D&D General When a character dies and a new one arrives

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Average party level, ever since the early days of AD&D, when it mattered more because of all the different XP per level requirements. But replacing a dead character with a replacement character was still a rare thing. It was much more common, in all the groups I was ever part of, for a character to be retired because it became not fun and the player wanted something different. And I guess I got lucky that I never had to deal with the type of DM who would force a replacement character to start at 1st level. But I also did not play much 3E and no 4E at all, so I missed most of the players vs DM phase of D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

Voted "other" - my usual rule for new characters is they come in at either a) one level below the party average or b) at a "floor" level that slowly rises as the campaign goes on. The "floor" concept is to prevent a party's average level backsliding too much if they hit a string of character turnover in short succession, and it's set differently for each party. Example: a party of mostly 8ths might have a new PC come in at 7th (one lower than the 8th average) and have a floor at 6th just in case too many new characters come in and drag the average down.

That said, that's for new characters only. There's two exceptions. One, if the party's still 1st level you'll come in at 1st level as there's nowhere lower to go (I don't usually run 0th-level characters except as occasional henches). Two, if you're a brand new player joining an existing game your first PC comes in at the party average, rather than a level below.

A retired character returning to play comes in at whatever level it was before, unless significant in-game time has passed since it was last seen in which case it might have earned some xp etc. (or died!) doing other things in the meantime; I have a system for handling this.

Other than at raw 1st it's extremely rare in my games that a whole party is at the same level. I do individual xp, I have level loss (and occasional level gain) in the game, and I have uneven progression charts by class a la 1e. I've found over the long run that as long as everyone's within 2 levels of the party average it usually works out OK.

Rarely, a character might die early in a campaign and not be revived until years later. As you don't earn xp while dead, that revived character is whatever level it was when it died even though everyone else has gained loads of levels in the meantime.

 

[el-remmen]

I have done it differently at different times and in different (D&D) games.

These days I'd let them start at the same level, but with an XP penalty that might put them slightly behind the rest of the party but that can be pretty easily overcome. Usually this is just the amount of XP between when the first character died and the new one is introduced, which could be between one session and four (depending on where we are in the adventure when it happens and how easy it would be to introduce someone). And yes, I will allow someone to be level X but have less XP than you need to be that level, just slowing progression a bit.

At one point in 3E I had everyone start at 2nd level to start (so multiclassed characters could begin that way if they choose) but everyone still began at 0 XP.

 

[R_J_K75]

I chose other

Nowadays I generally keep everyone the same level. I award xp based on number of sessions a player has played. If a player attends (x) number of games then they'll be level X. I do this to deter people from cancelling last minute on a game to go apple picking with Granny for instance. Honestly this hasnt been an issue, and I start new players/characters at the level of the lowest party member. In years/editions passed I'd start new players/characters at 2 levels below the lowest party member, and some campaigns it was even 1st level. It all depends on the group and the campaign.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The player just lost their character. I'm not going to kick them while they're down and make the new character weaker than other characters in the party.

Unless I'm playing Hackmaster style. And then the character starts at level 1 and no I don't care that we're in the final stretch of the campaign and everyone else is level 15. You should've thought of -that- before you jumped into the acid pit ANDREW.

(Note, Andrew isn't a specific player I've had, but just a fun name to use in this context)

I there is that scenario for sure, and also I have seen players voluntarily come in at a lower level in 5e when joining a campaign or when their PC retired or the story just demanded they leave the group for whatever reason, though never because the PC died.

Sometimes that is an interesting story.

 

[Maxperson]

I used to do one level lower than everyone else, but then I realized that I wasn't just costing him a level, but I was costing everyone else effectiveness and they didn't lose their PC. That's when I changed to same level as the one that died, though at the beginning of the level, so they tend to sometimes be a level behind for a bit.

 

[jgsugden]

We use milestone advancement. I've effectively been using it for 35 years, although the oldest was a bit of work with the different experience tables.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I used to do one level lower than everyone else, but then I realized that I wasn't just costing him a level, but I was costing everyone else effectiveness and they didn't lose their PC. That's when I changed to same level as the one that died, though at the beginning of the level, so they tend to sometimes be a level behind for a bit.

This philosophy highlights that there is a style of game play where the challenges level up according to some predetermined advancement criteria based on where the party level "should be".

In your games, is this more or less true? If so, I can see how one might consider it was "costing everyone" to have a new character come in at a lower level than the rest of the group. If not, I'm not clear on how varied levels costs "effectiveness" when the goals of play include having fun while creating an exciting, memorable story.

I suppose if the group has decided that striving for optimal party effectiveness is the best pathway to achieving said goals of play, then it makes some sense. IMO and IME, there is more than one pathway to attain those goals, however, especially in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

This philosophy highlights that there is a style of game play where the challenges level up according to some predetermined advancement criteria based on where the party level "should be".

In your games, is this more or less true? If so, I can see how one might consider it was "costing everyone" to have a new character come in at a lower level than the rest of the group. If not, I'm not clear on how varied levels costs "effectiveness" when the goals of play include having fun while creating an exciting, memorable story.

I suppose if the group has decided that striving for optimal party effectiveness is the best pathway to achieving said goals of play, then it makes some sense. IMO and IME, there is more than one pathway to attain those goals, however, especially in 5e.

No. It also applies to sandboxes where challenges vary. In a sandbox game, you're going to hit encounters of equal or even higher level than you at times, and having a 1st level PC or even a PC 1 lower than you will be a detriment in any combat above that PC's abilities. Now obviously a PC 1 level lower than the party will be far less of a detriment than say a 1st level PC who is 6 levels below the party, but it is a negative impact.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No. It also applies to sandboxes where challenges vary. In a sandbox game, you're going to hit encounters of equal or even higher level than you at times, and having a 1st level PC or even a PC 1 lower than you will be a detriment in any combat above that PC's abilities. Now obviously a PC 1 level lower than the party will be far less of a detriment than say a 1st level PC who is 6 levels below the party, but it is a negative impact.

Sure, there are challenges when there is a wide level discrepancy but, personally, I find the concern overblown. It does require a little more care with spotlight management by the DM and the group as a whole, for one - that eliminates the old chestnut that a lower level character is "useless". Furthermore, if the party can protect the noob, they will level up quickly if a group uses the standard XP progression. YMMV