D&D 5E Retireing characters

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but....man, do you have thin-skinned players if a simple level loss is enough to make them drop from a game!

I think you're assuming a different context than really happens in a typical case, especially because this is a thing that I changed a few editions back.

There really wasn't such a thing as "a simple level loss", because losing a level had impact on all kinds of things, ranging from increased chance of losing more levels because lower-level means more likely to die and death meant level loss, to how your character fits into the party because lower-level means less "oomph" and that can leave the character seeming like a "sidekick" rather than an equal (which is a bad thing if the player didn't sign-on to the idea of playing a sidekick sort of character).

And really, this comes down to preference. You're kind of telling someone that if they don't like the same difficulty setting that you do then they are "thin-skinned", which is kind of insulting.

 

[manduck]

I think you're assuming a different context than really happens in a typical case, especially because this is a thing that I changed a few editions back.

There really wasn't such a thing as "a simple level loss", because losing a level had impact on all kinds of things, ranging from increased chance of losing more levels because lower-level means more likely to die and death meant level loss, to how your character fits into the party because lower-level means less "oomph" and that can leave the character seeming like a "sidekick" rather than an equal (which is a bad thing if the player didn't sign-on to the idea of playing a sidekick sort of character).

And really, this comes down to preference. You're kind of telling someone that if they don't like the same difficulty setting that you do then they are "thin-skinned", which is kind of insulting.

I agree with what you're saying here. One level may not seem like a big deal on the surface. Though it depends on the level. Are they now at a lower proficiency bonus than everyone else? That makes them less effective at everything. It can also mean the difference between say casting 4th level spells and 5th level spells. Or getting some big class feature that really ups your ability, like extra attack. One level can actually make a big difference in how someone contributes to a group. It can be frustrating for a player too and take away from their fun.

I never understood imposing a level penalty for character death either. You're essentially punishing the player for something that is beyond their control. They didn't kill their own character. So why slap the penalty on them? All it does is create a form of punishment for playing the game and make that player feel lesser than the rest of the group. Any decision on rules like this should always be in favor of what's more fun for everyone, not less.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[manduck]

I'm going to slightly push back on this.

It depends on the table.

Look, some tables are all about the fun and the winning. And that's awesome! No worries there. Seriously- no snark about participation trophies or any of that. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, and that's fun for many tables, and game design has trended toward "failing upward" for a reason.

OTOH, some tables prefer consequences. When you write that dying is beyond a person's control, well, I think that some players might disagree with that. Sure, sometimes the fates (and the dice) aren't kind- but the whole point of the game is to maximize success probabilities, and some players want to be rewarded for success, and have consequences (or, as you put it, punishments) for failure. Because that's fun for them.

Different tables have different ideas about this. Some people hate the nitty gritty, and prefer not to have serious or lasting consequences. Other tables believe that serious consequences enhance gameplay. There is no "right" answer here- just what works for the table.

EDIT- All of this is to say that I would occupy the middle ground between "Suck it up, buttercup," and "Death is never you fault, dude." There was a reason Tomb of Horrors was a classic despite being completely unfair, and there's also a reason why it's nearly impossible to kill a PC in 5e. There isn't a universal "wrong," here.

I see what you're saying and different things do work for different tables. Some people like Final Fantasy and others like Dark Souls. Each group figures out what works for them. Though I think the consequence in your scenarios is the character death itself. That player loses their character and gear (potentially) when their character dies. So that is the consequence. I'm specifically saying that imposing some kind of level loss for that consequence is actually the punishment. Tomb of Horrors is indeed a classic and challenging dungeon. Now try to play Tomb of Horrors when you lose a level every time you die in that dungeon. It goes from challenging to impossible. The threats constantly increase while your capability constantly decreases. The players go into an adventure like Tomb expecting to die multiple times. The challenge is the fun. Though punishing the players with a level loss at every death goes beyond creating a challenge. It goes into the territory of eliminating all possible chance for success. Risk and reward can certainly make a game fun. People in groups that like a good challenge certainly take the good with the bad. They enjoy those consequences. Though the consequence of a character death is something that can always happen, unless the group specifically decides against it. It's part of the risk of the game. To make it a real challenge or to give that character death some weight, I've seen and played in groups that remove magical resurrection. You can have gear break and other resource losses in the game to add to the challenge.

I tend to fall in that middle space as well. I'm just saying that I wouldn't impose further penalty of level loss on a character death. I found it kind of discourages playing the game. No one want to take those risks as much if they know it will cost them a level or two should they die. The death of the character is a pretty big consequence itself. Especially if you can't bring that character back.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ad_hoc]

I see what you're saying and different things do work for different tables. Some people like Final Fantasy and others like Dark Souls..

Have you played Final Fantasy?

Your characters could get 1 shotted before they even got a turn. Usually it's being turned to stone but if they're all stone it's still game over.

Characters need to be able to lose for players to have agency in the game. If all characters succeed regardless of what they do then the player's choices don't matter.

5e works really well with mixed level characters too.

 

[manduck]

I think it's all a matter of perspective. After all, as you note- death is a pretty big consequence, and if it is a perma-death (can't bring the character back) ... well, losing a level doesn't seem that bad, does it? Or there was the old "system shock / max. number of resurrections" idea.

I'm not a big fan of level loss, myself. It was one of those 1e features that I think was far too common (oh, look, an undead that causes level drain!). I do think that so long as the table expectations are set appropriately, it should work okay.

Man, I remember all those rules from the early editions. System Shock/ max number of resurrection was an interesting one. Lower level resurrections brought you back with a level loss and higher spells didn't. Or the ever popular loss in your constitution score. Some of my players fearfully remember the days of the level draining Wights. So many things could take a level from you. So many undead could drain levels, on a hit no less. So you get hit three times, lose three levels. That was harsh. I'm certainly glad those days are behind us.

Whatever works for a group, works for a group. We all enter into that social contract when we play. So if they are cool with these kinds of penalties, go for it. It just sounded to me like the OP was looking for some kind of penalty to discourage constant character switching and hadn't discussed it with the group. That's something I think should be avoided, as no one yet agreed upon it. Just trying to point out that a decision like that could really impact the players fun. Especially if they don't see it coming.

 

[manduck]

Have you played Final Fantasy?

Your characters could get 1 shotted before they even got a turn. Usually it's being turned to stone but if they're all stone it's still game over.

Characters need to be able to lose for players to have agency in the game. If all characters succeed regardless of what they do then the player's choices don't matter.

5e works really well with mixed level characters too.

Sure I've played both. FF is meant to be more of a turn based adventure game with it's unique challenges. Though Dark Souls is a very different franchise known for being hard on players. You can't reload from a previous save in Souls or instant resurrect with a healing item and no loss. Souls was designed specifically to be challenging and hard on the player. FF can be difficult, but it's not designed to be merciless towards the player.

You can still have tons of consequences in your games without a level penalty on death. Players can still lose in various ways. Death isn't the only way to lose. Level penalty isn't the only consequence you can put on a group.

 

[Horwath]

1st point of the game is to have fun. If changing character will bring more fun for the player that there is no debate.

It's up to you how to introduce new player/retire old. It can be some cool plot hook or just "deus ex machina" solution.

I.E. old character gets killed in ambush, new character is discovered as prisoner after the rest of PC's defeat ambushers.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

Now that it was mentioned by manduck, I would say my rulings of having new characters come in a level lower are most certainly influenced by the old resurrection rules.