Death Penalties

[Michael Silverbane]

I typically keep all the characters in a campaign within one level of each other, if not the same level. Usually, if a character dies and the player wishes to replace him instead of returning from the dead, I make that character one level lower than the highest level character in the group.

Occasionally, I also arrange it so that the new character arrives in the campaign with no equipment or very limited equipment (rescued from a death trap, just survived a natural disaster, or the like).

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

While I agree that it doesn't totally eliminate the problem, I do feel that when you treat level as a it's own form of progression tied to specific points in a story or world development, the X level party is more likely to encounter ~X level others at X point in the adventure. Unless your game regularly loops back to adventures in Hobbiton, I feel that by the time you reach Gondor, you're less likely to pick up 1st-level fighters as you are Faramirs.

 

[Umbran]

Unless your game regularly loops back to adventures in Hobbiton, I feel that by the time you reach Gondor, you're less likely to pick up 1st-level fighters as you are Faramirs.

What, Gondor is a land where *everyone* is already level 10+?

 

[Voadam]

What, Gondor is a land where *everyone* is already level 10+?

Everyone who joins the party.

Sort of similar to the monsters in the area that the party actually encounters.



You could do a sandbox style of varying PC levels and equipment and such and varying monster encounters with wide variations based on character longevity, past participation, and the vagaries of luck or you can set things up so that PCs are relatively balanced in power and fight relatively appropriate CR foes.

I used to do the former but find the latter style more to my taste in running D&D games now.

 

[Umbran]

Everyone who joins the party.

But shidaku seemed to have linked level to location - you have to go back to Hobbiton to find 1st level fighters. As if you can't *find* such people in Gondor.

... or you can set things up so that PCs are relatively balanced in power and fight relatively appropriate CR foes.

I used to do the former but find the latter style more to my taste in running D&D games now.

Oh, the party is going up against CR-appropriate foes, but not based on location, but based on choice. Going up against weak opponents is boring, and doesn't yield good rewards. Going up against things much ore powerful than you is a good way to get yourself killed.

Now, I'm setting it up so that there always is, for certain, level appropriate stuff available (and usually associated with the plots they're already following, go figure). But if the party actually wanted to go hunt down some lowly town guardsmen to pick on, they'd be there.

 

[Sunseeker]

But shidaku seemed to have linked level to location - you have to go back to Hobbiton to find 1st level fighters. As if you can't *find* such people in Gondor.

If we were to estimate character level based on timing of their appearance in the LOTR timeline, I think it would be reasonable to say that the Riders of Rohan, and even the Gondor grunts out-level even Bilbo(who probably is like, a level 3 thief). I think it's fair to say that there's a solid progression. Not that you can't find a fresh fighter who just joined up the day before the Pelanor Fields, but on the whole, it's going to be unlikely.

Oh, the party is going up against CR-appropriate foes, but not based on location, but based on choice. Going up against weak opponents is boring, and doesn't yield good rewards. Going up against things much ore powerful than you is a good way to get yourself killed.

Now, I'm setting it up so that there always is, for certain, level appropriate stuff available (and usually associated with the plots they're already following, go figure). But if the party actually wanted to go hunt down some lowly town guardsmen to pick on, they'd be there.

But what is a "CR-appropriate challenge" for a group of say, 3 level 5 clerics and a level 1 fighter and rogue? Even an at-level challenge for a level 1 character runs a risk of killing them.

If the party wants to go pick on some noob guards, sure, they'll be there, but I'm not going to stat out some noobs, it'll be more of a raw-stat skill check.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't penalize characters that die any more than I penalize new characters joining the party. I think it's enough of a hassle to the player (and me) that I don't need to add more.

There are quite a few things like this, particularly in older D&D editions, that I think of as "stick" balance. As in, carrot or stick. In 1e & 2e, racial "balance" was achieved with a stick: you couldn't do this, or that, or advance past this. In 3e, it was maintained with a carrot; weaker (human) characters got advantages other characters didn't, just like elves and dwarves had advantages the other didn't. And those advantages were usable at first level, not 5th or 8th or 10th.

I'm not overly fond of balance by stick.

 

[the Jester]

I don't penalize characters that die any more than I penalize new characters joining the party. I think it's enough of a hassle to the player (and me) that I don't need to add more.

There are quite a few things like this, particularly in older D&D editions, that I think of as "stick" balance. As in, carrot or stick. In 1e & 2e, racial "balance" was achieved with a stick: you couldn't do this, or that, or advance past this. In 3e, it was maintained with a carrot; weaker (human) characters got advantages other characters didn't, just like elves and dwarves had advantages the other didn't. And those advantages were usable at first level, not 5th or 8th or 10th.

I'm not overly fond of balance by stick.

Just out of curiosity, where do you come down on things like:

1. Paladins or clerics having a code of conduct (or, for that matter, classes with required alignments like druid, monk, etc)?

2. Classes like monk, druid or assassin with a built in "challenge an npc to advance to high levels" restriction?

3. Classes like assassin, monk or druid with a built in maximum level?

EDIT: For clarity, I'm talking 1e style here.

 

[Traveller]

We used to play with new characters entering at 1st level - but that was 1ed...
We liked it as it brought a mixed group a-la Fellowship of the Ring. Part of the story was making sure lower level
players survive and grow. the skewed experience point tables helped them close the gap.

From my limited 3/3.5 play does not look so easy to pull of.

And there is always the Traveller route - very little advancement after a long char-gen

 

[Nellisir]

Just out of curiosity, where do you come down on things like:
1. Paladins or clerics having a code of conduct (or, for that matter, classes with required alignments like druid, monk, etc)?
2. Classes like monk, druid or assassin with a built in "challenge an npc to advance to high levels" restriction?
3. Classes like assassin, monk or druid with a built in maximum level?
EDIT: For clarity, I'm talking 1e style here.

To be clear, while I started buying and reading D&D in 1e; I didn't play or DM until 2e. So this is mostly what I think I would have done, not what I actually did (not having the opportunity to).

1. These are role-playing restrictions, not mechanical penalties or limits, and they are in effect from 1st level onward, so they don't bother me very much. Most campaigns (Greyhawk; Forgotten Realms; mine) seem to have enough gods that you can find one that suits your taste. There's not a real cost associated with the druid or monk's alignment restrictions. The paladin's code is subject to DM interpretation, but it mostly requires good role-playing.

2. Again, it's really a role-playing scenario. Except for the druid (who gets bonus spells), you could just ignore this. Also, there's a strong element of player choice at work. The player could set up the challenge to give herself an advantage (in the assassin's case, they are expected to!)

3a. I'd probably have ignored the assassin's max level. Personally, I think the setup is a real game-killer anyways - I mean, you get all this XP looting dungeons and slaying dragons, and suddenly you're the head of all the assassins everywhere and expected to run the international assassin's guild? Paperwork, man, paperwork. Drowning in it. No fun. Also, with the possible exception of druids, I don't believe an assassin in medieval Prague really has to discover and journey to Australia to advance to 15th level. It makes more sense to me for the restriction to be by guild or order.

3b. Unearthed Arcana solved the issue of druids and maximum levels to my satisfaction. Also serves as an illustration that there might be something beyond 15th and 17th level for the assassin and monk.

3c. I don't know about the monk. I never liked the monk anyways. Or halflings.