PENALTY FOR DEATH.....ow that hurts

[corcio]

we are having an argument with the DM on penalties for death.
the way we play it is if we die then the new character will be one level lower than the current one.
seems fair right?!!? BUT say 4 of us are all lvl 5 assualting a keep with evil skeletons and clerics and what not.
if the majority of the party dies because of the toughness of the creatures or whatever. either thru stupidity, bad luck or just overwhelming odds. we come back later and were all lvl 4 now...but the keep is still the same essentially. HOW are we supposed to defeat this obstacle with our new less powerful characters?
it just seems there could be something less devastating to our game than this level loss.
what are soem other rules you have in your games?
any suggestions?

 

[jeffh]

we are having an argument with the DM on penalties for death.
the way we play it is if we die then the new character will be one level lower than the current one.
seems fair right?!!? BUT say 4 of us are all lvl 5 assualting a keep with evil skeletons and clerics and what not.
if the majority of the party dies because of the toughness of the creatures or whatever. either thru stupidity, bad luck or just overwhelming odds. we come back later and were all lvl 4 now...but the keep is still the same essentially. HOW are we supposed to defeat this obstacle with our new less powerful characters?
it just seems there could be something less devastating to our game than this level loss.
what are soem other rules you have in your games?
any suggestions?

You're telling me that one keep is the ONLY place in the entire world your characters can possibly go?

 

[corcio]

no. but we were following clues in game for nearly a year trying to find some missing people. and this was the place we found. so we desperatly tried to get thru it.
trust me. we did go other places. but thats not the point. the main point was
SHOULD A LEVEL LOSS BE A FAIR PUNISHMENT FOR DYING

 

[Hawken]

You've got a point there and one I've always been against in all my years as a DM. Bringing new characters into a game less powerful than the ones that got killed is an idea that came out of the same hole as last night's dinner. What's the new guy going to think? "Hey I'm going into this place where tougher, better equiped, more experienced people than me just got slaughtered! But, what the hell! Maybe I'll get lucky (good dice rolls)?"

Not likely.

Not only is the inherent character logic ignored in that situation, it also punishes the rest of the group. They lose a valuable member, likely a trusted friend and ally, and what do they get? A 'stranger' who likely cannot do the same things their friend did and definitely not as well either. Not only is the new character even less likely to survive encounters, but the group's position is even riskier having to rely on an 'unknown' in their group who cannot even perform on their level.

Death is enough of a penalty in and of itself. Think of all the time and effort the player put in to their character. And suddenly, it's gone. If he can be brought back, fine. But, likely not, everything up to that point is gone. That should be punishment enough.

 

[Sadrik]

I think it is fine.

Consider it is only levels 1-8 that this really matters. Because at level 9 the cleric gets raise dead. I also think there is a spell called revivify that might be fourth?

The penalty has to be balanced with raise dead. Which allows a character to come back 1 level less but with half the xp for that level.

I would rather encourage characters to be raised rather than have a new character come in at full level every time one dies.

We played in return to temple of elemental evil and played where you came in at full level. Nobody ever wanted to get raised (costs money and the recipient loses a level) they wanted to bring a new character in. We also had a meat-grinder culture during that game too. I died early (first major encounter- blue dragon) and we were only fourth level so we did not have enough money to raise my character. After I got my next character a tiefling wizard (using the UA rules for buying off the LA) I did not die. In fact, everyone else had cycled through characters not really caring if they died... Because they knew they could come in at full level with a new character. It really ruined continuity. Every time they died we had a problem with wealth. They brought in a new character with a whole new slew of magical gizmos. So in addition to the characters that died gizmos we got the new characters gizmos. We quickly had to house rule how wealth was being distributed after death.

In one odd case my character raised another and had taken the leadership feat and made him a cohort. So that continuity was not lossed.

So I think that the -1 level for coming back makes sense after my play experience. Yeah it sucks to have to lose a level. But I would rather encourage the use of raise dead. It also makes the players more reserved when they play their characters. Rather than charging off knowing that if they die they will actually help the party with added wealth and a new often times more optimized character for the campaign. Plus it is often times a pain and a drag to for the DM to get the new characters in the game.

There is a little used action that characters in my campaigns could do more often- withdraw- live to fight another day. Try it, you might like it.

 

[smootrk]

I split the difference. Coming back at the same level is OK, but at the minimum xp for this particular level (losing what was gained in the current level). I have yet to have someone die twice in rapid succession, but I would likely slap some other penalty on a character if this happened. Probably another xp deduction (but still keeping the same level). Death should hurt.

 

[Rhun]

what are soem other rules you have in your games?
any suggestions?

I usually use a permanent -1 to CON as a result of being raised and such. A lot of people think this is much harsher then a lost level, but it has worked fine for my groups. Of course, if your player comes back from the dead many times, he is going to become progressively weaker, but that is exactly the flavor I was after. There comes a time to put the PC to rest, and start a new one.

 

[Bladesong]

If I read the "question" right it is about new characters coming in, not raising them from the dead. In our games any new characters came in at the level (and experience point total) of the lowest level character. If they were all the same level they came in at that level but with no experience points in that level. Never really seemed to be a problem.

 

[Rhun]

If I read the "question" right it is about new characters coming in, not raising them from the dead. In our games any new characters came in at the level (and experience point total) of the lowest level character. If they were all the same level they came in at that level but with no experience points in that level. Never really seemed to be a problem.

Oh, you are right...thanks for pointing that out. In that case, it is simple. You go adventure somewhere else to earn experience before trying to tackle the same problem.

 

[Shane_Leahy]

In my group we use the following rule which is basically the same as Andy Collins rule (link in my link). Now having used it we feel that the penalty is still felt but not as much as actually losing a level. It also makes all the bookkeeping easier, no need to remember what class you took last, or what feat, skills, spell, whatever.

Death and Raising Rule