Losing a level is not fun

[totoro]

death is bad enough

I would still just use the house rule suggested in this thread for raising from the dead. I.e., characters get a negative level that has to be worked off with xp, but they don't actually lose a level. Presumably, you have to spend 1000xp times current level to reduce a negative level. If you have two negative levels, 1000xp times (current level -1) for the first negative level. Etc. In the long run, characters with negative levels will be a little lower level than their companions, but it isn't nearly as traumatic for the player (not to mention book-keeping and other silly effects, like sorcerers forgetting how to cast certain spells).

 

[rhammer2]

This is what I do as well. I also stick them with 1 negative level as long as they do not have enough XP to be their current level.

Actually, that's a house rule I've been using since 3e came out. It seemed odd to me that two characters of the same level, one with more XP than the other, would both have the same XP after both dying (mid of previous level). Additionally, having to deal with negatives, removing skill points or feats, and similar didn't sit right with me either ("But he could cast that spell before he was dead, now that he is back he can't do it?!?!").

My solution was to implement an XP debt system. Instead of the funky rules they have in the DMG, losing a level (due to death or drain) results in a 500 XP per level XP debt (average of what would be lost by the rules).

Anyway, I agree with you and have a similar solution. Later!

 

[Angcuru]

You do not die when drained to level 0. You die when your accumulated negative levels equal your character level. I see nothing in the house rule that removes the concept of negative levels, only that they don't convert into actual lost levels.

...which is basically what I was saying. When you are level drained, those negative levels put you at # less than your normal level. When the negative levels bring you down to 0, you....die.

 

[hong]

...which is basically what I was saying. When you are level drained, those negative levels put you at # less than your normal level. When the negative levels bring you down to 0, you....die.

In which case, tell me again exactly how this house rule takes away the effectiveness of energy drain.

 

[Glen]

The difference with this and energy drain is you actually lose hit points and other things that make you more able to fight the monster. The loss of those is what makes the monster CR so high. If you remove the abilities drains that come with level loss you decrease the devastation the monster can cause. IMO

 

[totoro]

The difference with this and energy drain is you actually lose hit points and other things that make you more able to fight the monster. The loss of those is what makes the monster CR so high. If you remove the abilities drains that come with level loss you decrease the devastation the monster can cause. IMO

Not really. You drain a lot of xp, which is very annoying and harder to recover from than wound or ability damage. Players will still avoid monsters that can drain them. If you wanted to up the power, you could also reduce CON by 1 point/level drained. Or you could "time it" so that CON and reaching level 0 occur simultaneously. Multiply CON by current level/max level. Of course, then it is almost as complicated as the current system.

 

[Azlan]

I dislike the XPs loss from dying rule, and so does every player I've ever had in my campaigns.

Instead of permanent XPs loss, I'm thinking of impelementing a rule for temporary loss of ability scores. Perhaps, like, 4 points of Str and Con, and 2 points of Dex? Thus, when you are raised from the dead, you're in a physically weakened state. All three of these lost ability scores would be restored at the rate of 1 point per day, for the first two days after being raised. After that, the remaining two points of lost Str and Con would be restored at the rate of 1 point per week. If a character is slain and raised again before his ability scores are fully restored, his loss can become cumulative.

 

[Stalker0]

"He could cast Gate before he was killed... did we resurrect the same guy or did something happen?" asks a party member. Assuming the party knows nothing of the actual level of the wizard, this is a valid issue and can cause problems where they probably shouldn't exist.

The way to rp it is to say that the trauma of being brought back from the dead has caused something of an amnesia (I mean heck if caraccidents can do it, I think being brought back from the dead certainly could). The wizard knows the ability is there, heck he still has the spell in his book I would say, but its always on the tip of his tongue and he can't quite reach it (until he gains a level).

That being said, I do like these dying rules, I'm not a big fan of level loss myself.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I despise xp loss, period.

Instead the raised person is irrevocably geased by the raising cleric as part of the spell. Failure to fulfil the quest results in permanent death forever and dying while on this death quest means you are unraisable too.

 

[totoro]

I despise xp loss, period.

Instead the raised person is irrevocably geased by the raising cleric as part of the spell. Failure to fulfil the quest results in permanent death forever and dying while on this death quest means you are unraisable too.

I really like this one. I would limit the number of times you can be raised to some high number (that realistically will never be reached, but is a little bit scary nevertheless in a really dangerous campaign). Perhaps the limit could be 1/level or CON. Both would work.