Balance and Character Death

[The_Universe]

Anecdote:

In my experience, the difference of one level, even two, is rarely enough to seriously effect the overall balance of encounters for a party. Of course, if one really wants to worry about it, it's easy to calculate a new "party level" by adding the characters new level totals, and then dividing by the number of characters - round up or down as you wish, and balance encounters to that number.

Of course, most of the time, this problem solves itself over time, as lower-level characters recieve larger rewards for the same encounters than higher level ones, eventually forcing the party back to equilibrium.

Secondarily, the only time I've ever encountered "serial death" for a single player character was because the player was not good at assessing risk, and frequently attempted actions that, had they been real, would have simply been stupid. On top of what I would characterize as a limited understanding of tactics and risk-management, the *player* also had a fundamental difference of opinion from the DM (me) in terms of what role death should play in the course of a campaign. I was of the opinion that characters should reap the logical consequences of their actions, and he was of the opinion that they should not. As a result, he "died" 5 times over the course of the campaign. It all but 1 of the situations, he was able to avoid level loss in his return to life (or successful negotiation in terms of avoiding demise in the first place), but was stuck with it in the end, since for story reasons, I had imposed a limit on the number of times characters could return from death.

What does that mean for the question? I'm not sure - it's just an anecdote.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm trying to justify a death penalty involving level loss, when the holy grail of 3E is character to character game balance.

I think that the holy grail of D&D is to reward players for overcoming challenges. There has to be a penalty to failure, and death isn't a bad one for a combat-focused game.

I don't think a level or two has a really big impact on the PC balance, and the CR/XP system will address it over time.

 

[ForceUser]

The situation I thought off when writing the question was when the party's fighter died three times in one day (he was 14th level or so). Once by save or die, once on a BIG crit, and once heroically protecting the wizard from death by acting the meat shield. He ended up three levels below the rest of the party after the game. That wasn't pleasing for me, him, nor everyone else. This triggered my thought pattern concerning the design choices.

joe b.

This is impossible in my game. I use the standard raise dead rules, except that it takes a 24 hour ceremony to resurrect someone. So the first time he died, that's it for at least one full day. Not only does this inject a bit more gravity and ceremony to dying, as well as give the PCs time to delay and refocus should they withdraw to resurrect, but it also makes it impossible for a character to die 3 times in a single game day!

 

[Cheiromancer]

If characters continue to gain treasure while remaining at the same level, they should eventually become so well equiped that they stop dying.

If you ever do "treasure audits" to make sure that people have enough/not too much treasure, you'll have to remember to account for this.

 

[Elephant]

But that disregards the fact that certain character classes, are due to their roles within the party, subject themselves to more risks than others. For instance Fighters, which are often meat shields, and get mangled.

Nothing stops them from using the Total Defense action in those situations. The bonus to AC should help keep them alive.

Well, unless it's clusters of damaging spells that kill him. That's a different problem.

 

[vulcan_idic]

I'm probably getting into the realm of causing this thread to be in the house rules forum, but I don't do the level loss because it makes it more of a hassle for me to balance encounters & it is more annoying to start all over in XP when you spent so long playing to get to the lvl you're at. Instead, I just use the rule of losing 2 points of your Con score permenantly.

This is just enough to keep players afraid of dying and if it happens so much that the PC is ruined by a low Con, then it's time to just make a new character 1 level lower. It just helps cut down a few hassles like CR balancing, time dumbing down the PC, & wasted time regaining those levels back.

Wait a minute - raising a character they don't lose a level because it's too much of a hassle... but they can create a new character 1 level lower and that's not the exact same hassle?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think that the holy grail of D&D is to reward players for overcoming challenges. There has to be a penalty to failure, and death isn't a bad one for a combat-focused game.

I don't think a level or two has a really big impact on the PC balance, and the CR/XP system will address it over time.

I agree. The level loss would be very bad, if it weren't addressed in the mechanics already. As it is, the raised PC spends an adventure or two at -1 level (the cost for falling victim to whatever killed him,) and then catches up with the rest of the party. A temporary setback only, and not enough of one to be crippling.

But that disregards the fact that certain character classes, are due to their roles within the party, subject themselves to more risks than others. For instance Fighters, which are often meat shields, and get mangled.

You know, I've never felt this way. Spellcasters and rogues are in as much danger as the fighters, IME. Especially the spellcasters, since any intelligent foe is going to follow the golden rule of D&D combat, "geek the wizard first."

The only time I've really felt what you're mentioning is with my rogue PC. It always seemed wrong that the rest of the party could stand all the way down the hallway while I tried to find and disarm the Disintegrate trap, so that only I faced instant death, but if I succeeded in disarming the trap after all, they shared in the reward. That didn't sit right with me. But the meat shield thing, nah. In the game I currently play in, the fighter may have died a time or two, but not as often as the wizard.

 

[fusangite]

But that disregards the fact that certain character classes, are due to their roles within the party, subject themselves to more risks than others. For instance Fighters, which are often meat shields, and get mangled.

I don't see that at all. There is a pretty direct relationship between the importance of a class in melee and the number of hit points they have. Barbarians are the most melee oriented and average 9.5 (16 Con assumed) points per level if properly made, as compared to a good wizard who is going to be averaging 3.5 (13 Con assumed). Furthermore, if the GM is running balanced encounters, some adversaries are going to be smart enough to go after the long-range spell caster instead of the guy trying to protect him. I have never GMed or played in a campaign where the death rate was significantly higher amongst certain classes.

 

[jgbrowning]

I have never GMed or played in a campaign where the death rate was significantly higher amongst certain classes.

Hrm... I've found the class that gets killed the least amount of times to be the cleric and the most the fighter types. Interesting in how our experiences differ.

joe b.

 

[S'mon]

Hrm... I've found the class that gets killed the least amount of times to be the cleric and the most the fighter types. Interesting in how our experiences differ.

joe b.

That's my experience also. Rogues tend to have low hp & die if they go into melee, while 3e Wizards usually have plenty of hp due to 3e's uncapped CON, plus loads of defensive spells, so they don't die much anymore. But it's Fighters who die the most. Clerics have good hp & AC and everyone else is protecting the healer, so they very rarely die.