Would you accept permanent level drain?

[Jon_Dahl]

For our previous D&D 3.5 session I had prepared a 6th-level vampire monk, a bit suboptimal one I'd say. It had quite forminable level draining abilities, but I didn't feel worried at all, since its unarmed attack bonus was only +9 and the AC of the PCs were 32, 27 and 19 (without combat reflexes, which he used extensively). The PCs were well aware of the vampire. All the PCs had great will saves against the gaze attack and the vampire only had 26 hp. This was supposed to be a complete push-over. Let it be noted that the character were a monk/rogue, paladin of freedom and a multiclass cleric.

However, the AC 32 multiclass cleric stayed behind and escaped, while the paladin and monk lost levels. They didn't even manage in their saves, so the monk/rogue and paladin both permanently lost two levels.

Now the monk/rogue's player wants to create a new character, but it'll be three levels lower than the multiclass cleric!

It's a mess! Two PCs having their levels drained and one leaving unharmed... I run a low-magic world, so restorations aren't readily available. The players know this.

How would you feel if your PC would lose two levels, from 8th to 6th, and no restoration magic was available in the campaign world? Is retiring the character the norm?

[TuggyNE]

It's a mess! Two PCs having their levels drained and one leaving unharmed... I run a low-magic world, so restorations aren't readily available. The players know this.

How far is the Cleric from taking Clr 7 and getting restoration in-party?

[meemaas]

You could make it into a big quest. Maybe an ancient relic they can use to reverse the level drain with different fluff behind it? Adjust towards their reduced level until they complete it. Just so long as they don't feel nerfed into the ground for losing.

[Thorvaldr]

Ooooh... that's a tough situation. If I were one of those players, I'd probably be upset. (Not directly at the DM, but at life.) No matter how chill a person/player is about levels/experience points, etc., you can't not compare your character with everyone else's, and two levels is a fairly noticeable gulf of ability. Especially going 2 levels back.

The PC just lost 1/4 of their entire experience and power. And in a way more since higher levels have better abilities.

Since you run a low-magic world, you could say that the level drain isn't a magical level drain, but drained some of their physical... physicallity? So maybe instead of a restoration spell, they have to find a Physical-Trainer type person and go through a quest of rehab.

So the level-drain just withered their muscles and muscle memory, but by doing some rehab quest, they can get that back relatively quickly over a couple of sessions.

Just an idea, definitely a tough situation you're in! But yeah, I could see retiring my PC with that sort of a de-leveling and no way to make up for it.

[prufock]

However, the AC 32 multiclass cleric stayed behind and escaped, while the paladin and monk lost levels. They didn't even manage in their saves, so the monk/rogue and paladin both permanently lost two levels.

Now the monk/rogue's player wants to create a new character, but it'll be three levels lower than the multiclass cleric!

Why would the monk/rogue's new character be 3 levels behind? He's only 2 behind now.

Here's what I would do:
- Cleric ran away, therefore didn't overcome the encounter, therefore doesn't gain XP.
- Give the other characters enough XP to gain a new level, noting that the actual CR was higher than you expected, especially since the cleric scarpered. If we use cleric as the baseline level X, the paladin and monk/rogue's new character would be X - 2 level drain + 1 XP gain, putting them only 1 level behind. They gain more xp for the same level encounters; over time they would catch up, though at points they will still be -1 level. There's no saying that the cleric won't meet with some similar setback eventually.

Or combine the above with this:

You could make it into a big quest. Maybe an ancient relic they can use to reverse the level drain with different fluff behind it? Adjust towards their reduced level until they complete it. Just so long as they don't feel nerfed into the ground for losing.

[NichG]

This is pretty difficult, especially at such low levels. I would say that it depends very much on how the campaign has gone so far, and how the campaign seems to be structured. If the campaign was very competitive, high-optimization, or combat heavy I'd have very serious reservations about it and it would probably impact my enjoyment quite a bit. If the campaign was more about interacting with NPCs and less life-or-death stuff, I could probably deal with it and would just make getting a Restoration a bit of a longer-term goal, or make my two-levels-behindedness a quirk or gimmick going forward.

If the campaign was extremely high lethality though (like a 1ed dungeon crawl style campaign) I'd probably just go with it until my character inevitably got killed by something and consider it just part and parcel of that style of play. Sometimes you get killed before you can act, sometimes you get level drained, sometimes you open a chest and there are spores that turn you into a moss man.

As a DM if this happened I would start to toss in temptations for the player to go all the way Negative Energy - hints that if they became undead they might get the levels back, or qualify for special feats or seek strange alchemical cures. It doesn't solve the problem by any means, but it takes the sting out a bit and gives the player opportunities to make it into a significant story point.

[Elkad]

I don't like losing levels on my characters, but unless I got drained from 12th to 3rd or something, it was never reason to toss a character.

As the lowbie in the party, you get scads of XP compared to those that are ahead. Play conservatively so you don't get 1-shotted, and you'll catch up with them quickly. Remember, you are still better off than most characters of that level, as you will still have the wealth from your higher level.

Raise dead at low levels has the same issue. Not that big a deal.

But then I'm old-school, we didn't get saves vs level drain in my day. Ravenloft was a terror, someone lost a level (or 4) every session, and Restoration was nowhere to be found. We just kept all our old character sheets, so you could un-level mid-fight.


As DM. Since the party is only 3 characters, I'd try to build encounters that leveraged whatever weaknesses the higher level Cleric has, to insure that the other two feel relevant. Which may be as simple as setting up a long-but-easy string of encounters that don't allow the cleric to recover spells inbetween. Pick the CR of the monsters carefully to give the lower members big XP bonuses over the Cleric as they bash their way through.

[Malak'ai]

Ooooh... that's a tough situation. If I were one of those players, I'd probably be upset. (Not directly at the DM, but at life.) No matter how chill a person/player is about levels/experience points, etc., you can't not compare your character with everyone else's, and two levels is a fairly noticeable gulf of ability. Especially going 2 levels back.

The PC just lost 1/4 of their entire experience and power. And in a way more since higher levels have better abilities.

Since you run a low-magic world, you could say that the level drain isn't a magical level drain, but drained some of their physical... physicallity? So maybe instead of a restoration spell, they have to find a Physical-Trainer type person and go through a quest of rehab.

So the level-drain just withered their muscles and muscle memory, but by doing some rehab quest, they can get that back relatively quickly over a couple of sessions.

Just an idea, definitely a tough situation you're in! But yeah, I could see retiring my PC with that sort of a de-leveling and no way to make up for it.

This sounds completely reasonable. I might steal it :smallwink:.

If I lost levels and everything was legit (not the DM just being a prat), I'd be annoyed sure, but I'd suck it up and truck on. If, on the other hand, I found out something fishing was going on, well, my old Carebear from when I was a little kid would be getting impromptu flying lessons.

[Shining Wrath]

The DM giveth and the DM taketh away. Blessed be the DM for without a DM there is no game.

Now ...

I agree with whoever said that a cleric that flees gets no XP for the battle, and the two that stayed and fought split the XP for what turned out to be a formidable challenge. That will help.

After that, remember that the lower level characters will get more XP per encounter than the cleric and will start catching up. In fact, you're quite justified in throwing CR 5 or CR 6 encounters at the party for a while, tailoring them to not play to the cleric's strengths, and letting the coward be bored while his friends recover.

Having said that, you're the DM, you can add whatever your players need to your world. I suggest a temple of Pelor, located some distance away, where persons of good character can obtain restoration and the like for a price, which may be a quest. Thus:

PCs learn of temple of Pelor
PCs travel to temple of Pelor
PCs are sent on quest by temple of Pelor
PCs are restored by temple of Pelor
Monk and Paladin, by virtue of having gotten more XP from travel to temple and quest than cleric, are HIGHER level post restoration, which serves that spineless cleric right

[Mootsmcboots]

So I'm a super newbie DM(Also will be talking from a PC pov), so take anything I say with a grain of I may not know what I am talking about, however;

From the PC angle? Level loss? Death? Disadvantage? I never complain about any negative outcomes in game. Over coming them is far more satisfying. Stories about perfect little adventurers who have everything go their way? Boooooring. Over coming challenges makes a story memorable.

From a DM's perspective, again a very new DM, why not step outside of the norm. Make this a chance for the 2 level drained PCs to show off their creativity, and guile. Award them additional bits of exp for creative resolutions, trying new things, over coming obstacles despite the disadvantage. This will help balance out the party levels a bit quicker. Bonus, this promotes future creativity.

Suddenly finding an item or NPC who solves the exact problem you are having, always seemed cheesy and forced.

[Slipperychicken]

It's a mess! Two PCs having their levels drained and one leaving unharmed... I run a low-magic world, so restorations aren't readily available. The players know this.


There's your problem: You're including level drain in the game, but no ways to recover from it, and then crossing your fingers hoping the PCs can somehow deal with it. You really shouldn't be surprised when PCs get hit with those effects and have no way to cope.

[Zubrowka74]

Why exactly did the Cleric flee? 32 AC with options specifically against undeads? Is he worshiping the god of cowardice? If he broke the tenets of his faith he should gain a temporary 2-level penalty until he helps his friends heal the drain...

[sleepyphoenixx]

They knew about the vampire and presumably about the fact that the campaign is low magic and engaged it in melee anyway, even after the cleric ran away.
There's really no room for complaints here, they made their choices and now they have to live with the consequences.

That said, if the monk/rogue feels that his build can't keep up with the requirements of the campaign, retiring now is as good as any other time.
He may have felt that way for a while and is just taking the opportunity to switch at a natural stopping point.
Or maybe he's rethinking the whole "no magic" approach in a world where you can't shore up your weaknesses with magic items. Especially with their only full caster turning out to be a ****. :smalltongue:

[ohil]

Some characters I would retire, While others I have told my party if I die bring me back I'll take the negative levels. Others I could care less like my wizard, but my scout or warlock I say bring me back. It just depends on how they like their character

[Bloodgruve]

Experience and levels, IMHO, is the most precious resource a player can have. I would rather lose all of my wealth over a single level. I've run in a campaign where 2 players were higher level then the rest of the group and it was simply not fun.

As a player I'd personally scrap the character and reroll if the DM would allow a higher starting level, if not I'd consider stepping away from the campaign. But that's more due to a limited schedule and I personally need to chose a game that I have fun in.

As a DM I don't give out XP nor do I require it for crafting and spells with XP have different requirements, I level the party together. New players start off at the parties level. After the party has defeated around 10 encounters I'll give them a level, these encounters are generally +4 CR to their current level. This way none of the party feel they are being carried or less useful then the others.

That being said I'd either give them a quest to restore their lost levels or hit the cleric with a similar level drain to bring everyone in line or let them reroll to match the cleric. Everyone hates taking steps backwards.

Its a tough one though.

GL
Blood~

[Jon_Dahl]

How far is the Cleric from taking Clr 7 and getting restoration in-party?

He's on level 3 and not taking any further levels in cleric.


Why exactly did the Cleric flee? 32 AC with options specifically against undeads? Is he worshiping the god of cowardice? If he broke the tenets of his faith he should gain a temporary 2-level penalty until he helps his friends heal the drain...

The player seems to be constantly afraid of dying in my games. In fact his character almost never have any problems surviving. The character saw that the fight didn't end in one round so he thought. It wasn't worth it. The character is CN and the god is CN (Zagyg). The player asked me if escaping warranted an alignment change and I said "no".


There's your problem: You're including level drain in the game, but no ways to recover from it, and then crossing your fingers hoping the PCs can somehow deal with it. You really shouldn't be surprised when PCs get hit with those effects and have no way to cope.

I don't think that assessment is 100% fair, because the level drain only come from a successful unarmed attack, and the multiclassed cleric was an unrealistic option to hit because his high AC. The effects themselves are difficult to deal with, but avoiding the effect was easy. Don't you agree?


From a DM's perspective, again a very new DM, why not step outside of the norm. Make this a chance for the 2 level drained PCs to show off their creativity, and guile. Award them additional bits of exp for creative resolutions, trying new things, over coming obstacles despite the disadvantage. This will help balance out the party levels a bit quicker. Bonus, this promotes future creativity.

Suddenly finding an item or NPC who solves the exact problem you are having, always seemed cheesy and forced.

Well said! Now that I think about it, I can see the game going to that direction.


Why would the monk/rogue's new character be 3 levels behind? He's only 2 behind now.

There were both at the 8th level. Now the other character lost 2 levels. A newly-created character is always a level lower than the previous character of the same player.

[Morbis Meh]

There were both at the 8th level. Now the other character lost 2 levels. A newly-created character is always a level lower than the previous character of the same player.

Where is this in the rules? Standard rules are you recreate a character at -1 level behind the highest level member of the party. That way there is some penalty but the player will not get screwed over by dying repeatedly and thus falling behind until there is no point in playing anymore.

As for suggestions, make a quest for it like so many have said, really play it up and turn it into a plot hook. Show a little love to the monk/rogue and paladin they already have it rough due to being less than optimal classes and being low magic is really insult to injury. Personally I would sit down OoC with your players and discuss what they would like to do about it, just because you are of the opinion that PC's should face challenges that may or may not put them at a big or small disadvantage or else it isn't fun doesn't mean they will agree and if the people you are running the game for aren't having fun then what's the point of playing?

[Jon_Dahl]

Where is this in the rules? Standard rules are you recreate a character at -1 level behind the highest level member of the party. That way there is some penalty but the player will not get screwed over by dying repeatedly and thus falling behind until there is no point in playing anymore.



Wow, now that's the most exotic standard rule I've heard in a while. I'm kind of disoriented here at the moment, excuse me. Don't get me wrong, I love what you're saying. However, I have to post you this from the 3.5 DMG page 42:

http://s30.postimg.org/tk8zbaypd/image.png

A player should never be punished for sticking with his old character instead of creating a new.
His current level-drained character is at 6th level. If he could create a new 6th-level character, it might be better suited to defeat the vampire. However, creating a "current level - 1" level character makes continuing with the current character a more appealing idea.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think that assessment is 100% fair, because the level drain only come from a successful unarmed attack, and the multiclassed cleric was an unrealistic option to hit because his high AC. The effects themselves are difficult to deal with, but avoiding the effect was easy. Don't you agree?


It's like throwing low-DC save-or-die effects, then getting bent out of shape when someone rolls a 1 on the save. Or if someone fails all his jump/climb/reflex checks and falls to his death while platforming. Using the effect allows the possibility that it might succeed, and it's important to have some idea about what happens if it does.

[Pex]

As a player I put in real time and effort playing the game. In addition to actual play I have to schedule free time from life to do it, travel, and spend money on travel and food expenses. Earning XP and gaining levels is a measure of progress. To have it taken away from me on a permanent basis turns everything into a big waste of time.

[nedz]

You could create a special location, a Well of Souls maybe, which can provide Restoration.

Alternatively since they will gain more xp for being lower level they will soon catch up. It's possible to overtake the higher level character by this means, though only with a well timed large XP award. Experience is a river.

[prufock]

http://s30.postimg.org/tk8zbaypd/image.png

So ignore the "under most circumstances" and go with "in some circumstances." He was thinking about switching characters anyway, and 3 levels behind is too much. Give him a new character at the same level as the monk/rogue. Alternatively, give the monk/rogue and paladin an extra level for overcoming a tough fight, so the monk/rogue is 2 levels behind and the paladin is 1. Or combine the two and have both characters 1 level behind the cleric.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, I think getting a quarter of your levels drained counts as a special circumstance. What I would do is have the new character come in at one level lower than than the old character pre-level drain.

[Morbis Meh]

Wow, now that's the most exotic standard rule I've heard in a while. I'm kind of disoriented here at the moment, excuse me. Don't get me wrong, I love what you're saying. However, I have to post you this from the 3.5 DMG page 42:

http://s30.postimg.org/tk8zbaypd/image.png

A player should never be punished for sticking with his old character instead of creating a new.
His current level-drained character is at 6th level. If he could create a new 6th-level character, it might be better suited to defeat the vampire. However, creating a "current level - 1" level character makes continuing with the current character a more appealing idea.

WotC game designers are plain terrible; think of it like this: if a player has a character who dies, by those rules he rolls up a new one at a level lower but suddenly the weaker character dies again, thus a new one has to be brought in at another level back and eventually you create a downward spiral.

You say you don't want to penalize for sticking with his old character but that's exactly what you're doing; you are forcing them to continue on weaker than other party members against a foe that has already inflicted this disadvantage upon them. Instead of letting them create a fresh character that is still lower than their original but stronger than their previous one. As for creating a new character better at dealing with the vampire: who cares? You said it yourself you made it suboptimal and thought it would get steam rolled so what is the big deal if a new character comes in and takes care of an old enemy it doesn't mean they will have a massive advantage against future enemies (unless of course this is an undead campaign and if that is the case the poor rogue should get a new character anyway since melee+undead campaign+low magic= next to useless in most cases. If it is the only undead and he/she makes it specialized for undead then they have shot themselves in the foot and that's their fault.

However this is off topic, personally in this sort of game as a player I would politely request the GM for a side mission to restore previous levels, if no then I would probably ask for the loot pot to contain a couple of potions down the road or something because permanent level drain is NOT fun. In a game where it can take weeks to months to level its almost like wasting the time the players put into the game.

[Coidzor]

How would you feel if your PC would lose two levels, from 8th to 6th, and no restoration magic was available in the campaign world? Is retiring the character the norm?

Low magic and things like incorporeal foes and level drain generally should not mix in my opinion.

And if there was no such thing as restoration magic and the DM brought in level drain, I'd call shenanigans directly with the DM and ask them what the hell they were thinking with that particular combination of rules.

Granted, I'm not much of a fan of level draining anyway. Temporary negative levels, sure. Having them be a way one can die, ok. Having them be a magic tax, ok, I guess, if I have to, but it still seems clunky and awkward no matter how many times I run through it.


A player should never be punished for sticking with his old character instead of creating a new.
His current level-drained character is at 6th level. If he could create a new 6th-level character, it might be better suited to defeat the vampire. However, creating a "current level - 1" level character makes continuing with the current character a more appealing idea.

One level behind the rest of the party, maybe. Maybe.

A constant downward spiral until you're just playing the "one person has a level one character and the rest of us are level 12" game, on the other hand... That should be pretty obvious for the kind of horse puckey that it is.


If the campaign was extremely high lethality though (like a 1ed dungeon crawl style campaign) I'd probably just go with it until my character inevitably got killed by something and consider it just part and parcel of that style of play. Sometimes you get killed before you can act, sometimes you get level drained, sometimes you open a chest and there are spores that turn you into a moss man.

Well if it's like that then they just gank the Cleric for running out on them and then trying to rejoin them after that kind of behavior, then the Cleric has to come back a level lower than they are. Problem solved, everyone's unhappy and resentful towards one another. XD

[Shining Wrath]

Low magic and things like incorporeal foes and level drain generally should not mix in my opinion.

And if there was no such thing as restoration magic and the DM brought in level drain, I'd call shenanigans directly with the DM and ask them what the hell they were thinking with that particular combination of rules.

Granted, I'm not much of a fan of level draining anyway. Temporary negative levels, sure. Having them be a way one can die, ok. Having them be a magic tax, ok, I guess, if I have to, but it still seems clunky and awkward no matter how many times I run through it.



One level behind the rest of the party, maybe. Maybe.

A constant downward spiral until you're just playing the "one person has a level one character and the rest of us are level 12" game, on the other hand... That should be pretty obvious for the kind of horse puckey that it is.

OTOH, Level 1 character throws a javelin (uttering his battle cry "I'm HELPING!"), party wizard puts him in a Resilient Sphere for duration of combat, he gets his share of XP from that combat - lemme see here. Calculator doesn't award points below level 5, but a level 5 character with 3 level 12 friends against a single CR 12 monster gets 4500 XP.

So after one combat he's mid-level 3; after two, high level 4; after 3, high level 5.

[HammeredWharf]

Is there a reason why you can't introduce a lvl 7+ Cleric NPC? Gaining his/her favor in a week could be a quest hook.


WotC game designers are plain terrible; think of it like this: if a player has a character who dies, by those rules he rolls up a new one at a level lower but suddenly the weaker character dies again, thus a new one has to be brought in at another level back and eventually you create a downward spiral.

Mechanically, this. From a non-mechanic perspective, in a good game player characters are more than a bunch of XP and loot. PC should have story importance that's more precious than something the DM has an infinite amount of (XP).

On a more general level, I'd advise not to use RNG-based irrepairable damage in your campaigns. Even if the Cleric hadn't escaped, the vampire could've hit him with a nat 20 and drained some levels. Even if it only hit three times, its chance to get a natural 20 once or more would've been ~15%.

[Phelix-Mu]

Here's my take:

Work hard to avoid a character retirement. The only reasons for character retirement, in my mind, is if the out-of-game player really isn't having fun anymore, and no sensible degree of retraining/rebuilding/templating/etc will fix it.

Here's my logic. It sets bad precedent when the result of in-game hardship is out-of-game lowering the bar (and I see switching characters outside of character death pretty much as trying to lower the bar, making something undesirable go away by replacing it outright). It's inelegant, and while it may occasionally be inevitable, I am fairly close to saying that, given the world-defying powers of the DM, it should never be "inevitable" for in-game reasons.

So, how would I handle it? I like the idea of a quest to restore the lost vitality of the heroes. Perhaps a nymph guards a sacred spring that, just once, can restore lost strength to those that pass its three trials. This stuff is really interesting stuff from a plot perspective, and instead of early retirement shattering party cohesion and the sense of continuity in the group, everyone has a shared memory of something interesting and challenging that they did to help one of their own. I can pitch additional ideas for the "undo-the-damage" quest, if it would help.

Finally, I would chime in that, from time-to-time, one of my players realizes that their current concept just isn't what they wanted. Instead of wholesale replacement, I usually offer some kind of religious conversion/spiritual apotheosis/mutation/head injury in the form of extensive role play to explore the nature of the change, what caused it, what it means going forward, and so forth. Midway through a long-running campaign of mine, an Exalted spellscale ranger/Lion of Talisid realized that he had a deeper spiritual calling (and, out-of-game, the player was gaining much more fun out of support spellcasting than melee). I worked this into a religious conversion scenario, where he met an aspect of Hleid in disguise, who proceeded to help the spellscale explore in depth his need to help people, heal, and protect the weak. At the end, when his virtue proved worthy, Hleid revealed herself and told him to quest in the north to find a rimefire eidolon, who would help him complete his training. Out of game, it was a total rebuild of class levels from ranger to cleric of Hleid. In-game, it was one of the most enjoyable and inspired bits of one-on-one role playing that I have had the privilege to be part of.

Note: Hleid was not totally random; the spellscale was a hero of note from northern tribe of barbarians who had left to prove his worth and explore the larger world. So this all tied quite well into the character's growth and evolution.

So, basically, I would take pains to try to ensure that the mechanics aren't damaging the story, but without simply handwaving the negative levels away. As several other posters have said, if they work for it, it will be all the more rewarding in the end. Don't look at this as an unintended snafu, but as an unexpected opportunity to draw the characters closer and the story into a new direction (if only temporarily).

[BWR]

To answer the OP's question, I would keep playing the character, with some house rules. I cut my teeth on BECMI (and later 2e) and when you lost a level, you lost a level. No save no wussy negative levels, just remove everything that your last character level gave. But since you lost a level, you could regain it as well just by advancing normally.
So if you can regain your lost level by earning enough experience to level back to your original level, I'd certainly accept this in a game.
Heck, since d20 negative levels are so kind and considerate compared to earlier editions, you might even allow the poor sucker to only have to earn half the lost level.

[awa]

OTOH, Level 1 character throws a javelin (uttering his battle cry "I'm HELPING!"), party wizard puts him in a Resilient Sphere for duration of combat, he gets his share of XP from that combat - lemme see here. Calculator doesn't award points below level 5, but a level 5 character with 3 level 12 friends against a single CR 12 monster gets 4500 XP.

So after one combat he's mid-level 3; after two, high level 4; after 3, high level 5.

in theory fine but 12th level d&d fights take at least an hours each in my experience usually more
I have played in games where i was unable to contribute for several fights in a row and going to a game and wishing i could read a book without being rude is not ideal.

Now 2 levels is not 12 but personal it looks like the situation you have set up is going to be very frustrating and unfun for the players.

A lot of the challenges in the monster manuals are based around the logic that you can get rid of them fairly easily if you change that dynamic you make the monster harder and the pcs should be rewarded for there greater victory. The cleric should get no xp and the party should get xp based on there current levels to help get them back up to speed.

edit forgot blue is sarcastic

[killer_monk]

Okay, so I've actually been in a similar situation as a player.

A) let them reroll their saves. This is hand waving, so not what I'd go for.

B) Most other posters have already suggested a side quest, and I recommend it.

C) Have them pick a god. Then they roll d%. On a 90+ the god actually speaks to them and, again, sends them on a quest. Upon completion their negative levels are removed. This is basically B).

D) stop playing low magic. I've tried low magic and it's fun for nobody but maybe a sadist DM. Let them know there are plenty of items to remove negative levels, and even items to help prevent them. The items are for PCs who have the same problem you're facing. Don't make a low magic group fight undead, since most will wreck your party composition. Teach them teamwork and go from their. Allowing them access to a higher level cleric in a big city would be nice, since they'd still have to have to gold to pay for the level removal.

And yeah, the cleric shouldn't get any XP. Since he did not meaningfully contribute.

[Telonius]

Wow, now that's the most exotic standard rule I've heard in a while. I'm kind of disoriented here at the moment, excuse me. Don't get me wrong, I love what you're saying. However, I have to post you this from the 3.5 DMG page 42:

http://s30.postimg.org/tk8zbaypd/image.png

A player should never be punished for sticking with his old character instead of creating a new.
His current level-drained character is at 6th level. If he could create a new 6th-level character, it might be better suited to defeat the vampire. However, creating a "current level - 1" level character makes continuing with the current character a more appealing idea.

My personal opinion on it:

You're the DM. You have the ability to take a thick black marker to that section of the DMG. You should do so at the first opportunity. (I'd do the same to the "Multiclass XP" section as well, but that's another story). Seriously, he was playing a Rogue/Monk character two levels behind a Cleric. That's punishment enough.

Regarding the Cleric, I'd think that even Zagyg would have a problem with his Clerics getting a reputation for extreme cowardice. He's the god's representative. If he's making Zagyg look bad, there should be consequences.

[Bugworlds]

As a player I'd be upset, but personally I know what vampires found do and support the notion of accepting and overcoming. If I didn't know what a vampire was capable of, well that's my fault for being inexperienced (not a big error, but still falling on my side). Given opportunity I'd get those levels back quickly, and he fine with a side quest or something like that. Won't the level difference in characters cause a fairly quick catch up? At least hanging in there until the cleric can cast restoration would be okay.

Now, as a DM, I need to understand my players. To keep the game fun the DM needs to work with the players a bit just as the players need to accept what happens or reasonably challenge it. What do the players want? Give that to them, but they have to work for it. If I don't like their solution I'll let them try but give an alternate solution through the events or world. They want to spend the next few sessions trying to catch up but you want to move on? Turns out the cleric at the church they helped recently noticed they were looking a bit beat down and thought to offer them some retorstion in exchange for doing a lesser-than-previous task. The players don't have to take this but it would be tempting. What if they want to get a fast solution, perhaps one of them remembers that cleric and thought they would go back and visit but you want them to accept what's happened? Well that cleric went on vacation but a few low CR encounters show up on the way to the church. Perhaps put some traps which the players and PCs are familiar with and they get some extra experience there.

Maybe the DM doesn't want to have the plot interrupted and the players don't want to deal with the consequences? A Ctrl+Z option is available but is never as satisfying.

[Slipperychicken]

Regarding the Cleric, I'd think that even Zagyg would have a problem with his Clerics getting a reputation for extreme cowardice. He's the god's representative. If he's making Zagyg look bad, there should be consequences.

Isn't Zagyg a god of insanity, humor, and unpredictability? He might have found the situation amusing.

[VoxRationis]

Now, unlike many in these forums, I am a fan of low-magic settings. However, I do have to say: if you have a means of draining levels in the setting, you should have a means of restoring them. It might be difficult to achieve, but there should be a method.
That said, as a player, I don't think I would mind too much, even if I didn't get my levels restored. Firstly, it's only two levels and their quicker rate of XP gain should eventually get them caught up to within acceptable levels. Second off, sometimes bad things happen. That's part of the story. Living with it and keeping on is part of what makes this a storytelling game.
In any case, keeping character rollover to a minimum is a good thing, or you lose continuity and your party eventually becomes composed entirely of people who weren't around to learn what they were doing in the first place (this happened to me one time).

[awa]

i also like low magic you just have to pick monster that function well in a low magic world (or modify problematic powers so as to make them function.)

[VoxRationis]

i also like low magic you just have to pick monster that function well in a low magic world (or modify problematic powers so as to make them function.)

I agree. If you keep the vampire's special attacks at all, you should alter the level drain to be temporary hp drain instead.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, keeping monsters unchanged with low magic world makes no sense, because the monsters in D&D were made the way they are assuming high magic exists. You have slammed face first into the fact that, if you don't dramatically change the assumptions of the creatures the players go up against, low magic using the 3.5e rules blatantly does not work. So no, I wouldn't accept it; I would call shenanigans. You said this was a low magic world, you have a responsibility to remove the things that require a high magic world to fight.

[Phelix-Mu]

I don't think the existence of monsters with means to render pcs seriously neutered or seriously dead implies the need for the pcs to definitely and always have countermeasures. If the world were so clean-cut, there would be little need for heroes, and there would be a lot less drama.

I do generally accept that D&D wasn't designed with low-magic in mind. I just don't think that means that all the monsters need to have their claws removed. The idea of low-magic is to generally raise the stakes of failure and add a gritty element to the world; neutering all the baddies works directly counter to that purpose. Some monsters would clearly be not good in certain situations (like ghosts v low-level party or no-cleric party). But I think a DM can keep quite a few things, as long as it is clear in the lore that those things are much more feared/powerful than in the standard game.

[VoxRationis]

Yea, keeping monsters unchanged with low magic world makes no sense, because the monsters in D&D were made the way they are assuming high magic exists. You have slammed face first into the fact that, if you don't dramatically change the assumptions of the creatures the players go up against, low magic using the 3.5e rules blatantly does not work. So no, I wouldn't accept it; I would call shenanigans. You said this was a low magic world, you have a responsibility to remove the things that require a high magic world to fight.

To be fair, they did have a paladin and a cleric running around, both classes that have tools to deal with undead (vampires can actually be kept at bay with a simple presented holy symbol, no turning check necessary). If the cleric hadn't run for it, they probably could have beaten it more handily. The setting may have low magic in total, but the party clearly wasn't that low magic.

[Adverb]

Attacks that probably won't come into play, but if they do, ruin one or more people's ability to have fun at the table? They're bad juju and you shouldn't throw those monsters at your PCs.

Retconning is generally bad, but if you say to your players "this is a low-magic world, sorry, I should have nerfed the vampire accordingly", then maybe the hp drain thing above isn't the worst idea. Having the god of the cleric strip two levels off for cowardice might make sense and would keep the party on equalish footing... but sometimes running is the sensible course, and why punish the cleric for his friends' overconfidence? Maybe this should just be the lesson of "sometimes you gotta run."

I dunno, dude, I sympathize. Having played a PC that died twice, and was thus two levels behind the rest of the party, it does suck a lot of the fun out of it.

A constructive solution: Give all the loot from the fight to the two people that stayed, fought, and got level drained. Have some of the loot from that fight turn out to be substantially powerful/awesome/plot-relevant.

[Coidzor]

To be fair, they did have a paladin and a cleric running around, both classes that have tools to deal with undead (vampires can actually be kept at bay with a simple presented holy symbol, no turning check necessary). If the cleric hadn't run for it, they probably could have beaten it more handily. The setting may have low magic in total, but the party clearly wasn't that low magic.

And they're the ones being punished for the cleric's player's cowardice.

[holywhippet]

There's your problem: You're including level drain in the game, but no ways to recover from it, and then crossing your fingers hoping the PCs can somehow deal with it. You really shouldn't be surprised when PCs get hit with those effects and have no way to cope.

At least that was a lesson the 3rd edition designers had taken from 2nd edition. In that game restoration was a 7th level spell for clerics which is generally well past when level draining undead are likely to be encountered or even a threat.

On top of that, IIRC the spell only gave you back just enough XP for the level you are restored back to. If you we 10 XP away from the next level, all of that progress is gone. You also only get back 1 level per casting of the spell and have to be fully restored within one day or else kiss your level recovery good by except for the hard way.

Your main defense from level drain was the negative plane protection spell. But it only protects for 1 single hit and calls for a save vs. death. If you fail the save you take twice as much damage as normal.

Level draining is nasty and it is a mean thing to throw at the players without any means of recovery.

[awa]

a way ive done it in the past for things meant to be really damaging like level drain (being run in systems with out magic recovery) Is have it heal on it's own but take like a week or so.

They have to suffer the penalty of the level drain for awhile they see that vampires are something not to be messed with casually but once the week is up they are completely even with the other players. (adjust exact time based on how quickly time passes in game)

Most people i have played with enjoy the game more when there characters not wildly behind another player and the point of the game is to have fun. If the players/ you arnt having fun you are doing it wrong even if the rules say you are doing it right.

[NichG]

At least that was a lesson the 3rd edition designers had taken from 2nd edition. In that game restoration was a 7th level spell for clerics which is generally well past when level draining undead are likely to be encountered or even a threat.

On top of that, IIRC the spell only gave you back just enough XP for the level you are restored back to. If you we 10 XP away from the next level, all of that progress is gone. You also only get back 1 level per casting of the spell and have to be fully restored within one day or else kiss your level recovery good by except for the hard way.

Your main defense from level drain was the negative plane protection spell. But it only protects for 1 single hit and calls for a save vs. death. If you fail the save you take twice as much damage as normal.

Level draining is nasty and it is a mean thing to throw at the players without any means of recovery.

For a high lethality dungeon crawl campaign, this isn't actually nearly as much of a problem because everyone is constantly having setbacks anyhow. In a more extended, story-based campaign where you expect to be playing the same character in three sessions, its an issue. So I'd say it actually probably worked fine in 1ed and early 2ed, but as 2ed made the transition towards more story-driven campaigns it became a problem.

[ericgrau]

Your world has level drain effects but no restoration. That and 99 other things are the problem right there. You need to take out all those monsters if you run low magic.

I can at most tolerate being 2 levels behind. At the 3rd I'd give up, and the 2nd is not a happy place either. I have actually tolerated being 5 levels but -5 levels was still pretty high level and I pulled some magical tricks. On rogues, paladins and even clerics it's death.

Ya I'd give them some way to fix it. I'd also stop using anything that needs magic to deal with it, because no matter how easy a single lucky/unlucky roll will screw over the party for the next 5 sessions. Or ditch low magic. It's way too riddled with problems.

[BWR]

Your world has level drain effects but no restoration. That and 99 other things are the problem right there. You need to take out all those monsters if you run low magic.


Really? Why? What is wrong with a more dangerous world where certain monsters are deadly and having your lifeforce drained is something other than a temporary annoyance?
This feeling of 'everything must be quickly and easily fixed' is something that came about in 3.x and quite occasionally makes me miss the 'good old days'. Lost levels used to mean something in the long term. Even experienced adventurers didn't like going up against drainers, especially unprepared. They were really, really nasty, and running a game where this is the case again sounds fun.

[killer_monk]

Really? Why? What is wrong with a more dangerous world where certain monsters are deadly and having your lifeforce drained is something other than a temporary annoyance?
This feeling of 'everything must be quickly and easily fixed' is something that came about in 3.x and quite occasionally makes me miss the 'good old days'. Lost levels used to mean something in the long term. Even experienced adventurers didn't like going up against drainers, especially unprepared. They were really, really nasty, and running a game where this is the case again sounds fun.

I personally like a high lethality campaign. But that's something a GM should tell his players before throwing them to the dogs.

I'd ask the players. Ask them if they mind having levels drained. If they honestly don't mind a more difficult game, then yeah, shoot for it. But remember that a GM is there to make it fun, and if the players aren't having fun...then you've kinda lost the point of the game.

[Jon_Dahl]

Apparently it's best that I explain what I meant with "low-magic". The term is not that accurate.

The low-magic is not about the absence or lack of magic. It's about the control of magic.

In my game, the churches, regardless of alignment, are competing for souls. Any true worshipper adds power to the deity. Deities have their goals, of course, and alignment, but they get weaker if they don't focus on the competition for souls. A greedy god with greedy clerics who sell their spells to nonbelievers will find itself waning in power. Therefore it's basically mandatory to belong to a congregation, prove your faith and tithe regularly.

I have explained this to my players several times and they are fully aware of it. There are basically no mercenary clerics selling their spells to the highest bidder, unless they are chaotic, greedy or evil, and those are hard to come by.

I could arrange a mission for them to regain their lost levels. I like that idea and it would work in my campaign world. Magic marts and spell selling doesn't go with my world at all.

[SiuiS]

For our previous D&D 3.5 session I had prepared a 6th-level vampire monk, a bit suboptimal one I'd say. It had quite forminable level draining abilities, but I didn't feel worried at all, since its unarmed attack bonus was only +9 and the AC of the PCs were 32, 27 and 19 (without combat reflexes, which he used extensively). The PCs were well aware of the vampire. All the PCs had great will saves against the gaze attack and the vampire only had 26 hp. This was supposed to be a complete push-over. Let it be noted that the character were a monk/rogue, paladin of freedom and a multiclass cleric.

However, the AC 32 multiclass cleric stayed behind and escaped, while the paladin and monk lost levels. They didn't even manage in their saves, so the monk/rogue and paladin both permanently lost two levels.

Now the monk/rogue's player wants to create a new character, but it'll be three levels lower than the multiclass cleric!

It's a mess! Two PCs having their levels drained and one leaving unharmed... I run a low-magic world, so restorations aren't readily available. The players know this.

How would you feel if your PC would lose two levels, from 8th to 6th, and no restoration magic was available in the campaign world? Is retiring the character the norm?

Why would the new character be three levels behind? You aren't going to make them start a new character at their current, drained level when they're only making a new character because of those drained levels are you?

[Jon_Dahl]

Why would the new character be three levels behind? You aren't going to make them start a new character at their current, drained level when they're only making a new character because of those drained levels are you?

We've been over this already, but the DMG is very specific about not making player suffer sticking with current character if the option is creating a new character. Who would stick with a 6th-level character if a 7th-level or 8th-level is an option? Continuity should be respected as well.

6th-level drained character with connection to the game world < 7th or higher-level new character
6th-level drained character with connection to the game world = 6th-level new character
6th-level drained character with connection to the game world > 5th-level new character

In the cases of < or = the player might feel punished for sticking with the current character. In > most likely not. I like my continuity!

[Telok]

Back in a previous century I had an AD&D character go from 10th level to 2nd level in the surprise round of a scry-and-die featuring a vampire wizard. No saves, no defenses, no return.

It just meant that I played carefully and leveled almost every session for a while. Simply calculate out the XP more often and throw around Silence spells a bit more untill the the drained characters catch up. It won't take long and the characters will respect the monsters a bit more.

[BWR]

But that's something a GM should tell his players before throwing them to the dogs.

I'd ask the players. Ask them if they mind having levels drained. If they honestly don't mind a more difficult game, then yeah, shoot for it. But remember that a GM is there to make it fun, and if the players aren't having fun...then you've kinda lost the point of the game.

Well, yes. I'd like to say 'obviously', but for some reason this isn't obvious to everyone.
* If you are going to run things differently than the rules say, tell your players before character creation
* If you have some basic assumptions about the world and the game, tell your players this before play starts, especially if these differ from what you have done before or from the 'normal' versions of the game
* Make sure everyone is having fun. Sometimes this won't be possible because some players want entirely different things than the DM is running. If there are people who are not having fun, try to find out why and come to some sort of arrangement. Worst case scenario, scrap the game and start something new.
* GMs have rights too. You don't have to give in to every whiny player who bitches about how X ruling is unfair or not how he wants things to work. Sometimes a player should just shut up and run with something that isn't his absolute favorite so others can get something they like once in a while.

[awa]

Back in a previous century I had an AD&D character go from 10th level to 2nd level in the surprise round of a scry-and-die featuring a vampire wizard. No saves, no defenses, no return.

It just meant that I played carefully and leveled almost every session for a while. Simply calculate out the XP more often and throw around Silence spells a bit more untill the the drained characters catch up. It won't take long and the characters will respect the monsters a bit more.

earlier editions were a very different game numbers were lowers and increased by less each level so a low level pc could still contribute and low level monsters were still a threat. A less complicated system also means that in my experience fights were shorter thus you would catch up faster.

Compare 3rd edition where each fight takes an hour+

[Fouredged Sword]

I would let a player drop a character after a major set back, so long as they have a solid IC reason to do so, without penalty. Loosing 1/3rd to 1/4th their levels permanently is totally a solid reason someone may question their life path and decide to retire to a town to live their life more peacefully, just as much as someone who looses a leg may retire.

Now, getting a new character should NEVER be a bonus. I would just waive the penalty to starting a new character.

He would A, have to take his items with him as he retires, and B the new character would start with the same total wealth. After a major set back, it is OK for a player to want to switch things up if he feels his character design isn't working. Don't make someone stick with something they are not having fun with.

[awa]

Actually if you think about it your penalizing him for not dying in the fight in regards to coming back 3 levels lower. because if the vampire had killed him he would only have lost 1 level

[VoxRationis]

Everyone stop talking about "punishing" and "penalizing" the players for different things. RPGs are about logical consequences. In the words of Abed (from Community):

"If you get hit, you take damage. If you stand in front of a guy's house for an hour, arguing about who gets to kill him, he leaves out the back door."

[Zubrowka74]

Isn't Zagyg a god of insanity, humor, and unpredictability? He might have found the situation amusing.

Yeah. With this in mind, I'd actually award him XP for RP.

Someone mentioned earlier editions and respect for monsters. Undead are supposed to be horrible and scary. Nowadays players expect to eat Dracoliches for breakfast. The power level is such that optimized party aren't afraid of anything anymore. City guards? Pffft! Let's axe this militia and do what we want! From what the OP said, they had a chance to flee with the cleric and decided to attack anyways.

But I'll also vouch for having a way to regain the levels since it's a low magic world. You can't say that the world is low magic yet encouter undeads and aberrations all the time. In such a setting they should be rare.

[ericgrau]

Really? Why? What is wrong with a more dangerous world where certain monsters are deadly and having your lifeforce drained is something other than a temporary annoyance?
This feeling of 'everything must be quickly and easily fixed' is something that came about in 3.x and quite occasionally makes me miss the 'good old days'. Lost levels used to mean something in the long term. Even experienced adventurers didn't like going up against drainers, especially unprepared. They were really, really nasty, and running a game where this is the case again sounds fun.

The part where low CR foes aren't really low CR anymore because those permanent effects will make it harder for the PCs to beat future fights. At minimum the foes should be famous for being scary with a knowledge check rather than a surprise. This is something the characters may know that the players don't. Then it might be 3 PCs running instead of one. Or engaging the foe only at a safe range regardless of how much harder that might be for characters who aren't built for distance.

Otherwise it isn't really an increased challenge it's you fail and there's not much you can do about it.

For this time I'd give them a quest or whatever to fix it, then warn them for next time that even minor foes can have afflictions or other abilities that will be hard to deal with and new characters might be lower level. I don't the issue is that the cleric ran, it's that all 3 of them didn't run together. What if it had been an easy win and they only lost a level or two? Even then is that really worth it?

[awa]

Everyone stop talking about "punishing" and "penalizing" the players for different things. RPGs are about logical consequences.

I was talking about how if he died and made a new character it would be level-1 but because he survived making a new character is level -3.
So in this case dying is objectively better then surviving.

The level of a new character has nothing to do with in game logic

[Yogibear41]

If he wants to make a character because he is tired of the one he has, I don't see a problem.

If he wants to make a character because he is mad because he got "level drained" I think he should just get over it, why play a game if there is no risk of bad stuff happening/failure?

They knew they were going up against a vampire, they should have prepared accordingly, its a learning experience. Just because they think something is going to be a push over, doesn't mean they shouldn't take it as a serious threat.

Resurgence is a 1st level spell that would let them reroll their saves right after they failed them if you happened to stop playing right after they failed their saves, if you want to help them out without cheating.

[Coidzor]

Everyone stop talking about "punishing" and "penalizing" the players for different things. RPGs are about logical consequences. In the words of Abed (from Community):

Jon Dahl brought it up in the first place, you'll note, because he thinks letting them reroll characters they already don't want would be punishing them for staying as those characters unless he punishes them for changing characters. :smalltongue:


Actually if you think about it your penalizing him for not dying in the fight in regards to coming back 3 levels lower. because if the vampire had killed him he would only have lost 1 level

Yeah, that's my biggest issue with the OP's reasoning here. Followed by their need to heap punishment upon punishment by making them lose another level when they've already lost 2.

[SinsI]

The characters are obviously extremely underpowered - only 3 players, a "cleric" that only has 3 caster levels, no basic magic necessities like restoration available...

And you've thrown a Vampire, with all its immunities, level drain, fast healing, gaseous form, DR 10/silver and magic against them? What the hell were you thinking?! Be really, really glad that they actually made it out alive.
This is obviously your fault as a DM.
For surviving such an Overwhelming encounter, give them all enough XP to advance at least 3 levels.

[Mootsmcboots]

The characters are obviously extremely underpowered - only 3 players, a "cleric" that only has 3 caster levels, no basic magic necessities like restoration available...

And you've thrown a Vampire, with all its immunities, level drain, fast healing, gaseous form, DR 10/silver and magic against them? What the hell were you thinking?! Be really, really glad that they actually made it out alive.
This is obviously your fault as a DM.
For surviving such an Overwhelming encounter, give them all enough XP to advance at least 3 levels.


It's easy to blame this on the DM. But in every fight there's 4 options. Fight and win. Fight and lose. Find a non combat solution. Run away.

Everyone keeps ragging on the cleric, but he took the sensible option. The remaining 2 fighting with odds not in their favour? Just because you are an adventurer does not mean that every fight is going to go your way. You either cut loose and run, or stay, fight and suffer the consequences.

Having to flee an encounter once in a blue moon is a good reminder that A) Bad things can happen. B)PCs are not invincible and C) A DM cannot save you everytime you make a bad call, they have consequences. It's not the DMs job to solve challenges for players.

Knowing my DM will step in when I mess up, or ensure every encounter has a resolution favourable to the party, or thet really there is no risk takes the fun out of it.

"The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom." -Sun Tzu

The first two essentials for victory as per Sun Tzu
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

[SiuiS]

We've been over this already, but the DMG is very specific about not making player suffer sticking with current character if the option is creating a new character. Who would stick with a 6th-level character if a 7th-level or 8th-level is an option? Continuity should be respected as well.

6th-level drained character with connection to the game world < 7th or higher-level new character
6th-level drained character with connection to the game world = 6th-level new character
6th-level drained character with connection to the game world > 5th-level new character

In the cases of < or = the player might feel punished for sticking with the current character. In > most likely not. I like my continuity!

None of this has anything to do with "a player who had his levels drained from X to X-y wants to reroll a new character. His new character is also going to be level X-y."

IF: reroll is to get around level loss
THEN: reroll at reduced level is pointless

Why let them make a new character at all at that point? It's a waste of time; they will still be at reduced level, their 'punishment' won't go away, there is literally no advantage unless they step up the Optimization Curve.

[BWR]

The part where low CR foes aren't really low CR anymore because those permanent effects will make it harder for the PCs to beat future fights. At minimum the foes should be famous for being scary with a knowledge check rather than a surprise. This is something the characters may know that the players don't. Then it might be 3 PCs running instead of one. Or engaging the foe only at a safe range regardless of how much harder that might be for characters who aren't built for distance.


1. CR has always been a very inaccurate for determining how difficult overcoming something is. I don't recall 'how difficult it is to recover from it' as part of the elements taken into consideration when determining SC. I could be wrong.
2. Huh? Isn't this bascially what the knowledge check does? "It's a really scary monster that drains your vitality from you". Did I miss something from the OP that said the PCs weren't allowed a K. check? Or that they should have managed but were overruled? Or that they learned only a few things from a K. check and 'level drain' wasn't one of them and that's unfair somehow?
On the subject of K. checks, not everyone likes the "auto-know everything about enemies" aspect of the Knowledge skills. I don't know how Jon handles this in his games, but several people I know use the K checks as suggestions at best, with several modifiers. Sometimes, you just haven't heard of a given creature, no matter what the rules say.

[Firechanter]

True words have already been said in this thread, especially the bits about unilaterally removing player options while leaving the full monster lethality in place.

I also skipped page 2 of this thread, so apologies if the following math has already been exercised or otherwise rendered obsolete:

So I understand a party of 3 level 8s entered the thunderdome, and 2 level 6s came out. Presuming they actually destroyed the vampire, that's a lot of XP between those two! (Of course the Cleric who skipped doesn't get any)
A "level 6 vampire monk" is actually a CR14. That doesn't even register on the XP chart anymore, but if you extrapolate the values from the chart, you can treat it equivalent to 2 CR12 creatures, so each of our heroes receives 14.400XP.
At this point, you might kindly ignore the rule that says you cannot gain more than 1 level in a single encounter; it's a stupid rule anyway. So, *ding* the Paladin and Rogue are right back to level 8.

Edit: for comparison: if the Cleric hadn't routed, and nobody had gotten drained as you expected, that would have been 6400XP each, which might have been enough to heave them into level 9.

[TuggyNE]

A "level 6 vampire monk" is actually a CR14.

It looks like CR 8 from here. However, CR 8 is not exactly trivial for two level 8 characters; it's more of a miniboss fight than a curbstomp. Which is pretty much exactly what happened, since the PCs won but with heavy losses.

CR giving an accurate prediction of encounter difficulty? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS

[Jon_Dahl]

2. Huh? Isn't this bascially what the knowledge check does? "It's a really scary monster that drains your vitality from you". Did I miss something from the OP that said the PCs weren't allowed a K. check? Or that they should have managed but were overruled? Or that they learned only a few things from a K. check and 'level drain' wasn't one of them and that's unfair somehow?
On the subject of K. checks, not everyone likes the "auto-know everything about enemies" aspect of the Knowledge skills. I don't know how Jon handles this in his games, but several people I know use the K checks as suggestions at best, with several modifiers. Sometimes, you just haven't heard of a given creature, no matter what the rules say.

Knowledge checks are very much allowed in my game and work according to the RAW. The multiclass cleric doesn't have any ranks in knowledge (religion). The paladin does have and rolled 15 (in total). Vampires are at least 5 HD creatures, so he only knew the name "vampire" and the undead type. He needed at least 20 to know additional information about the vampires, such as their weaknesses.
In case someone doesn't know (there has been some very unorthodox views in this thread about rules so far), this is how knowledge checks work:
Knowledge check = Creature HD = You recognise the monster and type.
Knowledge check = Creature HD + 5 = You know some useful information about the creature.

Knowledges are extremely valuable in games, because I always give handy tips how to defeat the monster. This time none was given because of the lack of decent rolls. With 20 I would've advised about the DR.

[Firechanter]

It looks like CR 8 from here.

Huh. Maybe I've been missing something all these years, but here's how I calculated: the Vampire template gives a LA+8. Monk 6 plus LA+8 makes it ECL14 = CR14.

[Zombimode]

Yes, the point you're missing is that ECL != CR.

The Vampire template (and all other templates) are actually quite clear on that.

Under "challange rating" you find:
"Same as the base creature +2."

Assuming the base creature was a human (or other humanoid) Monk level 6, the CR for a Human Monk 6 Vampire ist 6 + 2 = 8.

Concerning the talk about "CR IS USELESS!!!111elventwelve": say what you want but in my now 3 1/2 years of experience as a D&D 3.5 DM, the CR figures are for the most part quite reasonable and useful estimates and guidelines.

The Vampire Monk 6 as a CR 14 creature would be hilariously underpowered. Just compare it to, say, a Nalfeshnee.

[TuggyNE]

Huh. Maybe I've been missing something all these years, but here's how I calculated: the Vampire template gives a LA+8. Monk 6 plus LA+8 makes it ECL14 = CR14.

Yeah, LA doesn't count, only the +2 CR adjustment is included.

[Telonius]

Yeah, the sample Elite Vampire in the Monster Manual is a 13th level character, listed as CR 15. Level Adjustment is just a measure of how hard it is to get to the next level, not really having anything to do with CR.

[Firechanter]

Oh, I see.
You know what's funny, this misconception of mine has actually led to me not using Templates very often. =D