But any PC is less that average level profits by suicide. That's just mathematics. If you have a six-person party of levels 5,6,6,7,8,10, then the first three gain levels by stabbing themselves because the average is 7.
Death Penalties
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
But any PC is less that average level profits by suicide. That's just mathematics. If you have a six-person party of levels 5,6,6,7,8,10, then the first three gain levels by stabbing themselves because the average is 7.
Remember, you come in about 1 level lower than average under my rule. The only one 5-10 that gains is the 5th level PC. The 6th levels can replace for "free". The top three lose effective power.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
In 3e and 4e you definitely do not want to have PCs of different levels in the party. That means no level penalties for dying. I'm DMing 3e and I think I'll suggest the idea to the players of losing 1 permanent (non-magically modified) point of Constitution. But that's it really. I've been "de-protagonized" by the 3.5 Druid in my time. It would stop being fun to play my 1/2 elf Ranger if they were 3 levels higher than me too.
In early D&D, the players are playing individually. Every PC begins at level 1, Zero XP. But those early games are (however knowingly) designed for such play. Having this kind of differing of abilities for characters is a diversity not supported anymore. Part of it comes from enabling all classes and class levels to be useful during playing of the game. A high level classed PC player can give a brand new player to gaming, with a brand new PC, a lot of mechanically backed up support. Everything from items, to money, to new allies, information, and even lowering expectations for what the group can handle. Adventuring in a 1st, 1st, 3rd/3rd, 5th, and 9th level group of PCs means averaging your explorations to about 4th and 5th level in the world. Players working together need to choose what they can viably handle as a group and not just individually. Of course, if that 9th level PC buffs his allies with stuff like I mentioned, it really helps him to advance faster too. Also, because of the logarithmic scaling of XP class requirements in earlier editions, it will take every other PC the same or less XP to reach 9th level as it does for that 9th level PC to reach 10th. So the game is designed for balancing classes as well as supporting cooperative strategies.
EDIT:
D&D Next is flattening combat and it will be interesting how they address this.
In early D&D, the players are playing individually. Every PC begins at level 1, Zero XP. But those early games are (however knowingly) designed for such play. Having this kind of differing of abilities for characters is a diversity not supported anymore. Part of it comes from enabling all classes and class levels to be useful during playing of the game. A high level classed PC player can give a brand new player to gaming, with a brand new PC, a lot of mechanically backed up support. Everything from items, to money, to new allies, information, and even lowering expectations for what the group can handle. Adventuring in a 1st, 1st, 3rd/3rd, 5th, and 9th level group of PCs means averaging your explorations to about 4th and 5th level in the world. Players working together need to choose what they can viably handle as a group and not just individually. Of course, if that 9th level PC buffs his allies with stuff like I mentioned, it really helps him to advance faster too. Also, because of the logarithmic scaling of XP class requirements in earlier editions, it will take every other PC the same or less XP to reach 9th level as it does for that 9th level PC to reach 10th. So the game is designed for balancing classes as well as supporting cooperative strategies.
EDIT:
D&D Next is flattening combat and it will be interesting how they address this.
Last edited:
Well, that's a different kettle of fish. But, I don't think you're on the mark.
The same game that gave us a death penalty *also* started with the base assumption that any given player had a whole stable of character to choose from for a given adventure, and that you might well be playing more than one in a given session. If you wanted something different, you'd just make up another character, and add them to your stable. No big deal.
So, I don't think the death penalty was instituted to prevent or discourage folks from trying something new.
Really? I don't recall that, but I haven't looked at older iterations of D&D (I assume that's what you mean?) for a long time.
The death penalty is a houserule, isn't it? Has it ever been an official rule of anything?
A
amerigoV
Guest
When a PC dies, we drop the player off at a graveyard and make them run back. When they get back to the house the PC is then considered resurrected, although they might need to repair their gear. After a few graveyard runs, the players usually wise up and play better.
1e DMG suggested experienced players could start higher level -- up to about 4th to increase survivability when traveling with their buddies.
3.5 DMG has a passage about new players creating characters at the party average level though didn't discuss replacement character directly as I recall.
Fair enough.
But "average level" is higher than 50% of the party's levels by definition. So an average level rule typically means suicide is the best advancement tactic for half the players. Of course, non-typical parties exist, and I'm sure we can all come up with level distributions which make only one of five or six profit in that way, but they'll be atypical level distributions.
My experience is the typical level distribution in a group is the PCs are clustered in a tight group with maybe a 1-2 level variation once the group hits double digit levels. Though your point is valid and one of the reasons I drop to 1 level below average. The tight clustering typically means that almost all players face some penalty save in cases where one PC has faced substantially more hardship than the rest and then it can function as a safety valve to prevent failure spirals.
Similar Threads
