Death Penalties

[Voadam]

in Basic and AD&D I had players generate replacement characters who started with a base xp amount then drop a level for the new character. I'd randomly determine new magic items at 1/3 levels. I can't remember whether it was their own xp or the lowest xp person in the party I used as a base. The xp charts were so varied that straight levels didn't seem fair.

Raise dead cost you a con point if you survived the system shock roll and reincarnate could bring you back as a badger and in any case most of my games were lower level than those types of magic would be available so dead was dead.

I tracked xp and it was a pain.

Ever since we went to 3e/3.5/4e/pathfinder we've moved on to point buy abilities, everybody the same level and no death penalty. I feel a balanced party is generally better. I don't like tracking xp so I can say, you finished a significant event, everybody go up a level. The game is unbalanced enough based on choices and optimization and player skill, I don't want disparate levels to create even more imbalance in the party when they encounter dangers.

 

[Umbran]

My 1e DMG is inaccessible at the moment, but my recollection is that it speaks to these assumptions. I'll have to dig it up tomorrow and check for a quote.

My memory was a bit off. In the DMG, Gygax speaks of how *good* players may well have more than one character, just so long as each is treated as an individual. Perhaps I was recalling stories of his own campaigns, in which I think he felt all his players were good ones, and so allowed?

I recall the 1e DMG has a note about bringing in replacement characters at lower level than the rest of party - I'll have to get the text to be sure.

Again, I was a little off - he generally recommends starting characters at first level, but in cases where the rest of the party is far ahead, allowing them to start at 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th. He doesn't give a firm guideline.

 

[Sunseeker]

In the past, I'd considered house rules to encourage a player to let his PC remain dead, as one group I play with pretty much NEVER has a PC die (almost as if the DM always made sure a PC could come back).

I think the issue is making death have value, heroic sacrifice, a great eulogy, some reason to say "Man, Bob was awesome, so awesome in fact there will never be quite another person like Bob!" For most players who care about their character, this will be enough to give their character a "fitting end" and not make them want to repeat it.

So I don't see such abuse. I can think of maybe 2 players in the last 20 years who may be of the Death Abuser type. In which case, PC Death Opportunities was just one of many exploits they'd be guilty of taking advantage of.

I tend to agree. I've had a number of players who like to make the same race, or class, but rarely do they repeat characters, even if they're making an elven archer for the eleventy-billionth time, it's not the same character, besides, archery and elves kind of go hand-in-hand.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm pondering if player's burning through PCs abusively is an actual problem (or at least more common than really rare)?

Well, it used to be a problem pre-4e. The most common reason? Rolling for stats and hit points. If a player felt that a character started out or became unplayable because of bad rolls, they'd basically have them commit suicide to roll up a new one.

In 1e/2e there was also the problem of human dual-classes: Everyone wanted to start with a bunch of fighter levels before picking their 'actual' class (usually wizard), but no one wanted to actually play through these levels. So, they started playing a character they weren't actually interested in, simply to accumulate xp. When they had earned enough for a dual-classed character that was actually able to use all of his abilities, they'd find a convenient opportunity to get rid of them.

In 4e all of these problems are gone: stat points are chosen from a fixed array and hit points per level are also fixed. And there's no weird characters with non-sensical multi-classing pre-requisites.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

For example, I always used to have new D&D characters be one level below the lowest level party member

I use this same rule, sometimes. But you're looking at it wrong. Assuming the party is level 5, and the new character comes in at level 4, it's not a penalty, it's a BONUS of 3 levels.

 

[Janx]

Well, it used to be a problem pre-4e. The most common reason? Rolling for stats and hit points. If a player felt that a character started out or became unplayable because of bad rolls, they'd basically have them commit suicide to roll up a new one.

In 1e/2e there was also the problem of human dual-classes: Everyone wanted to start with a bunch of fighter levels before picking their 'actual' class (usually wizard), but no one wanted to actually play through these levels. So, they started playing a character they weren't actually interested in, simply to accumulate xp. When they had earned enough for a dual-classed character that was actually able to use all of his abilities, they'd find a convenient opportunity to get rid of them.

In 4e all of these problems are gone: stat points are chosen from a fixed array and hit points per level are also fixed. And there's no weird characters with non-sensical multi-classing pre-requisites.

I've never seen anybody do the Fighter dual-class to something else in 2e. Or kill them off to reboot as the PC they wanted.

I had seen the "I want a reroll" type of player, but as I noted, that's a problem with specific players, rather than "everybody does it"

They're certainly viable exploits. And it's seems you've seen them. Has anybody else?

 

[Janx]

I use this same rule, sometimes. But you're looking at it wrong. Assuming the party is level 5, and the new character comes in at level 4, it's not a penalty, it's a BONUS of 3 levels.

I think that definition is a matter of salesmanship.

If I lost my 5th level PC, and I have to start at level 1 again, that sux.

If I get to start at level 4, that sux, but not as bad as Level 1, if I realize that's an option.

What I really want is to to start at level 5. As a player, anything less than that is a penalty, especially if I realize that I could start at level 5 if the DM lets me.

If I don't realize the DM is being nice to let me start at Level 4 instead of Level 1, I'm not going to look at it as favorably. Because I don't know what my worse alternative is to be thankful I didn't get stuck with Level 1.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think that definition is a matter of salesmanship.

If I lost my 5th level PC, and I have to start at level 1 again, that sux.

If I get to start at level 4, that sux, but not as bad as Level 1, if I realize that's an option.

What I really want is to to start at level 5. As a player, anything less than that is a penalty, especially if I realize that I could start at level 5 if the DM lets me.

If I don't realize the DM is being nice to let me start at Level 4 instead of Level 1, I'm not going to look at it as favorably. Because I don't know what my worse alternative is to be thankful I didn't get stuck with Level 1.

You would however, level up fairly quickly. You'd lag behind overall, but the XP from a single CR6 creature is generally going to give you about half the XP needed to reach level 2.

Of course, all of this assumes that your game uses XP at all.

Granted there's a pretty high chance of you dropping in the first round, but still.

But really what it comes down to for me, is I dislike the idea of "getting anything that's more than nothing is nice on behalf of the DM and you should be thankful." No, you really shouldn't. Because it's all loss, certainly level 4 is less loss than level 1, but that doesn't mean you should be thankful to lose less.

All the more reason I don't run games with XP.

 

[Umbran]

All the more reason I don't run games with XP.

The issue is not XP specific. Unless you run a game with *no advancement* (like some forms of FATE), the question comes up in one way or another. XP, build points, arbitrarily assigned level-ups, the question remains whether new characters come in with the same power or lesser power as the rest of the party.

 

[Janx]

The issue is not XP specific. Unless you run a game with *no advancement* (like some forms of FATE), the question comes up in one way or another. XP, build points, arbitrarily assigned level-ups, the question remains whether new characters come in with the same power or lesser power as the rest of the party.

Yup.

I am or am not 5th level because the GM says so or because the XP says so. The problem is whether I get 5 levels or not.

And its not just levels. It's level appropriate equipment. Getting to start at Level 5 in just my loin cloth is still a setback from all the equipment that my prior PC had.

Getting hand-me downs from the higher level PCs may not be sufficient to offset the power differential in an item-centric game like D&D.

And in the inverse, there's the problem that me coming back with a new PC puts me BETTER than I was with the old PC's crappy magic collection.