Which is better: Character death or item destruction?

[Ridley's Cohort]

That seems pretty powerful for a 5th level spell.

Such a 5th-level spell should probably require 5000 gp of diamonds and reduce all your items by one "plus" (for items with power expressed in "pluses"), or drain 3 charges (for items with charges), or impose some other penalty for other items (perhaps a flat 5% chance that it does not work every time it is used).

No. That would not be in the "spirit" of 3e in its glorious mathematical perfection.

Random items should be reduced in power in stages until the total character wealth approximate a (N)PC of one level lower.

I am entirely confident I could enjoy my character's death. But it is not obvious that a severely stripped character would function in a typical D&D campaign such that it would be fun to play for more than a session or two more -- that is surely going to get old real fast.

 

[Wraith Form]

"Better" is such a subjective term.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It seems to me that a major reason people choose "death is better" is the assumption that they can come in with a fully-equipped character of comparable level. This is a new assumption in 3rd Edition, and it's one thing that makes me wish I was running Iron Heroes or Conan. I'm not even sure it's necessary in D&D. If the party still has access to the dead PC's gear... why allow the new PC any magic items at all? Introduce them as a prisoner or something, and they can then be kitted out with the dead PC's gear. Sure, it'll be sub-optimal, but the party had a member DIE -- this should be a bit of a setback.

Just browsing to see what it was like in previous editions... 2E DMG has some rules for allowing new PCs to be higher than level 1, but recommends no higher than 4 unless the party is "very powerful" -- and even then, NO magic items. It was my experience that high-level groups often had a few spare items floating around.

Your arguments here cut both ways.

If my PC's equipment is really all that significant and my Con is good enough make my resurrection survival % roll, then being killed looks more attractive.

If my equipment is not important and there are spares items in the party, being killed is really not a big deal.

IME bringing in an equipped PC is a big convenience for the DM. On that basis alone it is a pretty darn good idea, regardless of the other issues.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would say the opposite. A character built from the ground up will have more useful items than a character who had to accumulate said wealth over several levels. The "organic" character probably has a lot of items that he doesn't use anymore that are still taking up wealth. He also probably has more interesting items, but that's not necessarily more powerful.

I have seen this effect in play, and the difference can be startling.

I am in one campaign where the DM seems to believe we are at standard wealth. We are probably close to 90% but only if you assess every single last random potion and third +1 weapon at full market value. And then there is all the weird cruft padding the total.

I could easily build an equally or more effective PC with 50% of standard wealth buying items from the DMG.

One of the players created a new PC at standard wealth and his raw combat ability is a good 1.5 levels higher than the party average. He is a meatshield, but he is certainly much more fun and effective outside of combat than is typical for meatshields.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'll lose items any day and I play in a low magic/low magic item setting. Raising of the dead is usually not an option either.

Of course you'll choose losing items. You have no other choice!

For one thing if the character is gone so is the connection to the story. Starting new characters in some of our games is really, really hard.

Quite honestly, I hate games like this. If the story is not dynamic enough to handle actions (or poor decisions of the PCs), then the story sucks. This type of "story" begs of railroading.

 

[Endur]

In some campaigns, character death means you start over with a 1st level character with equipment out of the PHB.

Fully equipped = 200 gp, when other characters in the campaign are level 10+.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In some campaigns, character death means you start over with a 1st level character with equipment out of the PHB.

Fully equipped = 200 gp, when other characters in the campaign are level 10+.

A wise man once said:

IME bringing in an equipped PC is a big convenience for the DM. On that basis alone it is a pretty darn good idea, regardless of the other issues.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In some campaigns, character death means you start over with a 1st level character with equipment out of the PHB.

Fully equipped = 200 gp, when other characters in the campaign are level 10+.

I can see an in-game reason for this, though it DOES make it very hard for the newbie to survive (though if they do, they'll catch up relatively quickly).

See, my problem with the introduction of new high-level characters is that they have no history. Sure, the player can make up a story, but in a world where 11th-level PCs are rare, it is hard to suspend disbelief if this isn't addressed.

"You have the power to RAISE THE DEAD and we've never heard of you? You have the power to teleport anywhere you want, at any time, and you did NOTHING to stop that marauding hezrou, which wiped out a company of elite guards before we stopped it? Where have you been all this time? When it has fallen to us to save the kingdom, where were you? You've just been 'adventuring' and ignoring the world-shaking events we've been involved in? Our names are known kingdom-wide for the deeds we've done and you have no reputation?"

If you can make up a very good reason why a LEGENDARY (level 11+) hero has not been helping out until this point (traveling other planes, awakening with no memory, restored from petrification after a thousand-year absence, etc.), it's a lot easier to accept a new high-level PC joining the party.

Otherwise, I have to say, yeah, I'd rather the guy with the dead PC play a low-level character. Because if high-level characters exist and have had no impact on the world up to this point, it to some extent ruins my view that high-level characters are rare and noteworthy.

It's also the same problem with high-level cohorts turning up. "Yeah, when you were 6th-level and looking for a Raise Dead spell, 9th-level clerics were hard to find, but now that you're 12th, there are a near-infinite variety of them willing to be your cohort."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

OTOH, it is not necessarily true that many other powerful high-level characters do not exist in the world.

The reason Spider Man does not simply ask Captain America or Ironman to save NYC is that they are busy saving entire continents. And when Spider Man finally "levels up" to saving the continent, they are still usually busy with other threats.

At some level it can feel a bit contrived, but there is a reason why there are so many obscure towns to be saved and dungeons off the beaten path to clear. It saves the DM the trouble of explaining why "Ironman" does not give a useful response to the phone call/Sending.

For these and various other reasons, most DMs IME do not bother with the phony "no high-level Cleric to be found" excuse. Yes, they are around. And they are willing to assist heroes like yourself. But not on a schedule or location that is necessarily the most convenient for you.

 

[Rika]

Quite honestly, I hate games like this. If the story is not dynamic enough to handle actions (or poor decisions of the PCs), then the story sucks. This type of "story" begs of railroading.

Well, that'd be true if the GM actually wrote the story. Generally it's the players that drive our stories. What usually happens though is that they become so close knit that new characters have a hard time breaking into that bond.

Poor decisions and actions by the PCs do affect the story. Poor decisions usually mean you have to dig yourself out of a hole you created. Just not a grave. Well, usually.

Sorry, it's about as far from railroading as you can get.

But I can see how someone might think that from the outside.