Alternative Death Rule

[largesnike]

I wanted to seek some advice on an alternative death rule.

Essentially, the rule is that rather than losing a level when your character dies, they suffer a loss of -1 to their physical attributes (Str, Con, Dex), while gaining a +1 to their mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha).

The rule is currently under play test, but it will take a very long time to determine its efficacy.

The rule was drawn up to address the rather arbitrary nature of the punishment handed out to characters for dying. A loss of XP seemed an odd thing to happen to a character that's just taken a U-turn in the great tunnel into the afterlife.

Also characters that had died a couple of times never seemed to catch up to the others, despite the boosted xp awards.

I have heard it argued that there needs to be a lasting effect for having died, and so level loss expresses the drammatic nature of the event. However I argue that once the character has gained a level the effect of having died is entirely lost.

Criticisms that are worthy of concern include the peceived benefit handed out to spell casters, particularly clerics. Some visualised clerics throwing themselves in front of the fighters in order to purposefully die. However, the benefit paid to spellcasters is not straight-forward. They lose on reflex and fortitude saves, AC, initiative, ranged touch attacks. All of these depend on physical attributes, some or one of which is probably a dump stat, and cannot be further lowered without some serious penalties.

any comments?

 

[Vrecknidj]

How about role-playing?

Suppose that dying is a tragic and fearsome thing (as it is for many people in RL). Perhaps when someone dies, the pain of it, and the fact that no afterlife is seen by those who are returned to life thanks to a spell, put doubts and fear into the minds of those who return. This could have a couple effects.

1) Anyone who then faces situations of extreme peril (as defined by the DM) must succeed at a Will save or be cowering (or stunned, or, whatever you decide).

2) Anyone who has died who dies again is not pleased at the prospect of being raised a second time (the spell description states: "If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.") As such, the subject is neither fully willing nor fully unwilling, but instead must deliberate on the choice. This choice culminates in two checks: a Charisma check (to see if the person's force of personality is enough to overcome the fear of being brought back again, just to face another death), and a Wisdom check (to see if the person has learned enough from the accumulated experiences to be willing to return despite the risk).

If the player fails those two checks, the character stubbornly refuses to return.

During the course of play, the DM can monitor the player. If the player plays the fear of death well, and turns it around, and becomes strong of heart, etc., the DM can either announce that the two checks are passed automatically (though, of course, this next time they should be harder to make) or add a bonus to the roll.

Dave

 

[DiceGolem]

I like it. I mean, only someone with a really good reason would want to leave their prefered afterlife to traverse the mortal hardships again.

 

[largesnike]

ummm...look this is an interesting suggestion but...

1. It doesn't really answer my post (I was looking for feedback on my suggestion)
2. It presents a further problem in terms of player satisfaction. I wasn't out to prevent character return, just change the nature of the price paid.

 

[fuindordm]

One of my past DMs used the following rule:

The first death has no penalty, and brings a small xp award for the trip to the afterlife.
The second death: -1 Con
The third death: -2 Con
etc...

Ben

 

[sirwmholder]

An idea you may like is add a +1 LA to that character so they don't "level up" with everyone else. Allow them to "buy it off" by spending the appropriate experience at a later date. It's quick neat and has long term consequences without the mess of "lossing a level".

Just a thought,
William Holder