Replacement Characters

[alcyone]

How do most people handle coming back with a new character in a mid-high level game after one dies? Start them off at level 1 even if their companions are around 10th? Inheritance might help; maybe give them xp equivalent to the gold value of their previous character's belongings?

[waysoftheearth]

A few options that I've either tried, or heard of being tried, include...

.) Player rolls up a new PC and starts over, from dot,
.) Player dusts off a PC that was previously retired,
.) Player rolls up a new PC with all or half the XP his previous PC had accumulated,
.) Player takes over one of the existing hirelings or retainers, in situ, with whatever XP it has.

I'm sure there are other options too...

[aher]

Feb 21, 2013 2:40:04 GMT -6 alcyone said:

Start them off at level 1 even if their companions are around 10th?

I played in a campaign for a year with a DM who did exactly this. There were 8 regular players, and by the end of the year their levels varied from about 1 to 10. I found this extremely frustrating.

When running a campaign, my personal preference is for low level PCs. I'm very stingy with XP, and keep everyone between 1st through 4th level. That way, if someone dies, and he rolls up a new 1st level character, there won't be a vast gap between his level and those of the other PCs.

[aldarron]

Feb 21, 2013 3:41:47 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

A few options that I've either tried, or heard of being tried, include...

.) Player rolls up a new PC and starts over, from dot,
.) Player dusts off a PC that was previously retired,
.) Player rolls up a new PC with all or half the XP his previous PC had accumulated,
.) Player takes over one of the existing hirelings or retainers, in situ, with whatever XP it has.

I'm sure there are other options too...

Yep. And

.) Character is hauled back to town and resurrected.
.) Character mysteriously appears alive and well next session, with a curious bout of amnesia and perhaps a few less xp. Hey it worked for Battlestar Galactica, and Dallas, come to think of it.

[Ynas Midgard]

Feb 21, 2013 6:10:14 GMT -6 aldarron said:

.) Character mysteriously appears alive and well next session, with a curious bout of amnesia and perhaps a few less xp. Hey it worked for Battlestar Galactica, and Dallas, come to think of it.

I might let one's character mysteriously come back to life, given that (a) the character was created for the first session of the campaign (i.e. it is not a replacement character itself) and (b) the community who reads the player reports is very upset about the character's passing, some people even demanding his revival.

d**n, that would be cool

[zeraser]

I let the player come up with a new character at the median party level or thereabouts. Inventing a mid- or high-level character from whole cloth is a fun imagination exercise that players seldom get to indulge in, so I like to let them enjoy it.

[Vile Traveller]

I've played in campaigns where the DM makes PCs come in at 1st level or 3 levels below the lowest-level party member, whichever is higher. I don't think it works and I don't see the point. It smacks a bit of the AD&D concept of "punishing" "bad" players, which I've never agreed with because roleplaying games are a team effort. Also, it affects the rest of the party because they have to protect the weak PC or take on lesser challenges, so their game becomes less exciting.

In my games new PCs come in with just enough XP to be at the same level as the lowest-level party member. Never had a problem with players suiciding theor PCs in the hope of rolling up a better one next time around.

[Harbinger]

For our once-monthly campaign, we've been having characters re-start at level 1.

I've found that it's upsetting at the time the character dies, and for the first level. Once they get to 2nd level, they've done enough with their new character that they don't mind the lower level. I also hand out 100 XP per HD, as well as 1XP per GP, so advancement is pretty fast when you have a 1st level character traipsing around with 4th to 6th level characters.

And with the XP doubling each level, the character's levels smooth out pretty quickly.

I think perhaps it helps that the mid-level characters don't seem to be in any hurry to find bigger challenges, they just mow through lower-level stuff. In my mega-dungeon, they've only explored the 1st and 2nd level so far.

We've been talking about changing things levels get up higher that our current max which is 6th.

[scottenkainen]

When I was running a higher level campaign, I had new characters begin one level lower than the lowest level character. More recently, running lower level campaigns, I've had everyone start over at 1st level. In a lower level campaign that has not been a problem; if XP is being shared equally, then a 1st level guy can hang in the back where it's safe and still advance quickly. It's only when the threat level is higher and monsters are more likely to have area-effecting attacks that re-starting at 1st is a problem.

Now that my current campaign has mid-level characters in it, I may have to adopt my former strategy again soon.

Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[Deleted]

Mid-level I would probably start the replacement at zero XP, mostly because adventuring with that party will grant him levels fairly rapidly. Higher level parties would warrant some free levels so as not to overburden the surviving players.

[giantbat]

Feb 21, 2013 3:41:47 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

.) Player takes over one of the existing hirelings or retainers, in situ, with whatever XP it has.

I've used this option exclusively for years. Keeps things moving with no downtime. Gives players another reason to cultivate hirelings instead of sacrificing them.

[kesher]

We played for awhile by awarding XP to the player, not the character. Therefore, if a character died, you could use the XP you'd amassed to create a new character. Depending on what you chose, they might actually be a level higher or lower.

I do, however, love the idea of, after having a conversation with the player, just having the character reappear the next session, acting as if nothing strange had happened. That should keep them on their toes...

[coffee]

Plus you can name them Kenny...

[Deleted]

First level. All else is for weaklings.

Although people tend to overlook certain aspects of the gold=xp paradigm. Go to the first level, roust some orcs, let the first level character take a chop/throw a spell, go back to town, give all the gold to the first level character, first level character is now second level.

[ffilz]

Yea, I'd be inclined to always start PCs off at 1st level, but remind folks of the ways to help the PC gain some levels quickly.

I remember back before I moved away from AD&D that we pretty much always started PCs off at 1st level, and groups would run "training" sessions to bring up those low level PCs.

On the other hand, I do like the idea of a player taking over the most experienced of his henchmen (or his choice of henchmen) as an option.

But any more, I definitely wouldn't create a high level PC out of thin air.

Frank

[zeraser]

Feb 21, 2013 18:24:34 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

First level. All else is for weaklings.

Look, I know you're being a bit facetious here, but the discourse of hardcoreness that suffuses accusations like this one is really off-putting. If the game had been invented in the 90s by me and my friends rather than in the 70s by you and your friends, we might structure the economy of D&D player prestige in a way that rewards our way of playing and denigrates yours - but I'd like to think we wouldn't.

Which leads me to:

Although people tend to overlook certain aspects of the gold=xp paradigm. Go to the first level, roust some orcs, let the first level character take a chop/throw a spell, go back to town, give all the gold to the first level character, first level character is now second level.

Does this strike anyone else as particularly... gamey? Like, something that characters in an imagined world would never do unless there were invisible abstractions hovering overhead and governing their potentials and aspirations (i.e., rules)? If you're going to allow low-level characters to advance quickly and catch up to their friends, surely there's a more interesting and creative way to do it than through the rote exploitation of what amounts to a loophole.

[talysman]

Feb 21, 2013 22:27:08 GMT -6 zeraser said:

Feb 21, 2013 18:24:34 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Although people tend to overlook certain aspects of the gold=xp paradigm. Go to the first level, roust some orcs, let the first level character take a chop/throw a spell, go back to town, give all the gold to the first level character, first level character is now second level.

Does this strike anyone else as particularly... gamey? Like, something that characters in an imagined world would never do unless there were invisible abstractions hovering overhead and governing their potentials and aspirations (i.e., rules)? If you're going to allow low-level characters to advance quickly and catch up to their friends, surely there's a more interesting and creative way to do it than through the rote exploitation of what amounts to a loophole.

Depends on how you interpret level. I see it as reputation and confidence, which is how I explain why gold = xp: bringing back lots of treasure makes the local population think you're pretty bad-ass. Giving all the treasure to the low-level guys is basically a way of tricking people into thinking they got all that treasure themselves.

For many people back in the day, though, I imagine it didn't matter if it was gamey. It's certainly no more gamey than worrying about adventuring parties being of mixed level.

[verhaden]

Bear in mind that giving your new low level friend enough gold to advance to a comparable level of the rest of the group presents new and possibly exciting opportunities for the group, providing them with a nice objective side-quest, while also being a huge money sink on the players.

It works quite well if you handle it the right way -- and there's nothing wrong with being 'gamey'.

[Mushgnome]

Look at The Hobbit---the lowest-level PC (Bilbo the lucky number) gets the best treasure (the ring).

[rms]

Feb 21, 2013 22:27:08 GMT -6 zeraser said:

Does this strike anyone else as particularly... gamey? Like, something that characters in an imagined world would never do unless there were invisible abstractions hovering overhead and governing their potentials and aspirations (i.e., rules)? If you're going to allow low-level characters to advance quickly and catch up to their friends, surely there's a more interesting and creative way to do it than through the rote exploitation of what amounts to a loophole.

Honestly, I don't care if it's 'gamey'? Splitting shares of loot with an eye towards level gain is very fun tactical part of the game, so it's a good thing.

Really this is no different than a party of all first level characters deciding to give the lion's share of the treasure to the cleric, so the cleric can get a hold of that all important Cure Light Wounds spell. Then the next time around, they don't score so big, so they shift the gold to level the thief since he's the easiest to get up in level. The third time out might be a big haul, so get the magic user up a level because two spells just improves the whole party's chances. Typically, you go back and level the fighters after that.

A series of trips to the local dungeon will probably level everyone to 2nd level after X expeditions (assuming everyone lives, etc.). A foolish group of players spreads the XP out evenly amongst themselves every trip so it takes many before anyone levels. Smart players make choices to get key characters to level each trip, thus making the party stronger and improving everyone's chances of surviving the next time around.

Similarly, leveling the new guy is pretty common. Why not? It's far more helpful to get him up to speed than to add that XP to the experienced characters who aren't going to gain much from it.

[Deleted]

Feb 22, 2013 8:35:10 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

Look at The Hobbit---the lowest-level PC (Bilbo the lucky number) gets the best treasure (the ring).

... and the Arkenstone!

[Mushgnome]

Feb 22, 2013 12:20:45 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Feb 22, 2013 8:35:10 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

Look at The Hobbit---the lowest-level PC (Bilbo the lucky number) gets the best treasure (the ring).

... and the Arkenstone!

Shhh, no *spoilers* please... that's not until the 3rd movie!

[Harbinger]

Hmmm. We play with characters starting at 1st level after death, but don't award XP based on 'share of treasure owned'. XP gets awarded equally when the PCs make it back to town regardless of how the physical treasure is divided. So the 'giving the 1st-level guy all the loot' hasn't ever come up.

Honestly, if you haven't tried having people restart at 1st level, I'd suggest giving it a try some time. In practice with our group it just hasn't been a problem - the party is hauling in so much XP per expedition that the 1st level guys are leveling up every 1-2 sessions, while everyone else stays at their current level.

However, we play a complete sandbox, so there are no real plot lines running that require a certain level of character. So your experience may differ.

Has anyone else tried the 're-start at 1st level' and found it didn't work? What were the reasons?

[Deleted]

Add one more voice to "so what if it's gamey." We were wargamers, it was a skirmish wargame campaign. The idea of "game fiction" didn't come until years later.

With names like Xagyg, Yrag, Rigby Sigbyson, Bigby Digbyson, and a sage named Herb, we weren't taking the "game fiction" seriously at all.

[tog]

It *is* a game, after all, isn't it?

[zeraser]

It *is* a game, after all, isn't it?

Sure is, and if you have a way to make it fun, so be it - who am I to argue otherwise?

On the other hand, if the goal is simply to bring a low-level character up to speed quickly so that the social (i.e., real) problem of one player having to mouse around while her buddies kick posterior can be resolved, then my feeling is that an opportunity for cool plots - like putting one over on the locals and trying to convince them that the newbie is actually a great warrior (as Talysman suggested) - has arisen, and why not seize it by coming up with something original that everybody at the table will get a kick out of?

Maybe the solution is to seek a wizard who can replace the character with a higher-level future version of herself, a few years older and wiser. Maybe the solution is to magically download the spirit of a legendary hero into the character's head. And maybe the solution is to delve into a few dungeons until the new character's found enough gold to level up, if that's the best the DM can come up with and everyone enjoys themselves.

(Prediction: Someone will respond to point out that low-level characters can do all kinds of cool stuff in high-level parties, especially with the help of burning oil, Sleep spells, etc. My rejoinder is that the whole point of being high-level is that one has a license to be awesome in particular ways that low-level characters are not, and those ways do not include Sleeping a bunch of goblins or setting an owlbear on fire with a lantern.)

[18 Spears]

Mar 3, 2013 18:53:14 GMT -6 zeraser said:

Sure is, and if you have a way to make it fun, so be it - who am I to argue otherwise?

Exactly! She understands! !!

[Falconer]

The exponential increase of XP requirements to level mean that, for all intents and purposes, a low-level character adventuring with a high-level group will gain a level every session till he is caught up to within one level of the group.

The overall effect of character death, then, is to slightly reduce the average level of the party. As it should, I would say.

[Harbinger]

Mar 5, 2013 11:42:49 GMT -6 Falconer said:

The exponential increase of XP requirements to level mean that, for all intents and purposes, a low-level character adventuring with a high-level group will gain a level every session till he is caught up to within one level of the group.

The overall effect of character death, then, is to slightly reduce the average level of the party. As it should, I would say.

Yes, this is exactly what we've found. We have two 5th\6th level characters and the rest have died and are leveling up every 1 or 2 sessions and very quickly got to 3rd and 4th levels.

I really would suggest trying 'start at 1st' sometime and see how it works at your table.

[Vile Traveller]

If you're simply going to go to the woods and kill boars* to bump your new 1st level characters up to par with the rest of the party, why not just start them off at a higher level? Just in view of gaming time alone (of which I don't have much) this seems a waste.

As I said I've tried this plenty of times, and any way I've seen this in action, it's not satisfying. The high-level players get bored, or new 1st level characters keep dying and never catch up, or the low-level characters stay away from trouble and leech XP while the rest of the party protects them (and the they get bored).

If you want to prove your D&D player credentials then just have the whole party adventure in higher-level dungeons. It's not the starting level that I object to, it's level disparity in the party. I don't mind how players acquire appropriate level PCs, whether they make them up from scratch or take over henchmen. But I would never run games where new PCs are 3 or more levels behind the rest of the group.

I still don't see why you would do this.

*South Park WoW episode.