D&D 5E Retireing characters

[manduck]

If a player wants to retire a character an play something else, it really isn't much of a problem. Typically, it means they aren't happy with what they are playing and want to try something else. It's all about fun, so why not let them switch? I may put in a minor story requirement, like they have to wait until they get out of a dungeon or to the next city to make the switch. Then on with the game. I always keep all my players at the same level when switching characters too, either from player choice or death. It makes balancing encounters easier. Plus what's the value in punishing a player with a lower level just because they were't having fun or the dice were brutal one evening? Most players go with a character they want to try the most. If it isn't what they expected, they may want to switch. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about having a revolving door of characters for your adventures. People play what they want to play.

This situation may lead to some interesting character ideas too. Especially if both the player who's character died and the player switching want to work on characters together. I also let people know that if they retire a character, that character is still in the world and they become an NPC. They may cross paths again. Or the player may want to give that retired character a second chance.

 

[TallIan]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

In terms of timing his retirement in the story, it can easily makes sense, so I'm not concerned with that. It is also a very easy point to introduce new characters.

The PC that died had apparently been trying to get himself killed for a few sessions now, (much to the relief of the party as he'd ended up surrounded by monsters and rescuing him before death would have proven dangerous), though he'd not said anything and no one had noticed (he's not the most expressive person I know - great at poker).

. Ex. As dm if I did the Terrible Tickling Tieflings of Toronto write up and have the rooms all map out. And went to the extra work of throwing in encounters which matched the party. Then jasper and morrus swap out pcs which will make the next 2 rooms hard fights. I generally go with what I have already mapped out. The penalty is the harder difficultly.

That is a good point.

MY main concern about allowing this as a norm stems from a previous game, where all the players ended up trying to kill their characters. The DM wouldn't allow retirements so death was the only way out. It got quite farcical and certainly detracted from the enjoyment of the game. I'm hoping that allowing retirement will allow the PC's to play what they want, I was just a bit worries about another - unforeseen - pitfall.

Most of what people have said allays that fear, but I might have a progressive penalty, of 0, 1, 2... levels lower that the party average, to make sure players REALLY want to change characters.

Thanks again,

Tall

 

[Mad_Jack]

All you need to do is ask, just the one time, if anybody else wants to make any changes to their characters, and give them the opportunity to do so, making sure that your players are now satisfied with what they have and aren't going to go trying to switch up every other session - if it's not a problem than there's no need to "fix" it.

 

[MrHotter]

I would put a penalty for changing characters so it does not happen too often, but I would also want to make it easier for a character to swap out if they wanted to. Starting at level 1 may be too harsh, but I would not want the new character to have the same level as the other characters.

When I've done this in the past I've given the new character half the previous character's xps or one less level than the other characters.

You will also want to make sure that you know how you are going to handle the previous character's magic items. I had a group try to divide up a leaving character's items when a player wanted to create a new character.

 

[JRedmond]

I do save points essentially for characters. These are at level 3, 5, 7 etc. If a 4th level character dies he can build a new character at level 3. You could use this same method for retiring. If they constantly retire then they will always be behind.

 

[jasper]

I do save points essentially for characters. These are at level 3, 5, 7 etc. If a 4th level character dies he can build a new character at level 3. You could use this same method for retiring. If they constantly retire then they will always be behind.

I do not like this any more. I used to do (avg pc level) - 1 = new pc level. But it cause hurt feelings and other problems. Now, if I were home brewing, I do avg level and no magic.

 

[76512390ag12]

I have grown out of penalising players for wanting some different fun. Let them retire and switch, don't obsess about the story reasons, just jump right back in. Seriously, I have done all the realism, penalty, balance and all that stuff.. it just kills the fun. So, "I want to go do something else.." "bye bye" "hi I am a new PC of the same level or whatever, here's a really basic explanation of why I am here, where is the story/adventure/beer?"

Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet

 

[Lanefan]

MY main concern about allowing this as a norm stems from a previous game, where all the players ended up trying to kill their characters. The DM wouldn't allow retirements...

And that right there is a great big red flag; it means the DM wants to control how you play your character(s).

If your character has a good in-game reason for retiring then retired it is. Period.

so death was the only way out. It got quite farcical and certainly detracted from the enjoyment of the game. I'm hoping that allowing retirement will allow the PC's to play what they want, I was just a bit worries about another - unforeseen - pitfall.

In my game characters cycle in and out all the time. Something brand new comes in at a "floor" level that's usually around or a bit below the lowest in the current party. Returning characters come in at whatever makes sense for what they've been doing while retired.

Just last night, for example, I had a player pull out a character she'd got bored with, and cycle in another that she'd retired some time ago (she had ended up with too many characters due to some unexpected revivals from what at the time looked like very permanent deaths) with more RP potential. As DM it makes no difference to me most of the time, as I (almost always) specifically try not to hang a story on any one character.

My advice is just run what you're gonna run and let them freely cycle through characters; whether by their own choice or due to death or incapacitation. I've actually found that having "extra" characters floating aorund in the game world really helps enrich it.

Most of what people have said allays that fear, but I might have a progressive penalty, of 0, 1, 2... levels lower that the party average, to make sure players REALLY want to change characters.

Progressive might be overkill. A level lower than the average is fine.

Lan-"retired characters can always go off on solo side quests, which only further add to the depth of the campaign"-efan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I do not like this any more. I used to do (avg pc level) - 1 = new pc level. But it cause hurt feelings and other problems.

I have grown out of penalising players for wanting some different fun. Let them retire and switch, don't obsess about the story reasons, just jump right back in. Seriously, I have done all the realism, penalty, balance and all that stuff.. it just kills the fun.

I too used to do stuff like making new characters start at lower level and harshly enforcing level loss for returning from death, and have since changed to a completely different take (specifically, players get to play the level of character everyone else has whether their character died or they just want a change).

The real clincher for me in making this change was when I noticed that players were weighing their options between continuing to participate in the campaign after taking a level hit, or just bowing out of the campaign entirely to await the start of a new one, and I realized I don't like "maybe I'll stop playing" even crossing the mind of someone playing at my table if the reason for it is anything within my control.

 

[Lanefan]

The real clincher for me in making this change was when I noticed that players were weighing their options between continuing to participate in the campaign after taking a level hit, or just bowing out of the campaign entirely to await the start of a new one

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!

The only possible migitation is that if your campaigns are always very short and waiting for the next one isn't that big a deal. But otherwise....yeah....

Lanefan