Post/Author/DateTime	Post
seandpconners@aol.com 07-31-03, 01:55 AM	On this thread i want to cover something i feel is wrong. At the momment when a character dies he drops to the mid point of the level below. I understand the need for the character to suffer a setback but i think this is to harsh. Lets say there are two characters heading for 10th level both need ten thousand xp. One has already got nine thousand and only needs one thousand more the other only has a thousand and needs nine thousand more but both characters die in the same combat. They both drop to the same point. This seems wrong i think a better system might be to say that what ever level you are aiming for you lose half of it if you die. If we take the two character senario i just gave one character would drop four thousand into the level below and the other would stay at ninth but would be now on four thousand of the ten thousand required both characters were aiming for tenth half of that in xp is five thousand and that is what they lost. What do you think
Convulsus 07-31-03, 03:20 AM	This is a system I've been thinking of, on a level loss you go back to the middle of the previous level plus half of the exp you had in the level before you died. So, a character with 4,000xp would be reduced to 2,000xp plus 500xp, or 2,500xp. A char with 5,500xp would be reduced to 2,000 + 1250xp, or 3,125xp, however, a character still loses a level, and stay 1xp away from a level even if he has enough exp to level, so it goes back to 2,999xp... tell me what you think
Ack'noth Necrom 07-31-03, 03:30 AM	I have a book that i keep important info in, 1 of those things is what each players original constitution score was. When a character dies i just make them lose 1 point of CON and record it in my book. Ive told the characters that they cant die anymore times than their original CON score and still be rezzed. If I have a TPK and no friendly NPCs are there to take them to a cleric for rezzes and such its the end of a campaign and we start over (Thankfully thats only happened once). Thats just what i rule, i dont like the exp loss thing so i dont do it.
Jenny With The Lantern 07-31-03, 04:08 AM	I think the 1 CON penalty way harder than the loss of (half) a level, especially on lower levels. I like seandpconners@aol.com's system and I think it's fairer than the current system. I hadn't thought about it but I think I'm going to use it next time a PC dies...
Lord_Soto 07-31-03, 05:49 AM	Maybe I'm just the :b: DM, but death isn't supposed to be this pretty, happy, fair thing. It's tough dying. If you play in the Realms, part of Jergals' philosophy was that death is the great equalizer for all things. That being said, I don't think the permanent loss of a level is appropriate. I prefer the 2E loss of a point of constitution (and all of the associated bonuses), to reflect that a person's overall health was diminished by the time when they were mostly dead all day. In my campaigns (and I've used this so long I'm not sure if this is a rule-rule or a house-rule anymore) a character that has been raised from the dead is the next best thing to useless for the rest of the day. He can barely walk, can't fight (-4 penalty to hit), can't defend himself (-4 penalty to AC & Saves). Again, losing experience is just too Diablo to me. A well played character is either going to die by doing something stupid or doing something heroic. In the first case, he doesn't deserve to be raised, and the second, it's probably more memorable if he isn't.
MinusInnocence 07-31-03, 05:56 AM	I'm throwing my chips in with Soto. I, like everyone else on the board, has experienced the sting of defeat. However, I have no compassion for those who die. Their death either meant something and furthered both the story and whatever heroic cause the adventurers had been touting, or the demise was fruitless and no one is around to hear their screams, or tell their tale (there seem to be an overwhelming majority of the latter). C'est la vie. I'm partial to the one point of Constitution loss. Sean's complaint wasn't that XP loss was necessarily very harsh; it's just that it was rather one-sided, in that if you had a lot to lose, you DID, and someone who was barely over the cap for the level they were currently at barely feels it, even though you both failed in the same task. This levels the playing field; and yes, it's harsh, but you have to ask yourself: if the PCs don't experience some sort of setback beside a simply annoying inconvenience, what is the point of killing the character in the first place?
seandpconners@aol.com 07-31-03, 11:22 AM	I felt i had to comment on a couple of points. If you read through my idea you would see that you still lose a lot as player. Its just fairer than the current system. My idea cuts down on the dead man walking syndrome that does exsist. Once you fall behind in experience points its all most impossible to catch up add the current system in and some deaths create huge divides. Anyway thanks for your views.
Lord_Soto 07-31-03, 12:20 PM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com I felt i had to comment on a couple of points. If you read through my idea you would see that you still lose a lot as player. Its just fairer than the current system. My idea cuts down on the dead man walking syndrome that does exsist. Once you fall behind in experience points its all most impossible to catch up add the current system in and some deaths create huge divides. Anyway thanks for your views. The lesson we learn here is: Don't die. If one character is dying often enough that he's not able to keep up with the party, you have to ask yourself, who is funding all these resurrections? On a more practical note, what you should do is subtract the difference between the current level and the next level from their total. Using your example, a ninth level character needs to gain 10,000 points to go from 9th to 10th level. One character has 2000 of those, the other has 4000 of those. They both die. Subtract 10,000 points from their total, and now they are both 8th level, but at different points in the level, correct?
MuscaDomestica 07-31-03, 12:30 PM	You guys allow your players to raise characters? :) I have resurection spells but only NPCs can cast them and usually you have to do a task for the cleric's temple. Might not be in favor of the rules but it makes more sence.
Fable 07-31-03, 12:49 PM	I guess I am even a little harsher than some - when a character drops below 0 - even if they are stabilized - they need to spend one day at rest for every point below 0. They are also at -X for str and con during that time with those points being gained back at one a day. I guess they could run around with the minuses but they generally rest, if they had a cleric that could cast something like restoration I would allow that as well. I know will probably going to be flamed for this but I don't usually kill characters but they know they will be totally out of commission for a while if they don't take damage seriously. I put this rule into place after having players, time after time, not retreat when they were seriously down on HPs.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-31-03, 01:29 PM	What ever amount of xp you are aiming for to get your next level half that total amount and that is how much xp loss you lose when you die. I do allow the characters to be raised but it all depends on who they see and the effort they put in. More than likely the group have to repay someone and that can be a great lead into something new.
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 02:08 PM	Got to agree about 1,000 percent with Soto here. Uhhhhh. ITS DEATH! its supposed to be awful and painful. Some might even say its supposed to be PERMANENT! Only a video game mentality would think that death leads to eternal do-overs.
Lord_Soto 07-31-03, 06:51 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon Got to agree about 1,000 percent with Soto here. Uhhhhh. ITS DEATH! its supposed to be awful and painful. Some might even say its supposed to be PERMANENT! Only a video game mentality would think that death leads to eternal do-overs. Holy freekin' cow.... I finally get somebody to agree with me and it's another North Carolinian... I was about to get excited that my sphere of influence was growing. I agree that thinking you can just keep running in and dying and being "re-popped" is possible. Actually, it's one of my 3 biggest pet-peeves in D&D today. I'm not saying that death should always be permanent... I've been known to allow players to be brought back from time to time. Usually, however, my players choose to die as a means to forward their goals, and thus don't want to be brought back to life. They're just as content rolling up a new character. Plus, the cost to the player (in Con points) and the party (in cash/good deeds) is usually a good factor in deciding not to pursue resurrection. Usually, I allow players to cook up a new character at 2 levels below the party average, unless the party is all 4th or below. They're usually happy with this. My suggestion, Sean, was to cut the players by the same amount, but also to make it a significant enough amount that the player still lost a level in the transaction. Your system the guy who is just short of 10th level still being almost halfway there. My system would drop the guy who was just short of 10th level to being just short of 9th level. Otherwise, the player is only losing a little experience... He's not suffering for his swan's song.
Sid_Patterson 07-31-03, 07:35 PM	I also agree with Soto. There's no room in my games for people thinking that they are invincible...certainly if it's because they ARE and it's my fault. Death should be a memorable event. Either because they are boneheads and brought it upon themselves, or because it's cool character stuff and they sacrificed themeselves to accomplish the greater good. These are HEROS man!! There's no room for Pac Man mentality!! The whole resurrection thing is one of the reasons it took me so long to even be willing to play D&D. I just insisted that they never res my character (by penalty of my leaving).
KITKATmeeoow 08-01-03, 07:13 AM	I can understand the need to hurt the character when they die, but I think losing a con point might be too harsh. Not for the above reasons but because it still does not really even things out. A fighter, barbarian, ranger… are all going to have much higher cons so they will be allowed to die many more times. Them taking high cons works out because they are the ones that need the highest hp because they are generally the ones on then front line. A wizard, sorcerer and others do not generally take that high because it does not really serve them much of a purpose since the skills related to not help them and they generally avoid all front line combat. This means they will not be allowed to have their character resurrected as often as the others. Yeah, in some ways it appears more balanced, except for the fact it now favors fighters more. Not to mention, look at the races. It puts an immediate penalty to all those who play elves because they automatically lose 2 to con. I think you are on the right track, but to me, this still is just as unfair only now it is biased on class and race. You could always make it where you lose a set amount of hit points each time. As you lose con, you lose some set amount of hp based on your level or current tally any way. This still punishes the characters but would keep it fairer. Plus, just as a player would most likely quit playing their character once they get to 5 for con, they would also stop playing it once they get to only having 1/4 t0 1/5 of what they should have. Once they die too often, it will be impossible for them to survive whether you are enforcing in with the con idea or the loss in hp idea.
Lord_Soto 08-01-03, 07:51 AM	Originally posted by KITKATmeeoow A wizard, sorcerer and others do not generally take that high because it does not really serve them much of a purpose since the skills related to not help them and they generally avoid all front line combat. Not to mention, look at the races. It puts an immediate penalty to all those who play elves because they automatically lose 2 to con. Snip to remove the obvious. There is nothing wrong with a wizard taking a high con... I played an evoker once with an 18 con and a 14 Intelligence. Was he less effective in casting? Maybe. But he quite often found himself in the thick of battle, and being healty was to his advantage. As for Elves, shouldn't they have some downside? I mean, look at the elven culture (at least in the campaign's I've played in), and you'll see that quite frequently, elves consider it a disgrace to be brought back from the dead anyway. Plus, just as a player would most likely quit playing their character once they get to 5 for con, they would also stop playing it once they get to only having 1/4 t0 1/5 of what they should have. Once they die too often, it will be impossible for them to survive whether you are enforcing in with the con idea or the loss in hp idea. So maybe they'll leave the char dead.
KITKATmeeoow 08-01-03, 08:51 AM	There is nothing wrong with a wizard taking a high con... I played an evoker once with an 18 con and a 14 Intelligence. Was he less effective in casting? Maybe. But he quite often found himself in the thick of battle, and being healty was to his advantage. There is nothing wrong with a wizard putting a high number in their con, but unless their Int. is high enough, their dcs are low making it hard to have a spell not be saved against and they can not sast their better spells. Your character with only a 14 intelligence might have worked at lower levels, but at that low, he/she can not even cast 3rd level spells if you go by the book and not house ruled it differently. You can only cast spells of 10 + the spells level + the ability modifier. A 14 only gives you the modifier of two. Since you are basically gonna be stuck on the front line and have such few good spells, why not simply play a fighter or even a rogue with a maxed out use magical device skill. The rogue idea will eventually net you higher level spells too as long as you can find the right items. I never said they would not add con, I simply said that the majority of their points should go to their respective modifiers if they want any thing above 3rd or 4th level spells. Con is an important modifier, but a wizard that can not even enhance himself beyond bull strength does not really belong on the front line unless you are fighting really weak opponents. As for Elves, shouldn't they have some downside? I mean, look at the elven culture (at least in the campaign's I've played in), and you'll see that quite frequently, elves consider it a disgrace to be brought back from the dead anyway. This isn’t really a trait that is just for elves. In our campaign there are many barbarian tribes, fighters and monks that feel if they die in combat, then they should remain dead. It is the most honorable way to die for them, so this philosophy does not entirely work. Yeah, I do agree that the Elves need a downside to +2 dex, which is why they got the –2 con. As for their abilities, unlike humans they do not get an additional starting feat nor do they gain 4 additional skill points at first level and an additional skill point at each other level. Also as far as downside goes, a gnome and dwarf gain just as many benefits as an elf, but they also get +2 con which in your world makes them even better because it offers them more times they can be resurrected before it hurts them as badly. So maybe they'll leave the char dead. That was actually kind of my point. Changing it to simply hit points will not change the fact that the player will still reach the desire to stop playing their character around the same time as losing their con points. It just averaged everything out so both a wizard and a fighter will want to quit around the same time rather than a fighter lasting through many more resurrections just because they do not have to worry about having to have a certain number under an attribute just to get the only thing their class hands out.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 08:56 AM	Exactly. Over the seven and a half years that I have been running a weekly game in my world, I have only had two character resurrections, and both of those characters had been heavy contributors to church coffers, AND had a good reason why the clerics should violate common tenets against the practice. There are many more, (perhaps 50 or more) characters who have lost their lives and are just DEAD.
Lord_Soto 08-01-03, 09:52 AM	Originally posted by KITKATmeeoow There is nothing wrong with a wizard putting a high number in their con, but unless their Int. is high enough, their dcs are low making it hard to have a spell not be saved against and they can not sast their better spells. Your character with only a 14 intelligence might have worked at lower levels, but at that low, he/she can not even cast 3rd level spells if you go by the book and not house ruled it differently. You can only cast spells of 10 + the spells level + the ability modifier. A 14 only gives you the modifier of two. The difference is that I play this character in 2E, where he is capable of casting up to 7th level spells with a 14 intelligence. Since you are basically gonna be stuck on the front line and have such few good spells, why not simply play a fighter or even a rogue with a maxed out use magical device skill. The rogue idea will eventually net you higher level spells too as long as you can find the right items. Because I was playing a role, not a list of statistics that I was trying to get the most benefit out of. I rather enjoy playing characters that have to work to survive. Yeah, I do agree that the Elves need a downside to +2 dex, which is why they got the –2 con. As for their abilities, unlike humans they do not get an additional starting feat nor do they gain 4 additional skill points at first level and an additional skill point at each other level. Also as far as downside goes, a gnome and dwarf gain just as many benefits as an elf, but they also get +2 con which in your world makes them even better because it offers them more times they can be resurrected before it hurts them as badly. My point was, that elves (generally considered being more frail than dwarves or even humans) would find it harder to survive the rigors of dying and being brought back to life. Dwarves, on the other hand, with their traditionally sturdy, resistant-to-many-of-the-weaknesses-of-softer-races abilities, would seem more likely to be able to survive (pun-intended) a trip there and back again. This is why I like the 2E rule that you had to make a resurrection survival check whenever you were brought back from the dead. This check was based on your current Con, and dropped off sharply as your Con got softer. With an 18 Con, you were pretty much guaranteed to survive your first two or three raise deads... but ater that you started getting worse and worse at it. Usually, the player was perma-dead before his Con ever got to 5.
ruindar 08-01-03, 10:47 AM	I think some of you have missed the point. yes you play the game and except the risks and that what makes it fun. it is not like a computer game most 99% dont give you penalties if you die like rpg. The current penalty is harsh pure and simple. The idea suggested is excellent as it gets around some of the problems. Also its a game you should have a chance to be raised. Yes its going to be difficult but that as a player you except.
KITKATmeeoow 08-01-03, 12:18 PM	Oops, I noticed I made a mistake. You would actually be able to cast up to 4th level spells with a 14 intelligence, but not beyond it. I am sorry for it. I was a little tired when I wrote it although that is still a poor excuse. I just realized itn ow and wanted to come back online and change it.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 12:36 PM	Soto, I you don't live anywhere in WESTERN NC do you?
Lord_Soto 08-01-03, 12:39 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon Soto, I you don't live anywhere in WESTERN NC do you? Nay, I'm about a half an hour away from chapel hill.... However, two of my former players have just gotten married and moved to Asheville.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 02:17 PM	tell em to look me up if they don't have a game here eh?
Kalrin 08-01-03, 03:03 PM	Ehhh..... I don't like ressi spells at all period, much less them being available at 5th level. I think I'll probably end up doing this in my small group (which'll start 'bout december time due to college and waiting for DLCS). Death occurs when you hit - (5 + level). The only ressurection spell allowed is True Ressurection. In certain cases as determined by the DM a NPC may be able to ressurect a PC (for a high price). I'll also use the -1 Con penalty rule as well. *Grin* and no, I'm not from NC. I spend time in CA and FL :)....
Lord_Soto 08-01-03, 03:42 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon tell em to look me up if they don't have a game here eh? Email me. I'll forward your info to them, because I know they don't have a game up there... -Soto (soto@email.unc.edu)
ruindar 08-03-03, 12:15 PM	Character death system is wrong and i feel on reflection may need to be changed.
Evangelos 08-04-03, 07:55 PM	Simply losing a level makes death boring. You always know exactly what's going to happen, and your character is pretty much gauranteed to come back 100% of the time. I borrowed an idea from a LARP I play in. Every time a character dies, they have to draw from a deck of cards. Various things can happen to them, including permanent death, permanent loss of hit points, and losing more or less experience than normal. The different resurrection spells can give additional draws or improve the chances of drawing something that isn't really bad.
Frodo Lives 08-05-03, 11:14 PM	Returning from the ranks of the dead should be a little more exciting than returning from the bathroom.:bored: I think a loss of level x 1000 xp and a loss of 1 point of con is a good penalty. I don't allow raising unless there is a reason the god in question would think it's a good idea. Most often if you're dead, you are dead. Bye Bye!
noob DM 08-06-03, 07:46 AM	wow i didnt realize most DMs were harder on dying than i was (note i use 3.0). most of the DMs i played under only let us die if we did somthing really stupid like slit our wrists, or jump off a cliff. I on the other hand have no problem killing of the PCs. usualy its permant like. but if a cleric manages to get out or they set up a contingency plan for their death, players in my games may come back. this rewards forthought on the players. they still have standard rules, and shure we know what there likly to do as they level again. but the player who sufferd a death is now a level behind those who didnt. that being said i dont go out of my way to kill the Players or mess them over. i also avoid the experiance penilty problem mentioned earlier because i dont hand out experiance until the players atain their new level (i do hand exp to crafters for that express pourpous) thus they loose half the experiance of the level preceeding their curent level. it seems to deter my players from accting invincible.
jasper 08-06-03, 08:31 AM	I can go along with seandconners system. And if want to add lose one con pt go ahead. Of course I the type of Dm who allows sticking another quarter in slot and get an extra life. I have discover that after four deaths the player gets tired of playing the character and having to pay for the raises. Regardless of lose a level or con pt. I do have video game mentality. I am easy on bring back the dead. Why? Because if Jasper going to be stupid and pick a fight with King he deserves to die. Now Jasper friends may have lug the stinking corpse to the next city because the clerics in town don’t want to offend the King. Then again depending on the city the priests may offer a discount to Jasper’s friends. I also charge for material component at a minimum and then some more. Having easy deaths and easy raises allows me to train the more hard headed of gamers. One guy who when out of his way to destroy one plot line and convince all the others not to nibble at the other plot hooks died in a soup pot. Why? I asked him was he A (adventurer) or E (extra). The dm throws out plot hooks suitable to your level. So you can be an Adventurer and bite. Or the Extra is someone else’s adventurer who gets smoked by BBEG (who is 5+levels higher than you) or suck a fireballed when the (5+ level higher than you) party starts a bar fight.
Chobemaster 08-06-03, 12:56 PM	Time for the random "in an irrelevant edition" comment...3.0/3.5 are MUCH easier on character death than earlier editions. In 1st edition, you had to roll con-based percentiles to see if the raising worked, and even if it did, you lost a point of con, and you could only ever be raised a number of times = your original con (or until your con was zero) Scrawny wizards, especially ones that cast permanancy a lot, didn't get too many raises before it was character generation time again.
rtechie 08-06-03, 08:09 PM	I think this issue is actually pretty campaign-specific. I think that Soto, Sid, and others aren't playing in lots of games with save or die spells or assassinations. For example, in the ToEE campaign I've been in for a while I've had a Wizard that's 13th level that's died at least 5 times. And every one of those deaths was instant, or near-instant, kill. An assassin killed him in his sleep once, a cursed PC Paladin went berserk when he was alone with him and sliced him to ribbons, an Assassin snuck up on him in the dungeon with Improved Invisibility and Death Attacked him, and two Wizards have teleported in, blasted him (just him) with high-octane spells, and then teleported out. Now the above is an extreme example, but the fact remains that in D&D there are many situations in which a PC can die instantly. I suspect that Soto, etc. simply aren't having their NPCs use save or die spells on the PCs (or the PC are ultra-defensive) or using assassination tactics. That's fine, but if you do want these things in your campaign you're exposing the PCs to enormous hardships if death drains CON points, etc. BTW, For this reason I don't like the price increases on the raising spells.
Lord_Soto 08-06-03, 09:20 PM	Originally posted by rtechie I think this issue is actually pretty campaign-specific. I think that Soto, Sid, and others aren't playing in lots of games with save or die spells or assassinations. Now the above is an extreme example, but the fact remains that in D&D there are many situations in which a PC can die instantly. I suspect that Soto, etc. simply aren't having their NPCs use save or die spells on the PCs (or the PC are ultra-defensive) or using assassination tactics. That's fine, but if you do want these things in your campaign you're exposing the PCs to enormous hardships if death drains CON points, etc. My personal opinion of a playing style that hurls direct assassination attempts at any character only leads to a DM vs Player mentality. If the BBEG in question would resort to such tactics, so be it, but quite often in my campaigns (and I suspect as much in Sid's and Laughing_dragon's) character death is very much a result of a plot-line, not a distraction from the evening of RP in a tavern. Even the DMG (at least in 2E) cautioned against the use of unavoidable-death traps. As for instant death spells and targeting individual PCs repeatedly for death, the player would either have to (a) done something in character to REALLY draw attention to himself and warrant such an attack, or (b) done something really stupid out of character like personally insult me or my wife that deserved immediate character death.
seandpconners@aol.com 08-06-03, 10:20 PM	Thank you for your contiued feedback on this thread.
laughing-dragon 08-11-03, 10:14 AM	Easy resurrections cheapen the drama of the game considerably. I like video games too, (Thief springs to mind as my favorite DnD esque game ever) but Dungeons and Dragons isn't a video game. Characters who are easily brought back to life are not going to have any real motivation to be careful. Of course they are going to act like reckless idiots! The DM has taken away the only consequences for stupidity! For a Dm's world to be believable long term it has to function like the real world. Where would the tension have been in Lord of the Rings if Frodo or Sam had known that if any harm came to them that Gandalf would show up and bring them back to life? Players who aren't afraid of death in essense don't have to be afraid of anything. Try running a horror themed game with those kinds of characters and see just how "scary" the players think it is. Players in my game have experienced instantaneous death effects. Everyone gets bummed and silent for awhile, as if someone had died or something. And guess what? they DID die. This makes the survivors say things like " I hate this damnable cave, pray let us return to the surface and be out of this Hell." The player will be back at my table next week with a new character, be assured of that. I am currently running my players through Desent onto the Depths of the Earth, converted to 3e. Last week the characters stumbled onto the mindflayer outpost. Two mindfayers and twelve wererats. With the help of some amazing dice rolls, and high saves against the suggestion and mind blast effects, my 10th level players were able to take out the mindflayers and there minions without a single scratch. (I was slightly chagrined by this development, but they had played it well, and credit was due. Searching the mindflayers belongings they discovered several intriguing items, including a beautiful silver scarab which had been locked in a box with a poison needle trap.. The Happy Monkey (a tarzan like warrior character, and one of only two characters still surviving from 1st level) claimed the silver scarab for himself and added it to his necklace of fetishes. Then the characters retired for the night. When everone woke up, Happy Monkeys chest looked blown open and the scarab could be seen down in the wound, having consumed Happy Monkeys heart. Scarab of Death--- no save, one dead character. Happy Monkey has been buried under a cairn of rocks. Gone forever, fini. One stupid move can kill you in the underdark, even when things were looking rosy a moment ago. Think the survivors are going to be a little more careful with unidentified magick items in the future ? You bet. Happy Monkey's player is going to be playing a gnome paladin who thinks he is a dwarf. Aaarg.
lordmaxwell 08-11-03, 12:55 PM	Hearing someone saying "I died again" while IN character is something that puts me off. The rezzes totally spoil all drama... The Queen was murdered, oh well, carry her across the square to the temple of Lathander and we will be back and running by noon tomorrow... Q: What happens when someone dies? A: They roll a new character. No ressurection, no nothing. Pretty realistic system, I feel innovative using it.
rtechie 08-12-03, 01:15 AM	As I said above, I firmly believe this issue is campaign-specific. For example... At 10th level the average Wizard, assuming no CON bonus, has 28 HP. At that level he could easily be taken out in one hit (38 HP ain't that much). How do you deal with this problem? Don't you EVER have a monster that targets the spellcasters? Doesn't anyone ever do a coup de gras in your campaign? Do you just have a lot of turnover for PCs in your campaign? In the games that I've been in, new PCs are usually allowed it at one level lower than the existing PCs and with standard treasure for that level. I suppose that you could let new PCs in with equivalent levels and treasure, but doesn't that "remove the penalty for dying" as well? I can see how you could run a campaign without ressurection magic, but it strikes me that it would lead to ultra-cautious PCs.
lordmaxwell 08-13-03, 10:22 AM	Yes, it does lead to very cautious PCs. Which is very good. I do however do a bit of fudging to keep them alive. Which me and my players find a lot less problematic than ressurection. (Ressurection causes alot of problems, especially if you have players who love nothing more than thinking about the social ramifications of spells and powers. When do wills come into effect?)
laughing-dragon 08-13-03, 11:52 AM	I do have a fairly high turnover for PC's in my game. It is for this reason that the very FEW characters who survive to high levels in my game become ICONs of what it takes to be a good character. Those characters become very respected party leaders over time. When your character dies you are allowed to bring in a new character who starts the game with 3/4 of the experience points of your last character. My setting is fairly low magick and when you bring in a new character, you start with NO magick or with possibly one or two DM approved items. This latter scenario only occurs if the game is currently operating at above 9th level. Prior to that you can only expect long term survivors to be packing magick. Does this mean that everyone is not operating at the same power level? YES. But again, thats one of the consequences for ending up dead. All this said, I am almost NEVER out to kill a character. If a character death occurs, my hope is that it was dramatic enough that it can continue to drive the plot and storyline forward, rather than hinder it. 95% of the time this is possible.
nowiwantmydmg 08-13-03, 01:31 PM	put me in the meaningful death category, no ressurection spells, ever period. bringing a dead character back to life cheapens their death, especially if they died heroically.
rtechie 08-13-03, 11:55 PM	That my be fine for some campaigns, but if you don't want to run that sort of campaign. If you want to run a campaign with heroic self-sacrifice, little PC turnover, and allow PCs to occasionally be a bit foolhardy, ressurection magic is the only MECHANICAL solution. I will say that fudging dice is another solution, probably even a better solution in many cases, but it really isn't a MECHANICAL solution per se. Remember, this discussion is about 3.5 mechanics. I believe that in 3.5, characters tend to be somewhat less "survivable" now so by looking at the straight mechanics it seems that 3.5 characters will tend to die more often and that the penalties will be much greater. I guess what I'm saying is that rather than penalize the players with a very high cost for ressurection magic, if you don't want it in your campaign, don't have it. Remove the spells from the lists or make them higer level, or only available to certain NPCs, or whatever.
tonkounakai 08-13-03, 11:57 PM	Whenever the level loss is required, that character looses 1000 XP x (current level -1) So a 10th level character that dies looses 9000 XP (exactlly what it would have taken for him to go from 10th to 11th
laughing-dragon 08-14-03, 08:33 AM	quote: "If you want to run a campaign with heroic self-sacrifice, little PC turnover, and allow PCs to occasionally be a bit foolhardy, ressurection magic is the only MECHANICAL solution" I'm not sure I would use the term "heroic self-sacrifice" to describe a game wherein being killed is the proper equivalent of a daylong hangover. I don't see it is either heroic or self-sacrificial. I absolutely agree that ressurection magick is the only "mechanical" solution. But this assumes that the essense of the game is in a mechanic. I see ressurection magic as the mechanical solution, but not as the literary one. In the end, it just doesn't make sense. It destroys all of the drama, all of the tension, all of the breathlessness of a really good roleplaying session. Its precisely what is supposed to set this game apart from things like video games. Video games are in so many ways superior to RPGs. Modern graphic systems can create more emmersive and detailed environments VISUALLY than even the very best Dungeon Masters. But what they lack is any real meanigful connection between the player and the character. That connection is created by roleplaying around a table in a world that brings the "whole picture" together in a meaningful way......... Awww I just realized what a snob I am starting to sound like. uhh. never mind all this
KITKATmeeoow 08-14-03, 09:09 AM	I am unsure how much fighters would like it, but I did think of an appropriate cost for it. Along with the traditional money loss and experience loss, they also lose 1 point of will save. This makes sense because as many said, dying and coming back would be hard on people on the mental standpoint. Since this way would benefit the wizards so much more than the fighters, you can still add in a point of con too. This pretty much leaves most classes equal in regards to what they lose with death. Also the reason I said will saves instead of wisdom is because it would have been too harsh to lose wisdom since that is what clerics, druids, paladins and rangers rely on for their spells.
Banes 11-13-03, 12:31 PM	deleted
Banes 11-13-03, 12:32 PM	This is a great debate on the frequency/penalty of the Raise Dead line of spells. But I have a question for all you DM's: What penalty do you impose on a PC who dies and does not/can not get Raised? Does he come back at 1st level? This leads to a GIANT campaign killer: how does this 1st level PC have fun when the rest of the party is now 10th level (for example). He can't possibly survive along side them. As a DM you don't have the resources to 'play a seperate' campaign with this person by himself... Sooooo Most DM's allow a dead player to make a new character with a penalty. Perhaps 1-2 levels lower than the lowest current PC? Again, this penalty must be stiffer than the Raise Dead penalty, correct? How are all of you handling this?
Sereno 11-13-03, 01:34 PM	Originally posted by lordmaxwell Hearing someone saying "I died again" while IN character is something that puts me off. The rezzes totally spoil all drama... The Queen was murdered, oh well, carry her across the square to the temple of Lathander and we will be back and running by noon tomorrow... Q: What happens when someone dies? A: They roll a new character. No ressurection, no nothing. Pretty realistic system, I feel innovative using it. Does anyone in your campaign give a crap about their characters? Or, is their response always, "Oh, well, I died ... now I get to try out that Arcane Archer build I saw on WOTC's boards...." I don't like playing the 'roll-up-characters' game; I like playing D&D ... character development and roll-playing the adventures are the fun parts.
jasper 11-13-03, 01:53 PM	If the character is down and out to the 10 count, the standard rule imc is lowest level or lowest level -1. Plus 3 potions of healing, and average of up to 3 magic items. What ever other reasonable equipment and about 500 gp. Basically a down on their luck adventurer. The max range between levels have been as high as four ex. 7th to 10th but usally 3 or less 10th to 8th.
Banes 11-13-03, 02:05 PM	Ahhhh yes - the one-two levels lower than the lowest character rule... But this rewards bad play. Let me explain. Generally, the lowest level person in a group, is the guy dying all the time. The highest level person is the guy who has usually survived by good play. Now, take this example of a group: Player #1 = Level 7 Player #2 = Level 6 Player #3 = Level 6 Player #4 = Level 5 If player 4 dies, he goes down to level 5 (lowest remaining level character - 1). Basically no loss of levels. But If player 1 dies, he goes down to level 4 (lowest remaining level character -1). He looses 3 levels! That is waaaaaay not fair! So straight level loss, based on Group levels, or average levels, or lowest levels does NOT work. It penalized the higher level characters way more than the lowest level characters. Basically you are sending a message to your players: don't work too hard, because any slip-up I'm going to penalize you twice as bad as the guy who is slacking off. Nope. I have realized that an xp penalty based on your own PC's current level (not the group's) is the only fair way to penalize a PC death - IF you want to penalize them by removal of experience.....
Mister Mayhem 11-13-03, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by Sereno Does anyone in your campaign give a crap about their characters? Or, is their response always, "Oh, well, I died ... now I get to try out that Arcane Archer build I saw on WOTC's boards...." I don't like playing the 'roll-up-characters' game; I like playing D&D ... character development and roll-playing the adventures are the fun parts. No, what happens is, BECAUSE they give a crap about their characters, they actually think before rushing into dangerous situations instead of charging in and relying on a resurection to save them from their own stupidity. "Oh well, I died" sounds more like what a freely ressurectable character might say. "Oh well, I died, just drag my body back to the nearest temple and I'm good to go." How can any action be truly heroic if death is meaningless?
Sereno 11-13-03, 03:03 PM	Originally posted by Mister Mayhem No, what happens is, BECAUSE they give a crap about their characters, they actually think before rushing into dangerous situations instead of charging in and relying on a resurection to save them from their own stupidity. "Oh well, I died" sounds more like what a freely ressurectable character might say. "Oh well, I died, just drag my body back to the nearest temple and I'm good to go." How can any action be truly heroic if death is meaningless? So the characters will take only small risks, if any? That, too, doesn't sound like heroic fantasy or D&D ... that sounds too much like the real world where real people don't take too many big risks because the consequences of failure are too great. In the campaigns that I have played in, sometimes the only option for accomplishing the goal WAS to charge in and if we had to drag one dead companion back to the nearest temple, so be it. To not charge and risk "temporary" death -- what a player who knew that the risk might be the end of their favorite character forever would do -- would have resulted in the failure of the mission.
StormKnight 11-13-03, 06:11 PM	I don't really like the dead returning on a regular basis. But, I prefer it to the alternatives. Some people I play with really want to get into their character. Losing a character you have invested a lot of interest into makes you less likely to do it again with all the frustration of lost effort and lost plans for the future. From a mechanical standpoint, if the group is a high level a new character either comes in at level 1 and is useless (no fun) or you make a high level character from scratch and don't get the development, fun and experience of leveling the character yourself. Either way its a recipe for an annoyed player and a potentially failing game, just because some orc rolled a critical for maximum damage. So, I would rather just keep ressurection in the game and avoid the whole problem. Besides, it makes things more interesting in a lot of ways. I don't assume the PCs are the only ones who can get rezed or who know about resurrecting. If your facing a powerful foe, killing them may accomplish nothing but costing them some money and power. But imprisoning them, blackmailing them, geasing them, brainwashing them...many, many possibilities. All of which wind up much more interesting then, "Ooop, time to roll up another character!".
Aucturos 11-13-03, 09:51 PM	Personally I like the current system of doing things. Some of the other ways presented on this thread, IMHO, miss out on two important factors: 1- The deaths that are heroic need to stay heroic. To make them less harsh means that more people will take that heric leap... 2- If they're facing an enemy that they're easily susceptible to instant death effects, then they deserve to die anyways. Having a harsh punishment for dying insures that PC's will think two or three times about whether they really, REALLY, want to try and destroy the BBEG now, or if they want to become just a tad bit more skilled. However, perhaps I figured out a new way of doing things... I'm not sure if someone else has thought of this, but I just had an epiphany. Why not just have the Cleric be only able to raise a certain number of people? This would depend on "brownie points" with the Cleric's deity. The more pious they are, the more they can raise. I think I'll try this in my next campaign, figuring out a system to assign the brownie points...
thalious 11-13-03, 09:56 PM	You don't lose any XP for dying. Granted, you're dead and not gaining any either. As for coming back to life...... just because you find or know cleric who can do the job does not mean that they will.
Naeron 11-14-03, 11:39 AM	Originally posted by Chobemaster Time for the random "in an irrelevant edition" comment...3.0/3.5 are MUCH easier on character death than earlier editions. In 1st edition, you had to roll con-based percentiles to see if the raising worked, and even if it did, you lost a point of con, and you could only ever be raised a number of times = your original con (or until your con was zero) Scrawny wizards, especially ones that cast permanancy a lot, didn't get too many raises before it was character generation time again. True but 3rd Ed is much much harsher on killing PC's than the previous editions, sorry but a DC32 Fort save vs Implosion for an 18th level Ranger (+20) is still far much harder than a 15th level Ranger making a save vs spells in AD&D (like a 55% chance of failure vs a 5% chance of Failure) and thats a "Good" save for him. And this beef about a save and continue video-game philosophy is just untrue. A party under 6th level can rarely afford a Raise Dead more than once, the minimum 5450gp cost is pretty much an entire characters disposable wealth and that relies on finding a willing 9th level Cleric (not that common even in a high magic world). Edit: Missed out - As an example from the campaign I am in: Over the 2+ years its taken for 7 PCs to reach 16th level there have been 5 PC permanent deaths before the first Raise Dead even happened. After they could afford/cast Raise Dead there have been 4 PCs killed off (2 swallowed and killed by monsters that escaped, 1 lost to a death effect and 1 fell into a chasm and was lost) before the Cleric hit 13th and 2 since then to a disintegrate while flying and a body left behind during a retreat and never recovered. Of the other returns from the dead the dozen or so raise deads and couple of resurrections at 5000 and 10000gp respectively really bit into the funds every time as well as having to take the level loss. The only house rules that have been made are 1) Resurrection is 1 month/level and True Res 1 year/Level. 2) These spells require a body part and True Res does cause level/CON loss. Simple changes that remove the only glaringingly overpowered and unbalancing spell which is True Resurrection. The entire party fears permanent death because it still happens, any fight could lead to a death if we can't recover the body and any TPK will probably mean the end of all the PC's. After putting over 2 years into a 16th level PC not a single player treats the possibility of PC death lightly. Heroic actions are still heroic because any PC in the campaign can still die permanently, and no player worth their salt will see a level loss as "nothing" and so do something stupid and suicidal. Personally I find the idea of creating a 15th level PC far more outrageous than the gods of a fantasy world granting the power to bring back the dead.
laughing-dragon 11-14-03, 11:51 AM	In my game when a character dies, his new character comes into the game with three quarters the amount of experience his dead character had. This keeps players who were higher level happy.
Banes 11-14-03, 11:52 AM	I am having game difficulties with this Low-Level (3-6) dillema: Since the cost of Raise Dead is so high now, most of my players choose to start a new character. To this point, we have traditionally allowed a new character to come in at 1 level lower than the lowest level person in the group. This has worked out very well for the players in many respects: - Generally, if a party member dies, the body is recoverable, and the remaining group gets to split the dead person's loot (magic items, gems, etc). The dead player does not mind this, because his new character will get all new stuff (as per DMG). So, instead of dropping 5,000+ gp for a Raise dead, the Party actually comes ahead about 5,000 gp in looted items. Meta-gaming wise, the new PC joins the group and gets to share in his old character's loot anyways. So, how do I stop this? (I actually WANT PC's to Raise the dead character - it is a pain to roll up a new guy every month...not to mention the 'flow' of the campaign keeps getting bogged down with all the new faces). As I have posted (above), starting a new/dead PC at level 1 is not an option for many reasons.
Naeron 11-14-03, 12:12 PM	Originally posted by Banes I am having game difficulties with this Low-Level (3-6) dillema: Since the cost of Raise Dead is so high now, most of my players choose to start a new character. To this point, we have traditionally allowed a new character to come in at 1 level lower than the lowest level person in the group. This has worked out very well for the players in many respects: - Generally, if a party member dies, the body is recoverable, and the remaining group gets to split the dead person's loot (magic items, gems, etc). The dead player does not mind this, because his new character will get all new stuff (as per DMG). So, instead of dropping 5,000+ gp for a Raise dead, the Party actually comes ahead about 5,000 gp in looted items. Meta-gaming wise, the new PC joins the group and gets to share in his old character's loot anyways. So, how do I stop this? (I actually WANT PC's to Raise the dead character - it is a pain to roll up a new guy every month...not to mention the 'flow' of the campaign keeps getting bogged down with all the new faces). As I have posted (above), starting a new/dead PC at level 1 is not an option for many reasons. Well my response would be to say that as they can Raise people then the alternative is start a PC at 1st whatever the reasons you feel (or maybe 4 levels behind the average party level). This means that players will WANT their PC raised and intelligent players will do their best to ensure that their is money put aside somewhere safe for this purpose just in case they do die.
Banes 11-14-03, 12:22 PM	As I pointed out (above), letting a (dead) player make a new character at 1st level is a very risky propositon. How does a 1st level character survive with a group of 6-7th level PC's? He probably won't live past the first few encounters. (one fireball/spell/melee hit and its all over). I am limited in time as a DM and I cannot possibly run this character through 'mini-adventures' by himself to catch up. It seems to be a fine line between making it too appealing to start a new character (NO raise dead) and making a new character doomed from the start. Yes, I am aware that alot of DM's out there are saying: "Your players should be 'attached' to their character by that level, and would want to carry-on with their career, thus they would pay for the Raise Dead". But as I found out - if the penalty is not 'stiff' enough, the player elects to have the character killed. And then he proceeds to make an EXACT duplicate of his old character (same stats, skills, feats, etc). Maybe even makes a few improvements as well. Again, how do I stop this?
Sereno 11-14-03, 12:46 PM	Originally posted by Banes Yes, I am aware that alot of DM's out there are saying: "Your players should be 'attached' to their character by that level, and would want to carry-on with their career, thus they would pay for the Raise Dead". But as I found out - if the penalty is not 'stiff' enough, the player elects to have the character killed. And then he proceeds to make an EXACT duplicate of his old character (same stats, skills, feats, etc). Maybe even makes a few improvements as well. Again, how do I stop this? Why do you , as the DM, need to STOP this. Isn't it clear from the behavior that the player WANTS this type of character and this style of play? Who are you to tell the player that they're "wrong"? Why does it seem like so many DMs are out to remove the FUN from playing this GAME? We make houserules to nerf abilities we don't like. We penalize and ridicule players who know the rules and want heroic characters by calling them "min/maxer" or "munchkins". We make absolutely wrong rulings and stand behind "the DM is always right" even when page XXX of the PHB says we're wrong. As DMs we have nearly infinite resources to challenge the PCs. No matter how powerful they ever become, we have rules, monsters, traps, and imaginations that should give us all the tools we need to challenge them and make a FUN GAME. If players aren't taking a level loss seriously, they aren't being challenged seriously enough. In our current campaign, any level loss would compromise our survival in the campaign. Believe me, we take death seriously! Even though we have a cleric that can raise.
Mister Mayhem 11-14-03, 01:17 PM	Originally posted by Sereno So the characters will take only small risks, if any? That, too, doesn't sound like heroic fantasy or D&D ... that sounds too much like the real world where real people don't take too many big risks because the consequences of failure are too great. On the contrary - sometimes they WILL take big risks, despite the risk of death. That's what being a hero is all about. If you know that you are 99% likely to be ressurected even if you die, how can anything you do ever be considered a big risk, and thus, how can anything you do be truly heroic. A character that does the right thing despite the fact he might permanently die is a much greater hero than one for whom death is a temporary inconvenience.
Banes 11-14-03, 03:14 PM	No Sereno, don't get me wrong.... I am not 'out to get' my players. On the contrary, I want to enhance their game... They do NOT like rolling-up new PC's They do NOT like dying They do NOT like starting from scratch But unfortunately, without some 'guide/rule' as to what level a new player (or one who died...) should re-enter an existing campaign, they are taking advantage of the loop-holes. Points are: Raise costs are so high (this is fine), that most low-mid level characters are better off to die. If you let them re-start at too low a level, they are doomed to fail. If you let them re-start at little penalty (e.g.: 1 level penalty), they will surly choose that instead of the high cost of raise dead. And have little fear of death in the future. I am asking for other DM's house rules on what xp/level they let Players re-enter a game (after a death).
Sereno 11-14-03, 04:11 PM	Originally posted by Mister Mayhem On the contrary - sometimes they WILL take big risks, despite the risk of death. That's what being a hero is all about. If you know that you are 99% likely to be ressurected even if you die, how can anything you do ever be considered a big risk, and thus, how can anything you do be truly heroic. A character that does the right thing despite the fact he might permanently die is a much greater hero than one for whom death is a temporary inconvenience. In my experience, players roleplay acting heroic because it's what's expected of them, or because they like acting that way, and usually because they build it into the "makeup" of their characters. Neither fear of death, nor lack of it, has ever played a part in the "hero factor" of good players. In my book, a heroic action is a heroic action even if there isn't a risk of permanent death. Banes, All most players really want to have is a fun game. I would recommend finding out from them which they would most like and work from there. Playing a 1st level character in a 6th level party isn't fun ... you can't hit anything, everything can kill you, and your team must spend all of the time protecting you; why would party take on such a liability? Losing a level SHOULD be fairly devastating to a character (which is why we just follow the rules as they are). I know that if I lost a level of my barbarian/wizard I'd be losing a lot; higher powered spells, especially, that are often the difference between success and failure of our missions. If a player wants to bring in a new character for a good reason, we usually have them come in at the lowest level of anyone in the party (we're almost always within 1 level of each other) with 1 XP above the min. to reach that level; at the very least, they've got to regain that whole level (and possibly more).
Banes 11-14-03, 04:55 PM	Originally posted by Sereno If a player wants to bring in a new character for a good reason, we usually have them come in at the lowest level of anyone in the party (we're almost always within 1 level of each other) with 1 XP above the min. to reach that level; at the very least, they've got to regain that whole level (and possibly more). Yes, this is the way we used to play, but as one of my players pointed out: If you are the lowest level guy (by 2 levels) and die, you could actually come ahead in xp using that system. And opposite, if you are the highest level guy, you will loose MORE levels than everyone else. Not a fair system. We are concidering after a death, a new PC comes back at 1/2 his current xp total. Numerically, this means only 1 level loss at the low levels, while you may loose 2 or three by mid levels, and 4+ at upper levels. But you know that high level characters will have a much better access to the Resurrection line of spells.
Kolo 11-14-03, 09:19 PM	What one player I know of has done is pretty innovative; He puts a maximum of three deaths per character, at the most. If this maximum is reached or exceeded, the character either retires to enjoy the spoils of his adventuring or remains permanently dead. This means that, at any given moment, He'll have a bunch of old "retired" characters that just might be willing to pick up their gear again in case his current character dies... He's done this twice already, and with some success (even importing old characters from different campaigns when the current high-level one bites the dust..) This solves some dilemmas regarding rolling up a high-level character, and the player will be familiar with the old guy's personality from the get-go. Heck, I've got an old PC, in case if I should ever want to pick up the FR setting again as a player...