Dorkness rising bard syndrome. Aka: Meet my dead character's twin

[Calthropstu]

Obviously The Gamers took the concept to a hideous extreme, but at what point should a gm say "No, you can't bring a character that is exactly the same as your last. Come up with something new."

I have seen this more than once, and it kind of irks me.

[zlefin]

there's no inherent should; but the dm could reasonably say it whenever it's done.
of course it's dnd, why isn't the char just being raised instead, then they can be exactly the same without needing any justification :P

mostly it depends on the play-style and roleplay preferences of the group. with most groups such behavior should be discouraged, for certain group types, it's really not a problem at all.
other exceptions might include: a player who has difficulty role-playing, especially when they have to act like yet another different person.

[heavyfuel]

At my tables, the point is 0 times.

If your char dies, and you decide to bring in a carbon-copy of him to the table, you better have a damn good justification for it.

Doing this is just lazy play, and discourages players from growing attached to their chars. If the players don't care that their chars are dying every other session because they can just bring in new characters with no penalty, that's your fault as GM

Deaths should come with penalties. Why would you Raise Dead, which costs the party 5000 gp, requires a high-level cleric, and brings your char to life one level lower, when you can just get a new char? In my games, new chars are (usually) 2 levels lower than the party average and they also have limited equipment to avoid breaking WBL

[Gullintanni]

At my tables, the point is 0 times.

If your char dies, and you decide to bring in a carbon-copy of him to the table, you better have a damn good justification for it.

Doing this is just lazy play, and discourages players from growing attached to their chars. If the players don't care that their chars are dying every other session because they can just bring in new characters with no penalty, that's your fault as GM

Deaths should come with penalties. Why would you Raise Dead, which costs the party 5000 gp, requires a high-level cleric, and brings your char to life one level lower, when you can just get a new char? In my games, new chars are (usually) 2 levels lower than the party average and they also have limited equipment to avoid breaking WBL

I agree with most of this except the bolded section - this is incredibly disruptive at low levels. A level 18 in a party of 20's isn't that far off the mark, but a level 2 in a party of 4's is a liability. Especially if the player in question is running a lower tier character. If I was put 2 levels behind at that point, I'd optimize the hell out of my character and probably play a primary caster just to try and stay relevant. Even being Raised never costs more than a single level. I'd think that penalty is more than enough.

As for WBL - I'd adjust situationally based on how much of the fallen party member's gear was recoverable.

[heavyfuel]

I agree with most of this except the bolded section - this is incredibly disruptive at low levels. A level 18 in a party of 20's isn't that far off the mark, but a level 2 in a party of 4's is a liability. Especially if the player in question is running a lower tier character. If I was put 2 levels behind at that point, I'd optimize the hell out of my character and probably play a primary caster just to try and stay relevant. Even being Raised never costs more than a single level. I'd think that penalty is more than enough.

As for WBL - I'd adjust situationally based on how much of the fallen party member's gear was recoverable.

That's why I said "usually". I'm not bringing a lv 1 character in a lv 3 group

[Gullintanni]

That's why I said "usually". I'm not bringing a lv 1 character in a lv 3 group

Fair enough I guess - even as a level 18 in a party of 20's, if someone put me two levels behind, I'd be pretty grumpy about it. One level back is bad, two's frustrating. YMMV I suppose.

That being said, if you bring a carbon copy of your fallen character to the table, I might feel spiteful enough to let you play from two levels back lol.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm generally willing to give leeway about this if there's some plausible reason. For example, if someone was a paladin sent by some order to help deal with a problem, the order could send someone else.

When I write characters I generally try to write in their backstory at least one person who would be interested in picking up the pieces of wherever they were. For example, in one scifi game I was in, a character had in his backstory a sister who based on circumstances had reason to think he was dead under suspicious circumstances. So if he did ever really die, I could then have her show up investigating his first death. But when I've done that I've tried to make the characters themselves pretty different.

[Gnaeus]

Worth noting is that in the event of a single character death, the party needs likely haven’t changed. If you are the Arcane caster and you die, you are probably looking at another Arcane caster in a reasonably normal group. Same with healer, trapmonkey, face etc. (arguments about how healers, trapspotters or tanks aren’t needed will be ignored, since even if they were true mechanically many play groups still strive for a “balanced” party.

Worst case, I’ve seen cycles where the tank dies, then, being a tank a level behind, he dies again. Rebuild a new tank 2 levels behind, he’s likely to die too.

[Fizban]

The same point at which the DM is allowed to intervene in any other part of the game: when it is expected to reduce the overall fun of the group, particularly if it unduly impacts one person over the others.

The person bringing in the copy obviously isn't bothered by it. The rest of the party may or may not be bothered by it. The DM is implicitly bothered by it since they're asking the question. The balance is obvious: if the rest of the party is annoyed by it in addition to the DM, the player should be asked to diversify their character a bit.

However, further consideration must be given if the player didn't want to lose the character in the first place. If they're forced to bring in a new one because say, they're too low level to afford a res, the death penalty is too harsh to continue, the DM dropped an unfair encounter on them, or exceedingly bad luck struck at the wrong time, none of these are actually the player's fault.

So really, the only appropriate time to bring it up is if other players and the DM are both annoyed, and it's also the player's own fault that they can't continue their old character. Otherwise the DM should suck it up and either refund the old character in some way (free res, reduced overall death penalties, retroactive continuity, whatever), or just let them send in the clone. As noted, the party is going to need a new person of the previous role anyway.

[rel]

What if the character is mechanically identical but has different fluff, backstory, appearancere and so forth?

[DeTess]

What if the character is mechanically identical but has different fluff, backstory, appearancere and so forth?

I'd say this is completely fine. The new character might be mechanically identical, but storywise he's a completely different person, which prevents the issues mentioned above.

[Deophaun]

Deaths should come with penalties. Why would you Raise Dead, which costs the party 5000 gp, requires a high-level cleric, and brings your char to life one level lower, when you can just get a new char? In my games, new chars are (usually) 2 levels lower than the party average and they also have limited equipment to avoid breaking WBL
A) Raise dead is terrible design; basing death mechanics around it is like basing all mundanes on the power level of the Fighter.
B) The penalty is that you can no longer play that character. That is plenty.

[Mr Adventurer]

When I write characters I generally try to write in their backstory at least one person who would be interested in picking up the pieces of wherever they were.

When we played Red Hand of Doom, we did this for the whole party after the first encounter was an unexpected TPK. We'd named the adventuring group the Blades of Ruin; after the TPK, we decided that the Blades of Ruin was actually an adventuring franchise, who would send new groups in the case of loss of contact with a previous one.

The second group did in fact have a character with suspicious rubbing-out marks under his name! We didn't mind in that instance.

In a nice reflection of the typical evil overlord trope, the Blades of Ruin standard operating procedure is actually to send a slightly more powerful group than the last one - since we'd probably have gained a level or two since the last TPK!

We've had 2 TPKs in RHoD since we started...

[heavyfuel]

A) Raise dead is terrible design; basing death mechanics around it is like basing all mundanes on the power level of the Fighter.
B) The penalty is that you can no longer play that character. That is plenty.

A) Simply saying something is bad design is a pretty bad argument. Why do you think it's bad design?

B) it isn't. As I had said, if there are no mechanical penalties, often the players just don't care. Character dies? No problems, just create another real quick. Oops, he died again? Alright, DM, find a way to bring yet another pc into the party.

[Vhaidara]

A) Simply saying something is bad design is a pretty bad argument. Why do you think it's bad design?

Because it leads to a death spiral. Okay, you died. Now unless the party can afford to drop money on raising you, that character is done completely. It's bad storytelling, and makes for terrible character development.

Now if they CAN rez you, the party is behind on money. WBL, as we all know, is a core part of character power in 3.X. And beyond that, you're now down several levels. Which means you're lacking in hit points, saves, attack bonuses, everything. Want to know what that means? You've got a good chance of dying again. Which means you need to get rezzed again. With more penalties. Unless, of course, the party ponies up more of their WBL to undo it. Raise Dead is a money tax, which is both poor balance and generally just a great way to make everyone feel awful.

This might be different if death was rarer in the system, but this system is so RNG based it's not funny. Oh, you rolled a 1 on that save? dead. Oh, you missed the orc mook because you rolled a nat 1, and he just crit you with his axe? dead. Death is, more often than not, the result of bad RNG, as opposed to bad player tactics.

And there already is a punishment for the player. Namely, having to go and sit on the couch until either the party can rez you (into a weakened state, since clearly the guy who managed to DIE needed to be weaker, not stronger), or you can write a replacement character, full fluff and crunch, and the DM can figure out a way to reintroduce you. Which, depending on what the party is doing and the pace of your group, could be multiple sessions of you being benched. And on top of that, if you're NOT at a level where rezzing is viable, then suddenly your character is just completely cut off.

There's a reason that I replace death with incapacitation, and only have characters actually die if the player is in agreement and we already have a plan to introduce the new character.

[heavyfuel]

Because it leads to a death spiral. Okay, you died. Now unless the party can afford to drop money on raising you, that character is done completely. It's bad storytelling, and makes for terrible character development.

Now if they CAN rez you, the party is behind on money. WBL, as we all know, is a core part of character power in 3.X. And beyond that, you're now down several levels. Which means you're lacking in hit points, saves, attack bonuses, everything. Want to know what that means? You've got a good chance of dying again. Which means you need to get rezzed again. With more penalties. Unless, of course, the party ponies up more of their WBL to undo it. Raise Dead is a money tax, which is both poor balance and generally just a great way to make everyone feel awful.

This might be different if death was rarer in the system, but this system is so RNG based it's not funny. Oh, you rolled a 1 on that save? dead. Oh, you missed the orc mook because you rolled a nat 1, and he just crit you with his axe? dead. Death is, more often than not, the result of bad RNG, as opposed to bad player tactics.

And there already is a punishment for the player. Namely, having to go and sit on the couch until either the party can rez you (into a weakened state, since clearly the guy who managed to DIE needed to be weaker, not stronger), or you can write a replacement character, full fluff and crunch, and the DM can figure out a way to reintroduce you. Which, depending on what the party is doing and the pace of your group, could be multiple sessions of you being benched. And on top of that, if you're NOT at a level where rezzing is viable, then suddenly your character is just completely cut off.

There's a reason that I replace death with incapacitation, and only have characters actually die if the player is in agreement and we already have a plan to introduce the new character.

If you're a level behind the others and don't play more carefully, it's your fault. This argument of a death spiral is like saying a caster who's spent XP crafting items and is now a level behind is bound to die automatically during the first combat, which is just not true. Being a level behind is a minor inconvenience most of the time, one that is sure to disappear after a few combats because XP is a river and whatnot

Characters dying is not bad storytelling. Bad storytelling is giving people ridiculous plot armor in the form of free res or death immunity by turning it into incapacitation.

Combats are deadly. There's a reason real life black belts avoid fights they know are likely to win if the other guy has a knife. A lucky blow can mean a trip to the hospital followed by months of painful recovery, or worse. If you don't want your character to die, just retire him. Say he's going to spend the rest of his life as a farmer. If the char is choosing to adventure, he's taking on the risk that yes, he might be killed by a random orc who doesn't even have a name.

Same goes for the players. If they don't want or can't handle any of their characters dying, maybe they shouldn't be playing a game that regularly puts their characters in trap filled dungeons and often pits them against dragons. I mean, it's in the name!

Death is part of the game, and saying that one of the many methods of curing death itself is bad design just because there's a relatively minor mechanical penalty attached to it isn't convincing me.

If you don't want your games to be as random, you might try using bell curve rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm). This makes a natural 1 (or natural 3 in this case) only happen 0,46% of rolls (1 in 216), instead of 5% (1 in 20). Characters and the DM are much more in control of situations, as luck is a much, much smaller factor.

[Elkad]

In the 1e/2e days, we (at least the groups I played in) never just made up replacement characters at a similar level when someone died.

Either you got a rez, or you started over at 1st level. Even if the rest of the party was 12th.

Trying to stay alive when you are in WAY over your head is fun. The high level guys are twinking you, so surviving isn't as terrible as it would appear. And you level every encounter, so you close most of the gap very rapidly.

[Deophaun]

If you're a level behind the others and don't play more carefully, it's your fault.
What is "more carefully?" Define it. Is it not rolling five ones in a row? Not getting critted by three separate attacks? How do you not do that?

This argument of a death spiral is like saying a caster who's spent XP crafting items and is now a level behind is bound to die automatically during the first combat, which is just not true.
Not even close to the same thing. A caster who has spent XP crafting items has traded one resource for another. He gets something out of the deal, he has full knowledge of the costs and benefits, and he makes the choice. There is no trade in resources here, no choice: it's straight forced loss.

Being a level behind is a minor inconvenience most of the time, one that is sure to disappear after a few combats because XP is a river and whatnot
XP-as-a-river is a fine design for a computer game. Not for pen and paper. Many groups just throw experience out the window because it's a pain to track. So, bad design compensated for by bad design is still bad design.

Characters dying is not bad storytelling. Bad storytelling is giving people ridiculous plot armor in the form of free res or death immunity by turning it into incapacitation.
Eh. "Bad storytelling" is everything being life-and-death. It's people who want gritty randomness and yet also want the cool stuff that happens in novels at the same time. A character dying is not bad in-and-of-itself. A main character dying because random ooze monster one-shots her is.

Combats are deadly. There's a reason real life
Stop. No.

If you don't want your games to be as random, you might try using bell curve rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm). This makes a natural 1 (or natural 3 in this case) only happen 0,46% of rolls (1 in 216), instead of 5% (1 in 20). Characters and the DM are much more in control of situations, as luck is a much, much smaller factor.
And this is why your initial argument fails. You say it's the players fault for not being careful, and now you claim the player is in the wrong system if he doesn't like chance.

There are game systems that are great for murdering PCs. Paranoia. Kobolds Ate My Baby. Fantastic systems to die in. 3.5 is an outright annoying system to die in. It's work to generate a functioning character. The notion of a campaign is designed to get you invested in your special snowflake. Death and the mechanics around it in the system suck. There is zero need to penalize people more for it.

And thus, the logic behind the joke about hiding behind the pile of dead bards.

[CharonsHelper]

Trying to stay alive when you are in WAY over your head is fun.

That actually can be - so long as you don't walk into a huge AOE.

I did that in PFS a couple times as a level 1 bard playing a 4-5 session. I mostly just hid in the back and used Inspire Courage, though I was still useful for skill checks.


The high level guys are twinking you, so surviving isn't as terrible as it would appear. And you level every encounter, so you close most of the gap very rapidly.

I will say - that's something that worked in earlier editions but doesn't in 3.x because of how the EXP system works.

After all - in 2e surviving while a level 8 gets to 9 (250k EXP for fighter) would get a level 1 all the way up to 8 (total of 250k EXP for fighter). They could start contributing after the first fight or two (take 16k EXP to hit level 5 fighter).

[Gnaeus]

Eh. "Bad storytelling" is everything being life-and-death. It's people who want gritty randomness and yet also want the cool stuff that happens in novels at the same time. A character dying is not bad in-and-of-itself. A main character dying because random ooze monster one-shots her is.

If the random ooze monster can’t kill me, please don’t set up a battle map with a random ooze monster. Hand wave it into “and then you go into the Dungeons and kill some oozes” if you have to. Yeah, it’s not a fast system for chargen, but it’s not a fast system for combat either, and if I spent 2 hours in combat only to be incapacitated because the DM didn’t want to kill PCs I would not be returning. If there’s no risk in common encounters, they are no more exciting than grinding in a video game with a save point.

[Zanos]

Yeah we had a guy who had a duskblade named Azure who died and "left all of his gear in his will to his brother Cobalt", who was also a duskblade with the same build. The DM wouldn't let him retcon the will into existence though, so he had normal starting wealth.

Generally we do "new characters are 1 level behind the highest level in the party" 1 level is a bit of a loss but it's not crippling unless you're level 2, I think people talking about death spirals are overblowing it a little bit.

However, I will say that a DM running a high lethality game expecting his players get attached to their characters is shooting himself in the foot.


If the random ooze monster can’t kill me, please don’t set up a battle map with a random ooze monster.
?

Most encounters on their own aren't supposed to be immediately life threatening. It's the accumulation of resource consumption across several encounter/trap/environment challenges making later problems more dangerous.

[Nifft]

Back in 1e, we'd do a thing where one of the henchmen got "promoted" into being a full PC.

So the party would have henchmen with very brief summaries of personality & background, and upon the death of a PC, one of those would step forward and become a new PC.

You could have a family member in the henchman group, if you were willing to treat your family member as a disposable redshirt, but in my experience the family member would never turn out to be a carbon-copy -- the other players' inputs would force the hench-relative to have a distinct personality sketch.

[Gnaeus]

Most encounters on their own aren't supposed to be immediately life threatening. It's the accumulation of resource consumption across several encounter/trap/environment challenges making later problems more dangerous.

If a combat encounter isn’t life threatening, it shouldn’t give experience. It has become a chore, less exciting and productive than the dishes or the laundry. I would probably give a warning to the DM before walking out of the game. I don’t expect every combat to be balanced on a knife edge between victory and death, but a DM who wouldn’t kill a character because it wasn’t a boss fight has just ruined his game for me forever.

[DeTess]

Generally we do "new characters are 1 level behind the highest level in the party" 1 level is a bit of a loss but it's not crippling unless you're level 2, I think people talking about death spirals are overblowing it a little bit.


I think most talk of death spirals comes up when someone has to start a character 1 or more levels behind what he currently had. In that case it could spiral out of control(level7->dies->level 6->dies->level 5...etc.). In your case, unless the entire party dies out regularly, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Telonius]

I homebrewed a template (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?215291-Help-me-not-be-a-killer-DM)for death-spiral characters a while back. (Note that the player in question was dying mainly due to his own stupidity and wasn't really interested in improving his tactics).


Why fight it? Grant him a new template.

Mysterion

Requirements: Character must have died in three consecutive combats.
Effects: The gods of Death and Comedy have, for reasons of their own, taken direct interest in the character. Once a day, the character will die, preferably in the most hideous way possible. Nothing is capable of saving the character from his fate, nor is it possible to raise the character from the dead, or create an undead from the character's corpse. The next time the party stops to rest, the character will be there, alive, at full hit points, cured of all status ailments and ability loss, with all spells and other abilities ready as though he'd had a full night's rest. The character has all of the gear that was present at his death. (Gear looted by other characters will always be back with the Mysterion character).

The character no longer gains experience points, but upon awakening he is at the party's average level. A Mysterion does not count as part of the group when determining the rest of the group's experience award.

Special: A Mysterion is completely ignored by any Marut he encounters, and vice versa. Maruts and Mysterions cannot perceive each other by any means, and it is impossible for either to do any damage to each other, even indirectly or by accident.

Level Adjustment: N/A

[Zanos]

I think most talk of death spirals comes up when someone has to start a character 1 or more levels behind what he currently had. In that case it could spiral out of control(level7->dies->level 6->dies->level 5...etc.). In your case, unless the entire party dies out regularly, it shouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, that's fair. If you're 1 level behind your previous character that could stack up pretty quickly.

[heavyfuel]

What is "more carefully?" Define it. Is it not rolling five ones in a row? Not getting critted by three separate attacks? How do you not do that?

Not even close to the same thing. A caster who has spent XP crafting items has traded one resource for another. He gets something out of the deal, he has full knowledge of the costs and benefits, and he makes the choice. There is no trade in resources here, no choice: it's straight forced loss.

XP-as-a-river is a fine design for a computer game. Not for pen and paper. Many groups just throw experience out the window because it's a pain to track. So, bad design compensated for by bad design is still bad design.

Eh. "Bad storytelling" is everything being life-and-death. It's people who want gritty randomness and yet also want the cool stuff that happens in novels at the same time. A character dying is not bad in-and-of-itself. A main character dying because random ooze monster one-shots her is.

Stop. No.

And this is why your initial argument fails. You say it's the players fault for not being careful, and now you claim the player is in the wrong system if he doesn't like chance.

There are game systems that are great for murdering PCs. Paranoia. Kobolds Ate My Baby. Fantastic systems to die in. 3.5 is an outright annoying system to die in. It's work to generate a functioning character. The notion of a campaign is designed to get you invested in your special snowflake. Death and the mechanics around it in the system suck. There is zero need to penalize people more for it.

And thus, the logic behind the joke about hiding behind the pile of dead bards.

If you get crit 3 times in a row, I doubt an average of 1d8+Con would save you. Maybe you could run away after the first 2. Learn how to leave an escape route. Buy items that allow for it (you just got raised, you're in the city after all)

The caster thing was an example, but it's fair. Let's imagine the caster spent their XP on potions, something you might reserve for a special occasion. The caster might not want to use this potion on a random orc, but the random orc can still crit them to death. Just because you traded something for something else doesn't mean you'll use or even have the chance to use this something else. However, the caster still is a level behind and is likely still alive, cuz 1 level isn't a big deal at all.

Throwing XP out of the window is no excuse. Just delay level advancement for a few encounters and for the first level, then for a couple of encounters the next, then you're good. Not having XP be a number just means the DM and the player have to account for this variance for a while

I'm sorry, but who said anything about gritty randomness combined with awesome novel stuff?

Ok, you may not like me using a real life argument, but it doesn't change the fact that yes, combat is deadly.

How does my argument fail? You make no sense. I never claimed the player is in the wrong system if they don't like chance. I just gave you a suggestion. What are you even talking about?

And yes. It is an annoyance to die in D&D. Wanna know why? Cuz dying shouldn't be fun. People shouldn't be eager or even complacent about dying. You screwed up by deciding to attack the ooze in melee, or maybe you didn't but the random orc critted you thrice with his bow. Now be sad for a while cuz you lost your character. Don't say "f*** it" and bring in a carbon copy. If the objective of a campaign is to get you invested, penalizing carbon copies does exactly that. Why bring in a weaker carbon-copy when you can raise your char?


If the random ooze monster can’t kill me, please don’t set up a battle map with a random ooze monster. Hand wave it into “and then you go into the Dungeons and kill some oozes” if you have to. Yeah, it’s not a fast system for chargen, but it’s not a fast system for combat either, and if I spent 2 hours in combat only to be incapacitated the DM didn’t want to kill PCs I would not be returning. If there’s no risk in common encounters, they are no more exciting than grinding in a video game with a save point.

Yup.


If a combat encounter isn’t life threatening, it shouldn’t give experience. It has become a chore, less exciting and productive than the dishes or the laundry. I would probably give a warning to the DM before walking out of the game. I don’t expect every combat to be balanced on a knife edge between victory and death, but a DM who wouldn’t kill a character because it wasn’t a boss fight has just ruined his game for me forever.

Yup again.


Yeah we had a guy who had a duskblade named Azure who died and "left all of his gear in his will to his brother Cobalt", who was also a duskblade with the same build. The DM wouldn't let him retcon the will into existence though, so he had normal starting wealth.

Generally we do "new characters are 1 level behind the highest level in the party" 1 level is a bit of a loss but it's not crippling unless you're level 2, I think people talking about death spirals are overblowing it a little bit.

Seriously, the names and the fact that he wrote up a will (presumably, before he died in combat) is just awesome. I'd totally allow a carbon copy this once. Though I'd do the same as the DM and say the character had normal wealth (maybe he had zero wealth before joining, idk)

Also, I'd say more than a little bit


I homebrewed a template (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?215291-Help-me-not-be-a-killer-DM)for death-spiral characters a while back. (Note that the player in question was dying mainly due to his own stupidity and wasn't really interested in improving his tactics).

That's pretty funny. Too bad my dump player (as much as I loved him) moved to a different country

[Inevitability]

I've never had to deal with the issue (though people do tend to play similar roles from character to character, but that's fine with me), but if it occurred I suggest just having a good conversation with the other players. How do they feel about such character-rejuvenation?

An individual player's authority to play what they want is important, but ultimately not absolute.

[Deophaun]

If you get crit 3 times in a row, I doubt an average of 1d8+Con would save you. Maybe you could run away after the first 2.
The example was real life. Character gets crit by a monster about to take a full attack on him. Uses an immediate action teleport to get out of danger. Next two creatures step up and crit in succession.

Dead.

So, your solutions actually weren't. But hey, just be more careful.

The caster thing was an example, but it's fair. Let's imagine the caster spent their XP on potions, something you might reserve for a special occasion. The caster might not want to use this potion on a random orc, but the random orc can still crit them to death. Just because you traded something for something else doesn't mean you'll use or even have the chance to use this something else. However, the caster still is a level behind and is likely still alive, cuz 1 level isn't a big deal at all.
And? This is still not relevant. The caster knew what he was trading, he could control what he was trading for, and he could choose not to do it. Still not at all like getting shat on by the dice gods.

Throwing XP out of the window is no excuse. Just delay level advancement for a few encounters and for the first level, then for a couple of encounters the next, then you're good. Not having XP be a number just means the DM and the player have to account for this variance for a while
The entire point of throwing XP out is to remove bookkeeping. Saying that you can throw out bookkeeping by adding bookkeeping is missing the point.

I'm sorry, but who said anything about gritty randomness combined with awesome novel stuff?
Not you, but it is a common occurrence with the realism argument. There's a lot of overlap between people that what high-lethality campaigns and those who want magic items to be rare and special because Aragorn wasn't decked out in Christmas tree lights.

Ok, you may not like me using a real life argument, but it doesn't change the fact that yes, combat is deadly.
Combat in what? There is no fact here.

How does my argument fail? You make no sense. I never claimed the player is in the wrong system if they don't like chance. I just gave you a suggestion. What are you even talking about?
You cannot argue that the design isn't bad and then say change it. The design is bad. The game is at cross purposes with itself.

And yes. It is an annoyance to die in D&D. Wanna know why? Cuz dying shouldn't be fun.
From this I'm going to say that you haven't played much beyond D&D.

[heavyfuel]

The example was real life. Character gets crit by a monster about to take a full attack on him. Uses an immediate action teleport to get out of danger. Next two creatures step up and crit in succession.

Dead.

So, your solutions actually weren't. But hey, just be more careful.

And? This is still not relevant. The caster knew what he was trading, he could control what he was trading for, and he could choose not to do it. Still not at all like getting shat on by the dice gods.

The entire point of throwing XP out is to remove bookkeeping. Saying that you can throw out bookkeeping by adding bookkeeping is missing the point.

Not you, but it is a common occurrence with the realism argument. There's a lot of overlap between people that what high-lethality campaigns and those who want magic items to be rare and special because Aragorn wasn't decked out in Christmas tree lights.

Combat in what? There is no fact here.

You cannot argue that the design isn't bad and then say change it. The design is bad. The game is at cross purposes with itself.

From this I'm going to say that you haven't played much beyond D&D.

Being careful is essential, and often people complain of dying, but they only died cuz they were stupid. Taking your example, I assume your immediate action teleport was Abrupt Jaunt. Maybe put yourself in a position you could've teleported to safety.

In this case, just accept it and move on. Your char got 3 crits in a row. This happens. Like I said before, if you can't handle a character dying, go play a game that doesn't put this character into danger. Or, you know, go and raise them. Death is hardly permanent in D&D.

Giving one example that derives from personal experience is the definition of anecdotal evidence. It's not, by any measure, a sign that the system as a whole is broken. It just means you were incredibly unlucky, which is something that can happen to anyone, including a D&D character.

------------

My arguments regarding loss of level stand. Even if the caster did it voluntarily, the fact remains that they are still a level below the party, and the fact also remains that their death is far from being certain. You speak as though a character a level lower has next to no chance of surviving a level appropriate encounter, and this is just not true.

Take for example, the Leadership feat. Far and wide considered the best feat in the game. So powerful that the designers actually put a clause telling players to ask their DMs for permission. Asking the DM for permission is already a rule, but hey felt they needed to reiterate for this feat because it's THAT strong.

And what does the feat give you?

A character at a minimum of 2 levels lower than you. Minimum of 2 levels.

The cohort is very capable, and doesn't need extra protection. In fact, they can hold their own more often than not. And that's 2 levels, not 1. If a character 2 levels lower can survive much more than a few encounter, I'll assume that so can a character a level lower.

------------

It's impossible to remove bookkeeping, you can only reduce it. And estimating a few encounter before saying "You leveled up now" is a lot less bookkeeping than having to calculate all XP distributed.

If you ever find a method to remove bookkeeping altogether, please let me and the rest of the forum know, I'm sure we're all very interested in this form of magic.

------------

Combat everywhere. I'm yet to play a game where combat isn't dangerous and, honestly, I'm not sure I really want to. If combat isn't dangerous, this means it's boring.

Ever played a video-game like FF:XII where it's possible to get the best weapon in the game around very early in the main storyline? You know what happens if you go and get the ultimate weapon at this mark? The game becomes unbearably easy cuz you just one-shot everything.

There's this pretty popular anime called One Punch Man that revolves around this premise. The main character is bored since he's so strong.

If there's no danger, if there's no fear of loss, it's not fun. And, don't know about you, but I play games to have fun.

------------

Yeah, except the change I suggested (not ordered as you you imply) is a change made by the designers themselves.

I just said that if YOU don't like so much luck involved (and hey, neither do I), maybe try this system.

However, unlike you, I understand that luck is part of life. Not just D&D. Life. And sometimes bad things happen on no fault of your own. It's still up to you how to react. You can create a post saying that rolling a d20 for saves is the worst that happened to table top gaming, or you can accept this, grieve for your character in a healthy way, and move on (or, again, for the tenth time, raise them. Cuz, for the tenth time, death isn't permanent in D&D).

------------

Being honest, I've played other systems, but yes, D&D has always been a favorite, regardless of the version.

However, in no system I played (including Kobolds ate my baby, which you claim is an awesome system to die in) was death fun. In Kobolds, death is basically consequenceless, and would never work in a game where the players aren't drunk or just screwing around. And in all others death was either worse or similar to D&D.

------------

I'm sure I haven't changed your mind even after all of this. Clearly we have very different ideas of fun. Whereas I like things to be exciting and experience a range of different emotions - from eagerness, to joy, to rage, to frustration, to relieve - all in a single encounter, you seem to prefer to sit your players down and tell them a story where everyone is immortal until they choose not to be. I'll just say we agree to disagree, and hope that, even if very unlikely, we never find ourselves at each other's games.

[Zanos]

Seriously, the names and the fact that he wrote up a will (presumably, before he died in combat) is just awesome. I'd totally allow a carbon copy this once. Though I'd do the same as the DM and say the character had normal wealth (maybe he had zero wealth before joining, idk)
No, it was after the fact, which is why I said the DM wouldn't let him retcon it into existence.

[Jormengand]

I don't allow players to bring back exact copy characters, but I don't give them a level penalty either, and ignore any part of a rule which says they would get one, because I don't like telling players the mechanical equivalent of "Screw you". I generally ignore material and experience components as well, because most of the spells which require them are actually ones which either just get you back something you've lost for some reason (such as raise dead or atonement) or which are mostly harmless and I want players to have more of an incentive to use because they're cool (such as animate dead).

Either death should be fatal or it shouldn't be, and the partway compromise of probably leading to another death is just irritating and unfun.

[Vaern]

I'll remake essentially the same character in different games, but generally don't roll similar or identical characters within the confines of a single campaign. In fact, if my character dies, I'll gravitate towards a different category of classes for my next character. Say my Sublime Chord gets killed off, I'll avoid arcane classes altogether and find a divine or martial class instead, excluding fighter because that's what I was playing before rolling up my bard.

[Arbane]

What is "more carefully?" Define it. Is it not rolling five ones in a row? Not getting critted by three separate attacks? How do you not do that?

Well, basically, you need need to use more Creativity and Roleplaying. By which I mean, "Hide behind the characters who don't suck."


Eh. "Bad storytelling" is everything being life-and-death. It's people who want gritty randomness and yet also want the cool stuff that happens in novels at the same time. A character dying is not bad in-and-of-itself. A main character dying because random ooze monster one-shots her is.

Yup. Random BS Instadeath works fine if you can make a new character in 10 minutes. When it takes over an hour and the GM expects a 10-page backstory? Not cool.


I will say - that's something that worked in earlier editions but doesn't in 3.x because of how the EXP system works.

After all - in 2e surviving while a level 8 gets to 9 (250k EXP for fighter) would get a level 1 all the way up to 8 (total of 250k EXP for fighter). They could start contributing after the first fight or two (take 16k EXP to hit level 5 fighter).

Yep. Also, thanks to older editions' much more contracted ranges for ACs, saves, HP, etc, even a bunch of level 1 scrubs using slings or throwing flasks of oil could be useful in a big fight.


If a combat encounter isn’t life threatening, it shouldn’t give experience. It has become a chore, less exciting and productive than the dishes or the laundry. I would probably give a warning to the DM before walking out of the game. I don’t expect every combat to be balanced on a knife edge between victory and death, but a DM who wouldn’t kill a character because it wasn’t a boss fight has just ruined his game for me forever.

You are unfamiliar with the concept of 'attrition', I take it?
If you want every fight to have a significant risk of death, either crank all the CRs up, or play something besides D&D, which actually has a stat on the character sheet for Plot Armor: they're called 'Hit Points'.


I'm sure I haven't changed your mind even after all of this. Clearly we have very different ideas of fun. Whereas I like things to be exciting and experience a range of different emotions - from eagerness, to joy, to rage, to frustration, to relieve - all in a single encounter, you seem to prefer to sit your players down and tell them a story where everyone is immortal until they choose not to be. I'll just say we agree to disagree, and hope that, even if very unlikely, we never find ourselves at each other's games.

Oooooo.... are you one of the Real Roleplayers I have heard the Elder Gamers whisper of in awe? Please, tell us more, oh great one!


I'll remake essentially the same character in different games, but generally don't roll similar or identical characters within the confines of a single campaign. In fact, if my character dies, I'll gravitate towards a different category of classes for my next character. Say my Sublime Chord gets killed off, I'll avoid arcane classes altogether and find a divine or martial class instead, excluding fighter because that's what I was playing before rolling up my bard.

Yeah, I usually try to make different characters each time. So many ideas, so little gaming time...

[heavyfuel]

Oooooo.... are you one of the Real Roleplayers I have heard the Elder Gamers whisper of in awe? Please, tell us more, oh great one!


I wonder, is it really so hard for someone like you to understand that different people have different expectations? :smallconfused:

Maybe try to actually make an argument next time, buddy.

[Vaern]

There was an occasion where I had three characters created from the start of a campaign, and leveled the two I wasn't using along the way just in case the first one died. Sorcerer, fighter, and cleric, all with tomb-tainted soul, all of them brothers who were descendants of a necromancer and coping with their father's legacy in different ways: seeking a cure, embracing their dark side, and trying to find a way to use their inherently evil gifts for good purposes. Identical background story, but drastically different characters in both class, mechanics, and personality.

[Sir Chuckles]

I've actually had this work well. Player replaced his dead Swashbuckler with the character's father. Mechanically, the exact same character. Personality and everything, the exact same character.

But the father shows up, goes "I taught my son everything he knows! I heard he was adventuring with you, where is he?"

[Blu]

I wonder, is it really so hard for someone like you to understand that different people have different expectations? :smallconfused:

Maybe try to actually make an argument next time, buddy.

Altough you start your argument with the "different people are different", you strongly imply that your way is better, even in this same quote, there are traces of presumption. If you are gonna be arrogant, at least don't hide it behind false humbleness.


To the point of the post, i'm a little lost on what a copy of a character would be?
Would the same sheet, but it small differences in background be considered a copy, would it need to have small differences on feats, skills and etc for it to not be considered a copy?

Just to add my point with an example, imagine a player expended some time creating his character, and he made a class X character, since he really wanted to try that class and/or character. And that character dies within his first 3 encounters, maybe in the session he enters or the next, not necessarily by his fault, say for example a crit or a bs ability from a critter or just some lord decided to hang him.

Would it really be fair to say to that player: "Hey, I know you expended some hours creating that character and you really wanted to play it, but now make another."

[unseenmage]

In our Mythic PF games we noticed that character death comes with the additional penalty of losing all the Mythic ranks when the player changes characters.

Thr player in question would rather play a brand new character than suffer the failed character so death was a chance at a new build. Wasn't until the new char arrived that we all had that aha moment of, 'Wow, huh. How do we catch dude's new toon up to the rest of us in Mythic?'

At the time I ruled that in my games the mythically lagging character would catch all the way back up to the rest of of the party's Mythic ranks as soon as the party earned another Mythic rank.


As to carbon copying old characters to new we don't do it. It's rare when we lose a character but our group A) has not carbon copying as part of our Gentleman's Agreement and B) fairly competent and systemically adventurous players eager to try new builds.

[Gnaeus]

You are unfamiliar with the concept of 'attrition', I take it?
If you want every fight to have a significant risk of death, either crank all the CRs up, or play something besides D&D, which actually has a stat on the character sheet for Plot Armor: they're called Hit points

And that plot armor works as it should. If it hits -10, you die. You aren’t uncomfortable. You aren’t hurt. You are dead. Like if you fail a SoD. The D stands for dead. The ogre crit you and you died. The bodak looked at you and you died. Spend a fate or destiny point to avoid death. Oh wait, you can’t, because there aren’t any. Don’t go crying to the DM because you can’t handle the Game death of your sheet of paper.

[Boggartbae]

And that plot armor works as it should. If it hits -10, you die. You aren’t uncomfortable. You aren’t hurt. You are dead. Like if you fail a SoD. The D stands for dead. The ogre crit you and you died. The bodak looked at you and you died. Spend a fate or destiny point to avoid death. Oh wait, you can’t, because there aren’t any. Don’t go crying to the DM because you can’t handle the Game death of your sheet of paper.

I've literally seen younger players cry over character death, and then had the hardcore grog-nard DM still treat them like one of his old gamer buddies. Generally, the "stupid" players who die a lot are also the less experienced players who only have one character concept that they want to try, and penalising them for dying, whether by spiralling level loss, or forcing them out of their comfort zone in character generation, is just being a jerk. As long as a build isn't overpowered or disruptive, then just let the player create the same character. It's just a game; let people do what they want.

[Gnaeus]

If you are running for small children I would expect slightly different rules. I don’t default to that assumption.

I was responding to the idea that non boss fights are grinding encounters only and the DM should make your dead character unconscious instead, which creates a game of D&D only slightly less entertaining than cleaning mildew from bathroom tile with a toothbrush.

[rel]

I was responding to the idea that non boss fights are grinding encounters only and the DM should make your dead character unconscious instead, which creates a game of D&D only slightly less entertaining than cleaning mildew from bathroom tile with a toothbrush.

I'm going to have to contest this claim. While d&d is undeniably limited in what kind of game play it can support (if you are not Killing things and taking their stuff you will get very little help from the system) it is quite possible to run interesting games in which character death is limited or even explicitly or implicitly impossible.

[Boggartbae]

If you are running for small children I would expect slightly different rules. I don’t default to that assumption.

I was responding to the idea that non boss fights are grinding encounters only and the DM should make your dead character unconscious instead, which creates a game of D&D only slightly less entertaining than cleaning mildew from bathroom tile with a toothbrush.

It's not just kids, but really anyone new. Heck, I have someone in my playgroup who always plays 2 handed martial characters, and no one tells him to stop, because it's not disruptive, and he has fun.

Also, easy encounters are fun, because they let you show off your characters cool abilities. If your dm is being vindictive and killing off your character because it's realistic, then they shouldn't be surprised if you roll back the same exact thing. There is literally no downside to allowing a player to play the same character 12 times in a row (unless they're a munchkin, but that's a different issue) Character creation is a lot of work, so having to make a bunch of unique toons for the same campaign is going to get old really fast, and you shouldn't force players to do it if they just want to change the name on their old sheet.

[P.F.]

This has honestly never been a problem at my tables. If anything, as a DM I have the opposite problem, that players typically get bored of the current build after just a few sessions, and view character death as the preferred way to reinvent themselves. The one-level-down penalty is not considered an insurmountable challenge, automatic death sentence, etc. in our games.

In fact, making new characters every few sessions has become so fashionable that players optimize the meta-game around it by bringing in characters highly dependent on expensive consumables, who are discarded when the resources are depleted. Because new characters are given PC wealth by level, the lower-level replacement can be a strict improvement over the depleted/dead one.

If I know I am going to be absent for more than one or two sessions, I have even made characters who essentially load down the rest of the party with potions, scrolls, and custom items, before dying/riding into the sunset, knowing that I will replace the character with one at full WBL upon my return.

Even when my friends have replaced their character with a nearly-identical brother, it is usually treated as an opportunity to take a free re-train and re-optimize equipment choices with foreknowledge of items available from party treasure.

I have personally only seen this exact "Dorkness Rising Bard Syndrome" happen once, with an inexperienced player. Upon her character's death, she introduced a mechanically identical character as the dead character's sister. Her best friend, in the same campaign, had some combination of custom items/artifacts/effects that rendered her unkillable. So for these two, attachment to the character was probably greater than normal.

In fact, when my ninja assassinated the entire party as part of a campaign reboot, I didn't bother killing her character again, because it would not have had the desired effect of changing the player/role/party composition optimization.

I think the real issue lies in the stiff penalties of raise/rez/true rez, which being already more onerous than most players want to accept, no penalty for rolling a new character instead can possibly be both: A) balanced, compared to raise dead; and B) any fun at all.

[weckar]

In fact, making new characters every few sessions has become so fashionable that players optimize the meta-game around it by bringing in characters highly dependent on expensive consumables, who are discarded when the resources are depleted. Because new characters are given PC wealth by level, the lower-level replacement can be a strict improvement over the depleted/dead one.

I do believe consumables should never be counted into WBL :smallconfused:

[Calthropstu]

I do believe consumables should never be counted into WBL :smallconfused:

I see. So I am bringing in Joe the sorcerer. Joe has a bag of holding with 900 wands containing all spells 1st through 4th level all at max caster level.

[Jormengand]

I see. So I am bringing in Joe the sorcerer. Joe has a bag of holding with 900 wands containing all spells 1st through 4th level all at max caster level.

No, what was obviously meant is not "You can take as much as you like at chargen" but "If the DM gives players out consumables at 4th level, and they consume them because they're consumable, they shouldn't be counted against the WBL guideline for 6th level."

[Inevitability]

No, what was obviously meant is not "You can take as much as you like at chargen" but "If the DM gives players out consumables at 4th level, and they consume them because they're consumable, they shouldn't be counted against the WBL guideline for 6th level."

You can claim that was what was 'obviously meant', but the comment you're talking about explicitly said consumables shouldn't count as WBL.

[Blu]

No, what was obviously meant is not "You can take as much as you like at chargen" but "If the DM gives players out consumables at 4th level, and they consume them because they're consumable, they shouldn't be counted against the WBL guideline for 6th level."

I think they don't, if i remember, the moment you consume something that only gives you a temporary bonus, i does not count towards your WBL anymore, right?

[Jormengand]

You can claim that was what was 'obviously meant', but the comment you're talking about explicitly said consumables shouldn't count as WBL.

Yes, and what they probably meant is that they shouldn't count towards the wealth by level guidelines which tell the DM how much loot the players should get, not that they shouldn't count towards the players' starting wealth.

[Elkad]

No, what was obviously meant is not "You can take as much as you like at chargen" but "If the DM gives players out consumables at 4th level, and they consume them because they're consumable, they shouldn't be counted against the WBL guideline for 6th level."

That still doesn't quite work.

Player A buys permanent gear.
Player B buys consumables.

A level later Player A still has his gear, while Player B has a collection of carved sticks, empty bottles, and blank paper.
As DM I don't give Player B a disproportionate share of the loot to make up his WBL.

I give out appropriate loot plus about 30%. It's up to the party how they spend it, divide it, or whatever else. If they want to run on consumables all the time, they are going to end up behind the official WBL. If they want to invest it all in permanent gear, they are going to be ahead. Item destruction is no different. If the Warblade foolishly hits a rust monster with his Sword of I Spent Half my WBL on This and it crumbles to dust, he's got to figure out how to finance a replacement on his own. If the rogue is snaking 30% of the treasure off the rest of the party without getting caught, he's going to be way ahead, especially if he's still taking a full share.

The only time I intervene is if they have a catastrophe and the whole party average is massively under WBL (probably below 50%)

[Arbane]

And that plot armor works as it should. If it hits -10, you die. You aren’t uncomfortable. You aren’t hurt. You are dead. Like if you fail a SoD. The D stands for dead. The ogre crit you and you died. The bodak looked at you and you died. Spend a fate or destiny point to avoid death. Oh wait, you can’t, because there aren’t any. Don’t go crying to the DM because you can’t handle the Game death of your sheet of paper.

I'm sorry we're not all as Hardcore as you. Some of us actually don't LIKE the BS instadeath in 3.PF, and would like to allow some means of avoiding them more interesting than 'oh, you rolled a 7 when you needed an 8? Start making a new character.'

Rolling high numbers on a d20 is not a sign of RPing merit.


I was responding to the idea that non boss fights are grinding encounters only and the DM should make your dead character unconscious instead, which creates a game of D&D only slightly less entertaining than cleaning mildew from bathroom tile with a toothbrush.

If the risk of random death is the only thing that makes D&D interesting to you, you're in a BAD GAME of D&D.

[Boggartbae]

If the risk of random death is the only thing that makes D&D interesting to you, you're in a BAD GAME of D&D.

Exactly this.

Also, if playing more carefully would keep my character alive, then the combat isn’t really deadly.

On the flip side, if the combat is truly deadly, then playing carefully wouldn’t keep my character alive.

You can’t have it both ways.

[Jormengand]

That still doesn't quite work.

Player A buys permanent gear.
Player B buys consumables.

A level later Player A still has his gear, while Player B has a collection of carved sticks, empty bottles, and blank paper.
As DM I don't give Player B a disproportionate share of the loot to make up his WBL.

I give out appropriate loot plus about 30%. It's up to the party how they spend it, divide it, or whatever else. If they want to run on consumables all the time, they are going to end up behind the official WBL. If they want to invest it all in permanent gear, they are going to be ahead. Item destruction is no different. If the Warblade foolishly hits a rust monster with his Sword of I Spent Half my WBL on This and it crumbles to dust, he's got to figure out how to finance a replacement on his own. If the rogue is snaking 30% of the treasure off the rest of the party without getting caught, he's going to be way ahead, especially if he's still taking a full share.

The only time I intervene is if they have a catastrophe and the whole party average is massively under WBL (probably below 50%)

No, what was obviously meant is not "You can take as much as you like at chargen" but "If the DM gives players out consumables at 4th level, and they consume them because they're consumable, they shouldn't be counted against the WBL guideline for 6th level."

[Metahuman1]

I'm sorry we're not all as Hardcore as you. Some of us actually don't LIKE the BS instadeath in 3.PF, and would like to allow some means of avoiding them more interesting than 'oh, you rolled a 7 when you needed an 8? Start making a new character.'

Rolling high numbers on a d20 is not a sign of RPing merit.



If the risk of random death is the only thing that makes D&D interesting to you, you're in a BAD GAME of D&D.

I'm with you on this one.




Let me tell a little tail. I had a DM once back in my VERY early days of table top. I rolled up a heal bot cleric because I was still so new I didn't even know Clerics had the option to do other stuff, and I was trying to be helpful while learning by taking the boring job off the party.

We had a 6 man group.

We got to level 3. Most of the adventuring from about halfway through level 1 till level three took place in a temple that use to belong to my goddess and the god she was married to in the Pantheon. (It was a Dragonlance published adventure, the 2nd one they did in the 3.X era, which was also the last one.).

The Wizard, who was played by a girl the DM desperately wanted to sleep with, didn't like that I'd wanted to take most of the relics back to one of my temples, even though there sacred freaking relics and she'd likely be given money for them.

So, during her watch, she attacked my character while he slept and didn't have armor on and was prone. She rolled a Nat 20. And then Another to confirm. With a Scyth. She rolled max Damage.

She one shotted my first character and the DM let her do it because according to him the DM is only there to put up a back ground for things.




And then I had to come in at level 2. The DM said "Here, roll a monk, Monks are awesome. Oh! OH! Take Vow of Poverty! That conflict won't happen again that way, and you'll be a fusion of Bruce Lee and Jesus! It'll be amazing!"

So I took the DM's advice.

I then got to learn about not being able to move and flurry or Stunning Fist and Flurry in the same round before dieing to the earth elemental random encounter we were fighting. This was the same session mind you.

Next session, I have rolled up an Archer Ranger. The party made level 4 after the earth elemental because they got XP for being down a man for what the CR should have been cause I'd died. I was 1st now.

So, 5 4th level characters and 1 1st level 1.

I rolled up a ranger with Point Blank and Precise Shot and a long bow because the DM said I could stay to the back and not get hit much till I caught up that way. Plus Rangers are amazing he said.

So, I told him "Alright, well, there wilderness guys. So, I think it would make sense to wait till they get into a fight while traveling from City 1 too city 2 over the course of weeks, and then I'll come in after they start fighting whatever attacks them and pepper it with arrows from a distance. It introduces me as helping them." The DM said. "Absolutely, makes perfect sense. No problem, we will do that."


Instead the DM set the encounter to start in the opposite manner. My character standing at 15 feet from a pair of Basilisks, and the party starting 75ft back from me.

So of course I roll a 2 on Initiative. And of course they wait to see what's going on cause they don't know this guy. And of course the Basilisks Gaze me, and I roll a Nat 2 again on the fort save and get turned to stone.



Now, the DM, I feel the need to point out, had made me write 5 pages each of backstory for these jokers. He wanted to know EVERYTHING about these characters before I even got to roll stats for them. And now, this character was out before I'd even gotten to use his name. Most of there backstory's hadn't been used, just wasting my time. And the DM defended it with me using bad tactics or it being the other players fault or the game just does this to people. Never once did he say "Ok I blew it here let me see if I can fix it and I'm sorry about that.".

But please, do tell me about how I should have telekinetically rolled the dice higher. :smallmad:

[heavyfuel]

snip

Yeah, except none of the things you've talked about are system problems. They were all player problems (DM included)

The basilisk SoD might be something to complain about, but in a regular scenario (one the DM isn't screwing you over) it's really easy to kite the basilisk. Also, you can close your eyes / turn away from them to make gaze attacks impossible

[weckar]

The Wizard, who was played by a girl the DM desperately wanted to sleep with, didn't like that I'd wanted to take most of the relics back to one of my temples, even though there sacred freaking relics and she'd likely be given money for them.

So, during her watch, she attacked my character while he slept and didn't have armor on and was prone. She rolled a Nat 20. And then Another to confirm. With a Scyth. She rolled max Damage.

She one shotted my first character and the DM let her do it because according to him the DM is only there to put up a back ground for things. Did the Wizard Player and DM at least get a happily ever after? :smalltongue:

[Boggartbae]

Yeah, except none of the things you've talked about are system problems. They were all player problems (DM included)

The basilisk SoD might be something to complain about, but in a regular scenario (one the DM isn't screwing you over) it's really easy to kite the basilisk. Also, you can close your eyes / turn away from them to make gaze attacks impossible

Fiddly character generation and death spirals are both system problems, which DM's and players can exacerbate by being incompetent and vindictive, as described above. Don't think about things in such a binary fashion; it can be both a system and a player problem.

Also, Metahuman said that they were new, so don't blame them for not turning away when they probably didn't even know what a gaze attack was at the time.

[heavyfuel]

Don't think about things in such a binary fashion; it can be both a system and a player problem.

It most certainly can be, but in this case, it most certainly was a player problem

[King of Nowhere]

I don't see why woul anyone want to make a copy character and what is the problem with resurrections.

Ok, I get it: if you die a half dozen times, it sucks and you are stuck way too much behind. Well, before we reach that point the DM clearly should do something to help the dead character. Like giving him a level every two sessions instead of every three (how is that too much bookkeeping?). Or like, well, letting him be incapacitated if, and only if, he's already two levels behind the party. Or devise a bit of fluff that with all the times he's been resurrected his spirit has become a determinator in getting back to life, and can do it without losing a level - sometimes. As for the money, if the party is below the wbl because it spent money too raise a member, the DM could surreptitiously drop a few more loot. Or they may all get a bit less xp for a couple encoounters so their whealt will grow more than the level. or they could progress to the point where 5k gp are irrelevant. some people here make it seem like losing 5k gp once means being crippled forever!

You may argue that just because the DM can fix someething it does not mean the system is not broken. Well, duh. The system is broken. And you know what? there is no flippin way of making something like D&D with a system that is not somehow broken. At least depending on personal opinions of what broken means. The best thing you can do is get a passable system and fix things along the way as needed. There would be no need for a DM otherwise.

And the risk of failure makes games meaningful. If you remove the risk of death, either by allowing carbon copy characters or by not killing characters, it takes away some of the enjoyment. Raise dead is a good mechanic because it makes death costly but not too much. I had a case when I killed a character because of bad luck, and it belonged to a younger player who took it poorly and cried. Well, he got over it and now he's a more mature player. Not only, but his character also matured. Before, he jumped into every fight like he was invincible, because he was the best optimized of the group and he also swindled me into giving him op gear. Now the character is more reflexive and cunning. Learning to deal with loss is an important part of growing, and sheltering players from it feels like a game for kids. Which is not to say you must be needlessly punitive. They take some loss, they go on, as simple as that.

I'm playing a game where the DM was very benevolent and used to much weaker player, so all the encounters were pushover. The campaign was fun, but the fights were getting boring. then the DM decided to ramp up the monsters in an attempt to challenge us a bit, and he accidentally overshoot the mark. It didn't help that most of the power of the group came from the wizard, who was one-shotting half the encounters with aoe like sleep or stinking cloud or fireballs (in case of many minions), and water elementals were immune to all that. I took a ccritical strike and i died.
And I was happy.
Now we all get more hyped about fights. If there is no risk, there is no challenge. If there is no challenge, what's the point of the game?

[rel]

Again, I have to disagree here, Leaving aside any discussion of the relevance of challenge for good roleplay for the sake of brevity.

It is possible to effectively use the D&D system to run games with challenge, risk of failure, and zero possibility of player character death.

Further, such games can easily be just as mature as games where PC death is on the table.

[P.F.]

It is possible to effectively use the D&D system to run games with challenge, risk of failure, and zero possibility of player character death.

That may be true, but the baseline assumption, and one which underlies the rules governing the game, is that player-characters can be killed, and that character death is extremely undesirable. Predicated on this are assumptions about how players will assess risk, how much magic which brings the dead back to life should cost, how much experience and treasure should be awarded from combat encounters, and so on.

In D&D, occasional, expected, heavily penalized character death is the paradigm. While I personally would not suggest that games without the possibility of non-scripted character deaths are "not D&D" or "not fun," I would suggest that such games are not normal, and not what most of the people I game with would prefer.

[King of Nowhere]

Again, I have to disagree here, Leaving aside any discussion of the relevance of challenge for good roleplay for the sake of brevity.

It is possible to effectively use the D&D system to run games with challenge, risk of failure, and zero possibility of player character death.

Further, such games can easily be just as mature as games where PC death is on the table.

Yes, it is possible to use different ways. the main strenght of roleplaying games is flexibility. And while every system, taken to the extreme, is broken in some way, every system can work just fine if all the involved players want to make it work.

[Mr Adventurer]

That may be true, but the baseline assumption, and one which underlies the rules governing the game, is that player-characters can be killed, and that character death is extremely undesirable. Predicated on this are assumptions about how players will assess risk, how much magic which brings the dead back to life should cost, how much experience and treasure should be awarded from combat encounters, and so on.

In D&D, occasional, expected, heavily penalized character death is the paradigm. While I personally would not suggest that games without the possibility of non-scripted character deaths are "not D&D" or "not fun," I would suggest that such games are not normal, and not what most of the people I game with would prefer.

Is death "heavily penalised" when it's a 5th level spell slot and 1000gp between the party?

[Nifft]

Is death "heavily penalised" when it's a 5th level spell slot and 1000gp between the party?

Yes, because you're ignoring the real price.



Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell loses one level (or 1 Hit Die) when it is raised, just as if it had lost a level or a Hit Die to an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised). This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.

[Arbane]

Yes, because you're ignoring the real price.

(3.5 Raise Dead text snipped)

Does that mean that someone who's died once and been Raised can never reach level 20. since it's 'negative levels' now? Brutal.

[Calthropstu]

(3.5 Raise Dead text snipped)

Does that mean that someone who's died once and been Raised can never reach level 20. since it's 'negative levels' now? Brutal.

No, you can gain xp as normal but the xp you lost cannot be retrieved.
This has the horrendous effect of putting you WAY behind other party members, making you less effective overall. Raise dead does two levels while ressurection only does one making res much much more desirable.

Pathfinder fixed that, making it able to be restored via true greater restoration.

[King of Nowhere]

you guys are making it sound much more melodramatic than it actually is. The whole "can't be recovered in ANY way" sounds like you can't level anymore, period.

No, you can recover all those xp and gain more, just you have to do it the hard way. Incidentally, since you're lower level than the rest of the party, you should be getting more xp now, and until you remain lower level, so the difference is going to cancel eventually (if the DM does not give you more xp, blame him, not the system).

You're making it sound like the amount of gold and xp that can be gained in a campaign is a fixed amount that cannot be changed by any mean. in which case losing a level and 5000 gp would mean a permanent loss. but that's really not the case. there is a DM there to twist and twitch things to make them fix better. making sure that death hurts as much as appropriate and not more or less is part of his job.

I liken it to breaking some bones and having to do rehab. you have to spend some time to cancel the negative effect. Life goes on.

[Zanos]

Raise dead doesn't cause you to lose two levels.

[rel]

While I personally would not suggest that games without the possibility of non-scripted character deaths are "not D&D" or "not fun," I would suggest that such games are not normal, and not what most of the people I game with would prefer.

Actually, by far the most popular type of D&D game seems to be the published module / adventure path. The assumption of these games is that the same group of PC's are played all the way through and that said band of heroes are all at the correct level with the correct amount of gear at each point in the game. In other words, death is not an expected outcome.

The old school style of game in which a random group of adventurers crawl across a hex map and raid dungeons for fun and profit and likely die along the way is sadly very far from the norm.

This is reflected in more modern design decisions like the removal of the xp cost of death in Pathfinder and the addition of spells and effects like revivify in later D&D 3.5 supplements.



Yes, it is possible to use different ways. the main strenght of roleplaying games is flexibility. And while every system, taken to the extreme, is broken in some way, every system can work just fine if all the involved players want to make it work.

And removing death in 3.5 would require less house rules than fixing the tower shield, require no extra work on the part of the players and result in a game that looks and plays very much like the current one.

[P.F.]

Actually, by far the most popular type of D&D game seems to be the published module / adventure path. The assumption of these games is that the same group of PC's are played all the way through and that said band of heroes are all at the correct level with the correct amount of gear at each point in the game. In other words, death is not an expected outcome.

Not being myself a consumer of published modules / adventure paths, I would be interested to know what rules they use to prevent player death. Is it similar to the incapacitated condition mentioned elsewhere in this thread? Something like a left-for-dead rule? Mandatory revivifications? Deus ex machina rescues if the party gets into trouble as a sort of plot armor?

I personally have been houseruling the xp loss for raise down to half. This makes the 1000 gp price tag seem like a bargain compared to losing a full level and bringing in a new character. Assuming, of course, they still have any interest in playing a character the made possibly several weeks ago.

BUT I am always interested in new ways to deal with PC demise.

[Calthropstu]

Not being myself a consumer of published modules / adventure paths, I would be interested to know what rules they use to prevent player death. Is it similar to the incapacitated condition mentioned elsewhere in this thread? Something like a left-for-dead rule? Mandatory revivifications? Deus ex machina rescues if the party gets into trouble as a sort of plot armor?

I personally have been houseruling the xp loss for raise down to half. This makes the 1000 gp price tag seem like a bargain compared to losing a full level and bringing in a new character. Assuming, of course, they still have any interest in playing a character the made possibly several weeks ago.

BUT I am always interested in new ways to deal with PC demise.

The PF adventure I'm running gives a dues ex machina ressurection device. It's pf though, so greater restoration fixes the negative level.

[Vhaidara]

I liken it to breaking some bones and having to do rehab. you have to spend some time to cancel the negative effect. Life goes on.

Yes, because the way you recover from a broken leg is to go and fight demons.


Not being myself a consumer of published modules / adventure paths, I would be interested to know what rules they use to prevent player death. Is it similar to the incapacitated condition mentioned elsewhere in this thread? Something like a left-for-dead rule? Mandatory revivifications? Deus ex machina rescues if the party gets into trouble as a sort of plot armor?

ime, a mix of being designed to only be a challenge to very low power groups (so anyone with a decent level of optimization is in no danger) alongside the occasional ex machina rescuer.

[King of Nowhere]

Actually, by far the most popular type of D&D game seems to be the published module / adventure path. The assumption of these games is that the same group of PC's are played all the way through and that said band of heroes are all at the correct level with the correct amount of gear at each point in the game. In other words, death is not an expected outcome.


that's not what I'm into. I want an open world environment, which cannot go together with a published module (but if I had to try one, I'd go for tomb of horrors, because challenge). So those considerations are good for some players, but not for others. When I make a campaign, I expect players to need a rez every once in a while.



And removing death in 3.5 would require less house rules than fixing the tower shield, require no extra work on the part of the players and result in a game that looks and plays very much like the current one.

But it does not feel like the current one. Not unless failure in combat also comes with a high price like permanent damage to plot points, in which case death still has a steep cost, just a different one.
I know that my attitude toward the game changes completely if I feel like I can lose something or not; just like I did not felt challenged with my DM until my character died, and I was happy it happened.


Yes, because the way you recover from a broken leg is to go and fight demons.


did someone ever try that? sadly, the lack of demons in the real wolrd means we have to undergo long hours of physiotherapy.:frown:

More seriously, you also don't learn new spells or learn lockpicking from fighting demons, but the whole xp mechanic is one of those acceptable breaks from reality

[CharonsHelper]

Not being myself a consumer of published modules / adventure paths, I would be interested to know what rules they use to prevent player death. Is it similar to the incapacitated condition mentioned elsewhere in this thread? Something like a left-for-dead rule? Mandatory revivifications? Deus ex machina rescues if the party gets into trouble as a sort of plot armor?

Death isn't totally unknown in them though - and some APs are more deadly than others. (A few have really rough level 1 slots. I remember people dropping to negative when fighting doppelgangers at level 1 in the last AP I played.)

But they do assume that at least the core of the group survives because it allows them to have overarching storylines.

I know that I've seen quite a few people bite it in PFS modules, though largely people with bad builds. And it's designed so that by mid levels you can use PFS prestige points to resurrect at no other cost.

[Vhaidara]

did someone ever try that? sadly, the lack of demons in the real wolrd means we have to undergo long hours of physiotherapy.:frown:

More seriously, you also don't learn new spells or learn lockpicking from fighting demons, but the whole xp mechanic is one of those acceptable breaks from reality

The point is that if you have a broken leg, you don't go back to playing sports as your physical therapy to recover. It's a slow process, and during it, you get benched, because if you try to contribute, you'll get hurt even worse.

Huh, sounds kind of like the exact problem we were talking about: if you're down 2 levels, your party members, who probably care about your well being, are going to leave your ass behind in town so you don't find yourself skewered on some demon's spear. Again. Friends don't let level drained friends fight at level demons.

[King of Nowhere]

The point is that if you have a broken leg, you don't go back to playing sports as your physical therapy to recover. It's a slow process, and during it, you get benched, because if you try to contribute, you'll get hurt even worse.

Huh, sounds kind of like the exact problem we were talking about: if you're down 2 levels, your party members, who probably care about your well being, are going to leave your ass behind in town so you don't find yourself skewered on some demon's spear. Again. Friends don't let level drained friends fight at level demons.

on the other hand, if your problem is like you suffered from amnesia and lost memory of some university exams, you should go back to university and learn them back (incidentally, this happened to a friend of mine who took a blow to his head). which is exactly what adventurers do by keeping up the adventuring.

And if someone is more than two levels down the others, he's either doing a terrible job, like actively trying to get killed, or the dm is doing a terrible job, like having the enemies focus him. the case of a character brought 3-4 levels down over the rest of the party is an extreme, not the norm, and it does not mean the system is bad, only that the people using it weren't doing a good job.

[Arbane]

No, you can gain xp as normal but the xp you lost cannot be retrieved.
This has the horrendous effect of putting you WAY behind other party members, making you less effective overall.

The way level-drain works in 3.5 is 'negative levels'. If Raise Dead sticks you with one that can never be removed, you'll need 8th level XP to reach level 7, AND (If the campaign's non-Epic) you top out at effective level 19. And that's if you die and get Raised ONCE.

Nasty.

(Never mind, I'm wrong about how permanent negative levels work.)

[rel]

that's not what I'm into. I want an open world environment, which cannot go together with a published module (but if I had to try one, I'd go for tomb of horrors, because challenge). So those considerations are good for some players, but not for others. When I make a campaign, I expect players to need a rez every once in a while.

Which is fine but the fact that you or I prefer one type of play does not mean that other types of play are any less valid.



But it does not feel like the current one. Not unless failure in combat also comes with a high price like permanent damage to plot points, in which case death still has a steep cost, just a different one.
I know that my attitude toward the game changes completely if I feel like I can lose something or not; just like I did not felt challenged with my DM until my character died, and I was happy it happened.


Again, you seem to equate loss and failure with death. So to reiterate my previous point, you can have a game with no chance of PC death that still features loss and failure.

In fact, loss and failure need not be equivalent to PC death even in a game where death is a likely and expected outcome.

[atemu1234]

I think that part of the reason Raise Dead is an available spell is to avoid this problem; that way you don't have to replace one bard named Bark with another identical twin brother bard named Bork with the same abilities.

I prefer my players make new characters with a new(ish) build, even if they're the same class.

[P.F.]

if someone is more than two levels down the others, he's either doing a terrible job, like actively trying to get killed, or the dm is doing a terrible job, like having the enemies focus him. the case of a character brought 3-4 levels down over the rest of the party is an extreme, not the norm, and it does not mean the system is bad, only that the people using it weren't doing a good job.

We've had a couple of adventures recently where the same player's characters died repeatedly, and it wasn't because they or the DM were doing a terrible job ... I discussed it with my friend after the 5th or 6th death, and his evaluation was something along lines of "yeah, melee types are probably the most likely to get killed."

Now in all fairness, it could be argued that the REST of the party was doing a terrible job, or that the party as a whole wasn't performing at our best, but it's hardly fair to say that the character with the most dangerous job is to blame. Without him acting as a tar-pit &/or meat-shield, we would all have bitten it a lot more often.

To the DM's credit, he set the floor at one level below average, and the gap was usually closed sometime within the next few sessions. When I DM I set the floor at average level -2, since the differences in broad capability start to get really noticeable.

[Sir Chuckles]

Not being myself a consumer of published modules / adventure paths, I would be interested to know what rules they use to prevent player death. Is it similar to the incapacitated condition mentioned elsewhere in this thread? Something like a left-for-dead rule? Mandatory revivifications? Deus ex machina rescues if the party gets into trouble as a sort of plot armor?

Most of the time, it's some kinda thing handed to the player. Some benefactor giving them a one-use Ressurection, a Staff of Life with exactly enough charges to revive one guy, that sort of thing. I've never seen one do an outright "Immune to Death" plot armor, but I've seen them hand out plenty of tool to reverse the effects.


that's not what I'm into. I want an open world environment, which cannot go together with a published module (but if I had to try one, I'd go for tomb of horrors, because challenge). So those considerations are good for some players, but not for others. When I make a campaign, I expect players to need a rez every once in a while.
There are multiple APs with varying degrees of open world-ness and simulation. Even then, most APs are pretty decent at not being a total railroad.


But it does not feel like the current one. Not unless failure in combat also comes with a high price like permanent damage to plot points, in which case death still has a steep cost, just a different one.
I know that my attitude toward the game changes completely if I feel like I can lose something or not; just like I did not felt challenged with my DM until my character died, and I was happy it happened.

An example would be Red Hand of Doom. It is possible in RHoD to completely stomp every fight you get in but still watch the Vale burn down around you. Some APs have that more than others. You don't need to be personally squashed by a dragon for the dragon to burn down the city.

[Calthropstu]

I killed the same guy twice recently in the campaign I was running. The first time was a crit. That did it. His monk was the front line defense type who was tough to hit, and he would attract large amounts of firepower leaving the others to focus on picking off attackers. He was down to 10 when an ogre critted him.

The other time well... you know the saying don't split the party? Yeah... they went out into an icy wasteland and split into two. Unfortunately, they were in the haunting grounds of "the lonely maiden" and well... I pretty much flat out murdered him with a yuki ona. They couldn't find the body. Didn't help that he failed 26 fascination saves to not wander off by himself... the guy pretty much wandered off 2 miles away and got murdered.

It happens. Character deaths can't be avoided sometimes.

[atemu1234]

I killed the same guy twice recently in the campaign I was running. The first time was a crit. That did it. His monk was the front line defense type who was tough to hit, and he would attract large amounts of firepower leaving the others to focus on picking off attackers. He was down to 10 when an ogre critted him.

The other time well... you know the saying don't split the party? Yeah... they went out into an icy wasteland and split into two. Unfortunately, they were in the haunting grounds of "the lonely maiden" and well... I pretty much flat out murdered him with a yuki ona. They couldn't find the body. Didn't help that he failed 26 fascination saves to not wander off by himself... the guy pretty much wandered off 2 miles away and got murdered.

It happens. Character deaths can't be avoided sometimes.

I mean, yeah, you can't avoid players occasionally dying (or, for that matter, their characters) but they shouldn't be playing the EXACT SAME CHARACTER if they didn't choose to rez, as is (I think) the topic of the thread.

And yeah, I once did something similar with a yuki ona. At the right level, they can be pretty deadly.

[Calthropstu]

I mean, yeah, you can't avoid players occasionally dying (or, for that matter, their characters) but they shouldn't be playing the EXACT SAME CHARACTER if they didn't choose to rez, as is (I think) the topic of the thread.

And yeah, I once did something similar with a yuki ona. At the right level, they can be pretty deadly.

Yeah, he didn't play the exact same character or even the same class. It was just the same player. I mention it because others are extolling "plot armor" or preventing character death, and that just... doesn't feel real. It's a game. Make believe characters getting killed in a game shouldn't be a big deal.

[King of Nowhere]

The way level-drain works in 3.5 is 'negative levels'. If Raise Dead sticks you with one that can never be removed, you'll need 8th level XP to reach level 7, AND (If the campaign's non-Epic) you top out at effective level 19. And that's if you die and get Raised ONCE.

Nasty.

negative levels become a loss of level if not resisted or healed after one day. when a character loses a level, he/she is brought back to half the xp needed to level up, and then it's exactly the same as if he/she has always been that level. So no, you can and will recover from the level loss.
Sources:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#levelLoss


Negative levels remain until 24 hours have passed or until they are removed with a spell, such as restoration. If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A separate saving throw is required for each negative level.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm


Which is fine but the fact that you or I prefer one type of play does not mean that other types of play are any less valid.


Wait, I was under the impression that you were arguing that allowing characters to die was a less valid type of play. If we both agree that they are acceptable different ways to play, then we need argue no further


We've had a couple of adventures recently where the same player's characters died repeatedly, and it wasn't because they or the DM were doing a terrible job ... I discussed it with my friend after the 5th or 6th death, and his evaluation was something along lines of "yeah, melee types are probably the most likely to get killed."

To the DM's credit, he set the floor at one level below average, and the gap was usually closed sometime within the next few sessions. When I DM I set the floor at average level -2, since the differences in broad capability start to get really noticeable.
I was meaning that those melee guys tanking are probably the lowest threat, especially if they miss levels, and so the monsters should at some point ignore them and try to reach the other people in the bacck. But yeah, sometimes the melees are making a really good job of preventing that, so I can understand how it may happen. It's a form of heroic sacrifice. but the DM handled it correctly by setting a level floor, so those guys could still stay relevant. And keep making heroic sacrifices.


I killed the same guy twice recently in the campaign I was running. The first time was a crit. That did it. His monk was the front line defense type who was tough to hit, and he would attract large amounts of firepower leaving the others to focus on picking off attackers. He was down to 10 when an ogre critted him.

Wow. change ogre with water elemental, and it's exactly the story of my character.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yes, because you're ignoring the real price.

You're wrong I'm afraid. I was making an oblique reference to the Revivify spell.

[Boggartbae]

Yeah, he didn't play the exact same character or even the same class. It was just the same player. I mention it because others are extolling "plot armor" or preventing character death, and that just... doesn't feel real. It's a game. Make believe characters getting killed in a game shouldn't be a big deal.

Yeah, but if a player does think that it’s a big deal, then I’m not about to argue with them about bringing back the same character if they can’t get rez’ed, because what they play isn’t a big deal to me, as long as everyone has fun and the game is relatively balanced.

[Nifft]

You're wrong I'm afraid. I was making an oblique reference to the Revivify spell. Unfortunately that spell is not reliable, given the time constraints on its use, and the tactical implications thereof. So you're not making a valid counter-point -- revivify is not a blanket counter to PC death, nor is it viable in a lot of situations where raise dead works reliably.

That said, revivify is a great spell, and every party ought to have a scroll or two of revivify in the hands of every Cleric and UMD user as soon as WBL permits.


Yeah, but if a player does think that it’s a big deal, then I’m not about to argue with them about bringing back the same character if they can’t get rez’ed, because what they play isn’t a big deal to me, as long as everyone has fun and the game is relatively balanced. One thing I've done is hand out very limited "Plot Points", one of which could save a PC's life. These were granted very infrequently, and could occasionally be expended in other FATE-like ways.

I think two Plot Points got expended across ~4 years of that game.

They were a buffer against death, and their rarity kept the fear of death real enough that the players had a great time.

IIRC there's a similar mechanic in Warhammer Fantasy.

[rel]

Unfortunately that spell is not reliable, given the time constraints on its use, and the tactical implications thereof. So you're not making a valid counter-point -- revivify is not a blanket counter to PC death, nor is it viable in a lot of situations where raise dead works reliably.


Try casting revenance first.

[Metahuman1]

Yeah, except none of the things you've talked about are system problems. They were all player problems (DM included)

The basilisk SoD might be something to complain about, but in a regular scenario (one the DM isn't screwing you over) it's really easy to kite the basilisk. Also, you can close your eyes / turn away from them to make gaze attacks impossible

Oh, so it's NOT the systems fault that I was nerfed to the point were there was no conceivable chance of recovery over a series of random dice rolls going against me and the rules for those rolls being applied to the letter? The system just blanket prevents that when you apply rules and written unless crap DM and crap players are at the table?

:smallmad:



And don't tell me that now. It's been over a freaking decade. I know that NOW just like I know that Rangers are sub par with out extensive optimization, Monks and Vow of Poverty are both Traps, and contrary to what the DM told me at the time, building a new character with an eye toward being able to kill an existing one who's shown she's only too happy to murder her fellow PC's as a matter of convenience if attacked is not unacceptable metagaming, it's just good gaming.

I also know better then to play in any group were there are romantic partners, or even a mild crush, and either 1 partner or the person with the unreciprocated feelings is in the DM seat and the other party in a players seat. No good comes of it.




Doesn't change the fact that if there wasn't that stupid rule about further penalizing death after the death happens, I'd likely have been fine. (The monk would have had the HP to Survive, and would, in turn, have had the Save bonuses to make the saves, and started far enough away from the Basilisks to not get wasted by them out the starting gate. Just for an example.)







Also to whomever was interested, not that I'm aware of, no. She did however get to get away with a metric ass tone of BS over the course of the campaign because he was letting things slide for her he wouldn't for anyone else cause he had it bad for her.

[Mr Adventurer]

Unfortunately that spell is not reliable, given the time constraints on its use, and the tactical implications thereof.

Come along now, you may as well say that about any of the other spells - they all have conditions on their use that make them less than perfect. I don't see that Revivify falls beneath the others because of its own.


So you're not making a valid counter-point -- revivify is not a blanket counter to PC death, nor is it viable in a lot of situations where raise dead works reliably.

Well, you're welcome to think that, but it is a little confusing since I wasn't making any kind of argument. If you look at my post, you'll see it's a question. You seem to have invented a position and imputed it to me falsely.


That said, revivify is a great spell, and every party ought to have a scroll or two of revivify in the hands of every Cleric and UMD user as soon as WBL permits.

On this at least we agree.

Since the spell bypasses level loss, its pairing with Revenance became the de facto way of raising the dead in one high level game I was in.

[heavyfuel]

Oh, so it's NOT the systems fault that I was nerfed to the point were there was no conceivable chance of recovery over a series of random dice rolls going against me and the rules for those rolls being applied to the letter? The system just blanket prevents that when you apply rules and written unless crap DM and crap players are at the table?

:smallmad:

Doesn't change the fact that if there wasn't that stupid rule about further penalizing death after the death happens, I'd likely have been fine. (The monk would have had the HP to Survive, and would, in turn, have had the Save bonuses to make the saves, and started far enough away from the Basilisks to not get wasted by them out the starting gate. Just for an example.)



No, it wasn't the system's fault. It was the Wizard's fault.

If your monk would have had good enough saves and HP, just imagine your cleric. A full level above, with healing and buff spells.

It all started because the DM allowed for his crush to kill you. That's not a system problem.

[Metahuman1]

It started because the DM allowed her to try.

If she had rolled a 1, I likely would have won that fight. Heck, if she'd rolled a 20 and then a 1 on damage I like my odds.




It would have stopped if the Monk had been 3rd level like the rest of the party when he got into his first fight, and had the little bit of extra HP he needed to get through that fight. He would have leveled, and not been at stupid close range to the Basilisks, so he'd have had better saves and a chance for someone to warn him to look at a mirror to attack or something.



All the DM did was open a rule book and point on the penalty rule, and that set up every single thing else.


So, it happened because a few rolls went poorly, and the system has a really terrible rule that needlessly punishes to the point and at the risk of outright crippling a player. Remove that factor, and you have 1 annoying character death that could have been rectified afterwords when she inevitably came up with a BS excuse to try the next character, and he, in turn, could actually make the listen check cause he was trained in it to know it was happening, and had the AC and saves and HP to not be picked off right away, quietly, allowing her to get away with not having the whole party gank the character right then.




The DM and the player sucked, and I was new, but the system was a willful enabler to all this in how it was written, and I can't be the only one's who's seen or had it or similar happen.

[heavyfuel]

It started because the DM allowed her to try.

If she had rolled a 1, I likely would have won that fight. Heck, if she'd rolled a 20 and then a 1 on damage I like my odds.

There's no try. She was attempting a Coup de Grace. It's an automatic hit and an automatic crit. There wasn't even a need for her to roll.

[Metahuman1]

I wasn't dying, I was asleep and not in a magical way.

[TheFamilarRaven]

If the risk of random death is the only thing that makes D&D interesting to you, you're in a BAD GAME of D&D.

I have to say this comment is pretty unfair. If random death in DnD is the only thing that makes it interesting to someone, that's really just the preference of the player, and doesn't reflect the quality of the game they're playing in at all. It'd be different if they were DMing perhaps, but this quote and who it is responding to seem to be speaking from the perspective of a player.


Oh, so it's NOT the systems fault that I was nerfed to the point were there was no conceivable chance of recovery over a series of random dice rolls going against me and the rules for those rolls being applied to the letter?

Yes. Because there is no rule that I am aware of that says new characters must be a level below the party. This is strictly for resurrection spells. Your DM was either being an *******, an idiot or simply ignorant, as you've said.



Doesn't change the fact that if there wasn't that stupid rule about further penalizing death after the death happens, I'd likely have been fine. (The monk would have had the HP to Survive, and would, in turn, have had the Save bonuses to make the saves, and started far enough away from the Basilisks to not get wasted by them out the starting gate. Just for an example.)


Again, no such rule for new character that I am aware of.



The DM and the player sucked, and I was new, but the system was a willful enabler to all this in how it was written, and I can't be the only one's who's seen or had it or similar happen.

Look you clearly had a bad first time playing DnD and that sucks, I would be furious as well if I was in your position. But it does seem like you're unfairly denouncing the system based on your experience, which I suspect might have occurred regardless of which system that DM decided to run. You even say near the beginning of the post this quote is from that IF the wizard in question rolled lower you might have been fine. So the same system you seem to say enabled this BS, you seem to admit that it could have also gone the opposite, in that you actually managed to defend yourself. Which is really what could happen in any game that involves dice.


More on topic, every death is random in DnD, by virtue of dice being involved(except maybe Power Word: Kill :smalltongue:). If you're in a game with scripted/arbitrary PC death, either your DM is being a power hungry troll, or you were informed of this and on board with the idea to begin with. If its the former, now THAT is what I'd call a bad game of DnD.

But the trick is, that no death should come as a surprise. Being an adventurer is exciting and also quite deadly. Most, (and I say 'most' when I mean to say good games, but not all games are good) adventures don't take place in "Temperate forest A - Roll 1d100 on table 3-11, pg 10,784 of the DMG". But rather, you adventure in "Black Crag Forest", which is said to hold the ruins of a once proud kingdom of giants, but has since fallen into ruin and is now the hunting grounds of griphons, basilisks, Ettercaps, and various goblinoid tribes! Or the "The Ruins of Keriak's Castle", from which a strange creature emerges. Every so often it visits the village of Thistleton, witnesses say that the creature needs only look upon it's victims in order to sap the life out of them. It then drags its prey back to the ancient ruin.

So if the PC travel through Black Crag Forest, it should be no surprise if they run into basilisks. Even IF it was a random encounter. Likewise, while hunting within Keriak's castle, they should realize sooner or later that they're tracking a bodak. If the dice fall in a way that's not favorable to the PC and they get insta killed well... I've noticed that my players tend to be much more accepting of death when they recognize that it a possibility and are aware of the risks. YMMV. It's only when 1d4 bodaks show up out of the blue and one shot someone on his way to the super market that I cry foul! Also, the way a DM narrates the scene can make a huge difference. If the Dm describes the PC death as "LoL! Roll a new character!" chances are they're going to be a lot more bitter than if if the describe it in such a way as to make the tension of the encounter that much more intense. And yes, dying sucks. It's something to be avoided, so I do believe that their should be some penalty associated with PC death. Be it a gold cost or what have you. I don't believe it should set the individual behind the rest of the group though. DnD is supposed to be a cooperative game, so it sucks when you're not on the same level as everyone else.

Even more on topic. I tend to discourage carbon copy builds but will allow them if the player really insists. What I forbid are carbon copy characters. That's just silly.

[King of Nowhere]

Oh, so it's NOT the systems fault that I was nerfed to the point were there was no conceivable chance of recovery over a series of random dice rolls going against me and the rules for those rolls being applied to the letter? The system just blanket prevents that when you apply rules and written unless crap DM and crap players are at the table?

there was a conceivable chance of recovery, i.e. gaining more xp over time. Also, saying that the -1 to saving throw you got for having a level less is what killed you is frankly unreasonable. You could have just as easily rolled a bit lower on the d20, or taken a bit more damage, and the loss of level would have made no difference. it's random.
In general, you are blaming the system because the DM was unfair. Well, duh. If the people in power abuse their power, the system will generate injustice. Incredible. Well, I'm not aware of any system, gaming or otherwise, that will work if people in power are actively abusign their power. You could have tried the democratic way and tried to oust the DM, maybe.
As I pointed out in a previous post, you can't make a system as complex as D&D work smoothly, not ever. there will always be cases where the rules are inadequate. the best thing you can do is get a good DM and trust him to fix the problems as they arise.

I also know better then to play in any group were there are romantic partners, or even a mild crush, and either 1 partner or the person with the unreciprocated feelings is in the DM seat and the other party in a players seat. No good comes of it.

Two of my players are married, and I think the guy could be a good DM even if he had to DM his wife. The wife would not make for a good DM, period, but I don't think she'd be worse because of the husband. However, we are talking about mature people in their fifties.

[Nifft]

Come along now, you may as well say that about any of the other spells - they all have conditions on their use that make them less than perfect. I don't see that Revivify falls beneath the others because of its own.

Well, you're welcome to think that, but it is a little confusing since I wasn't making any kind of argument. If you look at my post, you'll see it's a question. You seem to have invented a position and imputed it to me falsely. Tut-tut, that's dirty pool.

You apparently do not use revivify in combat. As a spell on its own, without additional aid, it is tactically insufficient for your needs. As I have said, the window of opportunity for revivify's applicability falls far too often for that spell alone to serve as insurance against death.

"A 5th level spell slot and 1,000 gp" buys you nothing except this one spell -- and alone, that expenditure is simply not sufficiently reliable, as it must occur in a very brief timeframe, right in the midst of tactical combat.



Since the spell bypasses level loss, its pairing with Revenance became the de facto way of raising the dead in one high level game I was in. If you add in a 4th level spell slot (and access to spells which originated in Magic of Faerun), then you can pry open the window of opportunity from a single round to over a minute.

That's a significant change in tactical requirements -- and at the character levels when L5 spells first come on line, two high-level slots is notably more of an expenditure than one, so the change in requirements is reasonably well justified.


I will also mention that I've seen games which allow revivify but not revenance.

If you allow both, that's great, but access to either (or both) is not a sure thing -- in contrast to raise dead or reincarnate, which are both allowed in the overwhelming majority of games that I've seen or read about.

[heavyfuel]

I wasn't dying, I was asleep and not in a magical way.

Sure you were


A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.

snip

Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent.

[Calthropstu]

It started because the DM allowed her to try.

If she had rolled a 1, I likely would have won that fight. Heck, if she'd rolled a 20 and then a 1 on damage I like my odds.




It would have stopped if the Monk had been 3rd level like the rest of the party when he got into his first fight, and had the little bit of extra HP he needed to get through that fight. He would have leveled, and not been at stupid close range to the Basilisks, so he'd have had better saves and a chance for someone to warn him to look at a mirror to attack or something.



All the DM did was open a rule book and point on the penalty rule, and that set up every single thing else.


So, it happened because a few rolls went poorly, and the system has a really terrible rule that needlessly punishes to the point and at the risk of outright crippling a player. Remove that factor, and you have 1 annoying character death that could have been rectified afterwords when she inevitably came up with a BS excuse to try the next character, and he, in turn, could actually make the listen check cause he was trained in it to know it was happening, and had the AC and saves and HP to not be picked off right away, quietly, allowing her to get away with not having the whole party gank the character right then.




The DM and the player sucked, and I was new, but the system was a willful enabler to all this in how it was written, and I can't be the only one's who's seen or had it or similar happen.

Similar happened to my first ever character in my first ever session. They killed my 1st level wizard in less than 5 minutes of me sitting down. It wasn't 3.x either, it was AD&D.

This was NOT the system's fault. This was ******* players/gm beating on the newbie. And that no one tried to stop it or killed her character for doing it speaks volumes.

I've been there before trust me. There are a lot of jerk players/gms out there. But I have never blamed the system itself, it's the people.

[Boggartbae]

The sympathy in this thread is lacking.

Coup de grace's and save-or-die spells shouldn't really be used against PC's, because (and this is especially true for coup de grace) they kill people too easily and make players feel powerless. The fact that "you lost initiative and failed your save" is a scenario that DM's are encouraged to create (based on those types of monsters appearing in the Monster Manual) is a system problem.

I know that there are counters to these abilities, but let's be real; the spell section at the back of the Player's Handbook is extremely daunting for new players, and the fact that every party needs a character to understand it in order to protect themselves properly is still a system problem.

It is incredibly easy to ruin a game of D&D, and the fact that the rules do very little to ameliorate this, and in fact sometimes encourage un-fun play, is a system problem.



And yes, dying sucks. It's something to be avoided, so I do believe that their should be some penalty associated with PC death. Be it a gold cost or what have you. I don't believe it should set the individual behind the rest of the group though. DnD is supposed to be a cooperative game, so it sucks when you're not on the same level as everyone else.

Even more on topic. I tend to discourage carbon copy builds but will allow them if the player really insists. What I forbid are carbon copy characters. That's just silly.

Can I ask what the difference between a carbon copy build and a carbon copy character is? Legit not trying to be facetious, I'm just confused a little. My stance on carbon copies is "please try new things unless you don't want to", so I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on this point anyway.

EDIT: also yeah, the scramble and gold involved to get a character rez'ed is enough punishment for the party already, so it's a bit mean to also punish the player who just died specifically.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Can I ask what the difference between a carbon copy build and a carbon copy character is? Legit not trying to be facetious, I'm just confused a little. My stance on carbon copies is "please try new things unless you don't want to", so I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on this point anyway.


If the new character's personality and mechanics are so similar to the dead character they're replacing to the point where they become indistinguishable, then I draw the line. I don't care (although, as a said, I encourage different builds) if you select the same spells, feats, items or what have you. What I do care about is if this new character has the same mannerisms, motivations and mode of operation as the previous character, then it's really as if the old character never died, thus reducing the dramatic impact of the death in first place.

[Metahuman1]

I'd like the various people telling me that there is no general rule that if you die a new character isn't suppose to be a level behind, to please explain why there are then source books that talk about it being the norm and even site what they consider to be examples of good enough role playing to warrant giving the replacement character the same mechanical level that the now dead character was at, rather than going with the standard of knocking them down a level?


Seems really, really, really silly to me to make explicit instructions for making an exception to a rule that outright does not exist, as you claim. Seems much more reasonable that the rule exists and they gave circumstance's that they felt should warrant exceptions.




heavyfuel: The wizard certainly didn't know that then, else she would have said something about it. All she said was she was going to try to kill me, she was prompted to make an attack roll, she rolled then confirmed the Crit and rolled max weapon damage, and the DM looked at that and informed me that brought me to negative something ridiculous HP, and then she hit me again which would have been -11 even if she'd Nat 1'd the Damage so it was irrelevant.

And since she wasn't invoking the rule, this still boiled down to her winning by a couple of random dice rolls, and the death triggering a death spiral I couldn't recover from that ruined the damn game for me and damn near scared me off the hobby whole sale. (the only reason it didn't was because while this was going on I fell in with a group on another night running champions, and they were cool. )

[Knaight]

I wonder, is it really so hard for someone like you to understand that different people have different expectations? :smallconfused:

Maybe try to actually make an argument next time, buddy.
There's an implied argument there, and it's that you're bundling together a whole bunch of expectations that aren't actually related. The idea that quality of roleplaying and ease of death in a game are tied together is flatly ridiculous, as is the repeated implication that character death is the only stakes that can exist in a conflict.

[Boggartbae]

If the new character's personality and mechanics are so similar to the dead character they're replacing to the point where they become indistinguishable, then I draw the line. I don't care (although, as a said, I encourage different builds) if you select the same spells, feats, items or what have you. What I do care about is if this new character has the same mannerisms, motivations and mode of operation as the previous character, then it's really as if the old character never died, thus reducing the dramatic impact of the death in first place.

Wow. You actually changed my mind. Prior to this conversation I would have had no problem with both the crunch and the fluff being exactly the same. but

Forcing people to flex their RP muscles is way more important than making them use their character building muscles, otherwise you end up with people like me who only have 1 voice and 2 personalities :smalltongue:

[Mr Adventurer]

Tut-tut, that's dirty pool.

What is what? I'm not familiar with that term and so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Let me take a stab: you don't believe that my first post in this thread, posed as a question, was genuinely meant as such, and was instead intended as a rhetorical device. I'm not sure what I can say to persuade you otherwise, since you're making assumptions about my intent; I'm sorry if my post seemed to you to be as you say.


You apparently do not use revivify in combat. As a spell on its own, without additional aid, it is tactically insufficient for your needs.

Here it looks like you're imputing a position to me that I've never actually taken. This is telling me what my needs are, and then arguing from that premise. I'm not sure why you'd do that, perhaps it was a mistake.


As I have said, the window of opportunity for revivify's applicability falls far too often for that spell alone to serve as insurance against death.

I agree it is a narrow window. I don't agree that that makes the spell inapplicable "far too often".

There's a bit of common knowledge about the rounds-length of 3.5 combats: that 1-3 is the usual. It seems to me that a 1-round grace period, in that frame of time, stands to be plenty.


"A 5th level spell slot and 1,000 gp" buys you nothing except this one spell -- and alone, that expenditure is simply not sufficiently reliable, as it must occur in a very brief timeframe, right in the midst of tactical combat.

Again, though, you're constructing a position and then arguing against that, rather than what I have said. "The midst of tactical combat" isn't every situation the spell might be needed, or even necessarily a plurality. That the spell fails in those situations is your position, and there's not much you've said to support that.


If you add in a 4th level spell slot (and access to spells which originated in Magic of Faerun), then you can pry open the window of opportunity from a single round to over a minute.

That's a significant change in tactical requirements -- and at the character levels when L5 spells first come on line, two high-level slots is notably more of an expenditure than one, so the change in requirements is reasonably well justified.


I will also mention that I've seen games which allow revivify but not revenance.

If you allow both, that's great, but access to either (or both) is not a sure thing -- in contrast to raise dead or reincarnate, which are both allowed in the overwhelming majority of games that I've seen or read about.

I agree, which is why that part of my post was in reply to another poster, as part of the general discussion, and not part of the exchange you and I are having. I don't see that it's relevant.

(Although aren't both spells in the Spell Compendium? So it's irrelevant where they originated? But that's by-the-bye.

[Raxxius]

I think it's worth remembering that ad&d was a meat grinder game. Character attrition was almost expected.

Progressive systems have made it harder to be howitzered but not impossible.

[Zanos]

The sympathy in this thread is lacking.
If your friend beats the hell out of you with a pipe, you don't blame pipes.

D&D isn't designed for PvP, and removing the level behind rule from Metahumans game probably wouldn't have salvaged it, because at the core the DM sounds quite bad at running the game.

[Metahuman1]

Would it have made it a stellar game? No.

Would it have made it a more or less playable point to introduction? I'm inclined to think yes. The module was an official one, and I could have more or less worked with it.




Yes, the DM was, looking back, not very good. You know what's a horrible idea? Making it trivially easy for a lousy DM to just crack open random books and point to text that says "Normally, you loose a level, but under this circumstance you don't meet, you should think about not loosing a level like they would normally loose!".

Which, I maintain, sounds a hell of a lot like there is a rule that says something to the effect of "Come in 1 level lower if you die and roll new character.".

[King of Nowhere]

The sympathy in this thread is lacking.

Coup de grace's and save-or-die spells shouldn't really be used against PC's, because (and this is especially true for coup de grace) they kill people too easily and make players feel powerless. The fact that "you lost initiative and failed your save" is a scenario that DM's are encouraged to create (based on those types of monsters appearing in the Monster Manual) is a system problem.

I know that there are counters to these abilities, but let's be real; the spell section at the back of the Player's Handbook is extremely daunting for new players, and the fact that every party needs a character to understand it in order to protect themselves properly is still a system problem.

It is incredibly easy to ruin a game of D&D, and the fact that the rules do very little to ameliorate this, and in fact sometimes encourage un-fun play, is a system problem.

On the other hand, some players explicitly like the challenge of mastering all the stuff and being prepared for all of it, so if you simplified it for the sake of new players many older players would complain.

Again, there is no way to fix that. The only thing you can do is to trust a competent DM to throw at the party the proper kind of challenges.

[Calthropstu]

On the other hand, some players explicitly like the challenge of mastering all the stuff and being prepared for all of it, so if you simplified it for the sake of new players many older players would complain.

Again, there is no way to fix that. The only thing you can do is to trust a competent DM to throw at the party the proper kind of challenges.

Mwahahaha. Die PCs DIE!

...

I mean uhhh... yes. Apropriate challenges.

[TheFamilarRaven]

If your friend beats the hell out of you with a pipe, you don't blame pipes.

Ya see I was gonna say "Greataxes don't kill people. Orcs do."


I'd like the various people telling me that there is no general rule that if you die a new character isn't suppose to be a level behind, to please explain why there are then source books that talk about it being the norm and even site what they consider to be examples of good enough role playing to warrant giving the replacement character the same mechanical level that the now dead character was at, rather than going with the standard of knocking them down a level?


Seems really, really, really silly to me to make explicit instructions for making an exception to a rule that outright does not exist, as you claim. Seems much more reasonable that the rule exists and they gave circumstance's that they felt should warrant exceptions.


I'm away from actual books. Both 3.5 and PF, so I generally use the online, no fluff added, version of the game which gives the specifics on how things work, but rarely a clue has to how the authors suggest things be done. So if you could cite the books in which it clearly says that one must bring in replacement characters 1 level lower than the party, I would acquiesce to your point. But in fact, from what googling I've done, (as this question has been asked before), it seems that there is no rule present in 3.5 or Pathfinder that explicitly makes a character 1 level below the party if they're replacing a dead one with a new one. This whole idea could perhaps be extrapolated from the rules for the various resurrection spells. But again, that's a conclusion that DMs have to come up with on their own. Which brings me back to my point that the system wasn't so much the problem as was your group of players.




Yes, the DM was, looking back, not very good. You know what's a horrible idea? Making it trivially easy for a lousy DM to just crack open random books and point to text that says "Normally, you loose a level, but under this circumstance you don't meet, you should think about not loosing a level like they would normally loose!".

Which, I maintain, sounds a hell of a lot like there is a rule that says something to the effect of "Come in 1 level lower if you die and roll new character.".

Actually, I would say that if a DM can justify their ruling with an actual written rule, then they're pretty decent as a DM. It's when they pop in and cite rule 0 to justify some BS that they showcase their horrible DM skills.

More to the point, being able to "trivially cite a rule" should actually be a sign that a system is well designed because it is easy to reference. Now if I thought that the rule in question existed I would agree that it is a bad rule, but being able to reference it with ease is a sign of a well organized set of rules.

[Nifft]

(...) pairing with Revenance became the de facto way of raising the dead in one high level game I was in.


Here it looks like you're imputing a position to me that I've never actually taken. This is telling me what my needs are, and then arguing from that premise. I'm not sure why you'd do that, perhaps it was a mistake.

Actually I'm merely repeating what you said you did, and then drawing the obvious conclusion: if your de facto utilization requires two spells, then neither one of those spells would stand up on its own.

I think I've interpreted your words fairly, and by the it would seem that even for you revivify -- while a very useful effect to have on hand -- is not a universal death-cost prevention tool.


As to the source, it would seem from context your group permits all-or-nothing from a given book. You ought to know that not all groups play under that condition.

[Boggartbae]

If your friend beats the hell out of you with a pipe, you don't blame pipes.

Ya see I was gonna say "Greataxes don't kill people. Orcs do."

Well the axe helps.


I'm away from actual books. Both 3.5 and PF, so I generally use the online, no fluff added, version of the game which gives the specifics on how things work, but rarely a clue has to how the authors suggest things be done. So if you could cite the books in which it clearly says that one must bring in replacement characters 1 level lower than the party, I would acquiesce to your point. But in fact, from what googling I've done, (as this question has been asked before), it seems that there is no rule present in 3.5 or Pathfinder that explicitly makes a character 1 level below the party if they're replacing a dead one with a new one. This whole idea could perhaps be extrapolated from the rules for the various resurrection spells. But again, that's a conclusion that DMs have to come up with on their own. Which brings me back to my point that the system wasn't so much the problem as was your group of players.

Actually, I would say that if a DM can justify their ruling with an actual written rule, then they're pretty decent as a DM. It's when they pop in and cite rule 0 to justify some BS that they showcase their horrible DM skills.

More to the point, being able to "trivially cite a rule" should actually be a sign that a system is well designed because it is easy to reference. Now if I thought that the rule in question existed I would agree that it is a bad rule, but being able to reference it with ease is a sign of a well organized set of rules.

From the DMG, Page 42:
"Under most circumstances, a new character should begin play at the beginning of the level lower than the player's previous PC"

Not one level below the party, but one level below where they were previously.

And, to answer the question posed in the OP (same page):
"But avoid situations where a player would be punished for sticking with an existing PC rather than creating a new one."

[TheFamilarRaven]

From the DMG, Page 42:
"Under most circumstances, a new character should begin play at the beginning of the level lower than the player's previous PC"


Well gosh golly I stand corrected. That is a pretty ****ty thing to put in the book. So of course I'll retract much of what I have previously said and apologize.

Though if I might add, the next paragraph also begins by that "In some circumstances, you might want to be more lenient." Which to me suggests that the authors believed that the level of a new character should be dependent on a case by case basis rather than a hard and fast rule. Which explains why it probably didn't make it onto the SRD.

[P.F.]

Well gosh golly I stand corrected. That is a pretty ****ty thing to put in the book.

I would disagree with this, generally. As I have mentioned previously, I tend to see the opposite problem especially when there is no penalty for introducing a new character or the floor is set too high. I don't just love adventuring with a new party every week, nor, as a DM, do I like having to constantly update my notes with new names, abilities, backstory tie-ins (that I will never use because the half-life of a PC is so short) etc., etc.

The biggest problem, especially at low levels, is that a new character 1 level down is just as good as an old character 1 level down, but can be introduced almost immediately, has 1000 more gold, and can be equipped from the DMG instead of whatever ***tty little village the party is staying in this week.

Part of the problem is also that the pace of leveling up is too slow, and my players want to gain new and interesting actions every session or two. The marginal increases and lackluster class abilities at most levels for most classes satisfy this desire, at best, on every other level. So introducing a new character, even one which broadly fills the same party niche, is a way to gain new powers without having to grind up two (or three, since the character died) more levels.

[King of Nowhere]

I would disagree with this, generally. As I have mentioned previously, I tend to see the opposite problem especially when there is no penalty for introducing a new character or the floor is set too high. I don't just love adventuring with a new party every week, nor, as a DM, do I like having to constantly update my notes with new names, abilities, backstory tie-ins (that I will never use because the half-life of a PC is so short) etc., etc.


Huh. Players with whom I adventured long enough (granted, there are about a dozen of them) have always tended to stick to their character, especiallly the more we went on pplaying. Very rarely somebody changed a charaacter because he wanted to try something else, and only after they used the old character for long enough and they felt they exhausted their options.
In one case we had a character who has a pseudo-cleric class (shugenja or some similar spelling) and figured out he didn't like it, but he liked the character, so we decided he remained the same character but would retroactively become a cleric (which would have done more or less the same things anyway so it did not contradict the past story) and we were all happy with it

[Jormengand]

I've seen more problems with repeated death spirals than with people swapping out characters too much deliberately - reducing new characters' levels causes them to change character more often, not less.

[Boggartbae]

Well gosh golly I stand corrected. That is a pretty ****ty thing to put in the book. So of course I'll retract much of what I have previously said and apologize.

Though if I might add, the next paragraph also begins by that "In some circumstances, you might want to be more lenient." Which to me suggests that the authors believed that the level of a new character should be dependent on a case by case basis rather than a hard and fast rule. Which explains why it probably didn't make it onto the SRD.

Yeah it’s more an art than a science. My group doesn’t use exp, so if a player does die and gains a negative level, the dm will just hadwave it away after you level up once. Also we have a tendency to fudge dierolls during random encounters, so that players won’t die.

In case it wasn’t clear, I also agree that the dm sucks.

[P.F.]

Which explains why it probably didn't make it onto the SRD.

I think it probably didn't make it into the SRD because that whole section runs afoul of
The d20 license restricts some information from being included. Specifically…

"No Covered Product may contain rules or instructions of any kind that:

Describe a process for Creating a Character
Describe a process for Applying the Effects of Experience to a Character"

Now I wouldn't, at face value, understand that to mean you can't publish a rule saying that new characters are introduced one level lower than the previous. Neither would I construe it as prohibiting a wealth-by-level guideline table, or for that matter the number of xp required for each level, because to me that information doesn't "describe a process." The spooooky lawyers, however, disagree.

[Metahuman1]

From the DMG, Page 42:
"Under most circumstances, a new character should begin play at the beginning of the level lower than the player's previous PC"

Not one level below the party, but one level below where they were previously.

And, to answer the question posed in the OP (same page):
"But avoid situations where a player would be punished for sticking with an existing PC rather than creating a new one."

Much Obliged Boggartbae. :)


I'll even add that they talk about it in the fluff sections of Book of Exhaled deeds, using the example of a hero sacrificing themselves to save the party.




Well gosh golly I stand corrected. That is a pretty ****ty thing to put in the book. So of course I'll retract much of what I have previously said and apologize.

Though if I might add, the next paragraph also begins by that "In some circumstances, you might want to be more lenient." Which to me suggests that the authors believed that the level of a new character should be dependent on a case by case basis rather than a hard and fast rule. Which explains why it probably didn't make it onto the SRD.

Apology accepted.






To anyone else who was decrying this as not being an actual rule, here you go. And that means, as I stated, the system bears some fault. The Deathspiral CAN happen and CAN get out of control.

[Hecuba]

For me, this heavily depends on what kind of game we're playing. If we're blatantly kicking in the door, I really won't mind if start playing your old character's 4th Neutral identical sextuplet.

If there is a bit more focus on extended role-playing, though it feels a bit cheap. A character with a very similar build or a vengeful sibling or whatnot is fine, but a dpooleganger that is not meaningfully distinguishable feels a bit like someone refusing to acknowledge parts of the communal storytelling they don't like.

More to the point, there's decent ways to plan around such an issue - have the table agree to have a couple spare characters on hand. You can even incorporate them into the campaign as major NPCs if you repeat the process once a campaign arc. That way, the players can seamlessly pick up the 2nd character if the first gets killed (or the party splits up).

In most preferred mode of play, it's simply not an option: rolling stats in order changes to question of character building from "How do I build this character I want to play?" to "Who is this character I'm going to be playing?". I recognize, however, that that is something of a niche preference at this point.