PC dies - New PC starting level?

[coffee]

jrients said:

I prefer that the powers of adventurers are special. They are a rare breed.

I think you've hit upon the exact point here. Not every priest is a Cleric, nor is every soldier a Fighting-Man. Adventurers are special, as they should be; they are the 'heroes' of the game world.

And as such, I like to see heroes advance from being a fresh newbie to whatever heights of glory they can. (This is my view; others may disagree, but we can all still be friends.)

Sure, you can take over a henchman as someone pointed out above , but to me that's a bit like cheating as far as experience goes.

*** Rambling story to illustrate my point below; you can skip to the next post if you want. ***

I had a character once in an AD&D game where the DM routinely started each character at 5th level. (He didn't want to 'waste time' with the lower levels.) I was pretty new at the game, so I didn't want to suddenly play a fifth level character. So we arranged that I'd be a henchman to another player character; that way I could start at first level.

However, before I could break in the character, that DM ran a game with that player (among others) and the player wanted to bring his new henchman along (to show off). So my first 500 XP were from being played as an NPC.

I protested, but to no avail; the DM made his ruling, and those XP stood.

That still stings, to this day; I didn't earn those XP, so I still don't want them.

[sham]

I do tend to prefer the 'start at 1st level' method, but...I am also not going to give full a share of experience to a 1st level PC tagging along with a bunch of 7th level PCs as they make the decisions, defeat the monsters, and collect the gold, while the level 1 PC stays behind, out of danger, acting as a pack bearer and mule guide.

In my D&D games one must actually actively participate in defeating the monsters to benefit from the experience of earning gold, as well. And no, a party cannot arbitrarily decide to 'funnel' extra gold to a paricular PC in order to cheat the system and gift him more experience. Again, this is MY interpretation.

I suppose one could indeed 'start at 1st level' rather easily using such loop holes.

I prefer to cut to the chase and just allow the player to rejoin the party, albeit as the lowest level member, by far.

One posible idea would be to give the player the choice of using the Estate Rule, or the Lowest Level -2 Rule. Choosing the first means he must start at 1st Level, but gets all of the former PC's items (along with some or all of the gold). Choosing the second means he starts at 'LL-2', but his introduction is at the whim of the DM...he just might end up 'nekkid' and unconscious or some such thing.

Or just go hard core and say everyone begins from square 1 if thier PC dies.

I think the method you go with should be one in which players still have fun, although losing a PC should still sting (otherwise the game loses tension/drama).

~Sham

[Deleted]

coffee said:

Regarding an inheritance rule, Men & Magic has this to say:

"Relatives: The referee may allow players to designate one relative of his character
to inherit his possessions if for any reason the participant unexpectedly disappears,
with or without "death" being positively established, for a period of one
game month, let us say. At this time the relative would inherit the estate of the
character, paying a 10% tax on all goods and monies. The relative must start at
the lowest level of the class he opts for, but he will have the advantage of the
inheritance.

We use this rule. I also have players roll-up (3) characters when I begin a new campaign. That way, there's always a couple of more handy.

I also allow PC's henchmen/retainers on a limited basis (no more that [1] per player).

In the worst case scenario, if the total party level averages around 10+, then (& only then) will I allow a player to create a character at half the experience level of the lowest level character in the group...if they want to. It's their choice. No free magic items, armor, etc. These they have to earn just like everyone else.

Or, I allow the player the option to assume the role of any lower level NPC currently associated (& on good terms with) the party.

[foster1941]

Because of the shallower numerical power-curve in OD&D than some of the later editions (smaller numbers in general, and fewer and smaller adjustments) mixed-level parties are much more feasible, and are in fact the assumed norm. 3 to 4 levels of difference between characters in the same party is completely unremarkable and in fact that's what the recommended level spreads on the old modules meant -- when they said "for characters level 3-7" they didn't mean an entire party of 3rd level characters or an entire party of 7th level characters, or that the party would start the adventure at 3rd and finish it at 7th, but rather a party in which the lowest level characters were around 3rd and the highest level were around 7th.

1st-2nd level characters do require some special consideration because they're so fragile -- a single hit is often enough to kill them, and something like a fireball or dragon breath will likely do them in even with a successful saving throw -- but even so, if the other players keep this in mind (and some of it can be mitigated by giving the character good magic items -- magic armor, rings of protection, etc.) it shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle, especially because, due to the way the XP tables are set up, low level characters that survive will quickly close the level gap -- a 1st level character joining a party of 7th level characters will, straight XP-wise (i.e. assuming no wastage from acquiring enough XP in a single session that would normally raise him 2+ levels at once and having to burn the excess), hit 7th level himself right about the time the rest of the party hits 8th level (and will remain 1 level behind thereafter, assuming they always adventure together and split the treasure and XP evenly).

Another thing higher-level characters saddled with a newbie companion can/should do to "break in the new guy" is to adventure a bit "beneath their level" for a bit, until their new companion is able to catch up. A party of 3 7th level characters and 1 1st level character shouldn't immediately head for dungeon level 7 and watch their new companion get slaughtered by the dragons, giants, etc. that dwell down there; instead they should spend some time on, say, dungeon level 4 or 5. The same logic that says smaller parties should stick to easier levels says that mixed-level parties should seek out challenges appropriate to their average, rather than their highest, level.

The last thing to consider is that, given the way the game is set up, characters above a certain level shouldn't permanently die all that often -- lawful clerics of 7th+ level can raise dead and wishes (from rings and swords) are fairly common (with bringing back a dead companion being, per the book itself, the quintessential non-greedy, should-be-granted use for a wish). Plus, at those levels, most characters are assumed to have a retinue of retainers, at least a couple of which are likely of fairly substantial level themselves and can be "upgraded" to full PC-status if necessary. So the idea of a 12th level character dying and having to be replaced by a rank 0 XP newbie isn't really something that should come up very often.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I start them out at 1st level. Also re some of the comments above, I think you are selling a good player with a 1st level character short. I think a 1st level character can contribute to a 7th level party and is in no way just dead weight.

[Finarvyn]

crimhthanthegreat said:

I think a 1st level character can contribute to a 7th level party and is in no way just dead weight.

From an idea standpoint, sure, but otherwise the 1st level character is somewhat limited in a party of 7th level characters. They simply don't have the HP needed to wade into battle, they run out of spells faster than the other spellslingers, and unless they are the only character of their class probably find that others in the party are much better than they are any time they try to do anything.

So ... if the 1st level character is the only cleric, I see real value. If the 1st level character is the only thief, he or she can add some unique skills. If the character is a fighter the value is minimal, and if he's a M-u that extra "sleep" spell in a party of spell casters gets lost in a hurry.

[wulfgar]

[/quote]the 1st level character is somewhat limited in a party of 7th level characters. They simply don't have the HP needed to wade into battle [/quote]

The max hitpoints for a 1st level PC: 6
The min hitpoints for a 7th level PC: 7
The difference: 1 HP

(Yes, I know a 7 HP 7th level character isn't that likely, but it can and does happen, just trying to illustrate the point that the gap isn't really THAT great)

[sham]

The longer this thread gets, the more I become convinced that maybe I should try the simple 'everyone starts at level 1' method. It's the one I'd like to use.

I guess in this regard, I'm a softie (I feel bad for players who lose a PC...unless it was through foolishness).

[howandwhy99]

I agree with Foster's comments and wanted to add a couple more of my own.

Nothing is perfectly symmetrical in OD&D. As far as I can tell at least. It's messy as hell. XP is virtually never equal among party members. It may be early on for some after only a session or two, but not for long. IMO, XP is awarded separately because otherwise it doesn't really mean anything. It isn't a combat kill score barometer to increase the party's level every so often. Nor an enforced equalitarianism between all party members. It's a measure of each individual player's success with their PC(s). In our game we gain XP for all sorts of things non-combat related. It sells the game short if we reward for only one manner of success. Heck, we don't even gain XP for gold scrounged unless we're Rogues. I understand it's a delicate thing to allow another to grade you or choose which terms to use for that, but it isn't that hard to agree on some simple measures as a group, if there's no other way.

XP-related level requirements follow a basic algorithmic sequence, so the lowest level character in a group, regardless of level, will never be more than 1 level behind the highest by the time the highest gains their next level's worth of XP. Foster probably put that better, but the key is: PCs are likely to keep dying, so the overall party level isn't assumed to stay one level above any PC. PCs die and as they do the average party level declines. It's a loss for everyone. It also means highest and lowest level PCs in a party aren't necessarily going to stay in those positions. As well as the difference between high and low level PCs halve for every level the highest gains thereafter - even though the numerical gap may remain roughly the same throughout.

I will say you may have a few players who are so good they always excel and advance without dying and a few players who are constantly dying. Maybe they are always level 1 while the others keep going higher and higher in level? It's times like that when the better players are going to want to help out those doing poorly. Not just in game, but as fellow players too. And adult/child pairing is the obvious example. That's not meant to be condescending either. If you are struggling in one area, go back to playing what you are good at in real life. Something you do well, and can gain XP for in game.

I like that levels matter. It's something that's dropped out of TRPGS, but still remains in for MMOs. If you worked to reach a high level, you keep that (with no chance of loss for MMOs, but hey). No one starts the game at high level just as in WoWarcraft; no one starts the game above first. High level isn't just powers on a sheet, it's all the knowledge and prowess one has gained as a player to perform in the world as one would expect a high level character to. It's also all of the knowledge and contacts and resources and thorough embedded-ness both character and player have from excelling in and impacting the game world for so long. IMO that cannot just be skipped up too.

It's measuring skill and character level on the same scale. A very skilled player with a low level PC is likely just as resourceful as an unskilled player with a high level PC. Yes, it means power and skill are out of balance, but in both cases balance is going to reassert itself right quickly. Keep giving high level PCs to an inexperienced player and they'll just keep dying. Give a low level PC to a highly experienced player and they'll not stay low for long.

[ffilz]

Lots of good ideas. I think the key to dealing with the suck of playing a 1st level PC among 7th levels is to make sure everyone understands how the game works, and realize the low level PC is going to advance pretty quickly.

Note that the logarythmic scale breaks down at the highest levels, but then the power gain up there isn't quite so much either (except for magic users).

And you can always make exceptions if someone is just really feeling like they can't get (back) in the game because their 1st level PCs keep dying. And what's the best way? Probably to announce to the group that you are going to run a couple weeks of "training" sessions where EVERYONE starts a new PC.

Also, the option of taking over a 2nd or 3rd level henchman (or even a bit higher) of the player's deceased PC isn't horrible. Assuming you don't allow hiring of higher level henchmen, the 3rd level henchman will have gained that experience under the direction of the player taking him over (this is where AD&D's separation of henchmen, hirelings, and followers could be helpfull, henchmen then are newbie 1st level types who join up with a PC (even a 1st level PC) as mentors, hirelings could be higher level, but come along for a specific job with negotiated pay and treasure sharing, followers are the characters high level PCs gain when they establish themselves, but aren't really interested in dungeoning). Now we have possible replacement PCs that aren't 1st level that the player is invested in.

And I'm also thinking that a deceased character's possessions perhaps should be dispersed out of the game. I suppose the could be divided amongst the survivors. The amount could be reduced by aggressive item saves for a deceased PC (even if you normally are kind of lenient). Even combat would cause some items to have to save (potions for sure, I could find an argument for armor needing a save, and heck, perhaps even the scrolls in a backpack (sorry, the backpack got sliced open by the killing blow)).

Frank

[philotomy]

I used to allow replacement PCs at 1-2 levels below the average party level. However, I no longer do that, and have replacements come from henchmen or from new 1st level PCs. This is one of those things that seemed unthinkable, but actually works well in practice, for reason that Foster, et al., have already touched on.