Character Death

[Harkone]

I am one of those DM's that doesn't believe in level loss or negative levels for his players. In order to get around these penalties, I have devised a series of alternative consequences for character death. I've listed them below, but I'm not particularly satisfied with them. I was hoping for comments from other DM's out there on alternatives to level loss from character death. Thanks.

CHARACTER DEATH
Raise Dead: 2d6 ability score damage to each ability score that can only be healed naturally; also, make a DC: 15 +1/day dead CON check or be fatigued until all the ability damage is restored

Resurrection: roll 1d12 on chart:
1: -1 permanent STR
2: -1 permanent DEX
3: -1 permanent CON
4: -1 permanent INT
5: -1 permanent WIS
6: -1 permanent CHA
7-8: -1 permanent HD of hp (roll; use highest class level)
9-11: Aged: Dwarf: 2d6 years; Elf: 6d6 years; Gnome: 1d8 years; Halfling: 1d6 years; Half-Elf: 1d6 years; Half-Orc: 1d2 years; Human: 1d3 years
12: Aged: Dwarf: 4d6 years; Elf: 12d6 years; Gnome: 2d8 years; Halfling: 2d4 years; Half-Elf: 2d6 years; Half-Orc: 2d2 years; Human: 2d3 years

True Resurrection: no ill effects

[jindra34]

I am one of those DM's that doesn't believe in level loss or negative levels for his players. In order to get around these penalties, I have devised a series of alternative consequences for character death. I've listed them below, but I'm not particularly satisfied with them. I was hoping for comments from other DM's out there on alternatives to level loss from character death. Thanks.

CHARACTER DEATH
Raise Dead: 2d6 ability score damage to each ability score that can only be healed naturally; also, make a DC: 15 +1/day dead CON check or be fatigued until all the ability damage is restored

Resurrection: roll 1d12 on chart:
1: -1 permanent STR
2: -1 permanent DEX
3: -1 permanent CON
4: -1 permanent INT
5: -1 permanent WIS
6: -1 permanent CHA
7-8: -1 permanent HD of hp (roll; use highest class level)
9-11: Aged: Dwarf: 2d6 years; Elf: 6d6 years; Gnome: 1d8 years; Halfling: 1d6 years; Half-Elf: 1d6 years; Half-Orc: 1d2 years; Human: 1d3 years
12: Aged: Dwarf: 4d6 years; Elf: 12d6 years; Gnome: 2d8 years; Halfling: 2d4 years; Half-Elf: 2d6 years; Half-Orc: 2d2 years; Human: 2d3 years

True Resurrection: no ill effects
Think it looks good though why does ressurection aply permanent damage when Raise dead does not, maybe just cut Ressurection down to 1d6 ability damage...

[Innis Cabal]

i agree with Jinda, ya i said it

[jlousivy]

true, as its written now--- i'd take a raise dead over a ressurection any day--unless i MUST do something like the very next minute, and then... hope for a 6,9,10,or 11.

[Harkone]

That's the idea. Certain kinds of deaths are worse than others; for example if a character is slain by a death effect, or has his head chopped off, etc., he can't be raised, only resurrected. The idea of the stiffer penalties for resurrection is that if a character is in such bad shape that a more powerful spell is required, the penalties should correspond. Kind of like the difference between "mostly dead" (dead but still intact = raise dead works) and "all dead" (needs a resurrection).

Similarly, if the character's body is intact enough for a raise dead but is in a rush to be fully functional, he can be restored with a resurrection instead, and pay either penalty (meaning, if he's in a rush he can take the resurrection penalty, or if he's not he can take the raise dead penalty).

Another thought I had was just aging a character for returning from the dead (nothing else causes aging in 3.5 anymore, so this would be a unique price to pay for being returned to life). There could be a certain age penalty for being raised (maybe by an amount indicated on a 12 on the resurrection chart above), a lower penalty for being resurrected (perhaps the 9-11 penalty above), and no penalty at all for being true resurrected.

Anyway, these questions are all indicative of the problems I have with my system as written. This is why I'm looking for alternative ideas. Is there any truly fair way to penalize a character for dying/handle character death without making the character lose a level?

[Innis Cabal]

well you shouldnt have a spell catered to a certain kind of death...that would be its own school of magic...do you know how many ways a person can die even from a single monster?

[Harkone]

By certain kinds of death, I meant what the spells are capable of restoring. Meaning, there is only so much a raise dead spell can do (ie, there are only certain kinds of death it can fix, and some that it can't).

[Innis Cabal]

and i am saying that the fact that certain types of death the spells can fix is wrong. Death, in the end is all the same, may come about for different reasons but the end result is the same, the stopping of your heart. Wheter you are beheaded or chopped into bits, your still dead and magic knows it.

[Harkone]

OK, yes, that's true in the real world, but the game treats different kinds of death differently. Raise Dead can't bring you back if you died a certain way; if your corpse isn't whole, or you died from a death effect, and so forth, you'll need a resurrection, not a raise dead.

Anyway, this is all a digression. What I'm looking for are alternative "death penalties" to what I've come up with or the standard level loss.

[goat]

Hmm, I suppose that being brought back from an arm that one of your colleagues snagged while running away should be a more stressful experience than just having your soul shoved back into your body.

[Harkone]

Exactly my point.

[Innis Cabal]

why would it be? its magic, it wouldnt be any less tramatic then getting hit with several fireballs...

[Teilos]

It is D&D. You can call it more stressfull, if you like. You can say it is exactly the same. The question should be: What do you want it to be.

I realy like your ideas Harkone, because I like to DM very equal groups. I think the whole level thing should be secondary and I do not want my players to worry about it. For that reason I give the same XPs to everyone and not individually. And for that same reason I like the idea of death without permanent level loss. Death should be something players fear, but I like to keep my group at the same level.

Now about the ressurection part:
Giving a permanent ability damage can realy screw your players. Maybe the wanted to get into Prestige Class A and needed Feat B as prerequesite and Feat B needs ability stat C. This permanent damage can really screw them. Hence, it can be a much worse consequence than the usual level loss.

I would like:
Raise dead: 2d6+1/(day being dead) ability damage (mimimum score 3).
Ressurection: 1d6+1/(week being dead) ability damage (mimimum score 3).
True R: No bad consequences.

Alternatively Negative levels, which would heal with a rate of 1/day would be also fine for me.

[Harkone]

I don't like negative levels any more than I like level loss. Too much to re-calculate.

I've been thinking about it, and I think aging is the best death penalty. It's a real penalty, so characters will fear it, but it's not so harsh as lost ability score points, lost HD, or lost levels. I think I might go with something like this:

CHARACTER DEATH
Raise Dead: Character Aged: Dwarf: 4d6 years; Elf: 12d6 years; Gnome: 2d8 years; Halfling: 2d4 years; Half-Elf: 2d6 years; Half-Orc: 2d2 years; Human: 2d3 years

Resurrection: Character Aged: 2d6 years; Elf: 6d6 years; Gnome: 1d8 years; Halfling: 1d6 years; Half-Elf: 1d6 years; Half-Orc: 1d2 years; Human: 1d3 years

True Resurrection: no ill effects

Comments welcome.

[MeklorIlavator]

I would keep the ability damage, but allow it to be healed with stuff like restoration, and add the aging penalties that you are suggesting now. Make Resurrection deal 1 point of ability damage to each score, same rules as raise dead, but less severe (1 point to each ability instead of 2d6).

[goat]

How closely do you track time in your campaigns? Does aging ever play a significant part?

If a character has a feat that requires a specific stat, and their aging dinks it down too low, do they lose the feat?

[jindra34]

How closely do you track time in your campaigns? Does aging ever play a significant part?

If a character has a feat that requires a specific stat, and their aging dinks it down too low, do they lose the feat?

PRobably yes but its up to the DM

[Danu]

I usually deal with character death by saying simply that characters cannot be resurrected. In fact, the only 'come back from death' spells I typically allow are reincarnate, revivify, and true resurrection.

But my personal preferences won't help you set up a system you like, so how about this: A penalty on rolls, depending on the strength of the spell. Essentially you suffer a penalty ranging from -1 (raise dead) to -3 (resurrection. reincarnate) on all attack and damage rolls, skill checks, and opposed checks (Strength checks, caster level checks, grapple checks, etc). Once the character gains enough experience to level up, the penalty is removed. It's something the character will remember, without being too harsh. It's quick and easy to implement, and it basically goes away on it's own. What's best? Not a whole lot of math involved.

[Catch]

Honestly, I'd rather lose a character level. XP is self-correcting, so you'll catch up after getting a raise. Permanent ability loss? Aging? I can see it now.

"Guys, yeah, about that Raise Dead... Can you wait 'till you have TR?"

Temporary ability drain isn't bad though, a sort of "res sickness." But permanent effects? Tough call between that and just rolling up a new sheet.

[Innis Cabal]

i would roll up a new sheet. I would rather lose a level honestly

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I would rather lose a level. Just one question, Is age determined up to date of death, or...

[Harkone]

I keep track of time pretty closely in my campaigns, so aging would actually be felt. I have PC's roll up date of birth just to "keep it real" in this manner.

Again, aging has few actual in-game penalties (as a DM I don't kill my PC's very often, so the odds of ability scores actually dropping from this are pretty low), but it has enough sting to make the PC's try to avoid death even more so than in "regular," level-loss-for-dying campaigns. Mostly it's a fear thing; if your character dies, and is returned to life by magic (and ages, meaning the experience of death took a toll on his physical form), he or she will be afraid of another such experience and would try their best to avoid it at all costs (much like I imagine a "real" person would feel). It inhibits the "Oops, I went and died again; please raise me" approach to D&D.

By the way, most players I know would never just toss a character no matter what death penalties were inflicted upon him/her; a preference for just rolling up a new character over a slightly afflicted older character (that's tied into the campaign and so forth) says alot for how much role-playing and storyline (or lack thereof) play a part in some people's games.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

YOu have a point there

[levi]

Are negative levels really that bad? Assuming they don't end up permanant, they're not that complicated to apply. A negative level gives -1 to pretty much every d20 roll. A max HP five less than it was. And spellcasters loose one spell slot and a caster level. You don't really have to recalcualte stuff, you just apply the penalty straight to the die roll.

[Harkone]

It's just a personal thing. I just hate depriving players of hard-earned levels, whether through actual level loss or negative levels. It's not even about ease of calculation; I just don't like the logic behind the mechanic (how does one "lose" the training and such that goes into a level anyway?)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I just say loose one permanent Con point each time you are brought back to life through any means rather than a level loss. It's a penalty, which requires almost zero bookkeeping and calculation, which is something players really don't want to have happen to their character.

Done.

[Harkone]

I used to do exactly that, but eventually my players claimed it was too harsh. Especially the paladin, who, by 19th level or so, had lost a fair amount of CON.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I used to do exactly that, but eventually my players claimed it was too harsh. Especially the paladin, who, by 19th level or so, had lost a fair amount of CON.

The answer to that: Then don't die so often. Try acting intelligently rather than charging bravely forward into trouble.

[Harkone]

LOL! :smallbiggrin: That's good advice, but after awhile I started to feel bad for taking all that CON away. Hence the move away from CON loss to aging.