D&D 5E Why penalize returning from death?

[iserith]

If its so much fun, can we assume your parties routinely pick up first level npcs to tag along? That way this picking up of a new rookie PC fits right in with how they usually do things?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Yes, they often have hirelings and I take some care to write in what are called "trap doors" into the game so that if one PC has to go (dead, for example), another can be slotted in pretty quickly. In my last campaign, for example, the PCs had a caravan which had a number of NPC hirelings that provided benefits. Their backup characters served as the caravan's protection and could be swapped in as needed. In the campaign previous to that, the focus was on a single adventure location that multiple adventuring parties would delve, so there was always a good reason for a backup PC to be poking around. My current campaign takes place entirely in a single city, so it's a simple matter to send a messenger to tap in a backup PC if necessary.

 

[Ymdar]

Wow, I didn't think this would spark such a great conversation.

In 'death penalty' I meant losing the 300-2000 gp worth of components. This would penalize the character as the ones who didn't die would not have to pay this (assuming money was available) and the dead character would be weaker compared to others in terms of power: Less magic items (if available to purchase), less healing items etc. A weaker character will more likely to die in future encounters (which are by DMG encountered to because of the lack of resources to protect themselves.

I wrongly assumed that most of us allow a same level PC back to the game (I haven't seen any rule saying otherwise) since if you die in a 5+ level party and return as a lvl1 character you are significantly to die from the threats the higher level characters laugh at. On the other hand if encounters will be tailored to the lvl1 character, the higher level characters will be bored.

Some people mentioned not having hp at all as it wouldn't make sense: I don't agree. It makes a difference whether after an epic combat due to bad rolls the party does not vanquish the enemy but instead is be captured as opposed to dying after getting hit b a double natural 20.

I'm not looking for the right answer here because obviously the answer depends on the DM and the campaign. I asked the question because as RAW you will get gold based on your level, buy stuff from that gold and if you are unable to buy stuff you are weaker. Removing the "penalty" would only include removing the costly material components. This would still limit the amount of people getting raised from the dead as you would need to have access to a cleric (and be above level 0 as someone pointed out) who had the will to cast it on you.

A consequence of dying without penalty would have the character miss out on an encounter or even several days-weeks in game time a consequence would still be big in my opinion.

 

[Lanefan]

In 1e and 2e getting to 9th level and thus having access to Raise Dead in the field was a big deal.... Not really.

In my xp it was around 8 to 9 months of play when people started hitting 9th. Of course I did some or all of the following xp for not killing monsters, gp to xp, role playing xp, module finished xp, and occasionally Bob just go up a level.

If you kept the xp-for-gp rule, that - I think - puts you in the minority. Many if not most 1e DMs houseruled it out, and (perhaps because of this trend) 2e RAW dropped it as well.

And as the great majority of xp in 1e came from treasure, dropping that rule had huge (and, IMO, very positive) effects on advancement rate: it slowed to a crawl.

"Yay, we get saddled with a furst level teammate. We would not in a million years have decided to add a first level NPC character to our group, but billy died and gm says start at first cuz it make better roleplaying choices so now we alk take a first level guy in..."

That's why I start new PCs out at the same level. My players wanted it to be 2 levels lower than the rest of the party, but then I pointed out how that just penalized them and they were like, "Ohhhhh!" and then agreed with me.

I bring in new characters at a "floor" level which slowly rises as the average party level goes up. It's usually about a level or two lower than the party average except at very low levels.

What I don't allows is Grog the First, Grog the Second, Grog the Third, etc. and the PC inheritance bull. Not that I have to do that with my current players. They all have many different character concepts that they want to try out, so none of the new PCs are similar to the ones that die.

Ditto, and ditto. (though humour takes precedence over seriousness and if someone came up with a truly amusing idea involving a series of Grogs I'd probably go with it)

Also, much like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] 's game my players (usually) have multiple characters out there in the game world, and finding ways to bring one in isn't often a problem. I go a step further, however, and allow players to run two characters at a time if desired - that way, if one dies the other is still there to be played.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

This bit is worthy of its own discussion...

In 'death penalty' I meant losing the 300-2000 gp worth of components. This would penalize the character as the ones who didn't die would not have to pay this (assuming money was available) and the dead character would be weaker compared to others in terms of power: Less magic items (if available to purchase), less healing items etc. A weaker character will more likely to die in future encounters

That's a very money-focussed view of it all, I must say. And, I must also say, very familiar: our crew usually runs it this way as well. And yes, it can lead to what amounts to a financial death spiral, particularly if a character dies and returns several times in short succession. Been there, done that.

But: not all groups work this way. Some have it that revival funds for those who died on party business come straight out of party treasury before division; thus the party pays for the revival rather than the individual. Some other groups set up what amounts to an insurance program, where each character pays into a pooled fund ahead of time and this fund is used for revival costs. (some time ago my group tried the insurance-program idea but only about half the PCs were willing to pay in...so much for that idea)

I wrongly assumed that most of us allow a same level PC back to the game (I haven't seen any rule saying otherwise) since if you die in a 5+ level party and return as a lvl1 character you are significantly to die from the threats the higher level characters laugh at. On the other hand if encounters will be tailored to the lvl1 character, the higher level characters will be bored.

The only "rule" or guideline or anything else I'm aware of regarding this is in the 1e DMG where it's suggested that new characters come in at raw 1st.

I'm not looking for the right answer here because obviously the answer depends on the DM and the campaign. I asked the question because as RAW you will get gold based on your level, buy stuff from that gold and if you are unable to buy stuff you are weaker.

I think you've missed that in 5e by RAW magic items cannot be bought at all, and there's only so much non-magic stuff you can buy that'll significantly help you in the field.

Removing the "penalty" would only include removing the costly material components. This would still limit the amount of people getting raised from the dead as you would need to have access to a cleric (and be above level 0 as someone pointed out) who had the will to cast it on you.

That above-level-0 bit only applies to 3e where you came back down a level (or with a negative level, much the same thing when you're 0th to begin with).

A consequence of dying without penalty would have the character miss out on an encounter or even several days-weeks in game time a consequence would still be big in my opinion.

Missing a single encounter is trivial. Missing several days or weeks of game time, particularly if those days or weeks take several real-world sessions to play out, can be a bigger deal...which is why it's always helpful to have a reserve character or three on hand.

Lanefan

 

[Rhenny]

I'm posting late in this thread (and only read some of it...sorry)...but here's my idea for dealing with death.

I know that players invest a lot of time and energy into developing their characters, and perma death is not for most.

I like the idea that returning from death builds character in some way so rather than just assessing a penalty, I like to alter the PC in some way balancing a loss with a gain.

For example, coming back from death may actually grant experience points to the dead PC (sometimes enough to get close to leveling or even leveling the PC), but they come back a bit less healthy (lose a point of constitution....or lose limb...or have a strange malady that makes them make exhaustion checks if they over exert themselves in combat or while they travel difficult terrain). I'd consult with the player to see what they want their loss to be so that they get into it and it helps inform the way they play their character from that moment on.

 

[Leatherhead]

Dunno man, I suspect that death is a pretty big consequence for the character.

"Dude, you're dead. Is that consequential? Um, dude? Dude? ..... dude?"

"Oh, sorry, I was just chilling up here in the Twin Paradises of Bytopia"

Death doesn't seem like much of a punishment for some characters, when you think about it.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Semi-ot? Someone mentioned above.. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] said:

"If you kept the xp-for-gp rule, that - I think - puts you in the minority. Many if not most 1e DMs houseruled it out, and (perhaps because of this trend) 2e RAW dropped it as well.

And as the great majority of xp in 1e came from treasure, dropping that rule had huge (and, IMO, very positive) effects on advancement rate: it slowed to a crawl."

I dropped it back in/around '85 or so. It stayed that way for me in all my campaigns for a good 18 years or so (+/-2). Then someone...I think it was Gary himself, actually, commented to me about the reasoning. The reasoning for the XP=GP thing was to more or less "level the playing field" between classes. Each class needed it's own XP amount. Orcs were worth 10xp. Kobolds worth 5xp. Ogres worth 125xp. Minotaurs were worth 275xp. (IIRC, all from memory). Thing was, a lone fighter in plate mail with shield and a sword could kill a half dozen kobolds without breaking a sweat. A lone magic-user with magic missile could, if he won initiative, kill one or two kobolds. Then he'd be in a fight for his live vs the last three. Was quintet worth 25xp to BOTH the fighter and the magic-user? By the rules...yes.

In short, there was a lot riding on how 'tough' the character was in regards to success in many combat situations (which is a lot of the basic D&D game, honestly...at least for the first 8 levels or so).

Enter the idea of GP for XP. Now, if the magic user could use ventriloquism to luer the kobolds away, he could sneak in and grab the 50gp gem they were guarding. The fighter could just rush in and kill, then grab the 50gp gem. The thief could hide in shadows, sneak in, pick pocket it, and sneak out with that 50gp gem. The cleric could fight, or spell, or maybe even talk/convert long enough to get that 50gp gem. The end result being that EACH of the classes obtained that gem in their own way, using their classes 'forte'.

In early 2000's, that explanation as to why the GP=XP thing existed, suddenly made all the sense in the world. It still does. I now, when I DM 5th, only give about half xp for monsters, but I give full 1:1 xp for treasure (GP). Currently DM'ing a Basic D&D campaign for the last month or so. Gods I forgot how much I love this game! In it, I'm giveing full xp for monsters, AND 1:1 for GP:XP. But then again, in BECMI we have 36 levels plus another 36 (?) as Immortals....not that we've ever gotten basic characters farther than level 14.

Anyway....sorry for the demi-derail. I guess this would tie into costs of raising from the dead. Maybe the cost of Raising is subtracted from the characters XP total as well? This MIGHT result in a level loss...or maybe not. But that's a penalty that isn't uber detrimental, but it probably makes enough of a dent to be noticeable (and this, a deterrent from getting yourself killed).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sadras]

Some have it that revival funds for those who died on party business come straight out of party treasury before division; thus the party pays for the revival rather than the individual. Some other groups set up what amounts to an insurance program, where each character pays into a pooled fund ahead of time and this fund is used for revival costs. (some time ago my group tried the insurance-program idea but only about half the PCs were willing to pay in...so much for that idea)

(raises hand) - I'm running a group now which has a pooled fund for the adventuring company. So once income/treasure is earned/gained, a percentage automatically goes into the pool fund before its split to its respective members, hence the campaign's name Darokin: The Accounting

 

[24Fanatic365]

If the player would have made a different decision for the character, had the player known more about the world and how it worked, then the decision was made incorrectly; the player thought that's what the character would have done, but they were wrong, as they are now aware.

It's also possible to play a reckless barbarian, of course, who would have done the exact same thing even if they'd known how dangerous a goblin is to an inexperienced character. If the player would have made the same decision, even knowing how dangerous goblins can be, then the character was played correctly... although perhaps not on purpose.

I don't want to read too much into this story, but it sounds to me like the player may have been operating under a misconception about how powerful a goblin is relative to a level 1 character. In many games, a level 1 character can mow through goblins like they were nothing.

I had ABSOLUTELY no idea how powerful a goblin was to my first level character. Complete misplay on my part. I learned from the mistake, though, and I rage in 90 percent of my combat encounters now. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wulffolk]

A game in which death is not penalized is like playing in a sports league that doesn't keep score and gives everybody a participation trophy. Both are relatively recent concepts in relation to my age and experience. Maybe the two are linked, and just a symptom of generational differences.

I think that D&D suffers a little from it's shaky foundation here. It started as a war game and tried to evolve into a role-playing game. It got stuck somewhere in the middle. I think that it would do better if it chose one of those paths to focus on. Either be a competitive combat and magic game with well-defined rules that inspires a hint of role-playing, or be a narrative dramatic storytelling and role-playing system that utilizes light rules to organize game play. I don't think that it is possible to cater to both groups very well with the same game.