PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] The Death Penalty



PId6
2009-08-22, 08:19 PM
One aspect of 3.5 I really dislike is the fact that you lose a level after death. From a player's perspective, having to retread old ground and lose the Cool ThingsTM you gained last level is annoying and disheartening, especially if it's from some freak critical hit off of a random encounter or an annoying critical failure on a saving throw.

From a DM's perspective, you have to rebalance your encounters to avoid TPKs when that happens, especially if the one killed had some important role in the party (like wizard or cleric). Plus, a lower level character is even more likely to die, so the cycle could continue repeatedly with the same person dying again and again. You could do your best to avoid killing off anyone each encounter, but that requires very careful balancing and may lead to DM fiat just to keep someone alive.

So, any solutions to this? If you eliminate the level loss though, would that also make death too much of a revolving door? 5000 GP is steep at low levels, but it quickly becomes pocket change as level goes up. What would be some way to remove the level loss but still keep death from losing its frightful aspect? I suppose an escalating GP cost can work, or perhaps an XP cost that's still lower than losing a whole level. Or possibly a penalty to something. I know 4e gives a -1 penalty to attack/skills/saves, but that feels like a slap on the wrist to me. What are some good alternatives to this?

arguskos
2009-08-22, 08:23 PM
My method is to make death permanent, at least permanent enough to require a long involved quest to retrieve the soul of a dead comrade.

Basically, you can't just *BING!* rez someone in my games. You have to earn it, either by talking to their god, finding their soul, or bargaining with eldritch powers. Death was meant to be a big deal, and so it is now.

Course, I bet that's not the answer you wanted, was it? :smallwink:

sadi
2009-08-22, 08:26 PM
You could always implement the original 1st version of - 1 con per death with permanent death once you've been raised a total of your starting con score. I've never liked the level loss myself, but I tend to play a smart caster so when I died the whole party got wiped and we're all boned anyhow.

vrellum
2009-08-22, 08:27 PM
I agree with PId6. Permanent or nearly permanent death is the best solution imo.

Faleldir
2009-08-22, 08:27 PM
I suggest ability burn. It can only be restored by resting, so even when the spell becomes cheap, it's a major inconvenience that could make you fail your quest.

JonestheSpy
2009-08-22, 08:31 PM
So, any solutions to this?

Um, take levels in Expert and the Craft(Shoes) feat and stay home where it's safe?

Seriously, death has to have some consequence. Characters (and their players) should fear death, in my humble opinion.

PId6
2009-08-22, 08:40 PM
My method is to make death permanent, at least permanent enough to require a long involved quest to retrieve the soul of a dead comrade.

Basically, you can't just *BING!* rez someone in my games. You have to earn it, either by talking to their god, finding their soul, or bargaining with eldritch powers. Death was meant to be a big deal, and so it is now.

Course, I bet that's not the answer you wanted, was it? :smallwink:
That works for certain types of games, but you really can't go on epic soul-hunting quests when you're only level 7 or 8 or something. Permanent death can work if you've the right group, but if players put a lot into their characters and take the time to write long backgrounds, taking all that away with an unlucky crit is really just mean. And you can bet they're probably not going to put as much effort into their next backstory if their previous one was killed off in the first session.


I suggest ability burn. It can only be restored by resting, so even when the spell becomes cheap, it's a major inconvenience that could make you fail your quest.
Problem with that is, as long as you're not in any kind of urgent situation, that's really no hindrance at all. Just wait it out.


Seriously, death has to have some consequence. Characters (and their players) should fear death, in my humble opinion.
Which is exactly what I'm asking: how to make death still relevant without keeping level loss. I've listed problems to the normal mechanic; the point of the game is to have fun, and if someone dies multiple times and ends up with a level 4 character in a level 9 group, they're probably not having much fun.

Jack_Simth
2009-08-22, 08:43 PM
What are some good alternatives to this?
There really aren't any good solutions for this.

Cheap death makes death... cheap. Expensive death (a long drawn-out quest for a resurrection) means the player is sitting on the sidelines for one or more sessions. Permanent death just means a replacement character ... making death cheap again.

When it comes down to it, it's "okay, how much do we want death to sting". Loss of a level? Reduced XP, and a negative level until your XP reaches your level? Ability point reduction? Strange changes to the character? Roll up a new character? But that's a preference, so you the best you can hope for online is fodder to see something that triggers an "ooh, that looks good" reaction from you.

PId6
2009-08-22, 08:46 PM
But that's a preference, so you the best you can hope for online is fodder to see something that triggers an "ooh, that looks good" reaction from you.
Yeah, pretty much what I'm going for. Just looking for some suggestions or idea that might work and picking it up if I like it, possibly spurring some discussion in the process.

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-22, 08:57 PM
...taking all that away with an unlucky crit is really just mean...

Then don't let this happen. Given that you've mentioned this twice now as the key problem that makes it feel bad, this is the part to avoid. (So this advice is tailored to that perceived problem - the pointless death dictated by fickle dice.) Fudge to avoid empty deaths. Reserve death for instances where the character intentionally stood in and took the extra blows or otherwise sacrificed themselves (heroic death) or where they played poorly or stubbornly or otherwise earned it (deserved death). I've played games like this. They do lessen the sting of death but also dampen the thrill of victory and sense of danger. But at least we knew we weren't going to die a pointless death and that our characters would live long if they lived smart and could pick their place to make a stand and risk it all.

But really, I agree that it's a dangerous world out there. As long as the DM isn't purposefully gunning for someone's character, I think people should accept that death is a major risk in an adventurer's life. Not every would-be hero gets to make it to world-renowned hero. That's what makes it so sweet for those that do.

mikej
2009-08-22, 09:02 PM
Seriously, death has to have some consequence. Characters (and their players) should fear death, in my humble opinion.

Agreed, if the consequences of death are minor than it takes away a lot of the dangers and trills of adventuring.

Fizban
2009-08-22, 09:06 PM
Jack Smith got the one I like the looks of: permanent negative level until the next time you level up. In some ways it's worse, since the -1 attacks and saves is probably more than you would have lost from the level, but you get to keep your class abilities. Instead of losing all your 5th level spells when being res'd at 9th, you instead lose one per day. Enough to hurt, but not enough to cripple if you had more than one. For non-casters, you won't lose your bonus feat or sneak attack dice or other features.

As for making death matter, while I'm open to any kind of game, I usually assume that as players our characters are the designated heroes and get to do stuff like come back from the dead if needed. Partly because I just play for fun and partly because the spells for it are already in the rules. Since you're looking for options I think it's pretty clear you want resurrection magic to be around, so I think the above would work.

josh13905
2009-08-22, 09:09 PM
How about this to trigger the that looks good reaction:

Keep the Standard death penalty, but add a twist, when the character israised then a deity/devil/eldritch power meets his soul right before it is sent back to his body and tries to make a deal with him, something like this maybe:

You are being raised as but a shard of your former self, I can restore you to your full power, but you must make a binding pact.
Put Deal or whatever here, or write up a contract with some way of completing it

Maybe the contract could be killing an enemy of the diety/power/devil or getting an item, or something. Through in a penalty if you want say -2 to ability score until completed.

The best part, they can choose to say no and lose a level if they want.

Kizara
2009-08-22, 09:12 PM
Make res spells more costly and difficult to cast. I did the following:

a) To res someone its 1000 gp + 1000 gp per level, in diamond dust or what-have-you.

b) The casting time is in days, instead of minutes. It takes 1 day + 1 day per level.

c) It costs 500 xp + 250 xp per level.

d) True Ressurectino costs half as much but takes twice as long as the above. It also doesn't need a body etc.

e) Reincarnation also costs half as much, but also takes half as long as the above.

Note: The per-level in the above points refers to the level of the ressie, in case there was any confusion.

Now, as its far more expensive to get ressed, you balance the lack of level loss with a hit to general party resources. If you feel that the party is now under-wealthed, simply be generous in the next dragon horde.

OPTIONAL RULE:

The above costs can be cut in half with Spellcraft check from the caster in question (DC= 20 + spell level + level of person being ressed), however this leaves the recepient ressie shaken, tormented with nightmares etc as his soul was quickly yanked through the negative energy plane. It also leaves him with 1d6+2 permanent ability drain, per ability. This drain can be removed by spells such as Greater Restoration, as normal (and when this is done, the nightmares and such generally subside, but its still a lasting trauma).

JonestheSpy
2009-08-22, 09:14 PM
Which is exactly what I'm asking: how to make death still relevant without keeping level loss. I've listed problems to the normal mechanic; the point of the game is to have fun, and if someone dies multiple times and ends up with a level 4 character in a level 9 group, they're probably not having much fun.

Well, there's always starting a new character.

I know folks get attached to characters, myself included, but I just don't think that it's a net benefit to the game if people feel they have some kind of entitlement to surving the entire campaign relatively unscathed.

Heroes in books and movies almost always survive, but they don't KNOW they're going to. Players shouldn't feel they're THE heroes - maybe it turns out they're part of that "Countless seekers have undetaken this quest only to fail horribly..." contingent.

The one practical suggestion I can think of is to strip the character of EVERYTHING - all treasure, all magic items. Might be hard to justify if the other players say "But we brought his stuff with us! It's right here". Maybe the gods demand it in payment and the newly rezzed must enter the owrld like unto a newborn babe etc. of course this only works in a campaign that's loot-heavy enough that it would be a real blow, but not so loot-heavy that it can all be replanished easily.

Edit: Kizara's suggestions have merit, too.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 09:18 PM
So you essentially think the best way to lessen the sting of death is to make it so that the methods of restoring players from death make them so weak they are useless? There's a reason DM's generally don't do MDJs, but you are basically suggesting it's built into every character death.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 09:18 PM
Death penalties are dumb. If you want the game to be dark and gritty and death to be a real problem, just go with perma-death. If you don't, have plenty of magic on hand to rez anyone who dies with a small fee.

Jack_Simth
2009-08-22, 09:23 PM
Yeah, pretty much what I'm going for. Just looking for some suggestions or idea that might work and picking it up if I like it, possibly spurring some discussion in the process.
Ah. Well, let's see... methods I've heard of in various places....

1) Reduced Level (default, we're all familiar with this one).
2) Long-term negative level: You reduce the character's XP to match what you would get, above, and inflict them with a negative level (-5 HP, -1 to all rolls, -1 to all level-dependent effects such as caster level, -1 spell slot of your highest available spell level) that only goes away once they re-earn enough XP to be at their "actual" level again.
3) Comes back twisted. Roll a d100, and consult the following table (or make a similar one)
{table=Head]d100|Effect
1|Take a permanent -2 to Strength
2|Take a permanent -2 to Dexterity
3|Take a permanent -2 to Constitution
4|Take a permanent -2 to Intelligence
5|Take a permanent -2 to Wisdom
6|Take a permanent -2 to Charisma
7|Gain a permanent +1 to Strength
8|Gain a permanent +1 to Dexterity
9|Gain a permanent +1 to Constitution
10|Gain a permanent +1 to Intelligence
11|Gain a permanent +1 to Wisdom
12|Gain a permanent +1 to Charisma
13|Gain a 0th level spell as a spell-like ability, usable once per day (player choice).
14|Gain a 1st level spell as a spell-like ability, usable once per day (player choice).
15|Gain a 2nd level spell as a spell-like ability, usable once per day (player choice).
16-25|Nothing happens, you come back normal.
26-35|Lose a level (as death type 1, above)
36-45|Gain a long-term negative level (as death type 2, above)
46-50|Alignment shift one step towards Chaotic
51-55|Alignment Shift one step towards Lawful
56-60|Alignment Shift one step towards Good
61-65|Alignment Shift one step towards Evil
66-100|Nothing of note happens.
[/table]
4) Take a permanent -1 to Con.
5) Disney Death (you're fine!)
6) You don't come back.

kpenguin
2009-08-22, 09:28 PM
Try REAL permanant death. If their character dies, kick the player out of the game. After all, they're dead and don't exist anymore.

Extra points if you get them to hang themselves from being distraught over the death.

While you're at it, promise your surviving players that if they grind long enough, you'll teach them real magic. That'll give them motivation enough to both stay alive and take risks to level.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 09:28 PM
Why are there two nothing of notes? And what if the character is a cleric; shifting alignment would involve making his character totally useless.

And when you say permanent, are you talking "it can never come back" permanent, or could something powerful (like wish/miracle) bring it back?

Jack_Simth
2009-08-22, 09:31 PM
Why are there two nothing of notes?
Because I was running out of ideas and needed fill space.

And what if the character is a cleric; shifting alignment would involve making his character totally useless.
And? It's one step. If you start your character out at your deity's alignment, it takes two unlucky deaths to violate your alignment restrictions.


And when you say permanent, are you talking "it can never come back" permanent, or could something powerful (like wish/miracle) bring it back?
Permanent permanent.


Try REAL permanant death. If their character dies, kick the player out of the game. After all, they're dead and don't exist anymore.

Catch: You'll quickly run out of players in most areas if you do this.


While you're at it, promise your surviving players that if they grind long enough, you'll teach them real magic. That'll give them motivation enough to both stay alive and take risks to level.A promise is only a useful motivator if it's credible.

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-22, 09:33 PM
Death penalties are dumb. If you want the game to be dark and gritty and death to be a real problem, just go with perma-death. If you don't, have plenty of magic on hand to rez anyone who dies with a small fee.

That's a false dichotomy, though. What if you want something in the middle?

As for the OP, if what you want is non-empty deaths, I think you have to handle that as a judgment call in the first case by not letting those deaths happen, rather than by rule penalties attached to resurrection. And I guess if what you want is a penalty less harsh than a lost level, a negative level until your next level gain seems simple enough. Or some other penalty that lingers. I think an argument could be made for a minor penalty to any of the attributes that just takes a while to shake off (Charisma, oddity of the afterlife effects personality or merely others perceptions; Constitution, the taxing nature of the journey leaves it's mark, etc.)

kpenguin
2009-08-22, 09:42 PM
Catch: You'll quickly run out of players in most areas if you do this.

Then obviously you play with pansies. If Marcie lets Blackleaf die then its her fault and nobody elses and she deserves to be punished for it.



A promise is only a useful motivator if it's credible.

Who says its not?

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 09:43 PM
I still find it a bad idea to give alignment shifts for the fact that you get raised... it can completely invalidate the mechanical and roleplaying reasons for playing a character.

kpenguin
2009-08-22, 09:45 PM
I still find it a bad idea to give alignment shifts for the fact that you get raised... it can completely invalidate the mechanical and roleplaying reasons for playing a character.

Mechanical perhaps in certain cases, but an alignment shift can make for an interesting and rewarding roleplaying experience.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 09:48 PM
Mechanical perhaps in certain cases, but an alignment shift can make for an interesting and rewarding roleplaying experience.

Sure, it could, or you could also have a specific character in mind that's, say, very good and somewhat chaotic... and then be shifted down to Neutral, and there goes all that roleplaying.

Seffbasilisk
2009-08-22, 09:48 PM
Get True Ressurection to avoid mechanical penalties, make it an arduous quest to acquire the diamonds if you want it more difficult plot-wise.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 09:50 PM
That's a false dichotomy, though. What if you want something in the middle?

You shouldn't, because everything in the middle is dumb. Either the penalty is high enough that your character now sucks, which means you might as well make another one (unless that would also include penalties which make you suck, in which case the party just become worse and worse and you need to rewrite the campaign or you end up with a TPK, and it's no fun along the way). Or it's low enough that you basically just need to grind for a while to make it up which is bad because grinding is boring and dumb.

There's no middle ground there. Death has enough other problems associated with it (such as failing your mission or wasting in game time which may let the bad guys do bad things) that having a mechanical penalty on the dead character pointless and ultimately just detrimental to having fun.

Furthermore, it is unfair to certain classes over others. Tanks have to be in danger of dying in order to fulfill their role in the party. As do all other melee characters. Casters one the other hand can be well out of danger behind various defenses while killing things.

AslanCross
2009-08-22, 09:50 PM
Death penalties are dumb. If you want the game to be dark and gritty and death to be a real problem, just go with perma-death. If you don't, have plenty of magic on hand to rez anyone who dies with a small fee.

As has been mentioned above, throwing resurrection completely out the window has the possibility of actually cheapening death: "Oh, I guess that's it for Fergus the Flammable. Sigh. Oh hey, I have a backup character prepared that I've been dying to use..."

In fact, I once had a guy in my group who wanted to get his character killed because he screwed up the build and didn't know what he was doing the first time.

The negative level sounds like a good compromise---getting pulled back into the realm of the living hurts, but if you work hard enough you can get back into shape without losing all the goodies you've already gotten.

Skorj
2009-08-22, 09:51 PM
That's a false dichotomy, though. What if you want something in the middle?

As for the OP, if what you want is non-empty deaths, I think you have to handle that as a judgment call in the first case by not letting those deaths happen, rather than by rule penalties attached to resurrection. And I guess if what you want is a penalty less harsh than a lost level, a negative level until your next level gain seems simple enough. Or some other penalty that lingers. I think an argument could be made for a minor penalty to any of the attributes that just takes a while to shake off (Charisma, oddity of the afterlife effects personality or merely others perceptions; Constitution, the taxing nature of the journey leaves it's mark, etc.)

If you want something in the middle, do what many MMOs do: have a non-permanent penalty for death. You operate at a serious penalty for some time after death.

Games should be fun. In a level-based game, perma-death pretty much means the player needs to join a new group, as he'll be basically useless with a new level 1 character (unless the party is still 1-2, or course). That's about as "not fun" as you can get. Permanent death penalties are bad in the same way, just not to the same extreme. Die a few times, instead of once, and it's time to find a new gaming group.

I run brutal campaigns. Life is cheap. Death had better be cheap too, or no one would enjoy the game. In my longest campaign (ran for 5 years, and the players seemed happy with how it worked), being raised from the dead by any means mean you're hors de combat for two weeks game time. No spells, no combat, but you can stagger around, observe what's hapening, and participate in diplomacy. In practice this worked just right. Players feared the death of their characters, and only deliberately risked death in battle in circumstances where heoism of that sort was appropriate (avoiding a TPK or slaughter of innocents), but no one ever quit the group because of character death.

Of course, if you allow players to bring in replacement characters at the same level as the party, that's the ultimate cheap death, and there's hardly any reason to have any sort of rez. That sort of campaign can be fun for a while.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 09:56 PM
As has been mentioned above, throwing resurrection completely out the window has the possibility of actually cheapening death: "Oh, I guess that's it for Fergus the Flammable. Sigh. Oh hey, I have a backup character prepared that I've been dying to use..."

Death should always be cheap enough so that it doesn't ruin the fun of the game. But people will want to keep playing their current characters so they will still avoid it while playing.


In fact, I once had a guy in my group who wanted to get his character killed because he screwed up the build and didn't know what he was doing the first time.

1) Why aren't you using rebuilding.

2) Why isn't he just switching to his new character and putting the old one on a bus.

UserClone
2009-08-22, 09:58 PM
You could try instituting an XP debt instead, where you incur negative XP equal to the amount you'd have lost to get you halfway from your previous level to your current level, then you have to pay that all off before you can begin advancing again. That way you don't actually go down, you just cease going up for a while.

kpenguin
2009-08-22, 10:00 PM
Sure, it could, or you could also have a specific character in mind that's, say, very good and somewhat chaotic... and then be shifted down to Neutral, and there goes all that roleplaying.

But you don't throw out all that roleplaying out the window. The personality of your character isn't totally rewritten. Who the character once was is still there and reconciling that the new slightly different person is the same as the one who died makes for an interesting roleplaying opportunity.

Skorj
2009-08-22, 10:03 PM
But you don't throw out all that roleplaying out the window. The personality of your character isn't totally rewritten. Who the character once was is still there and reconciling that the new slightly different person is the same as the one who died makes for an interesting roleplaying opportunity.

Perhaps for some. If I can't play the character concept I enjoy, I'll move to a new one. There's almost no chance that that sort of change will be a new character concept that I enjoy.


You could try instituting an XP debt instead, where you incur negative XP equal to the amount you'd have lost to get you halfway from your previous level to your current level, then you have to pay that all off before you can begin advancing again. That way you don't actually go down, you just cease going up for a while.

But that has the same long-term problem as any level-loss mechanic. Once you get far enough behind the party, you cease to contribute. Any "die N times and you're permanently useless" game mechanic is, well, permanenty useless.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:03 PM
But you don't throw out all that roleplaying out the window. The personality of your character isn't totally rewritten. Who the character once was is still there and reconciling that the new slightly different person is the same as the one who died makes for an interesting roleplaying opportunity.

The shift from being very good to being neutral is huge... and if you aren't changing your personality much from that, then you aren't playing the alignment shift anyway so you might as well not have it.

Elfin
2009-08-22, 10:04 PM
My method is to make death permanent, at least permanent enough to require a long involved quest to retrieve the soul of a dead comrade.

Basically, you can't just *BING!* rez someone in my games. You have to earn it, either by talking to their god, finding their soul, or bargaining with eldritch powers. Death was meant to be a big deal, and so it is now.

Course, I bet that's not the answer you wanted, was it? :smallwink:

I agree. Getting rezzed is very, very rare in my games, and very hard.

UserClone
2009-08-22, 10:06 PM
Ooh! Or you could, as one poster previously suggested, make rezzes work like
Miracle Max's pill!

"D'ya think it'll woik?"

"It'd take a miracle."

Skorj
2009-08-22, 10:07 PM
I agree. Getting rezzed is very, very rare in my games, and very hard.

So, tell me, why do players stay with your group after character death?

Teron
2009-08-22, 10:09 PM
You could use the revivify spell. It's basically raise dead as a standard action with no penalty, but it needs to be cast within a round of the character's death. Perfect for dealing with freak crits and the like where the rest of the party is still alive and functional, but less practical for "deserved" deaths where a blunder or some such leaves the corpse out of immediate reach. It also works nicely as a last chance in otherwise no-rez games.

I think it appeared in a couple different sources.

PId6
2009-08-22, 10:09 PM
Hmm, I'm leaning towards negative level until next level and/or ability burn until next level. Should it stack though? I mean, if you die multiple times before a new level, should the penalties add up? On the one hand, death doesn't become painless if you've already died this level. On the other hand, if you keep getting penalties, you're more likely to keep dying, which isn't fun.

The random table idea sounds fun, though I normally try to avoid too much chance in a campaign, simply because the player's actual accomplishments become less relevant. But I can see using that in a less serious campaign where we're just out for a good time. Actually, it might be even better to ban Raise Dead altogether and make it a Reincarnation-only campaign. That'd be fun. :smallbiggrin:


Then don't let this happen. Given that you've mentioned this twice now as the key problem that makes it feel bad, this is the part to avoid. (So this advice is tailored to that perceived problem - the pointless death dictated by fickle dice.) Fudge to avoid empty deaths. Reserve death for instances where the character intentionally stood in and took the extra blows or otherwise sacrificed themselves (heroic death) or where they played poorly or stubbornly or otherwise earned it (deserved death). I've played games like this. They do lessen the sting of death but also dampen the thrill of victory and sense of danger. But at least we knew we weren't going to die a pointless death and that our characters would live long if they lived smart and could pick their place to make a stand and risk it all.
I agree to a degree, but there's only so far you can go with this. Any time someone casts a death spell, for example, you have at least 5% chance of dying. Yes, I can avoid casting those spells, but there still are numerous such ways that accidental death can happen, that aren't so easily fudged. And it becomes noticeable if you keep doing it.

To an extent, I do like the thrill of having a chance of dying in battle. At the very least, it can make for a good story. But that's only if you're not unfairly and permanently gimped in the process. Costing the party GP and giving you a penalty for a while, fine, teaches you to be more careful in the future. Costing a level just makes me want to polymorph into something immune to critical hits, death effects, massive damage, etc etc.

Edit: I also like the revivify idea, though it's less viable when there's no cleric in the party. An item of revivify could work though.

The Neoclassic
2009-08-22, 10:12 PM
Hmm, I'm leaning towards negative level until next level and/or ability burn until next level. Should it stack though? I mean, if you die multiple times before a new level, should the penalties add up? On the one hand, death doesn't become painless if you've already died this level. On the other hand, if you keep getting penalties, you're more likely to keep dying, which isn't fun.

I agree that this is a good idea. I may actually use that in my games, now that I think of it. I'd recommend that the penalties keep stacking; something is probably out-of-whack if a player actually dies more than twice between levels, and just -2 to things or -2 to some ability score isn't *that* awful. Not "Roll over and play dead- you're that useless" awful, at least. :smallsmile:

Jack_Simth
2009-08-22, 10:14 PM
Then obviously you play with pansies. If Marcie lets Blackleaf die then its her fault and nobody elses and she deserves to be punished for it.

Can you skip the ad hominins? They don't add anything worthwhile to the debate.

Besides, that's not what I was referring to. I'm surprised I need to spell this out, but suppose you've got eight reasonably potential players.

After the first PC death, you now have seven potential players.
After the second, you now have six.
After the third, you now have five.
After the fourth, you now have four.
After the fifth, you can no longer field a full party.
After the sixth, there's only two players.
After the seventh, you've only got one potential player, and it is no longer a particularly social activity anymore.
After player death number eight, you must either reset the listing, or be left without any players to DM.


Who says its not?
In roughly 99% of cases, most will not believe that you know real magic sufficiently to teach it without a demonstration, irrespective of whether the individual in question believes that magic exists or not.

Teron
2009-08-22, 10:14 PM
Druids also get revivify, if that helps, as well as any other class that uses the cleric or druid spell list. Failing that, as you said, there's always items (and if you don't have any of those classes, you probably need a good UMDer anyway).

AslanCross
2009-08-22, 10:15 PM
Death should always be cheap enough so that it doesn't ruin the fun of the game. But people will want to keep playing their current characters so they will still avoid it while playing.

1) Why aren't you using rebuilding.

2) Why isn't he just switching to his new character and putting the old one on a bus.

At the same time, it should you know, feel like a death. In order to avoid people being able to do nothing for the rest of the session, I do tell them to make backup characters. However, I don't think they should actually look forward to dying, especially if it encourages them to make stupid decisions (which may have worse consequences than their characters simply dying) or throw themselves into magma chasms just so they can change characters.

I wasn't the DM then, and frankly it was his fault that he screwed up his build. He was the most notorious optimizer in the group and yet he couldn't think of how to put his character together at chargen. Instead he whined about it endlessly when he realized his build wasn't doing anything. He didn't switch out his character all of a sudden because the DM didn't want to give in to his whining, and we were in the middle of a dungeon.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:15 PM
Can you skip the ad hominins? They don't add anything worthwhile to the debate.

Besides, that's not what I was referring to. I'm surprised I need to spell this out, but suppose you've got eight reasonably potential players.

After the first PC death, you now have seven potential players.
After the second, you now have six.
After the third, you now have five.
After the fourth, you now have four.
After the fifth, you can no longer field a full party.
After the sixth, there's only two players.
After the seventh, you've only got one potential player, and it is no longer a particularly social activity anymore.
After player death number eight, you must either reset the listing, or be left without any players to DM.

In roughly 99% of cases, most will not believe that you know real magic sufficiently to teach it without a demonstration, irrespective of whether the individual in question believes that magic exists or not.

He's being sarcastic. After he suggested you literally kill the players for having their characters die, it's pretty obvious he's either joking badly or trolling obviously.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 10:17 PM
At the same time, it should you know, feel like a death. In order to avoid people being able to do nothing for the rest of the session, I do tell them to make backup characters. However, I don't think they should actually look forward to dying, especially if it encourages them to make stupid decisions or throw themselves into magma chasms just so they can change characters.

I wasn't the DM then, and frankly it was his fault that he screwed up his build. He was the most notorious optimizer in the group and yet he couldn't think of how to put his character together at chargen. Instead he whined about it endlessly when he realized his build wasn't doing anything. He didn't switch out his character all of a sudden because the DM didn't want to give in to his whining, and we were in the middle of a dungeon.

If you have people playing characters they don't want to play, your problem is not with your death mechanics.

EDIT:

Also, everyone not getting the Chic-tract reference hereby loses all DnD nerd cred.

chiasaur11
2009-08-22, 10:18 PM
He's being sarcastic. After he suggested you literally kill the players for having their characters die, it's pretty obvious he's either joking badly or trolling obviously.

He's referencing an infamous Chick track.

Fairly likely he's joking.

Xenogears
2009-08-22, 10:20 PM
{scrubbed}

Teron
2009-08-22, 10:21 PM
Are there really D&D players interested enough to post on dedicated message boards who don't know the name Blackleaf? :smallconfused:

kpenguin
2009-08-22, 10:21 PM
I was making an oblique reference to Dark Dungeons, guys. I apologize for the failed attempt at humor.


The shift from being very good to being neutral is huge... and if you aren't changing your personality much from that, then you aren't playing the alignment shift anyway so you might as well not have it.

I'm not saying that your personality should stay completely the same. What I am saying is that your personality isn't totally rewritten, unless your character is/was absolutely dedicated to the cause of good that he has no other character traits.

chiasaur11
2009-08-22, 10:23 PM
Are there really D&D players interested enough to post on dedicated message boards who don't know the name Blackleaf? :smallconfused:

Apparently yes.

(and also: I thought it was funny, for what it's worth.)

HamHam
2009-08-22, 10:24 PM
I was making an oblique reference to Dark Dungeons, guys. I apologize for the failed attempt at humor.

I thought it was funny.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:24 PM
I stopped reading the chick tracts after the first one I read... it's more depressing than it is funny, honestly.

And Kpenguin, if you build a character to be very good, being neutral is a huge change. It's taking them from "we must defend those innocents!" to "Eh... they probably can't pay us, c'mon guys."

A character can have other personality traits, sure. But those generally shape your alignment; it's really weird to have the completely selfless character get shifted over to neutral or even evil, and having the guy who enjoys playing pranks shifted over to lawful kind of ruins the character.

Edea
2009-08-22, 10:25 PM
So, any solutions to this?

I'd ask your players what they want. What'll probably happen is you getting a variety of responses ranging from 'GRIMDARK' to 'Insert Coin Here', but there should be a leaning towards one end of the spectrum or the other for any given group.

As a personal example, I play PnP RPGs with friends as a social event, mostly just to hang out/'kill' monsters or NPCs and take 'ph47 13W75.' I'm fairly extreme on the Resurrection scale towards not bothering with making it too complicated; 4e's take on it sums it up entirely. The 'sting' of death is a complete non-issue to me; all I really care about's actually playing, and my character personalities only grow as far as the game does because frankly I can't be assed to waste additional time on them given my RL schedule (as opposed to oodles upon oodles of exposition and backstory).

However, your group probably on average takes things somewhat more seriously, and some individuals take it significantly more so. If that's the case, find out their preferences by presenting a variety of different options. Maybe permanent death really does turns the group's crank (I know I wouldn't play in such a game to start with but whatever floats the boat), maybe the level reduction really is a sufficient feeling of loss and there isn't a problem, or maybe some other idea will creep up that hasn't been mentioned yet.

The one thing not to do is just slam something onto the group, that isn't the standard for whatever system/setting you're using, without discussing it with said group first (and I'm seeing multiple posts that just say 'Do (X)' without really giving this due consideration). If you say 'we're running CoC/Dark Sun/etc.', well then it's kind of obvious things are going to be unpleasant to start with, but if you started running an Eberron 4e game and on the first meeting day you suddenly announced 'no rezzes,' that's probably going to cause a slight ruckus.

I guess as a suggestion, you might be able to reconcile differences in this matter amongst the group by using time limits on getting certain tasks done, and then making a rez take a long period of time. Even if it carries no other penalties, if the rez makes you lose a day of progress and you only get so many days before 'something horrifying' happens, it'll cause suspense. More importantly, it'll do so without singling someone out to get hosed (unless they deserved it for doing something hilarious, then that player'll just get verbally accosted/teased).

Also, Blackleaf ****ING DESERVED IT.

Xenogears
2009-08-22, 10:26 PM
I was making an oblique reference to Dark Dungeons, guys. I apologize for the failed attempt at humor.

Well I thought it was funny. The fact that some people didn't get the reference was even funnier tho...


I'm not saying that your personality should stay completely the same. What I am saying is that your personality isn't totally rewritten, unless your character is/was absolutely dedicated to the cause of good that he has no other character traits.

What if they were a Paladin? Now they're not even mechanically viable.

Skorj
2009-08-22, 10:27 PM
If the character that died wasn't especially dear to them, they can just bring in a different one.

In that case, there's no actual death penalty at all? I like games like that - I'll come to a session with 3 or 4 characters prepped (if the week at work was dull). "Nah, don't bother to heal me, I'd just have to sleep to regain spells anyway."

You may think I'm joking, but my gaming group actually runs games like that between campaigns to give the next DM a couple months to build a world. You're required to have a backup character prepped at all times, and the best character ideas I've ever seen have come from that (of course, half of those would be totally game breaking in a real campaign).

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:28 PM
Well I thought it was funny. The fact that some people didn't get the reference was even funnier tho...

I still don't get why it's so hilarious I intentionally avoid bad writing. Yes, maybe it's famously bad, but I don't see the point in reading Chick Tracts just to get references.

AslanCross
2009-08-22, 10:28 PM
He's being sarcastic. After he suggested you literally kill the players for having their characters die, it's pretty obvious he's either joking badly or trolling obviously.

It's a reference to that Jack Chick tract about how D&D is a front for cult recruitment and causing suicide. The names Marcie and Blackleaf were the names used in it, if my memory serves me. The hanging is a giveaway.

EDIT: Lots of ninjas.


If you have people playing characters they don't want to play, your problem is not with your death mechanics.


Yes, that is true.
I'm sure we actually agree somewhere, but I don't think I've been communicating properly. What I'm trying to say is that the middle ground between "permanent death, no rez of any kind" and the "you never really die" that say, Neverwinter Nights 2 uses (characters killed during combat spontaneously get up after the encounter; only the death of every character in the party gets a game over) isn't all that bad.

I play and run mostly Eberron, where there are very few clerics who have enough levels to cast Resurrection. I can only think of ONE NPC who actually can cast Resurrection, and she's pretty much the loli pope. Getting the diamonds needed for the ritual is hard enough, but the lack of clerics to cast it make it a very difficult option. I don't think it's all that bizarre or unreasonable. (That said, the use of action points has saved my PCs' lives numerous times, which is pretty much how they balance it out.)

Zergrusheddie
2009-08-22, 10:29 PM
Every time you die, you can get a Resurrect. Hell, keep the original cost.

The downside? You must take a flaw take can actually impact your character. IE, no Wizards taking a -2 on Melee Attacks. Then have some way to remove these flaws that require a big long adventure. This makes Death less of a "Damn, now I have to go grind again!" and more of a "If I die again, I'm going to have to take a flaw than is really going to impact my character!" Once the Fighter runs out -4 Spot and Listen or -2 Ranged Combat flaws, he's going to have to start taking the really nasty ones.

Death is supposed to be a really hard thing to go through and your body is technically rotting, so wouldn't your hearing and eyesight be shot afterward?

Sallera
2009-08-22, 10:30 PM
With the right group, I think removing the Raise line and just keeping the Reincarnate line can be quite an incentive to not die, while still imposing little penalty in actual effectiveness if you can use Last Breath. I'm pretty sure one of my current parties fears death more, rather than less, since they know I always have a Last Breath prepared. :smallamused:

Mad Wizard
2009-08-22, 10:31 PM
I didn't read the rest of the thread, so this might have been suggested. In my games, I only have one resurrection spell: Revivify, which can only be cast (if I remember correctly) within one round of death. Basically, this makes it so that death is often permanent if the cleric doesn't have the right spells prepared or is a bit too far away, but if he's able to get to you in time, there's no annoying penalties that screw with the game. I feel it's the best of all worlds - you still have a chance of coming back from the dead, death becomes more permanent if you don't take action quickly, there are no annoying penalties, and you actually have a mechanical reason to want to be resurrected (assuming new characters would still come in at one level lower).

Kizara
2009-08-22, 10:31 PM
Guys, you realize you can RP your alignment back to where it was, right?

You can also get an Atonement spell (possibly from the very same cleric that ressed you). Its really not that big a bloody deal.

Even for a paladin, as it counts as a non-voluntary loss, he can be atoned without XP cost or extra hassle.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:31 PM
Death is supposed to be a really hard thing to go through and your body is technically rotting, so wouldn't your hearing and eyesight be shot afterward?


Considering cleric spells can restore pretty much any disease, illness, or physical deformity on somebody... no, not really. Casting ressurrection is going to turn that corpse into a fully functional human if it works anything like other cleric spells.

EDIT: As for Atonement, I assumed it didn't work; if Wish/Miracle can't get rid of the stat loss, why should you get rid of the alignment change with a single level 5 spell? Roleplaying your character back to whatever alignment is essentially ignoring the new alignment entirely.

rezplz
2009-08-22, 10:37 PM
The thing is, it's that level loss that makes a death penalty, well, a penalty. Being one or two levels behind the party shouldn't be too much for the smart player - if they're dying more than that, then there's either a problem with your DMing or the player. The system itself is not to blame.

But, if you're REALLY set on getting rid of the level-loss, then increase the price tag on it. A LOT. Sometimes the party will have to go on a quest just to get the funds to get their buddy back, and the time spent on that can be the worst punishment of all. Increase the casting time to like, a full day. Maybe get rid of the raise dead spell, and make it so that there's only ressurection spells.


Personally, I've always thought that ressurection should just be wiped out altogether, except for "unnatural" ressurection, such as undead. That way, a heroic death suddenly means something. The paladin standing in front of an undead horde to buy the villagers more time is suddenly less cool when the paladin comes back from the dead a few days later. But in general I've found that I'm the exception, not the norm, so I don't play like that.

Xenogears
2009-08-22, 10:39 PM
I still don't get why it's so hilarious I intentionally avoid bad writing. Yes, maybe it's famously bad, but I don't see the point in reading Chick Tracts just to get references.

Its funny in the sense of "I can't believe someone actually believes this."

Back to the topic though. Or a more relevant sub-topic i suppose. The alignment change is still lame even with atoning the alignment back since it hardly even affects most classes but seriously gimps others. A wizard won't care beyond RP'ing but a druid, cleric, paladin, etc. will basically lose all of their power for a while.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 10:41 PM
Yes, that is true.
I'm sure we actually agree somewhere, but I don't think I've been communicating properly. What I'm trying to say is that the middle ground between "permanent death, no rez of any kind" and the "you never really die" that say, Neverwinter Nights 2 uses (characters killed during combat spontaneously get up after the encounter; only the death of every character in the party gets a game over) isn't all that bad.

I disagree. Given the choice between losing a level and making a new character I will make a new character.

And an XP debt of some kind might belong in an MMO but I am not going to grind for XP in a freaking PnP RPG.

Coughing up the cash for a rez becomes easy enough at mid to high levels that it's rather pointless.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:42 PM
Its funny in the sense of "I can't believe someone actually believes this.".

Wait, wait, wait, what the hell? I never believed what he said for a second. I said he was being sarcastic (I didn't get the reference, because I don't see the point of feeding hits to Jack Chick to realize that there really are people as crazy as him out there); it was somebody else who appeared to believe him by stating that every time you kicked a player out there were less people to play with.

Kizara
2009-08-22, 10:44 PM
The thing is, it's that level loss that makes a death penalty, well, a penalty. Being one or two levels behind the party shouldn't be too much for the smart player - if they're dying more than that, then there's either a problem with your DMing or the player. The system itself is not to blame.

But, if you're REALLY set on getting rid of the level-loss, then increase the price tag on it. A LOT. Sometimes the party will have to go on a quest just to get the funds to get their buddy back, and the time spent on that can be the worst punishment of all. Increase the casting time to like, a full day. Maybe get rid of the raise dead spell, and make it so that there's only ressurection spells.


Like, you know, this? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6777550&postcount=14)

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:46 PM
The thing is, your res makes it sound like it costs a lot... but it really doesn't. A bit higher cost, a bit of an EXP penalty, and a slightly bigger downtime that you pretty much have to skip over as DM because nobody wants to sit around RPing stuff for two weeks of game time while the cleric is chanting "Resurrection!" and one player is being slowly brought back to the land of the living.

Yes, a long casting time makes it sound worse. But unless the players have no downtime ever, it isn't going to change anything.

PId6
2009-08-22, 10:48 PM
However, your group probably on average takes things somewhat more seriously, and some individuals take it significantly more so. If that's the case, find out their preferences by presenting a variety of different options. Maybe permanent death really does turns the group's crank (I know I wouldn't play in such a game to start with but whatever floats the boat), maybe the level reduction really is a sufficient feeling of loss and there isn't a problem, or maybe some other idea will creep up that hasn't been mentioned yet.
This is mostly prepping for future PBP games if I find the time to start another one. In PBP, combat is really quite slow and doesn't pull its own weight nearly as much as actual live sessions, so roleplaying gets a lot more focus (usually). Hence the need for well-written backgrounds and well-prepared characters. That's why permanent death is a pretty terrible idea there; if you're spending a lot of time and effort writing your character's background, having it all taken away is just dreadful.


The one thing not to do is just slam something onto the group, that isn't the standard for whatever system/setting you're using, without discussing it with said group first (and I'm seeing multiple posts that just say 'Do (X)' without really giving this due consideration). If you say 'we're running CoC/Dark Sun/etc.', well then it's kind of obvious things are going to be unpleasant to start with, but if you started running an Eberron 4e game and on the first meeting day you suddenly announced 'no rezzes,' that's probably going to cause a slight ruckus.
I probably should have said it earlier, but yeah, not as applicable with PBP since players are chosen after the game, with all its rules, is announced. But yeah, I agree that that's definitely a good idea to ask your players if you're thinking of implementing something different with an existing group.


I guess as a suggestion, you might be able to reconcile differences in this matter amongst the group by using time limits on getting certain tasks done, and then making a rez take a long period of time. Even if it carries no other penalties, if the rez makes you lose a day of progress and you only get so many days before 'something horrifying' happens, it'll cause suspense. More importantly, it'll do so without singling someone out to get hosed (unless they deserved it for doing something hilarious, then that player'll just get verbally accosted/teased).
I could see this as a good plan in combination with Revivify and the like. Revivify them within 1 round of death, or resurrect them 6 months later.


What if they were a Paladin? Now they're not even mechanically viable.
When are paladins ever mechanically viable? :smalltongue:

HamHam
2009-08-22, 10:49 PM
Dark Dungeons is a cultural artifact. It is a part of every DnD player's heritage.

Milskidasith
2009-08-22, 10:51 PM
EDIT: Let's drop this discussion.

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-22, 10:51 PM
Dark Dungeons is a cultural artifact. It is a part of every DnD player's heritage.

Sheriff of Moddingham: It's also a religious tract, so if people could not reference or link it here, that'd be better for all concerned.

Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)


The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics)....Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)

AslanCross
2009-08-22, 10:55 PM
I disagree. Given the choice between losing a level and making a new character I will make a new character.

And an XP debt of some kind might belong in an MMO but I am not going to grind for XP in a freaking PnP RPG.

Coughing up the cash for a rez becomes easy enough at mid to high levels that it's rather pointless.

That's why I said the negative level (not a level down as per RAW) makes sense. There are penalties, but you don't lose any of your feats and the penalty disappears when you next level up. You gain experience at the same rate as everyone else.

rezplz
2009-08-22, 10:57 PM
Like, you know, this? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6777550&postcount=14)

Pretty much, yeah - didn't see that post, my bad. Although I might make it even more expensive, but that's just me.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 10:57 PM
That's why I said the negative level (not a level down as per RAW) makes sense. There are penalties, but you don't lose any of your feats and the penalty disappears when you next level up. You gain experience at the same rate as everyone else.

If you level often, it's hardly worth mentioning so why even have it?

If you level not very often, I would again rather make a new character than have a negative level for the next five (or even three) sessions.

AslanCross
2009-08-22, 11:07 PM
I don't think I can convince you of anything if your reasons are subjective. You may not want to deal with the level loss, but other people might. You may prefer to create a new character or bring a backup one, but I may prefer to deal with a -1 penalty on all my checks for a couple of sessions until I level up.

Given the choice between losing a level altogether and having to slog through my delayed leveling up and dealing with a -1 penalty and losing 5 HP temporarily, I'd definitely take the negative level if I liked my deceased character that much.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 11:09 PM
I don't think I can convince you of anything if your reasons are subjective. You may not want to deal with the level loss, but other people might. You may prefer to create a new character or bring a backup one, but I may prefer to deal with a -1 penalty on all my checks for a couple of sessions until I level up.

Given the choice between losing a level altogether and having to slog through my delayed leveling up and dealing with a -1 penalty and losing 5 HP temporarily, I'd definitely take the negative level if I liked my deceased character that much.

Don't forget losing one of your highest level spells. Which is terrible.

ericgrau
2009-08-22, 11:14 PM
There is a very simple solution already in the system. Those behind on xp level up faster. The death penalty is only temporary. It sucks and annoys the player for a little while, then it's gone. Ya, games are better if players are all the same level, and it'd be lame to even play at all if you were behind forever, but you aren't.

And there is a downside to not having it. It makes players more careless about dying. There has to be an out of character reason to for players to fear death but one that isn't so harsh that you don't even want to play anymore. The current way works just fine if you use it right.

Other temporary penalties like a -1 to all checks also work fine, but they're not that much different. Especially for martial classes. Maybe a temporary energy drain would do it too, if that's easier to keep track of. But basically there's not much reason to change the rule except b/c you feel like it, and then you just change it to a different temporary penalty. It's not any better or worse, but it might save on book-keeping.

AslanCross
2009-08-22, 11:18 PM
Don't forget losing one of your highest level spells. Which is terrible.

Terrible, yes, but if I got my character killed by doing something stupid, then I probably deserve it especially if I'm playing a high-Int or Wis caster.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 11:26 PM
Terrible, yes, but if I got my character killed by doing something stupid, then I probably deserve it especially if I'm playing a high-Int or Wis caster.

There other ways you can die that don't involve a mistake on the part of the player.

Rixx
2009-08-22, 11:35 PM
Make the other party members have to give up something dear to their characters in order to revive their fallen comrade. As the DM, pick out the item they possess that is the most useful to them, and tell them they have to sacrifice it in order to get their friend's soul back. Make it clear that it won't work if they sacrifice anything that isn't important to them.

Roleplay-heavy groups can take this in an interesting direction - perhaps they have to sacrifice a trinket that's the only remaining link they have to a lost parent? Maybe, if bringing back a loved one, it turns out they can't touch again without feeling extreme pain? Take something that's important to their character and take it away.

PId6
2009-08-22, 11:37 PM
There is a very simple solution already in the system. Those behind on xp level up faster. The death penalty is only temporary. It sucks and annoys the player for a little while, then it's gone. Ya, games are better if players are all the same level, and it'd be lame to even play at all if you were behind forever, but you aren't.
In the very long run that might be true, but if we're not running combat all the time (especially on PBP games) it takes that much longer for the system to correct itself.

And that's assuming you don't die so much as to be unplayable first.

Also, as a side note, calculating ECL/XP gets that much more annoying when you have players of different levels. Yes, I know there are calculators for this, but still, yech.


And there is a downside to not having it. It makes players more careless about dying. There has to be an out of character reason to for players to fear death but one that isn't so harsh that you don't even want to play anymore. The current way works just fine if you use it right.
"Using it right" in this case involves a lot of combat. Three ECL 7s and an ECL 6 versus a CR 10 gives the level 7s ~1600 XP while the level 6 gets 1800 XP, a 200 XP difference. Considering you've lost at least 3000 XP, it's going to take at least 15 encounters of that type to get back to the right level. I know it's not that simple but the idea carries through. I've been running a PBP game for two months now and we've had around half that number of encounters. So maybe not permanent, but it's pretty damn long.


Other temporary penalties like a -1 to all checks also work fine, but they're not that much different. Especially for martial classes. Maybe a temporary energy drain would do it too, if that's easier to keep track of. But basically there's not much reason to change the rule except b/c you feel like it, and then you just change it to a different temporary penalty. It's not any better or worse, but it might save on book-keeping.
Easier calculations, and they're different in that at least you get to keep your feats/class features. Going "Weeee! I can cast Fireball!" to "Crap, no more Fireballs until next level," is definitely not preferable to just being able to cast less of it for a while. Same with martial characters getting those cool new maneuvers. I think that's a lot better than actual level loss.

HamHam
2009-08-22, 11:41 PM
Make the other party members have to give up something dear to their characters in order to revive their fallen comrade. As the DM, pick out the item they possess that is the most useful to them, and tell them they have to sacrifice it in order to get their friend's soul back. Make it clear that it won't work if they sacrifice anything that isn't important to them.

Roleplay-heavy groups can take this in an interesting direction - perhaps they have to sacrifice a trinket that's the only remaining link they have to a lost parent? Maybe, if bringing back a loved one, it turns out they can't touch again without feeling extreme pain? Take something that's important to their character and take it away.

This seems like a great way to make the players hate both you and each other.

The Neoclassic
2009-08-22, 11:47 PM
Make the other party members have to give up something dear to their characters in order to revive their fallen comrade. As the DM, pick out the item they possess that is the most useful to them, and tell them they have to sacrifice it in order to get their friend's soul back. Make it clear that it won't work if they sacrifice anything that isn't important to them.

Roleplay-heavy groups can take this in an interesting direction - perhaps they have to sacrifice a trinket that's the only remaining link they have to a lost parent? Maybe, if bringing back a loved one, it turns out they can't touch again without feeling extreme pain? Take something that's important to their character and take it away.

I'd use this carefully and sparingly, only with individuals you knew would appreciate the difficult choice. I guess it seems really metagame, honestly. Why would the magic only work if you give up something you really like? Not to say I'm against giving players dilemmas; I just think this could use more IC justification (which of course could probably be done on a case-by-case basis).

pingcode20
2009-08-22, 11:56 PM
I'd use this carefully and sparingly, only with individuals you knew would appreciate the difficult choice. I guess it seems really metagame, honestly. Why would the magic only work if you give up something you really like? Not to say I'm against giving players dilemmas; I just think this could use more IC justification (which of course could probably be done on a case-by-case basis).

That one's got its roots in the belief that relationships hold power, and the symbols of these relationships being tokens of that power.

So the idea would be that in sacrificing, say, the trinket linking them to a lost parent, they are symbolically unmaking the bond to gain the power necessary to return their comrade to life. And as a result, the bond would be lost forever - even if the lost parent was only in the next town, even if they met they would never know.

A wedding ring used as a sacrifice might break the marriage it binds - the love that once held it together grows cold, and once-lovers drift apart inexorably.

Of course, one can't sell things that one does not own, so it would have to be an item of personal significance.

Possibly, this might mean that the ritual of resurrection is one anybody can perform - the question is, who is willing to break the bonds necessary?

(Although I'd say that a powerful enough magic item also serves as an adequate sacrifice)

Milskidasith
2009-08-23, 12:02 AM
That one's got its roots in the belief that relationships hold power, and the symbols of these relationships being tokens of that power.

So the idea would be that in sacrificing, say, the trinket linking them to a lost parent, they are symbolically unmaking the bond to gain the power necessary to return their comrade to life. And as a result, the bond would be lost forever - even if the lost parent was only in the next town, even if they met they would never know.

A wedding ring used as a sacrifice might break the marriage it binds - the love that once held it together grows cold, and once-lovers drift apart inexorably.

Of course, one can't sell things that one does not own, so it would have to be an item of personal significance.

Possibly, this might mean that the ritual of resurrection is one anybody can perform - the question is, who is willing to break the bonds necessary?

(Although I'd say that a powerful enough magic item also serves as an adequate sacrifice)

It's an interesting concept, but it seems like a bad idea from a DM and from a player standpoint, and from an RPing and mechanical standpoint. For everyone: Mechanically, sacrificing your best magic items is going to put you way weaker than most characters. For Players with RPing, losing what makes your character you in order to revive somebody is a pretty huge thing, especially when, metagame wise, the player could probably reroll and join the party again with a new character. For the DM: You are sacrificing plot hooks in order to revive a character. Blech.

I could find this idea being useful for a plot-ish thing, though. There's a band of adventurerers, completely epic, completely immortal (alignment might not matter; they could even be spread out with people of every alignment). The only thing they know is that they all can resurrect each other with a sacrifice, and they have done it so much they have forgotten everything else. Basically, an unbreakable group of super friends who have given up everything to become completely immortal and able to keep their friends immortal, no matter their differences.

It works as a plot better than for the PCs because... well... PCs giving up gear just leads to more deaths, which leads to more lost gear, etc.

pingcode20
2009-08-23, 12:59 AM
It's an interesting concept, but it seems like a bad idea from a DM and from a player standpoint, and from an RPing and mechanical standpoint. For everyone: Mechanically, sacrificing your best magic items is going to put you way weaker than most characters. For Players with RPing, losing what makes your character you in order to revive somebody is a pretty huge thing, especially when, metagame wise, the player could probably reroll and join the party again with a new character. For the DM: You are sacrificing plot hooks in order to revive a character. Blech.

I could find this idea being useful for a plot-ish thing, though. There's a band of adventurerers, completely epic, completely immortal (alignment might not matter; they could even be spread out with people of every alignment). The only thing they know is that they all can resurrect each other with a sacrifice, and they have done it so much they have forgotten everything else. Basically, an unbreakable group of super friends who have given up everything to become completely immortal and able to keep their friends immortal, no matter their differences.

It works as a plot better than for the PCs because... well... PCs giving up gear just leads to more deaths, which leads to more lost gear, etc.

Yeah, it's the sort of thing that works better as a theme than as a proper mechanic. Loss of identity in pursuit of an end - it's great for a plot, but doesn't work so well for having characters developing in directions other than those lines.

And leaving the normal outs cheapens the effect, unfortunately.

If it's in play at all, it'd be at least one of the focal points of the campaign - say, a war against a foe who is prepared to keep sacrificing, throwing away everything meaningful about themselves to keep coming back from the dead until nothing else remains but a tiny shadow of a person. It's too extreme for 'day-to-day' resurrection.

---

Alternatively, rather than breaking down plot hooks for resurrection fodder, maybe have 'particularly stubborn souls' (ie. PCs) have the opportunity to bargain with powerful outsiders for their lives, with different types demanding different forms of payment and valuing different things differently, based on the alignment and conduct of the character in question.

Tempest Fennac
2009-08-23, 01:09 AM
I've never been able to see how well this works due to none of the games I've DMed being able to get to the point where Raise Dead is an option, but my approach to reviving spells is to not have any penalties at all for being brought back because I can't justify a spell which brings someone back from the dead as having a weakening effect from a fluff perspective (my logic is that Raise Dead is more powerful then a Restoration, which can remove 1 negative level, and Ressurrection involves creating a whole new body anyway so riger mortis wouldn't be an issue, if that's the reason why Raise Dead causes level loss).

Regarding fudging dice, I tend to prefer being completely honest about what I roll so that wouldn't be a practical option for me (I tend to see D&D as being a game rather then story-telling so my stance is that random dice results should handle the outcome of actions rather then what best fits the story).

Saph
2009-08-23, 04:13 AM
In general I go with the book rules. Yes, losing a level hurts. It's still a hell of a lot better than being dead. If you're getting resurrected from beyond the grave and your first response is to complain about the cost . . .

The alternative which I've also used and which I think works pretty well is to make it into a roleplay quest. When a spellcaster casts raise dead, they get transported to a place with the dead character's soul and a representative of the dead character's patron deity - a planetar or astral deva, say. You then have to convince the outsider why the character should be brought back to life. A Good-aligned outsider will usually set some sort of quest as payment - you can be returned from the dead, but in return your party has to destroy the vampire nest of Mistreach, or whatever. Makes for great adventure hooks.

At really high levels (if the dead character's sufficiently important), instead of a representative of the dead character's patron deity, you meet the deity in person. Can lead to quite a good "oh, ****" moment if done well. :)

Note that this all assumes a Forgotten Realms-style cosmology. If you're running things Eberron-style, you'll have to figure out ways to make it more indirect, although I personally think it works better if you're talking face to face.

- Saph

Myou
2009-08-23, 04:30 AM
I seem to be the only DM who's perfectly satisfied with the existing rules. :smallannoyed:

Oh, hey, Saph agrees! Yay! :smallsmile:

oxinabox
2009-08-23, 05:22 AM
when my character decided he wanted to know what the green poison did (he suspected that it was labaled poison, but was actually, a potion of heal, (the last vialwe saw was, and my PC had taken BULK ability damage to all his physically abilities)
(it was instant death, but easy save, - i rolled a 4).
I mentioned that he had a DNR (do not resurrect) on his will.
(i'ld made the will the previews week, just incase - we were going after a demigod after all)

I'll admit that was kinda stupid, thing to do, drinking poison, but i thought i'ld survive, just.
That sort of supidity deserves a loss of 1 lvl...

Anyway I did have a new build i wanted to try out...

Clementx
2009-08-23, 10:06 AM
Make the other party members have to give up something dear to their characters in order to revive their fallen comrade.
Roleplay-heavy groups can take this in an interesting direction - perhaps they have to sacrifice a trinket that's the only remaining link they have to a lost parent? Maybe, if bringing back a loved one, it turns out they can't touch again without feeling extreme pain? Take something that's important to their character and take it away.
::thinks this and the other ideas along its lines are incredibly awesome and thematic for horror settings::
I wouldn't use it as the standard resurrection mechanic or just take Xgp of favored magic items. When appropriate, it could be deeply moving and impact the game longer than just 5k in diamonds. When it comes to fear of death, longer is better.

An especially good time to try this is when the time/body limits have past for the party resources. The character's killer took the head with them, and lvl7 spells are beyond your ability. Or you don't have the cash, or need the person alive immediately, or you can't easily get a scroll. That would be the perfect time for praying for a miracle or calling outsiders to try for a deal. Rather than ask for 10,770gp like a normal NPC, they ask for memories, emotion, or another RP-significant aspect of the survivors and the dead PC.

Imagine the conflict if a glabrazu answered your planar binding, and offered to wish your friend back, if you kill an innocent for him. Or a deva who wants you to turn in your morally-questionable NPC ally as an act of devotion to Good. Would the party and dead PC be bound forever in hiding their sin, or would it break them apart?

As for the economy of plot hooks, you are losing everything based on the dead PC if he stays dead. Being forced to forget the love of your life doesn't remove the plot hook from the rest of the party, it changes the nature of it. So it is a net gain.

Milskidasith
2009-08-23, 10:16 AM
I wouldn't say it's a net gain... if everybody in the party sacrifices plot hooks (and it is a sacrifice; it isn't changing it. Based on the description, if you met your long lost love you'd never even recognize them; it's gone for good.), to get somebody back who could, in all honesty, probably just roll up a new character, it isn't going to add any plot hooks.

mikethepoor
2009-08-23, 10:20 AM
What about this idea: you don't lose a level, but your XP total drops to the beginning of the level you're at (so if you had 32,000, you drop back to 28,000)? It gives you a stiff penalty without being crippling, but with hard work and the catch-up system you can still overcome it.

Starbuck_II
2009-08-23, 10:38 AM
when my character decided he wanted to know what the green poison did (he suspected that it was labaled poison, but was actually, a potion of heal, (the last vialwe saw was, and my PC had taken BULK ability damage to all his physically abilities)
(it was instant death, but easy save, - i rolled a 4).
I mentioned that he had a DNR (do not resurrect) on his will.
(i'ld made the will the previews week, just incase - we were going after a demigod after all)

I'll admit that was kinda stupid, thing to do, drinking poison, but i thought i'ld survive, just.
That sort of supidity deserves a loss of 1 lvl...

Anyway I did have a new build i wanted to try out...

Wait, it was labeled poison, but no one wasted a cantrip to detect poison on it?

Tukka
2009-08-23, 12:14 PM
What about this idea: you don't lose a level, but your XP total drops to the beginning of the level you're at (so if you had 32,000, you drop back to 28,000)? It gives you a stiff penalty without being crippling, but with hard work and the catch-up system you can still overcome it.
The problem I have with this consequence is the same as the problem I have with the "negative level until you level up" penalty, which is that the severity of the penalty corresponds rather closely to how recently you leveled up, which I feel is silly.

That doesn't have to be a big problem though. Personally, I prefer to go with a negative level that goes away after the character has earned 1000*ECL XP (not an XP debt, but instead more of a timer). It doesn't completely get rid of the problem, but it does mitigate it pretty well.

As far as other consequences for death go, if I feel that it is dramatically appropriate, I also have the character come back changed somehow, but usually not in a way that is very debilitating ... usually a flavor thing, depending on the circumstances of the character's death, the character's personality and past, and the nature deceased's deity. Or the deceased might come back under the effect of a geas/quest-like effect, which will involve completing some sort of quest. I feel this is preferable to having the quest be to get the resurrection in the first place, since it doesn't involve putting a player on the sideline for longer than is necessary, but otherwise has a similar affect on the party.

On the whole, however, I think death is best handled as a plot hook or story development, personally. It's an opportunity for the BBEG to press the advantage or for a crisis to worsen. The gamist in me says there should be a penalty, but I just don't think the penalty should involve an unfortunate player having to play a character that is lags significantly behind the rest of the group for several sessions as the result of an event that might not even have been his fault.

I also prefer to try to limit the temptation to start a new character because a current character is mechanically disadvantaged in some way (the same reason I allow retraining); though this can be addressed by starting off new characters a bit below the rest of the group as well, to some extent.

Yahzi
2009-08-23, 12:46 PM
how to make death still relevant
Death isn't relevant in D&D. Only TPKs are.

That said, in my world, level loss = gold cost. The DMG says you can sell XP for gold (as in making magic items or casting spells), so it only makes sense that you can buy XP for gold. Really, from 1st ED on, gold was supposed to be equal to XP.

So my players hate dying because it costs so much (especially since I double the XP required for every level).

Some people are going to look at this and say, "Buying levels is stupid!" But the idea that XP is this precious substance that can only be earned by risking your life, and yet a 12th level wizard will expend some of it to make you a +1 ring, is just too stupid to be allowed to live. When XP was just a function of character power, it was one thing: but once it became a staple product of the economy, it just doesn't make sense. If wizards only ever made magic items for themselves, then that would be fine; but the DMG pretty clearly states you can go to the magic mart and buy whatever you want.

So I made XP a tangible substance, like gold coins. Not only does this allow a player to skip the boring parts, but it makes player death a party problem. The player isn't punished for dying; the entire party is punished for letting him die (unless they don't want to keep the player the same level as the party, in which case you way more important problems than making death relevant).

The economy makes sense: you can collect XP from people, so now peasants are valuable even to wizards who can fabricate their own food and items, thus explaining where there are feudal manors full of serfs. You can calculate the power of a local ruler by the size of his realm (and thus the amount of XP he gets every year just for ruling): no more can the players waltz into an empire and push around the 3rd level aristocrat emperor. There is a planar currency that demons and archangels agree on the value of. The players get to choose how to allocate their resources: either levels, or items, or leveling their followers. There is a reason why peoples lives and deaths matter, even to the gods: because they are the source of all XP, and thus all power.

It sounds bizarre, but you will be surprised how many problems are solved and how many options are opened up by simply stating "1 XP = 5 gp."

Check out my World of Prime game book for more; but in the meantime, consider allowing the party to buy a True Ress for a price = 5 * lost XP cost, and see if that helps.

Milskidasith
2009-08-23, 12:53 PM
It sounds bizarre, but you will be surprised how many problems are solved and how many options are opened up by simply stating "1 XP = 5 gp."


I find it to be the opposite; making something incredibly conceptual into something physical makes no sense at all. I mean, how does that work? I go to the shopkeeper and give him 5000 coins and he transfers some of his life essence to me (worth 1000 EXP?)

It makes more sense to just flavor it like this; normally, Wizards just expend energy they get by resting. When they do something that requires EXP, they are permanently putting part of their magical power into that item to make it run, and Wizards will add to the price of their magic items based on the amount of magic energy they permanently lost putting it in (or, permanently until they make up the EXP).

Just because you can trade something one way doesn't mean it makes sense to trade it the other way; it's easy to burn wood, but hard to turn all the smoke back into the nice logpile you had before. It's the same with EXP: You can permanently give up magic power and charge people for it, but you can't go up to a fighter and say "Hey, give me some of your strength for money" and expect him to magically get weaker. It's just weird.

Nice plug, by the way.

ericgrau
2009-08-23, 01:02 PM
(background: I said to just use the existing rules which let the rez'd guy catch up from faster xp gainage, so he's penalized temporarily for dying but eventually the penalty ends)



"Using it right" in this case involves a lot of combat. Three ECL 7s and an ECL 6 versus a CR 10 gives the level 7s ~1600 XP while the level 6 gets 1800 XP, a 200 XP difference. Considering you've lost at least 3000 XP, it's going to take at least 15 encounters of that type to get back to the right level. I know it's not that simple but the idea carries through. I've been running a PBP game for two months now and we've had around half that number of encounters. So maybe not permanent, but it's pretty damn long.


Try it again with the average fight, not a "very difficult" fight: CR = ECL. 525 xp vs. 675 xp. The ECL 6 guy catches up in about 3 levels or so. If your characters have high stats, prestiges, etc. that make the average fight 3 CRs above their ECL, then well you've discovered yet another problem with running a high power game. I suspect other things go out of balance too, and those are the responsibility of the person running the high power game to rebalance, not the system.



Easier calculations, and they're different in that at least you get to keep your feats/class features. Going "Weeee! I can cast Fireball!" to "Crap, no more Fireballs until next level," is definitely not preferable to just being able to cast less of it for a while. Same with martial characters getting those cool new maneuvers. I think that's a lot better than actual level loss.

You picked probably the biggest transition in all of D&D. Again, not very representative of the average. A fighter doesn't have it so bad and a batman wizard has plenty of decent low-mid level spells. It's almost as if you're trying to skew the evidence to make a point :smallamused:.

Forbiddenwar
2009-08-23, 01:05 PM
I scanned the thread quickly so apologies if these comments are repetition.

A) as mentioned there are at least 4 raise dead spells that don't have the level loss penalty. True Res, Reincarnation, revivify and revenance. For low level characters the revenance, revivify combo works very well. As long as you get to the dead character within 1 round/level of death, they can come back without any level loss, for the cost of two spells, one without material components.

B) a negative level is actually worse than level loss because a character who is 1 or two levels behind will: Earn more Exp per encounter AND has less exp needed to earn in order to level, so cataching up is very easy. Compared to a a negative level which would stick around much longer.

C) Death can be fudged. It is the DM responsibility to know when to fudge and when not to, and death and game play is a big part of that. I've added a Luck stat which even allows players to fudge from time to time. AS LONG as the players are having fun, don't change a thing. Yes, Death can be and is capricious. Knowing when the players want a capricious death to stike home the seriousness of the game play, and knowing when to fudge away a capricious death, that is the hard part.

ericgrau
2009-08-23, 01:06 PM
Nit pick: reincarnation causes level loss. But you still got 3 others.

boomwolf
2009-08-23, 01:06 PM
There are two ways to avoid it as I see.

The "Revive quest", the aspect of the dead guy doing nothing is nulled by giving HIM a quest too in order to be able to revive. escape from demons in the abyss works well, as well as necrotic underworlds, or gladiator arenas for "what soul enters the revived body"


The "Penalty is not forever" when you die, you DO suffer from a level loss, however you gain double XP until your lost level is regained, making you level back quickly if your party is supportive and helps you out, or even take lower-level quests just so you can level back in relative safety.


But the WORST thing you can do is remove the penalty for dying, because if you do epic and near-epic wont be afraid to die as long they got a friendly cleric out there.

Myou
2009-08-23, 01:13 PM
Where are revivify and revenance from?

ericgrau
2009-08-23, 01:18 PM
I should throw in a warning that the revenance + revivify combo is a known cheesy trick. IIRC revivify only lets you rez people that died in the last round, while revenance lets you delay that time until later. So basically you overcome the one downside to revivify and get a cheap no level loss rez.

But at least high level characters have true res, and mid level ones who allow splatbooks have a semi-limited no level loss rez option.

chiasaur11
2009-08-23, 01:25 PM
Death isn't relevant in D&D. Only TPKs are.

That said, in my world, level loss = gold cost. The DMG says you can sell XP for gold (as in making magic items or casting spells), so it only makes sense that you can buy XP for gold. Really, from 1st ED on, gold was supposed to be equal to XP.

So my players hate dying because it costs so much (especially since I double the XP required for every level).

Some people are going to look at this and say, "Buying levels is stupid!" But the idea that XP is this precious substance that can only be earned by risking your life, and yet a 12th level wizard will expend some of it to make you a +1 ring, is just too stupid to be allowed to live. When XP was just a function of character power, it was one thing: but once it became a staple product of the economy, it just doesn't make sense. If wizards only ever made magic items for themselves, then that would be fine; but the DMG pretty clearly states you can go to the magic mart and buy whatever you want.

So I made XP a tangible substance, like gold coins. Not only does this allow a player to skip the boring parts, but it makes player death a party problem. The player isn't punished for dying; the entire party is punished for letting him die (unless they don't want to keep the player the same level as the party, in which case you way more important problems than making death relevant).

The economy makes sense: you can collect XP from people, so now peasants are valuable even to wizards who can fabricate their own food and items, thus explaining where there are feudal manors full of serfs. You can calculate the power of a local ruler by the size of his realm (and thus the amount of XP he gets every year just for ruling): no more can the players waltz into an empire and push around the 3rd level aristocrat emperor. There is a planar currency that demons and archangels agree on the value of. The players get to choose how to allocate their resources: either levels, or items, or leveling their followers. There is a reason why peoples lives and deaths matter, even to the gods: because they are the source of all XP, and thus all power.

It sounds bizarre, but you will be surprised how many problems are solved and how many options are opened up by simply stating "1 XP = 5 gp."

Check out my World of Prime game book for more; but in the meantime, consider allowing the party to buy a True Ress for a price = 5 * lost XP cost, and see if that helps.

I kinda like this idea.

Forbiddenwar
2009-08-23, 01:32 PM
I should throw in a warning that the revenance + revivify combo is a known cheesy trick. IIRC revivify only lets you rez people that died in the last round, while revenance lets you delay that time until later.

Not much later, you still have to book it (1 round per level is the time you have, considering true res is available at high levels this combo is only woth while at mid level) and have both spells prepared the same day and have all the necessary material components and the body still needs to be in one piece.
How is casting revenance and then casting revivify later different from casting revenance and then casting raise dead later?
I do agree that even if the combo is RAW, Ask you DM first before performing it.

Reveance and revivify and other great non 3rd party spells are in the spell compendium. They are probably in other books as well.

Forbiddenwar
2009-08-23, 01:42 PM
Death isn't relevant in D&D. Only TPKs are.

That said, in my world, level loss = gold cost. The DMG says you can sell XP for gold (as in making magic items or casting spells), so it only makes sense that you can buy XP for gold. Really, from 1st ED on, gold was supposed to be equal to XP.
*SNIP*
It sounds bizarre, but you will be surprised how many problems are solved and how many options are opened up by simply stating "1 XP = 5 gp."

Check out my World of Prime game book for more; but in the meantime, consider allowing the party to buy a True Ress for a price = 5 * lost XP cost, and see if that helps.

I like the XP in a can idea, but how to you prevent abuse like: fat balding NPC sells diamond mind for 20 barbarian Levels, then uses new abilities to get diamond mine back for free.

PId6
2009-08-23, 03:01 PM
Try it again with the average fight, not a "very difficult" fight: CR = ECL. 525 xp vs. 675 xp. The ECL 6 guy catches up in about 3 levels or so. If your characters have high stats, prestiges, etc. that make the average fight 3 CRs above their ECL, then well you've discovered yet another problem with running a high power game. I suspect other things go out of balance too, and those are the responsibility of the person running the high power game to rebalance, not the system.
So they catch up in 3 levels? And that's supposed to be better? Unless you're in a very fast leveling game, 3 levels can take months to achieve. So three levels of being a whole level behind versus a single level with a penalty, you see no difference there?


You picked probably the biggest transition in all of D&D. Again, not very representative of the average. A fighter doesn't have it so bad and a batman wizard has plenty of decent low-mid level spells. It's almost as if you're trying to skew the evidence to make a point :smallamused:.
Um, what? Fireball to no fireball is the biggest transition in D&D? What are you saying here? A wizard gets new spells every level. A swordsage gets new maneuvers every level. Losing an actual level certainly takes away your class features, while a negative level does not.

Not being able to do something you've been able to do yesterday is just annoying. This is even more true when you're playing characters that don't have dead levels (the way all classes should be). So yes, a fighter dying on an even level would have less of a penalty, but that hardly makes up for all the ways fighter is just a crappy class in general.

arguskos
2009-08-23, 03:25 PM
So, tell me, why do players stay with your group after character death?
Because they realize that in my games, death is very dangerous and very real. I run hard games, that ask my players to be cautious and clever. And yes, crits do happen, and they suck. It happens to my NPCs and I don't save them, why should I save the party? They accept the premise I've presented, and roll with it.

Should they, as a majority, exclaim that they are no longer happy with the dynamic of the games I run, I'm pleased to discuss it with them and perhaps lighten up, if that's what they want. So far, no one's had an issue, so we continue on and have a good time.

Don't assume every group has your preferences. :smallwink:

Tukka
2009-08-23, 06:34 PM
A) as mentioned there are at least 4 raise dead spells that don't have the level loss penalty. True Res, Reincarnation, revivify and revenance. For low level characters the revenance, revivify combo works very well. As long as you get to the dead character within 1 round/level of death, they can come back without any level loss, for the cost of two spells, one without material components.
And if you instituted a change where level loss was substituted with some other penalty, such as a negative level, presumably revivify and true resurrection would not have those penalties. I get your point, that if a player hates the idea of losing a level, there are options ... but that assumes the player has access to, can afford, or is even aware of those spells. What I think this discussion is attempting to address is the appropriateness of the consequences for death in D&D in general. Specific tricks for getting around penalties are useful to know (for the player), but don't address the larger point of whether or not level loss (and the other costs and penalties) are good mechanics in general.

B) a negative level is actually worse than level loss because a character who is 1 or two levels behind will: Earn more Exp per encounter AND has less exp needed to earn in order to level, so cataching up is very easy. Compared to a a negative level which would stick around much longer.
Not necessarily, it all depends on a few different things, such as the rule being used to determine when the negative level would be removed, how much progress the character had made towards his next level before dying, and how soon the characters get an opportunity to level up after earning enough XP to ding.

And as others have noted, it just sucks to lose a shiny new spell or class ability, and to delay the acquisition of new ones. Negative levels hurt, but at least you keep all your toys. And applying a negative level certainly requires significantly less book-keeping than level loss, which is another reason I like it.

C) Death can be fudged.
True, but I'm not quite getting what your point is. Anything in any system can be fudged to maintain a mood of danger, or to avoid consequences that could have the potential of just not being fun. Anything you do to make death less likely (like allowing a Luck stat to save the character, or fudging the rolls as the DM) has the potential of weakening the mood, the same way it might weaken the mood if the players believe the consequences for death are soft. You just have to weigh the options and choose your poison.

Saph
2009-08-24, 04:09 AM
And as others have noted, it just sucks to lose a shiny new spell or class ability, and to delay the acquisition of new ones.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Dying is what sucks, because it causes you to lose all of your spells and class abilities, as well as everything else. Being resurrected, minus a level, gives you nearly all of them back.

It's not:

8th-level character ---> 7th-level character,

it's:

8th-level character ---> Decaying Corpse ---> 7th-level character

The question is whether you'd rather stay a decaying corpse (and roll up a new character) or bring your old PC back to life.

The problem with the negative level approach is that it's pretty trivial, and really makes death/resurrection no more than a slap on the wrist - minus one to everything just isn't a big deal. This can be okay in some games, but you have to expect players to be pretty casual about dying if this is how you're playing it. It also has some unintended consequences - players who've died recently are going to be less bothered about dying again, because all it does is reset their timer. And in the case of reincarnate, I know if I did this then before long my players would be saying "No, I don't want to be one of those. Here's 1000 gp, kill me again and reroll it." :smalltongue:

- Saph

oxinabox
2009-08-24, 04:21 AM
Wait, it was labeled poison, but no one wasted a cantrip to detect poison on it?

they offered too, after i'ld drunk it...

Jack_Simth
2009-08-24, 07:23 AM
The problem with the negative level approach is that it's pretty trivial, and really makes death/resurrection no more than a slap on the wrist - minus one to everything just isn't a big deal. This can be okay in some games, but you have to expect players to be pretty casual about dying if this is how you're playing it. It also has some unintended consequences - players who've died recently are going to be less bothered about dying again, because all it does is reset their timer. And in the case of reincarnate, I know if I did this then before long my players would be saying "No, I don't want to be one of those. Here's 1000 gp, kill me again and reroll it." :smalltongue:
That depends on whether it's "one negative level until the next time you level up" or if it's "-1,000 xp * (your current level-1), and you take a number of negative levels equal to (the level you're at - the level your XP would say you'd be)" - so if you have 45000 xp (10th) and die, you're docked 9,000 xp (putting you at 36000 xp, 9th), so you take one negative level (10-9=1) until your XP qualifies you for 10th again. If you die and are raised again immediately, you lose 8,000 xp (putting you at 28,000, for 8th) and you've got two negative levels - and so on. You're not going to be doing that lightly.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-24, 07:48 AM
The alternative which I've also used and which I think works pretty well is to make it into a roleplay quest. When a spellcaster casts raise dead, they get transported to a place with the dead character's soul and a representative of the dead character's patron deity - a planetar or astral deva, say.


I recently used something similar. The party Ranger // Beguiler Elf died horribly and painfully (even Dms need some fun), and awaked near the a river waiting.

He met a Demon, wanting to kidnap him. A Bateezu an an Eladrin helped him nuke the demon*, and then started to bargain. So, roleplay session about the PC deeds (the Eladrin had an easy work and the devil agreed to let the Elf go - after all, he avoided a soul to the Abyss, and so for the Tanar'ri, anyway). The river became the Oceanus.

In the meanwhile, one of its companion retrieved a priest (an hermit) said able to raise people from death. So he found and traveled toward one of the places said as "holes for the houses of deads" and entered there.

He avoided the undead unable to enter in the real afterlife, and spoke with "the Assassin", (covering his eyes because was a Bodak) an ancient undead knowing the road for "the River".

He came just in time to take his friend, and the Eladrin renounced to bring the dead to arborea. Then they escaped from the reign of dead, never turning behind (or the dead Elf could disappear).

When they awoke, the priest just finished to raise the dead. Ding.

The dead elf lost a level, but the recent kills and the XP from the quest bringed his level near to the level of his friends, and leveld up soon.

You can use a similar option and a similar quest, but the XP you can assign are completely ad hoc, and bring back the level of the previously dead PC.






*in my setting you become a petitioner after a while.

Morquard
2009-08-24, 08:33 AM
I didn't read all the thread so maybe someone suggested this already, and I've never done this, but it might work for your problem.

First remove the negative level from rezz spells.
Then give the rezz spells level caps. Raise Dead can only rezz players up to level 13 or so, after that they have to use Resurrection, which only works till they're 19. After that the only way to come back is True Resurrection.
(they could use a lower level version, but then they'd get the levelloss)

The resident cleric should have those spells at those levels already, and that why it gets more expensive.

Alternatively you can make the spell costs scale with level of the dead, has basicly the same results.

The third option I can think of is to only allow Reincarnate (might give clerics a similar version if you want). Remove level loss too, but as "punishment" they end up in a new body, which might have advantages or disadvantages.
(but make sure that they don't just say "Ok, a halfling sucks, kill me and do it again, till I'm a troll")

Umael
2009-08-24, 01:51 PM
Death isn't relevant in D&D. Only TPKs are.

Maybe for your campaign, maybe even for a majority of the campaigns others play, but this is not a universal truth. All things are not necessarily equal - in my experience, in most low-level D&D games, death usually is very relevant.



That said, in my world, level loss = gold cost. The DMG says you can sell XP for gold (as in making magic items or casting spells), so it only makes sense that you can buy XP for gold. Really, from 1st ED on, gold was supposed to be equal to XP.

Not really - not all things are reversible.

Real world example: Push a glass off the kitchen counter so that it shatters. You cannot reconstruct the glass into its intact original by picking up the pieces and placing them back on the kitchen counter. Even if you place the glass shards back together in a jigsaw manner, it will not restore itself.

More appropriate real world example: Currency exchanges. Let's say that the US dollar is worth about ten Buckeroos (the national currency of Buckistan). While this means that $50 = 500B, in reality, the currency exchange building is going to levee a fee for each transaction*. This might be a flat fee, it might be a percentage, I don't know, but either way, it slows the fluidity of the exchange of currency, which in turn slows the economy.

* - After all, if you are in Buckistan, you need use their Buckeroos to make use of their economy. Some institutions might buckled under and accept US currency, but the mighty nation of Buckistan will not allow its Buckeroos to be tied to the fate of the US dollar. Especially now that the Dudes (the currency of Dudeslavia) are raising in value...

For your game, if you make the exchange rate a flat fee, then when your players exchange XP for gold, they will want to do it in large quantities. If it is a percentage, less so.

(The reasons I bring this up are two: a smooth exchange violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, which doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed, just that it should be recognized as a violation; with a smooth exchange, I could see a player wanted to sacrifice a few XPs here and there to get a better magical item - a few XP here or there might not cost you a level, but a few gold pieces could mean the difference between the really nice magical item and the okay magical item.)



Some people are going to look at this and say, "Buying levels is stupid!" But the idea that XP is this precious substance that can only be earned by risking your life, and yet a 12th level wizard will expend some of it to make you a +1 ring, is just too stupid to be allowed to live.

Extremely subjective. And I disagree.

The notion behind a wizard spending experience points to create magical items is to limit the number of magical items to be found while explain it as investing your life energy into the item in question.

As for the whole "buying levels is stupid," does this mean that in your world, the rich are taxing the poor to gain levels? Why, yes... yes they are. You realize that this rule helps keep those with the power in power, reinforcing the status quo then, yes? This means that your universe has a decidedly LAWFUL bent to it, as a systematic method of accruing gold means accruing experience points. Have you calculated how much experience points gets put into the coffers of the nobles based on their land size and general wealth? Hey, what about dragons? Why don't dragons sacrifice their treasure to gain a few epic levels when would-be dragon-slayers attack? "I'm sorry, but not only has half the hoard just vanished, but the ancient red looks like he's a lot more powerful... I think he may have taken a level in a prestige class from the Draconomicon..."

Also, have your players looked at various spells that provide materials, raw or finished? There is the potential for abuse there - if you cast a spell that costs you 1,000 XP but you can sell the end result of that spell for 10,000 gp, at 5gp = 1 XP exchange rate, you have a spell that nets you 1,000 XP. This is even worse for spells that don't cost experience (or gold).



When XP was just a function of character power, it was one thing: but once it became a staple product of the economy, it just doesn't make sense. If wizards only ever made magic items for themselves, then that would be fine; but the DMG pretty clearly states you can go to the magic mart and buy whatever you want.

The economy of D&D doesn't make sense, and this is before you toss in magical items. Magic breaks the Laws of Therodynamics, as well as some of the more simple-to-understand laws of physics, with such regularity that a system of greed for rare metals or any other currency, really, doesn't hold water for long.

One more thing... could you please cite where in the DMG it states that you can just go to the magic mart and buy whatever you want?



The economy makes sense: you can collect XP from people, so now peasants are valuable even to wizards who can fabricate their own food and items, thus explaining where there are feudal manors full of serfs. You can calculate the power of a local ruler by the size of his realm (and thus the amount of XP he gets every year just for ruling): no more can the players waltz into an empire and push around the 3rd level aristocrat emperor. There is a planar currency that demons and archangels agree on the value of. The players get to choose how to allocate their resources: either levels, or items, or leveling their followers. There is a reason why peoples lives and deaths matter, even to the gods: because they are the source of all XP, and thus all power.

It sounds bizarre, but you will be surprised how many problems are solved and how many options are opened up by simply stating "1 XP = 5 gp."

Check out my World of Prime game book for more; but in the meantime, consider allowing the party to buy a True Ress for a price = 5 * lost XP cost, and see if that helps.

You know, this sounds like an awesome system!

"You get ready to attack the goblin priest... and he levels!"
"Again!?!?"
"Great! Just... great! Now he's at least level 3! If we DO defeat him, that means we'll get... um... 300 more experience points. Total"
"Sure, sure... but that's, what, 8,000 gold points he sucked up... that's worth 1,600 experience points... we just lost 1,300 experience points and/or our treasure!"
"..."
"...can we claim a tax deduction if we show that we're adventuring at a loss?"