Post/Author/DateTime	Post
welock 07-09-05, 02:10 AM	Greetings All, I'm a fairly seasoned DM, and I've been running an FR campaign (8 Characters with an average level range of 14-15) with close friends for up to about five years now and running. We are a 3.5 shop, and have been since migrating from 2nd Ed. about a year and a half ago. My players are enjoying the new ruleset for the most part, however, they do have a point of contention - the rules for losing a level of xp at death. Many of them are very sour about having to gain that level of exp back, and also losing all the abilities that comes with the level loss. Their arguement being that the level loss rule adds nothing productive or "fun" to the game - only a negative impact on character development and quite frankly, it puts them in a sour mood everytime it happens (which can happen sometimes, given their higher level and the hit/miss encounters that they become a part of). In my opinion, it's a matter of learning how to strategize, and taking the time to croupe up defenses against higher level foes before the inevitable happens in encounters (domination spells, Symbol spells, high foe numbers, special abilities, etc.) that can lead to PC death. In other words, I think part the higher instances of death for my party comes with being high level and fighting dangerous foes, and leveraging this with learning to become a more effective team, and defending against such attacks(which they've been doing more of recently, to give them credit). To make a long story short, my PCs have spoken to me many of times about wanting to change the rules of death in D&D 3.5 to not include the level loss, but possibly another effect in its place. I'm left to make a decision here - I can understand if someone says that the game is balanced as is, but I'm also dealing with potentially unhappy and underminded players here...Any advice? Thanks in advance guys and gals, :cool: ~Welock
WCH 07-09-05, 02:29 AM	You could switch it to Constitution drain... or even drain to one random ability score (roll 1d6, whatever you land on takes a 1 loss). Reason would be that the death is traumatic both mentally and physically -- just a short time without breathing and you suffer brain damage, so merely bringing him back to life might not rectify that. Same with any other score... death is simply not good for your health. :P
Gutcheck Hammerfall 07-09-05, 02:46 AM	You could switch it to Constitution drain... or even drain to one random ability score (roll 1d6, whatever you land on takes a 1 loss). Reason would be that the death is traumatic both mentally and physically -- just a short time without breathing and you suffer brain damage, so merely bringing him back to life might not rectify that. Same with any other score... death is simply not good for your health. :P I really like this idea! I'm going to test-run it in my next campaign. Thanks for the idea! On the point of death and not being smart players, the loss, in my opinion, is fair. You did just die, as in, no longer alive. Does this have no effect on them? How do they think a character would feel after having died... Resurrection doesn't happen all the time! It's damn expensive, not to mention finding someone who is willing to cast if for you. But my point is... THEY JUST DIED! Get them to chew on the implications of life and death and what death does to a body (or soul).
Deacon Liadon 07-09-05, 02:59 AM	A house rule that we use in my gaming group is: If you die and are ressrected or raised, you gain a negative level until you next level up.
Tifus Artwin 07-09-05, 03:02 AM	You could always switch back to second eds -1 con when you die. Personaly i like the lvl loss better, means i can keep on coming back without haveing to boost my con here and there. So say for a 15th lvl character, that has a con of 16 (dwarven ftr). that means that he only gets either 16 resses, or can loose a lvl and gain it back alot eaier then the con. I mean, point for point, a lvl is nothing compaired to loosing a point in con (one reason i dont use ability draining opponents, would have a massive fight on my hands) then it is to loose a single lvl, and i think you will find this true with your players as well, but i might be wrong and wouldnt be the first time either. If you wanted to make death less stressful (dont know why you would, but players have to come first) hit them there XP, say 100 x character lvl, if it drops them below the XP for there current lvl, they loose that lvl. So say a 15th lvl character dies, he would loose 1500xp, generaly not enough to loose the lvl that high, but the risk is there for someone that dies alot, or has just gained the lvl. Yes i know they might still complain about the lvl loose, but if they have lost it with this method then they really want in it that long to have truely enjoyed its benefits, Also remember that lvl loose hits your highest lvled class, not your last one. So say a 13th lvl Wiz just picked up a lvl in Ftr, making him a wiz13/ftr1, and loose enough xp to reduce him a lvl, he would then be a wiz12/ftr1 (unless this has been changed in 3.5 havent really looked it up since switching over.) So in rule terms that would be: Death = -100 x Character lvl in XP, loose enough to go under the XP required for your lvl and you loose that lvl. Anyway just my thoughts, hope you find a sollution that fits you and your group, and keep on playing.
Evangelos 07-09-05, 03:03 AM	Losing a level is really just no fun. You fall behind the rest of the group, and if you happen to have a streak of bad luck you could easily drop 2 or more levels in the course of a session or two. Most groups I know about, including myself, use a "death deck." This may be a standard deck of playing cards, tarot cards, or whatever. When you die, you draw a card, which has various effects. You might gain a permanent -2 penalty to Listen checks, lose 3 max hit points, or something similar. If you're lucky, you could even gain from death (+2 bonus to Spot checks, etc). The more you die, the bigger your chances of getting worse and worse effects, even including permanent death. Method one would be to write out a list of effects, attach each one to a card, and figure up how many cards you draw with the various ressurrection spells. Spells like True Ressurection in my game let you draw 2 cards and take the best, while Raise Dead only gives you one draw. There are also spells that aid with ressurection or heal spirit damage (Fortify Spirit, Strengthen Spirit) and some that make it tougher on the dead character (Taint Ressurrection, Defortify Spirit, Weaken Spirit). I also rule that Last Breath (originally in Masters of the Wild, but I make it Clr4/Drd5/Pal4) can raise you with no XP loss/spirit damage, since you have to Last Breath someone within 1 round of death. Method two (which some friends of mine use) would be to use a deck of tarot cards. When you die, you draw a card. Drawing the Tower means permanent death. Anything else is left up to the group to decide what happens to you. If you are a Wizard and draw the Magician, you might get +2 Int, but a Fighter who drew the same might get -2 Con. Something else you may want to consider is making it a percentage loss of your total XP. 5-10% isn't nearly as harsh as the RAW, but still enough to make death hurt.
Cantankerous 07-09-05, 05:21 AM	I've just switched over to Con loss myself. BUT, since the loss one Con point is FAR less of a hardship in 3.5E than it was in 2E, it has become a full TWO point Con drop here in 3.5E. THAT is a big enough deficeit to make up for the equivalent of a level loss. It takes hit points away DIRECTLY in the same manner that it did in 2E. Now, it's STILL slightly less of a take down than loosing a level, but it NEVER made any sense to loose the level in the first place. Why in the blazes would a formerly 17th level Wizard suddenly not be able to understand a spell he understood formerly? He hasn't lost intelligence. It makes no sense to say that he has litterally become less experienced. It does however have a nice symetry to loose some of ones life essence (which is what hit points really are after all) when one dies. Isshia
welock 07-09-05, 09:40 AM	Thanks to everyone for your replies - good advice :) I can agree with cantankerous in saying that the current death system is a bit strange at first(a wizard that is raised suddenly cannot use his spells that he's already learned?), but I still think it's a fair abstraction of the ebbing of someone's soul. Instead to thinking of the wizard's spell loss as Intelligence loss, rather, you could think of it as a part of his spirit that is exhausted from the travel back to his mortal form - he is simply unable to channel the more demanding energies until he has gained back his true strength (aka level). My players just have such a problem swallowing losing seven + sessions of exp! Tifus, I really like the system you've mentioned - I may tweak it a bit, or possibly even combine that with another minor effect. I also agree with you and Gutcheck on the death penality being a fair trade. Life and death and back again is not a moot journey! I've actually considered the death penalties from past editions as well - but I'm still basically brainstorming a solution. Thanks again for all the suggestions guys - I'll jot down everything I can get my hands on and share it with my players when we prep for our next adventure :) In the end, I just don't want to trivialize death. There should be penalties, and a major motivation to stay alive and learn to stay alive should be a big thing for my PCs, especially at this level!
RaspK FOG 07-09-05, 09:49 AM	I think I will be using the Constitution drain variant myself... It even makes the game far more consistent, and it also allows for characters to circumvent this issue by such spells as Restoration... On the other hand, you might have had reduction in mind, something entirely different from drain.
astute1 07-09-05, 09:55 AM	We also use a variant rule - a character that is raised gains a permanent negative level, which cannot be removed by any magic. When that character gains a level, he can also remove one permanent negative level. This rule has been suggested in a number of places, and we find it to be quite well balanced. Dying is still quite harsh, but the bookkeeping is easier, and it doesn't put your character so far back that it wipes out weeks of experience.
Cantankerous 07-09-05, 05:09 PM	We also use a variant rule - a character that is raised gains a permanent negative level, which cannot be removed by any magic. When that character gains a level, he can also remove one permanent negative level. This rule has been suggested in a number of places, and we find it to be quite well balanced. Dying is still quite harsh, but the bookkeeping is easier, and it doesn't put your character so far back that it wipes out weeks of experience. Maybe I'm not getting this, but how does the Permenant negative level differ from loosing a level in the crunchy rules manner? I'm not arguing here man, I'm simply asking because you just lost me. Isshia
Siduakal 07-09-05, 05:10 PM	Yea.. that doesn't really make much sense to me, either..
Schmendrick 07-09-05, 05:55 PM	A negative level is different from losing a level in many ways. It's far more crippling on skill checks; a neg. level is -1 to all skills (not just the ones you put points into last level). It also affects all ability checks, which are rarely affected by level loss (the only time it does when your last level was one in which you gained an ability score raise and used it to push an odd score even, and even then level loss only affects that score). It inflicts a penalty on all attack rolls (whether your last level raised your BAB or not) and all saves (whether or not...). Note, however, that since your BAB is not actually decreased it means someone with a BAB of 6 can still take an iterative attack, even if his BAB is "effectively" 5. In effecting HD, it's no different. You lose 5 hit points (on top of your Constitution modifier's worth from the -1 penalty to HD/level), regardless of your hit die or what you rolled for HP last level. Obviously, this makes it much worse for Wiz/Sorc, who NEVER gain that many hp/level, and other low-HD characters (who may do so only rarely). You lose of your highest spell slots. Usually this is just as bad as losing a class level for that spell level, but you still get to keep any more spell slots of lower level you may have had. Also, if you're multiclassed you lose one slot from your highest spell level, whether that slot belonged to your last class taken or not. A Cleric3 who later takes a level of wizard and gains a negative level loses one 2nd level cleric spell; his wizard casting is unaffected. Similarly, a Wiz5/Clr2 loses a 3rd level wizard spell but no cleric spells. (I suppose someone with equal spell level access gets to choose.) These effects make negative levels not *quite* as bad for casters. Multiclass casters take the caster level hit more than once (once to each effective caster level), but multiclass casters should be used to dealing with reduced caster level anyway. :P Negative levels also have no effect on feats or class abilities (except spells, which are a special case, or abilities dependant on HD), or actual skill ranks, which means they can't change what you have in terms of prerequisites or synergies. A 1st level Diplomacy monkey bard has 4 Diplomacy ranks and +3 from Skill Focus for +7 (ignoring Charisma modifier), but a 2nd level with one negative level has 5ranks + 6synergy (bluff, sense motive, K:royalty/nobility) + 3 Skill Focus -1 negative leve, for +13. Finally, most of the posts suggesting a permanent negative level only let it last "until next level up", which means that you only have to gain 1 level's worth of XP to get to the next level (as normal), as opposed to two under the RAW version (one to get to where you were, and another to surpass it).
Cantankerous 07-09-05, 06:12 PM	I understand that, but I don't think that he was refering to that as it sits. I might be wrong but I thought from the tone that he was talking about the negative level as being LESS onerous than loosing a level. Full out, exactly as stated, I'd like the idea even more than the permenant Con loss if it weren't for that pesky loss of highest level spell slots. THAT is my stumbling block. I suppose I could rationalize it out, but if I can find a decent way around it, that retains it's balance, I'd rather go that way. It bears some thought. Maybe Astute will see this and clear it up for me. Isshia
imperialjunkie 07-09-05, 06:35 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but negative level is not losing a level. By doing the negative level until the next level up, the character never loses a level. He/she simply has to suffer the temporary penalties to attack rolls, skill checks and everything else that comes with negative levels. Sounds like a good idea. It hurts pretty bad for a pretty long while (especially at high levels) but it doesn't screw up level progression or ability scores. It's a good idea, but worth thinking through all the implications.
Nom 07-09-05, 07:26 PM	I'm not quite sure I fully understand the original complaint. Your players don't like that their PCs are penalised for dying? Your PC is dead, failed, game over! But we'll give you a second chance, for a minor penalty. And yes, a level loss is a relatively minor penalty. With the 3.5 XP system, you gain XP at approximately 20% faster than the rest of the party, so you'll eventually close the gap. A 1-2 level difference can make it slightly trickier to the DM at certain cut-offs (do they have fireball or not? Do they get iterative attacks?), but a single level of multiclassing can do the same thing without any DM intervention. Like astute1, I use a "permanent" negative level instead of actually levelling down - it avoids a lot of messy bookkeeping. I also dock XP 1 level's worth of XP rather than always setting to half the previous level. For example, a character with 18,200 XP (level 6) who loses a level drops 5,000 XP (the XP required to go from 5 to 6) and ends up with 13,200 XP. Since this is below level 5, he suffers a penalty until he gains enough to reach level 6 again. I also cap the loss at half way down the previous level - a character with only 15,001 XP can't drop less than 12,500 from a single level loss. I have considered a way of actually reducing the negative level penalties, but haven't come up with a good one. It's possible that the best option is to simply treat them as still being level 6 but with less XP than they should have.
zeppenwolf 07-09-05, 07:38 PM	It's an interesting problem, from the standpoint of economics or, (no pun), game theory. Or something. Clearly, you want to keep a heavy penalty for dying, or your players will take absurd and gamey risks. OTOH, if when a player dies he recieves a heavy penalty which affects his survivability, he is far more likely to get waxed *again* if he's still kicking around with his stronger buddies. And that would be... a bummer. Threading the needle of these two largely conflicting constraints, you might try to emphasize death penalties which don't massively affect the PC's survivability. Others, I hope, can think of some good ways to do that; for myself, I can only think of obvious things like monetary or commitment penalties-- coming back from the dead requires 1,000 gp of rest & recuperation at the local health spa... PC is required to do yoga for six hours a day for the next month... PC has to eat tofu and refrain from all alcohol... PC might also suffer some "relationship" penalties, since PC is now tainted with unnatural life-force-- PC's dog no longer likes him; PC's family kicks him out of home, (PC is no longer truly his mother's son, after all); PC's significant other throws a fit... I dunno. But you get the point. Obviously I wouldn't make such things the *only* penalties; I'd still keep the Con penalty, etc, but by making such side issue things a substantial part of the death penalty, you might "keep everybody happy" without turning them into death-defying kamikazes. On a side note, I for one would be inclined to add +1 to Wisdom to any magic user who is resurrected, (just the first time!) After all, that's gotta be an enlightening experience! A Necromancer, certainly, I would consider even giving him other bonuses, for sure, while still sucking his Con.
allenchan 07-09-05, 09:09 PM	If you're dying that much, you really should probably just make a new character. But thats jsut me, I rather have new characters then resurrection.
Timlagor 07-09-05, 10:20 PM	Permanent Constitution Reduction is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than losing a level (in a reasonably lengthy campaign). If you rolled for stats then it might not put you behind the othe PCs ..but what about the guy who rolled low? Constitution drain on the other hand is a complete waste of time. If you can get a Raise Dead then a (Lesser) Restoration is trivial. You HAVE to have a significant penalty for death. Negative levels and just losing the xp without losing a level are reasonable. I rather liked the 1 level's worth of xp too. If you find you're having trouble surviving afterwards then you need to adujust your behaviour. Adventurers who don't know how to be cautious when appropriate will have short and futile lives.
TheDoomBringer 07-09-05, 11:15 PM	Losing a level is really just no fun. You fall behind the rest of the group, and if you happen to have a streak of bad luck you could easily drop 2 or more levels in the course of a session or two. Most groups I know about, including myself, use a "death deck." This may be a standard deck of playing cards, tarot cards, or whatever. When you die, you draw a card, which has various effects. You might gain a permanent -2 penalty to Listen checks, lose 3 max hit points, or something similar. If you're lucky, you could even gain from death (+2 bonus to Spot checks, etc). The more you die, the bigger your chances of getting worse and worse effects, even including permanent death. Method one would be to write out a list of effects, attach each one to a card, and figure up how many cards you draw with the various ressurrection spells. Spells like True Ressurection in my game let you draw 2 cards and take the best, while Raise Dead only gives you one draw. There are also spells that aid with ressurection or heal spirit damage (Fortify Spirit, Strengthen Spirit) and some that make it tougher on the dead character (Taint Ressurrection, Defortify Spirit, Weaken Spirit). I also rule that Last Breath (originally in Masters of the Wild, but I make it Clr4/Drd5/Pal4) can raise you with no XP loss/spirit damage, since you have to Last Breath someone within 1 round of death. Method two (which some friends of mine use) would be to use a deck of tarot cards. When you die, you draw a card. Drawing the Tower means permanent death. Anything else is left up to the group to decide what happens to you. If you are a Wizard and draw the Magician, you might get +2 Int, but a Fighter who drew the same might get -2 Con. Something else you may want to consider is making it a percentage loss of your total XP. 5-10% isn't nearly as harsh as the RAW, but still enough to make death hurt. However, falling behind a level isn't so bad. The XP system rewards you more XP if you're lower level, so you'll catch up. Problem solved, so long as you don't die every session (if you do, then, well, there isn't much help for you anyhow)
Ekranoplan 07-09-05, 11:48 PM	I have been considering a Resurrection Sickness. Basically, it would function exactly like taint from Unearthed Arcana, except with just the consitution damage (and not wisdom) Its removable, but a pain to remove. There will be decisions on weather to ljust live with the resurrection sickness, or just keep moving and deal with it at another time.
Leeroy_Jenkins 07-10-05, 05:13 AM	My friend (who is a more experienced DM than me) uses the house rule that death has no negative effects, but if the character is not brought back to life within 48 game hours, he/she is permanently dead, and the player must start a new character. I think this is a horrible way to do it, espeacially considering the long adventures he uses. The best way (in my oppinion) is to have the lvl damage, but make it reversable. For example, when you die, you loose one lvl, but the next time you gain a level, you actually gain two.
Cantankerous 07-10-05, 05:48 AM	Wait a minute. So what we are talking about here, with the negative level idea, is as follows: PC dies and is Ressurected. For this he gains a negative level with all the normal drawbacks as such but retains his actual level. So far so good. Now, how does he get rid of THIS negative level. If it is as simple as a fourth level Restoration spell being cast then it's really no penalty at all. If it's a negative level that can only be bought off by XP as though you were paying for the level all over again, then THAT makes perfect sense. It even retains the symetry I wanted. Is this what Astute was saying? I for one do NOT like the idea of taking away XP from the character when he dies. He hasn't lost any experince after all, he has gained a new and terrible one (but one for which he receives no XP ;) ) that will be with him always. The Negative Level penalty sounds good... but like NOM, I don't think that, if it is the way I've described above, that it goes far enough. Death should carry HEAVY penalties. Unfortunately, as I've said, I REALLY dislike the idea of taking away XP. Other than amnesia, how do you even potentially loose experience? So, a middle ground might be a Permenant -1 Con hit AND a Negative Level that can be bought off for an amount of XP spent that equals the level the character was at the time of death. Or maybe the Con hit is ALSO bought off at the same time. Opinions anyone? Isshia
Nom 07-10-05, 07:08 AM	Actually, there is no functional difference between awarding a negative level that is bought off with XP and just reducing the XP total and modelling it as a negative level. In either case, you function below where you used to be until you acquire a certain amount of XP and then pick up where you left off. Except that in the former case, you don't gain the benefit of favourable XP handicap for being below "nominal" level. XP is primarily a meta-game measure of heroism and plot significance. In game, it (and level) also roughly measure an ill-quantified idea of life force, as seen by the XP for magic rules, level draining creatures, and death penalties. As such, it makes perfect sense to penalise XP when a PC dies - XP is the game-mechanic measure of greatness, and dying diminishes that. It also makes perfect sense that something as traumatic as dying (and subsequently being resurrected) would cause you to become less than you were, again represented by XP (and thus level) loss. Obviously, a character that repeatedly dies eventually becomes too weak to continue with the party, but that makes perfect sense also. There's only so many times you can subject your "self" to the shock of death without eventually becoming merely a shadow of your former self. My main objections to the level loss rules are that the penalty is variable (dying a level 6 + 0 XP nets a 2,500 XP penalty, while dying 1 XP short of level 7 nets a 8,499 XP penalty), and that actual level loss is a pain to calculate. The actual idea of XP loss due to death seems completely consistent to me.
Timlagor 07-10-05, 07:10 AM	PERMANENT CON LOSS IS BAD BAD BAD. Con Drain is a major nuisance but fairly easy to get rid of (too easy to be the entire penalty imo). The Negative Level idea is this: - you die - you get Raised * you have the negative level but your xp is unchanged - in the course of adventuring you reach your next level (as normal with no impact from the death at this point) - when you level up the (ONE) negative level disappears *as well* as gaining the new level. (if you died multiple times that level then only one of the negatives stops) If you die multiple times then this could be harsher than the RAW due the differences in XP *gain* for being a lower level than the rest of the party which you don't get from negative levels. Bear in mind that Crafting and some spells cost Xp too. If you're giving out roleplaying xp the party will be even more disparate (and what if someone misses a session?)
astute1 07-10-05, 07:38 AM	IMC, the negative level isn't bought off by XP. One of them just goes away the next time you level. So, a level 10 guy dies. He gets Raised as a level 10 guy with a permanent negative level. When he advances to level 11, he also loses one permanent negative level. We prefer this variant because a) it penalizes you heavily up front for dying, but has little impact in the long run, and b) it's very easy for bookkeeping, because you don't have to "rewind" a character level on your sheet.
Cantankerous 07-10-05, 09:41 AM	Actually, there is no functional difference between awarding a negative level that is bought off with XP and just reducing the XP total and modelling it as a negative level. In either case, you function below where you used to be until you acquire a certain amount of XP and then pick up where you left off. Except that in the former case, you don't gain the benefit of favourable XP handicap for being below "nominal" level. XP is primarily a meta-game measure of heroism and plot significance. In game, it (and level) also roughly measure an ill-quantified idea of life force, as seen by the XP for magic rules, level draining creatures, and death penalties. As such, it makes perfect sense to penalise XP when a PC dies - XP is the game-mechanic measure of greatness, and dying diminishes that. It also makes perfect sense that something as traumatic as dying (and subsequently being resurrected) would cause you to become less than you were, again represented by XP (and thus level) loss. Obviously, a character that repeatedly dies eventually becomes too weak to continue with the party, but that makes perfect sense also. There's only so many times you can subject your "self" to the shock of death without eventually becoming merely a shadow of your former self. My main objections to the level loss rules are that the penalty is variable (dying a level 6 + 0 XP nets a 2,500 XP penalty, while dying 1 XP short of level 7 nets a 8,499 XP penalty), and that actual level loss is a pain to calculate. The actual idea of XP loss due to death seems completely consistent to me. Oh, but there is a functional difference between the two Nom. Schmendrick was even good enough to go into detail on it earlier, in post#13 I think. There are alot of differences. Too, I'm seeing XP as exactly what it's an anacronym for, the crunchy rules manner of keeping track of the actual eXPerience the person has had in their career. It just seems to much of a stretch to equate it to much more than that personally. The reason that I keep trying to drag the idea of Con loss into it is to make dying actually something to STRENUOUSLY avoid again in a game where Resurrection and Restoration take alot of the bite out of dying, but loosing XP seems non-sequitor. By the time the PC's are at or near Epic level, as is happening in my campaign now, they have the means, in and of themselves and by favors owned them by some pretty bloody capable sources, to effect a Resurrection of a fallen fellow without the nail biting about it that held true at lower levels. For such a bunch as this there needs to be some extra bite. Thus the idea of having the Negative level that can't be Restored easily. Since there are functional rules differences between loosing a level and gaining a Negative level, doesn't this variant, along with the Con loss have a certain symetry that XP loss lacks? Or am I just dense and missing something obvious today? Edit: Oh, and thank you Astute for clearing that up for me. Isshia
Timlagor 07-10-05, 10:24 AM	OK I hadn't realised you were trying to make it worse than the RAW.
Nom 07-10-05, 10:59 AM	Oh, but there is a functional difference between the two Nom. Schmendrick was even good enough to go into detail on it earlier, in post#13 I think. There are alot of differences.Uh, I read that as between negative levels and level loss. I was comparing negative levels that you must earn away and negative levels that are used in place of level loss. If you need 4000 XP to get rid of it an back to where you were, then it doesn't matter whether you model it as 4000 out-of-band XP or -4000 real XP, as long as the penalty is the same. Too, I'm seeing XP as exactly what it's an anacronym for, the crunchy rules manner of keeping track of the actual eXPerience the person has had in their career. It just seems to much of a stretch to equate it to much more than that personally.*shrug* That's an opinion thing. Fact is, XP is not awarded for "doing stuff" or "learning stuff", but for "achieving stuff" (overcoming encounters or meeting story goals). By how they are used, it would be a lot more accurate to call them Achievement Points or Advancement Points (which some games do). In the same way that you can Cleave with a spear, the name isn't as important as what they allow you to do. And even if you don't have "negative experience" from death or level drain, you still need to consider magic item creation, which also saps XP. Making something doesn't cause you to "forget stuff". Thus the idea of having the Negative level that can't be Restored easily. Since there are functional rules differences between loosing a level and gaining a Negative level, doesn't this variant, along with the Con loss have a certain symetry that XP loss lacks? Or am I just dense and missing something obvious today?You gain XP for "winning". Thus, it is completely appropriate to lose XP for "losing" (dying). From that perspective, it is symmetrical. The biggest problem is that actually implementing a lost level is a pain in the butt. However, you may (and apparently do) also feel that losing a level is too little a penalty, considering that it can be earned back with time (or magic). Mechanically, having a negative level is approximately the same as a 1.5 level penalty for a single classed character or about a 2.5 level penalty for a multiclass character (details omitted). I would not add a Con loss on top of this. A negative level already hammers hit points and Fort saves (and just about everything else); adding a Con loss as well would double-hit all the Con based abilities. That said, I think we're now at a point diametrically opposed to the OP. He seemed to be worried that death penalties were too expensive, yet you seem to be saying that they are too cheap.
Schmendrick 07-10-05, 02:40 PM	XP stands for "experience points", which have been the measure for character ability since the beginning of D&D. 3.x uses it as more of an abstraction (as Nom pointed out with magic items) and is used more as a measure of your "inherent essence" or some such, and I agree that it's completely reasonable to suffer a hit to XP on account of level loss; the trick is to reinterpret xp in the way it's used, not in what it stands for linguistically. (After all, isn't going to the afterlife and coming back quite an experience? Game balance aside, for flavor purposes it makes more sense to gain experience for resurrection. Likewise, crafting a magic item of great power seems like it would grant a lot of insight into the nature of reality.) I also agree that a quantitative XP penalty makes more sense than either "xp is exactly what you needed to reach your previous level" or "xp is halfway between the last level and the current one", which penalizes people more the closer they are to leveling; a loss of 1000xp/(level-1) makes sense to me (and is what I use). Ideally, there would be some sort of sliding scale, but frankly it feels like a little much. I vote for a penalty of 20sqrt(625+5X)-500 with X=current xp That said, I think we're now at a point diametrically opposed to the OP. He seemed to be worried that death penalties were too expensive, yet you seem to be saying that they are too cheap. Actually, the suggestion of "negative level until you gain a level" is cheap. It takes less time to get back, because you haven't actually lost any XP. If you're a 4th level character with 7k xp and die/res with a negative level until you level up, you're stuck being "effectively" 3rd level until you gain 3k xp to hit 10k, at which point you go from 4th to 5th level and lose your negative level, effectively gaining two levels. If you're a 4th level character with 7k xp and die/res with a lost level, you go to 3rd level and have either 3k xp or 4.5k xp, depending on method; let's be generous and say 4.5. So you need to gain another 1.5k at the cheapened rate due a 3rd level character, and then another 4k to reach 10k and 5th level. Note, however, that the "negative level until you level up" is potentially very cheap, if the character is close to leveling when he's resurrected. In a worst-case scenario (or best case, I suppose, in the eyes of the player), the negative level would only last one encounter. So perhaps instead of "until you level up" being the delay, you could set it to a set amount of xp gain (like [current] level * 1000).
Chimaera2000 07-10-05, 07:20 PM	The system that I use in my games is similar to the one that's been suggested previously: the use of negative levels rather than level loss. I use a variant that was originally suggested here (http://www.thegamemechanics.com/freebies/TGM_DeadHeroes.asp) by JD Wiker, with the additional rule that you can't use restoration to get rid of the negative level that you receive or the Constitution damage (if you're 1st level).
Gahidus 07-10-05, 07:28 PM	The negative level variant is a very ood idea, you don't actually lose all of your highest level spell slots, just one of them. Energy Drain (Su) and Negavive Levels: Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. The creature making an energy drain attack draws a portion of its victim’s life force from her. Most energy drain attacks require a successful melee attack roll—mere physical contact is not enough. Each successful energy drain attack bestows one or more negative levels on the opponent (the creature’s description specifies how many). A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained. –1 on all skill checks and ability checks. –1 on attack rolls and saving throws. –5 hit points. –1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level). If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level. If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the given amount. Unless otherwise specified in a creature’s description, a draining creature gains 5 temporary hit points (10 on a critical hit) for each negative level it bestows on an opponent. These temporary hit points last for a maximum of 1 hour. 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 + 1/2 attacker’s HD + attacker’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the attacker’s description). If the saving throw succeeds, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. The afflicted creature makes a separate saving throw for each negative level it has gained. If the save fails, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight. A creature gains 5 temporary hit points for each negative level it bestows (though not if the negative level is caused by a spell or similar effect). just to clarify, a 6th level sorcerer who loses a level can no longer cast fireball (amongst other things) but a 6th level sorcerer with a negative level casts one fewer per day (and is assesed assorted other penalties).
Nom 07-11-05, 01:04 AM	just to clarify, a 6th level sorcerer who loses a level can no longer cast fireball (amongst other things) but a 6th level sorcerer with a negative level casts one fewer per day (and is assesed assorted other penalties).Actually, a 6th level sorcerer with a negative level can't cast fireball. The problem isn't loss of the ability, it's "–1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level)". Because of the minimum caster level rules, a caster level 5 sorcerer is unable to cast fireball.
Gahidus 07-11-05, 02:47 AM	Actually, a 6th level sorcerer with a negative level can't cast fireball. The problem isn't loss of the ability, it's "–1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level)". Because of the minimum caster level rules, a caster level 5 sorcerer is unable to cast fireball. This would only prevent the sorcerer from crafting items which required fireball. You are free to cast a 5d6 fireball if you like (much like a wizard would at 5th level) or even a 4d6 one if you have 2 negative levels. Your caster level can be lower than would normally be needed is circumstaces have set it that way. In fact this is commonly the case woth wildmages (see complete arcane) and many creatures have spell like abilities with lower than normal caster levels, (see pixie's irresistible dance amongst others). A negative level would only have the effect of reducing the munber of spells you have available, not the level of spells, unless all of your slots of that level have been drained (in which case a level six sorcerer would be quite dead already and thus capable of no spellcasting ;)
Nom 07-11-05, 03:51 AM	Check your PH. You can't lower the caster level of a spell below the minimum required to cast the spell (exact wording is in Caster Level section of chapter 10).
Eliza_Stormwhisper 07-11-05, 04:03 AM	I don't see a problem with the current system.
Cantankerous 07-11-05, 05:22 AM	Nom, Astute, Schmendrick and Timlagor; Points conceeded guys. I think the end run for character death (which is very uncommon in our games anyway) I'll do will be a simple Negative Level gain that can ONLY be bought off by spending XP; 3,000XP, cumulative per occurence. So a PC that dies gets a Negative Level which they can buy off at any point AFTER their next level up for the first occurence, 6,000XP for a second occurence and so forth (which will likely never occur. And I'll stay away from the Con hit. At least this is the variant rule I'll bring before the players and get their opinions before solidifying it as a House Rule. This provides the extra bite, doesn't directly take away XP, since that fetish for thinking of it as experience "as well" is too deeply rooted in me it seems, and still makes it livable. All in all this seems workable. Thanks for your input. Isshia
Nom 07-11-05, 07:15 AM	Thanks for your input.Glad you've figured out something you're happy with. :)
Carn Vandoril 07-11-05, 07:20 AM	Greetings, I would like to give an extra alternative we used in the last campaign. When a character dies, he has 10 rounds to battle against himself* *This could also be an opponent with a different face or monster, but with about the same stats and CR. The positive: you get a 10 round chance to beat death and live, at the cost of -1 con or wis. (your choice). the negative: the DM needs extra work on making the opponent. Example: Ranger level 5, favored enemy 'orc', dies. The ranger enters a state of coma, on a sub-plane. This ranger is a 'raw' copy of him self: no magic items/ weapons. The DM scratches up an orc, same stats, favored enemy *the character*. They battle for 10 rounds, if the orc lives, the character dies permanently. If the orc dies, the character beats death and his Deity gives him an other chance.
Timlagor 07-11-05, 08:47 AM	Fighting death is a nice but doesn't really answer the question. Actually I rather like the ideo of having to 'fight death' if you want to be raised. The choice between Con and Wiz is a really really bad idea. Some characters don't much care about their Wisdom but only Druids don't care about Con.
Carn Vandoril 07-11-05, 08:51 AM	hm, I suppose you are right. Maybe it's because we used it since the 2nd version. So how about, throwing in the 1d6?
Clawhound 07-11-05, 09:28 AM	I've been musing about this. A cleric should have some mechanism from pulling a character back from the brink of death. So, with that in mind, the cleric can channel a heal AND use a turn attempt to fix the body and reassociate the soul. He's got 1 round/clerical level to do this. The rescued person takes 50% damage on all stats. Players are still penalized with death, but now all levels of character can recover from the occasional weird death.
Timlagor 07-11-05, 11:06 AM	Check out Complete Divine. There is a spell that heals you as you go down. There is also a Druid spell called Last Breath (i think) that Raises someone (still level-loss) if you catch them in time (within a round i think).
welock 07-11-05, 09:16 PM	Once again, thanks all for the suggestions and the interesting discussion on the topic. I'm still making a decision with my players, but I think we've all almost decided that an implementation of the negative level idea would work best for us. I've got a fast-paced, high-level group with little patience for excessive bookkeeping (that's a friend's honesty there, not a complaint, really! ;) ), and the negative level would leverage some time spent 'leveling down' a character. I've also discussed with them how a character that suffers from level loss will recover exp at a faster rate, but I don't think they comprehend how the exp will scale for them over time, given that we play three sessions a month.