D&D 4E Remove level drain from 4e!!

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm going to go old-school and say "I like my darned level drain." Heck, I wish they would bring the AD&D level drain back. As a player, and a DM, nothing scare ME, not my character, ME, more when playing the game than rumors of a wraith or vampire being in the location of my next adventure. Kind of like a Jenga pull in Dread, that risk of doing the wrong thing and having an undead smack you for level loss (that could be restored, with spells) was just mean, and ultimately led to some great stories where our groups went through all sorts of contortions to avoid the undead beastie and trying to douse it with holy water/ bury it in sunlight / release it from its curse / whatever, because NO ONE wanted to face the damn thing in direct combat.

That was just my experience with it. It may have been "unfun", but it was because of that why we actively sought to avoid it.

I concur.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Want to play this game with us? Just remember that you might have to sit out and not participate in the game for 30 minutes to several hours when you are killed, petrified, paralyzed etc.

Really, D&D is the only game I know where people are even willing to accept one or more hours of non-participation due to an in-game effect. If a player has to sit out one hour of a four hour game, I think that's more than enough penalty already.

Try playing monopoly with the rule that if you land in prison you cannot participate for 30 minutes if you are against 'sugar-coating'.

This analogy is based in emotion, not in fact or reason. There is no trope in Monopoly that involves players sitting out for any period of time because Monopoly is abstract in the extreme. If Monopoly was a more detailed, granular examination of real estate, "putting a hotel on a property" would mean that for a set amount of time, no rent could be collected on it, there would be traffic constriction, worker accidents, etc. etc.

Life for those who've chosen to win their way by sword and spell in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is fraught with dangers. Removing the dangers means removing the challenge, QED.

This is why I have never understood the continual "softening" of D&D, nor the applause such notions get when it is suggested that perfectly valid hazards are "unfair" and "anti-player".

Seriously, if that's how people feel honestly and truly - that players should be unchallenged, unassailable, and indefatigable, then why aren't AMBER and EXALTED (both games where the players are essentially gods) vastly more popular than D&D?

Arguments that there is no precedence in any fantasy literature for such will be gleefully ignored - the deleterious effects of encountering "negative energy" in fantasy and SF literature are too numerous to catalog here.

I think someone else in this thread made a good argument vis-a-vis the whole "level draining is punishment" when they said that hit point loss, too, was punishment. Is that the next "sacred cow that has to go"? The players just plan well and are rewarded with a victory without actually having to do anything?


[/font]

 

[Jhaelen]

- With 3E save-to-restore, I was somewhat let down, but could make the compromise.
- With 3.5 save-and-save-again, I was not willing to soften it that much.
- When 4E wipes it out entirely, that's another point for me not to use that game.

I really hated level draining in earlier editions. 3.5 actually made it acceptable for me. It hardly ever happens any more because it's easy to temporarily boost the saving throws (I'm using action points, btw.).
I still don't particularly like it mechanically or even conceptually but it's no longer the fun-stopper it's been in the past.

Rust monsters, however, don't exist in my campaign. They belong to the category of stupid-silly anti-adventurer critters I never really cared for.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I find the whole tendency to equate "I want to remove level drain" with "I want D&D to have no danger" to be not only a straw man argument, but bordering on offensive. I like danger in D&D. I think resurrection is too easy. I think the whole "death at -10 hp" rule is more than generous enough, and I argue against any effort at making death harder (such as "death at - 10 + Con" "10 + level," both of which I've seen). I've had to argue with several DMs, who wanted to fudge rolls to keep my characters alive, because I want the danger in the game to be real.

And I still want level drain out of the game. Not for purposes of making the game "safer," but because I have conceptual problems with level drain (as mentioned above), and because I think it impacts the fun of the game in a way that other forms of character harm do not.

If you like level drain, cool. But don't assume that because others do not, they're espousing a D&D game without risk.

 

[Shroomy]

I kind of like the way that energy drain is handled in 3x, though I don't like the idea of permanent level loss as reverse engineering a 3x character is a pain in the you know what. I think it would be a good idea to get rid of permanent level loss.

 

[frankthedm]

Levels are not life-force. They're a measure of how much a character knows. The only way I can accept level loss is if it comes with amnesia. Other than that, I just don't like it as a concept.

Necromancy says otherwise.

I like level drain a bit more than i like stat damage/drain. At least with ED, levels scale as fast as HP.

I'd welcome a monster heals as much damage it deals on living beings beings in replacement for ED.

 

[Delta]

Really, D&D is the only game I know where people are even willing to accept one or more hours of non-participation due to an in-game effect. If a player has to sit out one hour of a four hour game, I think that's more than enough penalty already.

Try playing monopoly with the rule that if you land in prison you cannot participate for 30 minutes if you are against 'sugar-coating'.

Of course, if you go bankrupt in Monopoly then you are in fact out of the game permanently. I'm actually used to most games having a "lose" condition. I think that D&D is in fact pretty cushioned compared to most other games you can think of.

 

[psionotic]

You know, if they carry over the condition track from Star Wars: Saga Edition (and I see no reason why they wouldn't), you could model energy draining very nicely by treating it as causing persistent (i.e., lasting until cured in some fashion) steps down said track.

If 4e stays with the current 'characters are easy to kill, and easy to resurrect' style (and I hope that they don't), then I might consider having each death permanently lower the maximum condition category of the rezzed character. Each death and subsequent resurrection 'stretches' the soul: After several of them, that soul is stretched so thin, it is unable to return at all. This also will help me explain why important NPCs and even villians can't continually be re-raised. Just a random thought that occurred to me while reading...

I find the whole tendency to equate "I want to remove level drain" with "I want D&D to have no danger" to be not only a straw man argument, but bordering on offensive. I like danger in D&D.

Totally agreed. I'm in favor of many of the changes that seem to be coming along with 4e. NOT because I want the game to be 'softer' or less dangerous, but because I want it to be easier/faster to play. PCs are scared in my campaigns. Sometimes they die, and I'm good with that. I oppose level drain and save or die effects not to 'nerf' the game for the PCs, but because they are anti-climatic and anti-cinematic.

I would get rid of resurrection altogether if characters couldn't be snuffed out by a single poor die roll like they can be now.

 

[Selvarin]

1) I like the idea of temporary level-draining. It can temporarily weaken the character (so it remains an important factor in combat) without unduly punishing them. Let gods (and their aspects) have the power to do so on a permanent basis.

2) I also like the idea of making raising/ressurrection costlier. Then again it's usually a great excuse for the DM to negotiate with the PCs and get them to do onerous tasks they otherwise wouldn't, if only to get the local high priest to agree.

 

[Dragonblade]

I find the whole tendency to equate "I want to remove level drain" with "I want D&D to have no danger" to be not only a straw man argument, but bordering on offensive. I like danger in D&D. I think resurrection is too easy. I think the whole "death at -10 hp" rule is more than generous enough, and I argue against any effort at making death harder (such as "death at - 10 + Con" "10 + level," both of which I've seen). I've had to argue with several DMs, who wanted to fudge rolls to keep my characters alive, because I want the danger in the game to be real.

And I still want level drain out of the game. Not for purposes of making the game "safer," but because I have conceptual problems with level drain (as mentioned above), and because I think it impacts the fun of the game in a way that other forms of character harm do not.

If you like level drain, cool. But don't assume that because others do not, they're espousing a D&D game without risk.

Thank you for stating so eloquently exactly what I was thinking as I read through some of the responses.