cmad1977

Hero

• Feb 26, 2019

• #6

Players can make any character they want as many times as they like. Not my business.

 

Oofta

Legend

• Feb 26, 2019

• #7

It's really not a concern to me. If a guy wants to alternate between playing a female wizard (drow if allowed) that focuses on fire based spells or a halfling rogue over 3 editions and over a decade of play, it doesn't matter to me. Heck, I have a few "archetypes" I enjoy playing myself ... although it's probably close to a dozen options and spans pretty much every race in my case.

But if someone else does a repeat? I don't care as long as they're fun and having fun in my group.

 

Umbran

Mod Squad

Staff member

Supporter

• Feb 26, 2019

• #8

I don't really care if the take the same race and class combination from character to character, especially if the original dies after only a short time in play, such that the player didn't have much time to exercise the tactical abilities.

I do care more about whether the player is just taking his original sheet, crossing out 'Brog the Bargaian" and replacing it with "Grog the Barbarian" and playing the exact same person.

 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Staff member

Supporter

• Feb 26, 2019

• #9

Umbran said:

I do care more about whether the player is just taking his original sheet, crossing out 'Brog the Bargaian" and replacing it with "Grog the Barbarian" and playing the exact same person.

Click to expand...

I don’t even care THAT much. I mean, why make the player waste the paper and pencil lead?

I say that because I played with a guy from @1985-2016, across AD&D, 2Ed, 3Ed, 3.5Ed and 4Ed. In those 31 years, most of his characters were wizards of some kind, and but for the one in 4Ed, they had spell lists that were 90+% identical. The 4Ed Wizard options didn’t reflect his preferences, so he played an ice-themed caster. Other than that, he had a Paladin.

In the late 1990s we both joined a group in which one guy always played some kind of archer/sniper, regardless of system and campaign. I only saw that guy break preference once with a Ftr/Clc. When that campaign died after a few years, he went back to playing an elf archer.

So, to me, there’s little point in getting worked up about how much paper and pencil a player would use if he’s going to play a clone anyway.

 

I

Immortal Sun

Guest

• Feb 26, 2019

• #10

I never require players to fill roles. It's one reason I'll often run a DM PC to fill in a role the players aren't covering (except skillmonkey). Play what you want, I'll adapt the game as necessary.

Granted, not every DM does this.

Generally speaking I don't mind "similar" characters as long as they aren't outright clones. I encourage players who enjoy a certain concept to explore the territory within that concept beyond the bog-standard incarnation of it. But I also don't kill characters very often so there's usually a good chance a character will get revived.

If I were running a meat grinder (which I don't ever run) I wouldn't care, since the characters are going to be dead.