D&D 4E Is character death acceptable in 4e? If so, how often?

[FreeTheSlaves]

I find character death to be a major bummer for all involved.

The player loses their chosen toy, so to speak.
The character story (and all the relating investment by player & dm) takes a dive, or ceases.
There's the break-up of game flow as the other characters go about raising them.
And the player may have to take time to introduce another PC - which impacts on everyone's time.

Threat of death is acceptable. Actual character death is, to put it bluntly, not an acceptable game development if having fun is the method of measure.

 

[Pseudonym]

We've had two PC deaths in our game so far; a once a month game with six players. We've just hit level 4. The deaths have both occured via three blown death saves. The player, same guy, went from a warlock to a swordmage and now most likely a sorcerer. As was said, the amount of options gives death a chance to try something new. Maybe things will change as we get higher in level.

 

[MrBeens]

Dude-- the 3 death save rule is per DAY!

No it's not. The death save count resets after a rest. It does not specify extended.

 

[Storminator]

I'm in Pseudonym's game.

In addition to the two lost PCs, we've had a bunch of PCs that were saved when we stabilized them at 2 death saves, or healed 5 ongoing damage at 4 points from negative bloodied. We've also had PCs run around after the battle stabilizing people.

We're only low heroic, but it sure doesn't feel safe! And we have 2 leaders in the party!

PS

 

[Lauberfen]

I think death should occur as infrequently as possible, while being a genuine risk in difficult encounters.

I think random death (such as save or die, or criticals at low levels in 3.5) does nothing good for the game.

My experience of 4th consists of playing and DMing (we swap each adventure):
1 party of 4 to 9th level
1 party of 5 to 7th level
1 party of 5 to 4th level (TPKd)
1 Party of 4 to 2nd level
A few more characters and short adventures around 1-3rd.

Over the course of these groups (all started at 1st), we've seen:
1 TPK- 5 characters, 4th level vs black dragon- We would never have won this fight.
1 Character killed at 1st level (on low HP, no surges left, criticalled to -bloodied by an orc. We had not yet grasped that no healing surges is like no HP in 3rd).
1 Character (mine) Killed in a tough final battle at 2nd level. He was the Cleric, he used all his healing on the party, who struggled through and ended with everyone bloodied and one other character unconscious.

So we've seen 5 deaths in a TPK (due to an overpowered monster), one death from a near TPK, and one death from a random critical (but only dangerous because we misunderstood the game.

If the games were DMed and played as well as we do now, the only death would have been my cleric in the near TPK.

I think TPKs suck.

I think random deaths are not cool.

I think deaths in a tough encounter are fine (such as mine).

I think that lone characters dying is rarer. I think this is ok. This partly depends on the healing available- a group with only one leader might well have an odd character die, without it being a near TPK.

I think that the 'sweet spot' of a dangerous fight with real risk is not one where characters die, or roll death saves even, but one where all the healing is used and several characters end bloodied. This is quite easy to achieve, without a serious risk of TPK. This does have a real risk to characters, as once your out of healing and bloodied a few rolls here or there could mean character death.

In summary, an encounter where a party have to go out of their way to keep people alive is as threatening as it should be.

 

[Piratecat]

I try to make fights challenging but fair. I calibrate my battles so that the PCs will die if they're foolish or use bad tactics, and win if they're smart. This seems to be working so far; no deaths yet, but there's the constant possibility for one, and I like the feel of that.

 

[DrSpunj]

Hmmmm.

Here's that "DM perception" thing again.

Or it could just be differing perceptions, DM or otherwise.

In DrSpunj's excellent game, when a PC goes down no other player says "Gee, we don't have to worry about the downed PC, 'cuz he has a few death saves yet to make". Not one person around that table. No one. Dying PCs are already a "high priority"! Perhaps our DM is confusing our reassuring words ("Don't worry, bud. You'll be fine.") as us being unconcerned?

Instead, we work to bring the downed PC up as quickly as possible. Since we're all locked down in combat, this might take a round or two. Fortunately, one of our two leaders is pretty darn good at getting PCs back up.

It is true that not one player has actually used the phrase you quoted, but there are frequent comments back & forth about "how many saves have you missed?", "how many hp do you have left?" and "do you have any ongoing damage on you?" all of which from a suspension of disbelief standpoint is far too mechanical for my tastes, personally, but from a tension & excitement standpoint I think is great as it adds to the threat level. Regardless, I was really watching that last battle with the kobolds to see how those questions and answers factored into what players chose to do when their turn came up. In every case it seemed to be "we've got at least a round so I'm going to do this thing over here rather than heal one or both of those guys". And barring a CDG, that was absolutely correct because it was predictable which I think has a negative impact on the gameplay over all.

I'm going to disagree or at least try to further clarify your statement about "we're all locked down in combat". In that last battle with the kobold defenders they had a recharging immobilizing power that did lock Nail down a couple times but did not get the Cleric more than once. I know I got the TacLord once, maybe twice. Regardless I was specifically paying attention to the two Leaders to see if they would essentially give up their standard actions to move close enough to the downed Swordmage & Warlock about 10 squares away. Twice they were not immobilized and did not do so, so "locked in combat" is relative and probably where our perceptions of that battle are different. The Ranger was bouncing around near those two dying PCs and she didn't run up and use her Heal check to kick in their Second Wind either. The party has a healing potion on one of the PCs, but I don't think anyone clearly knows who has it or thought to use it this battle.

Both times the kobolds did not CDG, instead they moved against the remainder of the party. Why? That's not their MO.

But for Hobgoblins, they would have, it's what they do in this campaign and I *do* think that should have an impact on player gameplay. I hope the Swordmage & Warlock don't go running off again. I hope the Leaders make sure to stay within 5 squares of all party members. I hope all players make a point to sacrifice an attack to try and use their Heal skill to activate a dying PC's Second Wind. I hope...the party figures out how to minimize the chances of a CDG killing anyone. But it could happen.

 

[keterys]

Personally, I think I'd like to see something like:

Heroic Tier: Death is either for truly excessively screwing up or quite voluntary*
Why? You're learning the game and the tools to avoid death are not necessarily present.
Paragon Tier: Above, plus I'd say that at this tier a PC should die every level or so - preferably not the same one every level, but I'd say that it'd be about right if everyone's had a good chance of dying once by the end of the tier.
Epic Tier: Every session or so, someone should die, sometimes multiple deaths per session. Remember that there are many abilities that _only_ trigger on death, there are lots of get out of free cards, etc.

* Voluntary!? I actually think games would be well served to consider having more options for voluntary death in the form of risks that you have a very good chance not to survive, but might be considered worth it in order to prevent the sacrifice of an NPC, stop a ritual, or whatever. A meaningful death that the player chooses to consider a real option for their PC.

Now some of that would require actual changes to the way things work - like damage scaling at Epic.

 

[KarinsDad]

Regardless, I was really watching that last battle with the kobolds to see how those questions and answers factored into what players chose to do when their turn came up. In every case it seemed to be "we've got at least a round so I'm going to do this thing over here rather than heal one or both of those guys". And barring a CDG, that was absolutely correct because it was predictable which I think has a negative impact on the gameplay over all.

This has not happened in our game (or at least to the point that I have noticed it), but I must say that I've been waiting for it and dreading it at the same time.

In 3E, I had a house rule that no matter how negative a PC was in hit points, he could be saved with a Cure/Heal spell or a Curing potion if the healing got the PC up to -9 or higher hit points. We did not talk across the table about "how many hit points are you negative", etc. In fact, mechanics table talk like "how many hit points do you have" was generally frowned upon. Any unconscious PC was at risk of dying because the other PCs tended to not know the details of the downed PC. Every unconscious PC was a concern and downed PCs often took top priority.

So, I am not too keen on the 3 strikes and you are out rule. It can drastically affect player decisions and not for the better. IMO.

I want a downed player to be a priority, I do not want players to say "No worries, he still has a few more rounds". That is so meta-gamey.

I think the 3 strikes rule is anti-team instead of pro-team, so I don't like it. Fortunately, our Cleric has Berronar's Salve, so that mitigates it a bit.

 

[kilpatds]

the Cleric more than once. I know I got the TacLord once, maybe twice. Regardless I was specifically paying attention to the two Leaders to see if they would essentially give up their standard actions to move close enough to the downed Swordmage & Warlock about 10 squares away. Twice they were not immobilized and did not do so, so "locked in combat" is relative and probably where our perceptions of that battle are different.

I know that when I'm a player in that situation, it's not a clear cut choice. If I give up an action in order to bring him back up, but the monster that's on top of him goes before he does, and he's only got 11 hit points ... My healing him will just be a wasted action. The monster will just knock him unconscious again, and I'm giving action advantage to the other side. Doing this repeatedly just makes a bad situation worse... we're suffering free shots from the other side while doing nothing. Now both of us will die, not just one.

But if I know the dying PC is next in the initiative order, then Team PC probably won't lose any actions, so I'll usually do that ... depending on who's action was more important. (IE, if I'm a striker and we're down to 2 dangerous guys left, I probably don't want to spend my standard action to give the controller a standard action. But I do to give the leader or defender one. If I'm a leader who's used the buffs this combat I want to use, I'll go ahead and spend my standard to bring anyone up.)