D&D 5E Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Or are you saying that you lived a long time up in the mix without taking any damage?

My assumption would be that there were relatively few area attacks, and that the big attacks went towards the big threats instead of to the insignificant kobold/whatever.

 

[SirAntoine]

A five level gap was recommended, I believe. (No greater.)

 

[airwalkrr]

At level 20 the dead PC just gets ressurected.
Heck, at level 10 the PC likely gets raised.
It's really an issue at lower levels. But at those levels it's possible to mostly catch up and contribute.

I imagine the reason for punishing is that death shouldn't be a reward. You should't benefit and it shouldn't be advantageous. Starting at level 20 means you can build a character designed to function only at that level, who doesn't need to function at lower levels or suffer through slower awkward levels.

There's also the narrative problem. Suddenly finding a level 20 hero is weird. Where were they? Shouldn't they be famous and well known? We're they just off in some hidden valley killing endless boars for months?

You just won the thread. I cannot add anything to your perfect answer.

 

[Derren]

For the same reason we now have fail forward and other such mechanics.
Its the same development that happened in video games. "Failure" has no place in todays entertainment. Instead people want an easy experience of being super powerful and overcome impossible (in name only) odds but without the hassle of learning to many rules.

 

[transtemporal]

Yeah, I'd basically agree with that. Which is why I mentioned the Death Flag as being more appropriate to a story-oriented game than D&D's standard death rules (which, while fairly gentle, still let bad rolls ruin your day).

Death flag mechanic sounds interesting. See I don't mind losing a character I like if the death is momentous but if its anonymous like failing a dex save or a super-deadly random encounter, that's not good storytelling (unless you're playing realistic grim n' gritty).

 

[Morrus]

For the same reason we now have fail forward and other such mechanics.
Its the same development that happened in video games. "Failure" has no place in todays entertainment. Instead people want an easy experience of being super powerful and overcome impossible (in name only) odds but without the hassle of learning to many rules.

That's a drastic misunderstanding of the purpose of "fail forward". Fail forward isn't there to make people feel better. It's there to stop the game hanging up on minor obstacles and move the plot on.

 

[iserith]

A 1hp frontline tank in a 15th level party? If the monsters didn't target you, your friend was being nice to you and if they always missed, your friend was being nice to you. If they hit you, and you consistently survived CR15 melee damage with 1hp, then your friend was straight out warping reality for you!

I didn't say I was a "frontline tank," but I was definitely not "sitting at the back." I'm good with my tactics and I got lucky. My friend didn't take it easy on me either. Sometimes the monsters were gunning for me because I was so inexplicably untouchable.

I'm assuming that your minion had the benefit of the PC death save rules! (And was very lucky never to take any damage while unconscious.)

Or are you saying that you lived a long time up in the mix without taking any damage?

The minion had an immediate interrupt that triggered at 0 hp that brought it back to 1 hp and applied the stunned condition. So effectively two hits (the second of which was easier due to combat advantage) were required to take this guy down. It took a long time for that to happen. Most battles were over in three rounds (that's a 4e thing at a table with experienced players), so all I had to do use good tactics while contributing.

The point though is that I'd run a 1st-level character along with a part of 20th-level characters any day of the week. It's good stuff and I can still contribute to the fun and the creation of an exciting, memorable story!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree that players shouldn't be able to use death tactically like a graveyard rush, but it shouldn't be a scenario where you "lost the game" either. By this logic, a player who held a hallway knowing he was doomed while his companions escaped is actually a chump because he's going to be punished for that. Essentially we're saying "Yeah sure, DnD is all ABOUT heroic action! Just don't die or you'll be punished for it."

I guess it also depends on whether you're playing a slow levelling game or a fast one. Ours is pretty slow. About 6 sessions to level but spread out over say 6-8 months, so losing even one level is a big deal.



Not really. Theres nothing to say that all heroes come from the characters home land, or even home plane at that level.

Of course, if nothing is lost doing the graveyard rush then players will be competing with each other to be the first to die so they make a more effective, tricked out character. Once self sacrifice becomes commonplace due to being advantageous from a meta-game viewpoint then it becomes comical, or worse, not noteworthy at all.

That's a drastic misunderstanding of the purpose of "fail forward". Fail forward isn't there to make people feel better. It's there to stop the game hanging up on minor obstacles and move the plot on.

If the plot of the game centers around whatever the PCs are doing, then the game can NEVER get hung up no matter how much bad luck the players have.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Some friends of mine use the difficulty level arrangement in 5e to determine where to start. If you're in the 1-4 realm you start new characters at 1. If you're in the 5-10 area, new characters start at 5th, 11-15 then 11th, etc.

 

[Sunseeker]

My own sympathies lean closer to this, although I wouldn't call the gamist attitude "ugly". Just not really my preferred thing.

But even from the point of view of story and cool adventures, there is something peculiar to D&D that suits starting at low levels - it doesn't feel quite D&D if you don't begin the campaign fighting kobolds and end up fighting Tiamat (or something similar). So even from the story point of view there can be a reason to start the campaign at low level; but once the campaign is underway, then new characters get introduced at the level that is appropriate to where the game is at (which will be more-or-less where everyone else is).

Right, and honestly there's a simplicity issue to be had, plus I don't level people by XP so the build-in-catch-up mechanism that the XP curve uses wouldn't be of any help, I'd just have to tell Bob to level twice when everyone else levels once so it's just easier for me to say "everyone levels to 6 now!"