How will the designers (or the players) deal with magic item influx due to PC death?

[DM_Blake]

What, nobody has mentioned the obvious solution of ensuring that the PCs don't ever die in the first place?

I don't like ensuring that at all.

I like my PCs to feel like death lurks around every corner of the dungeon. I want them to take every precaution to survive. When they do survive, I want them to feel like they were sorely tested and came out on top.

I don't want them to feel like they can just try any old thing and it will always work out somehow because their survival is guaranteed by the cosmic forces represented by DM life insurance.

I'm not saying I kill off PCs willy-nilly.

But I do set up challenges, and I work hard to make sure the challenges are fair and level-appropriate. Once I've done that, it's up to my players, not me, to see to their own survival. If they're smart and careful and thorough, they should survive quite well. But if they want to do stupid and/or risky things, then when it doesn't work out, there may very well be consequences up to and including death.

 

[DM_Blake]

Just because it has never been addressed doesn't mean it isn't an issue. 4E is supposed to be "fixing" things that were a problem. I can't see how this is NOT a problem, unless the DM and players come together and agree ahead of time how to deal with a dead PC's items.

Since they are unifying a lot of things in 4E, why not this?

I will tell you why not:

Simply put, this doesn't need a rule.

This will vary from campaign to campaign, from gaming table to gaming table, from adventuring group to adventuring group, even from one item to another item of the dead guy's gear.

There is an entire sub-plottish world to explore. Some groups won't want to explore this. Other groups will enjoy the rich possibility of alignment issues, legal issues, NPC greed issues, and other story elements that can arise from this kind of thing.

Putting a single, heavy-handed rule in the DMG that mandates handling this in one certain way, regardless of what way is chosen by the DMG's writers, means that all the other gaming groups out there who would have enjoyed handling it differently are left out in the cold, or forced to house rule against the written word.

No, what this needs, instead of a rule, is some discussion in the DMG about character death, a few paragraphs that explore the possibilities, the ramifications, and the possible game-breakage of overpowering the survivors and how a DM can cope with that.

This should all be laid out in a format of "if you do this, then these things might be problems that you can handle by doing these things. If you do this other thing, then these other things might be problems that you can handle by doing these other things."

There might even be a paragraph like "We suggest handling it this way, because that seems to work best within the framework of other rules and guidelines of the D&D system as published, but it is still up to you, the DM, to determine what works best for you and your players."

That's how it should be handled in the DMG.

This way DMs can decide how to handle it, and the major pros and cons of their decision will be known in advance so later in the game they won't be surprised by consequences of the decision they made.

 

[lukelightning]

I despise the "make the new character use the old character's stuff" idea.

My fighter dies, and I make a wizard — hooray, now I have a wizard equipped with +2 chainmail, a +1 shield, and a +2 flaming flail.

 

[Praeden]

Compared to 3E, 4E is supposed to be lighter on both magical items and PC deaths. So I think the problem is going to be rather less severe than it was in the past.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think the best IC approach to the 'problem' of looting dead party members, and to explain being able to loot tombs and such, was this:

When a character of power and wealth dies a violent death, there is a chance that they will return as a Ghost. In that form they are tied to the location of thier burial and to the powerful items they carried with them in life. They can adventure forth to recover missing items of significant value to them.


With that simple concept the GM has a reason for tombs full of loot and for PC's to respect the wealth of thier dead buddy. Since it is only a chance, the odds of looting an ages old tomb is unlikely to bring about the wrath of a revenant. But since PC's are special, thier odds of returning might be a bit higher.

Of course, for this to be effective the ghosts must be able to be lethally dangerous to the party, and the party have the opportunity to return the item to the tomb.

And it opens up some nice roleplaying hooks...


In regards to making a rule for it? Nah. Leave it up to the DM to manage. Even if it means bringing in sundering enemies or pre-looted adventure locations.

However, it would be nice for the 4E DMG to list out a couple options regarding this.

 

[Delta]

This is the same problem as NPC enemies either have magic items or they do not. They either have significant other wealth, or they do not.

If they do, PCs get wealthy. If they do not, PCs have to gain items and wealth via alternative means (quests, etc.).

The major difference here is that they get enemy NPC magic items only when they've successfully overcome them. But they get incoming PC items when they actually lose someone and die. So from a metagame level there's incentive to be losing; not so in gaining NPC treasures.