D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[prabe]

This seems like a narrative the GM needs to specifically to set up in order to make resurrection harder.

Or the players just need to go running off without informing their allies where they are (or somewhere their allies cannot go). Also, given how much authority the GM has in conventional TRPGs, "the GM needs to do it" doesn't really seem to me like a meaningful restriction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean what does "permanent and irrevocable" actually mean? Why cannot someone, perhaps another PC, bring these characters back via magic? At least in theory it should be possible. Granted, it might be much later, but still.

I've been very clear about what it means. A permanent death is one that isn't going to change "on its own"--by which I mean there won't be any third-party intervention, nor is the death only a temporary setback. Conversely, an irrevocable death is one that the other PCs cannot reverse, meaning they either lack the ability or the resources to raise their dead ally. Gandalf's death was irrevocable (nothing the Fellowship could do about it), but not permanent, because Iluvatar sent him back. Westley's "death" in The Princess Bride is permanent but not irrevocable, as they were able to petition Miracle Max for his aid, albeit dealing with his hilarious curmudgeonly antics.

As you note, if the party can be resurrected by someone else, then of course the death is revocable in some sense, but is it actually, practically so? Who will do it? Especially for a party of low-level nobodies, who is resurrecting them? That's what my efforts as GM are meant for. They bridge that one final gap, answering the how and where such things would come from.

These days, because the PCs have become outright legendary, there's no end to the number of people who might potentially try to resurrect them, even if it was at great cost. But when they were first starting out? When nobody had access to a resurrection spell and they were just random nobodies? I needed tools. So I fashioned them.

I don't expect everyone to do that. I don't even know if a majority of groups would benefit from it. But I do know that a lot of groups would benefit from it. A little bit of forethought and preparation goes a long, long way--and it saves DMs from having to use far more disruptive tools like railroading, fudging, "quantum" monsters/locations, or outright "retcons" of things that happened in-character.

As for when a death would in fact be both permanent and irrevocable? Consider:

1. PC dies at level 1-4. Revivify isn't available to anyone yet, and absent the work I just spoke of, the PCs have no other recourses. Doubly so if it's a near or full TPK.
2. Level 5+, PC dies, body lost/destroyed/undead-ified. Only true resurrection can save them. Only a fantabulously wealthy party could afford even one such spell...and they're dependent on finding a 17th+ level cleric.
3. At any level, the PC who died is the one person in the party who could cast resurrection spells of some kind. Kinda hard to raise yourself, y'know?

In all three cases, only two factors can come in to fix either permanence or irrevocability: a "friendly" (note quotes) NPC's intervention, or a mysterious power. The former creates story by having the party beholden to the NPC(s) in question that brought the character(s) back to life. The latter creates story by leaving a puzzle for the PCs to solve, who or what saved them? Can it be replicated? Can it be controlled? Etc.

It doesn't require a lot of GM effort to plant these seeds. E.g. make a big cathedral to a friendly deity, say its archbishop is widely known for being a powerful cleric, and have the party do at least one quest on behalf of that deity's church--boom, instant 17th+ Cleric who may now have a reason to help. But it does require some effort. It is not something that just spontaneously manifests out of the blue.

And yes, you have correctly noted that, especially at higher levels in WotC-era D&D, this process requires very minimal effort! Now I hope you can see why I would get so cross when people openly insult me with questions like "OH SO NOW EVERYTHING IS JUST AN AUTO-WIN FOREVER HUH?!?!?!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, absolutely. But doing so is super easy, barely an inconvenience. I just banned all resurrection magic apart revivify. Done.

What I don't particularly like, is for the GM leave the magic to be, but then invent various reasons why it actually cannot be used. Now rare exceptions can of course happen, but if the GM intentionally contrives ways to make the spells weaker than the players would expect them to be, then that might be frustrating to the players and I think it is fairer to just not allow those spells in the first place. Then everyone is on the same page about what is possible and what is not.

Then you make sure the players don't assume they work like the books. Houserules don't work well if you spring them on your table without warning.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This seems like a narrative the GM needs to specifically to set up in order to make resurrection harder.

I mean, once you get to levels where raise dead is merely an inconvenience, sure. Revivify has a 1-minute limit and requires diamonds. (Thankfully, the one time I really needed to cast revivify, we had diamonds on hand that we could expend.) Even if it's technically accessible at character level 5 for the right classes (Bard/Cleric), it's still a pretty major investment.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then you make sure the players don't assume they work like the books. Houserules don't work well if you spring them on your table without warning.

Unfortunately, in my experience, a number of DMs "forget" their house rules until the moment they apply. And then they get mad when players rightfully complain about only finding this stuff out later.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, once you get to levels where raise dead is merely an inconvenience, sure. Revivify has a 1-minute limit and requires diamonds. (Thankfully, the one time I really needed to cast revivify, we had diamonds on hand that we could expend.) Even if it's technically accessible at character level 5 for the right classes (Bard/Cleric), it's still a pretty major investment.

Fun fact: I've never been in or DMd for a party that lacked a bard or a cleric in official D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've been very clear about what it means. A permanent death is one that isn't going to change "on its own"--by which I mean there won't be any third-party intervention, nor is the death only a temporary setback. Conversely, an irrevocable death is one that the other PCs cannot reverse, meaning they either lack the ability or the resources to raise their dead ally.

Now or ever? They might lack such ability at the moment, but they might gain it later.

And yes, you have correctly noted that, especially at higher levels in WotC-era D&D, this process requires very minimal effort!

Yes, and I don't like it! Like I said, I prefer death to be rare but permanent.

Now I hope you can see why I would get so cross when people openly insult me with questions like "OH SO NOW EVERYTHING IS JUST AN AUTO-WIN FOREVER HUH?!?!?!"

It of course is not, but I still feel it flattens the tension and stakes somewhat. Have you actually used these methods to reverse deaths? How did the players feel about it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unfortunately, in my experience, a number of DMs "forget" their house rules until the moment they apply. And then they get mad when players rightfully complain about only finding this stuff out later.

That's too bad. All I can say is that's not how I roll. I have a houserule doc that available to all players from session zero, and we talk about it. No gotchas in my campaign.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, absolutely. But doing so is super easy, barely an inconvenience. I just banned all resurrection magic apart revivify. Done.

What I don't particularly like, is for the GM leave the magic to be, but then invent various reasons why it actually cannot be used. Now rare exceptions can of course happen, but if the GM intentionally contrives ways to make the spells weaker than the players would expect them to be, then that might be frustrating to the players and I think it is fairer to just not allow those spells in the first place. Then everyone is on the same page about what is possible and what is not.

Is it more or less frustrating than the realization that the DM is actually against you, not in the kayfabe sort of way and is real salty that they think it's too hard to take your character away?

 

[tetrasodium]

If resurrection is available, this isn't wildly unreasonable. If "death" means "make a new character," the metaphor isn't so much losing a game, or even having a bad season, as it is the team going bankrupt and ceasing to exist. I'm pretty sure that at least @EzekielRaiden is very specifically talking about "make a new character" death as a thing they, in their games, at least make very much a thing the player chooses.

I think that the trouble with all of that bolded bit is that the context matters & that context makes it an unreasonable foot in the door wedge issue assumption that villainizes half the discussion. There really are not too many scenarios in d&d where a dead PC amounts to make a new PC. Those situations tend to be things like these:

Putting them in spoiler because all of these types of scenarios can be shut down into being technically permanent with "the player wants a new PC" or "the player doesn't want to work with the GM/ the GM doesn't feel like the player's efforts at working with them are reasonable", but that leads into a totally different set of discussions. Those discussions have nothing to do with death of a PC or that PC death being permanent.

Spoiler

• Meatgrinder game with a dcc funnel style of play....
  • and? That is the whole point of such a play style. A player who made a big backstory or heavily invested in a PC joining such a game has missed the point & should put more effort into understanding the table/non-d&d game they are joining going forward. This one can be ignored because the problem is 100% a misunderstanding on the player's part.
• Alice's Low level PC killed during a low level adventure when they or the party lacks funds they are willing to spend on brining Alice's PC back.
  • Alice & the party has likely learned an important lesson in self preservation and there are still generally ways that would allow her PC to be returned such as reaching out to someone at the local church/wealthy questgiver/etc to trade favors like service & longer term repayment after getting a raise dead or similar on credit. With a low level PC this kind of thing is often a bit of handwaving that many GM's will allow simply because it moves things forward & creates a huge possible plot/adventure hook to be used later
• Bob's high level PC dies & the body is an unrecoverable pile of ash or whatever
  • Once again Bob has learned an important lesson in self preservation because giving the cleric a severed & regenerated toe/finger/ear or keeping one safe back at home allows his PC to be returned later. Back when PCs leveled much slower it was reasonably common for parties to get access to spells like regenerate & gather a bunch of fingers or whatever for safe storage.
• Dawn Just joined a one shot & her PC dies but bringing it back would result in derailing the one shot into a full on campaign.
  • Once again... and? It's a one shot, the game's not likely to be significantly impacted if she rolls up a new PC or asks the GM if she can do something like change the name of her PC & be found after/during the next combat. If those options are not acceptable because she's too invested in the PC she brought to a short lived one shot type game it's a problem with her having the wrong expectations or understanding of the term "one shot" & she can do better at bringing the right expectations to future one shots
• Edward in an AL type game where nobody in the party can raise dead or similar.
  • The AL rules have a section about PC's being revived. Pretty much just revive the PC between sessions. IME with running AL twice a week for years that or similar could even be done mid session just because it doesn't really matter within the framework of what AL allows for character development & deviation from the adventure. Pretty sure at least one "season" even had a sidebar about monsters taking a magic item or similar & leaving the assumed dead PC to wake up later with a lighter pack.
• Nina's PC helps with an alchemy experiment & rolls a 1?
  • It hurts... Call Scar?. Talk to the GM after because that's a huge development with lots of possible room for character growth even if it's not the growth that was expected many sessions ago.