Replacing dead characters

[MarkVIIIMarc]

When my work looses a salesperson we typically hire another salesperson instead of a delivery man.

If a mercenary unit looses its cyber warfare specialist they might look for someone good with computers before signing up that perfectly fine explosions expert or first available.

Comically enough, when I lost girlfriends in the past I frequently did replace them with first available as that's really my type.

to be clear, by lost in the first and third examples I did not mean lost in the Biblical sense.

[Porcupinata]

When the fighting's over and you all go home to your families and become barkeeps or farmers or whatever, then you bury your friend's armor with him. Meanwhile, you're still fighting, and if staying alive means using battlefield salvage, then you use battlefield salvage.

Plus, in most groups I've been in, that armour the fighter was wearing probably didn't belong to the fighter anyway. It was looted as "party treasure" and is owned by the party - the fighter was wearing it because it was useful to the party for her to do so, not because she had any claim on it.

So if the figher dies, the party reclaims the armour; and if the fighter retires the party reclaims it (although if the fighter wants to "cash out" their share of party treasure it may or may not be included in what the fighter walks away with depending on value and usefulness to others).

Most parties I've been in have worked like pirate crews - not morally, but financially. Any treasure looted goes into a central "party treasure" fund and doesn't belong to any individual member. When the fund gets large, everyone gets given an equal cash share from it as payment for their services, and the remainder stays as party treasure for other expenses. Most magic items are part of the fund and are assigned for use or sold by party agreement; and if sold the proceeds go into the party treasure fund. If buying items is a thing, they're usually bought from the party treasure fund too, and again this is by agreement. If the fighter wants a new sword and the cleric wants new armour and there's only enough funds available for one then there's a discussion and the party decides who will benefit the most from getting a new item.

Party members occasionally buy a minor item with their personal money, and that item is then theirs rather than belonging to the party, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

With this sort of set-up, it's quite likely that if the party recruit a new member that member will be assigned items to use from party treasure - and yes, if they new member is the same (or similar) class to a deceased one played by the same player (although raises will almost always be paid for from party treasure if possible) then they will probably end up being given the items that the player's former character used. But it's not a given - the items might have been sold in the interim, but not just for the sake of it. Items are generally only sold when the party needs the cash because you never know when they might come in useful later.

This whole set-up is so common in the groups that I play in that it just happens automatically without us consciously deciding that things should work that way. In fact I had to think about it in order to write it up above - it's not something we've got as any kind of written rules, it's just "how things work" and part of the unspoken social contract of the game.

[Merudo]

I'm baffled that some DMs force PCs to throw their own priceless magical artifacts into the trashcan for no good reason.

[dededo11]

I've always felt like it's a bit of an unspoken rule (A "Taboo") of people to create carbon copies of their characters, because I feel the majority of us deep down know it's contrived and breaks immersion/tension.

As a player, I'm with a lot of folks in this thread in that there's a lot of character concepts I want to try and haven't had a chance to and whole classes I haven't had a chance to try (I've played Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Bard, Rogue, and Wizard in 5e so far). So making a copy of what just died wouldn't float with me, unless I REALLY didn't get to try the class/character out. As far as complication/conflicts of filling a certain 'role' in the party...more often than not, with my particular group of friends, hardly anyone wants to play the 'tank'. I don't MIND playing the tank...but not all the time. So we more or less pass around the 'tank' chip on whose turn it is to play tank character. If I was playing tank and that character died...I would play some other role. I've filled enough that I've kind of stopped caring about party comp to an extent and...maybe someone ELSE should play something that's not a striker?

As a DM...I've been DMing a lot of mostly new players, so I would ask for either a class or race change on the next character. Encourage the new players to try classes/races they haven't yet. We have a guy in our CoS campaign that LOVES Tieflings and exclusively wants to play Tieflings, to the point that in our Ravnica campaign (DMed by someone else), he was hoping we could "magic in" Tieflings as a PC race. Cool, if his Grave Cleric dies in CoS, his next character will probably be a Tiefling and I'd ask him to play a different class (or a different sub-class of Cleric at the minimum).

What if you played the same class, but a different race and subclass and/or your next character had a drastically different personality than the previous one, would that be different enough?

[Chronos]

That's a good point, Porcupinata. When my party found a nice magical rapier, the party's paladin got it, because he was the one who had the most use for it. When we later found a sun sword that was even nicer, the paladin got that... and didn't now have two swords, because he passed the rapier on to my rogue, because of course he did, why wouldn't he?

If it makes sense to pass on equipment to a party-mate who can use it more when you're still alive, why wouldn't it make sense to do the same thing when you die?

[napoleon_in_rag]

How do you guys feel about people who replace their dead characters with similar new ones (like replacing a dead war cleric with a tempest cleric or a dead hunter ranger with a battlemaster fighter with archery fighting style)?

As a DM, I would not have a problem with either of these examples. I would have a problem with Bob Soulfire, human Oath of Vengeance Paladin, being replaced by John Soulfire, human Oath of Vengeance Paladin.

I would talk to the player about what they want and make sure it works in the ongoing campaign. Like, if they are adventuring in the dragonborn homeland, I would try to convince them to choose dragonborn as a race.

To be clear, I would not try to force the player to design a character they don't want. I find that creates resentment that will pop up in play in a different way. I would aim to convince them to try something different. I would be satisfied if they just changed the race and the subclass (though a little disappointed).

[Laserlight]

Over the years, there've been a couple of people who played casters and never learned the spells, or felt they had to make the absolute best possible move in order to measure up. Both of them spent excessive time to take their turns and I really wished they'd try a martial.

In general, I'd rather people try different classes, just to try new things. But if it came down to "same personality, new class" or "same class, different personality", I'd favor the latter.

Generally speaking, a new character doesn't join the party naked, he has level-appropriate gear. If we gave the new guy stuff, it was probably because we were in the wilderness and hadn't had a chance to sell the dead guy's stuff.

[Samayu]

How do you guys feel about people who replace their dead characters with similar new ones?

It depends, of course. If the character dies after the player spent more time building it than he did playing it, he just changes the name on the sheet. "Look who just showed up! Roderick's twin bother, BRoderick!"

And then you have to factor in how long it takes to get a new character back in the game. If I'm playing with newbies, I might let them throw something together quickly, regardless of what it's like, and let them rework it between sessions.

In my regular group of veteran players with veteran characters, we would roll our eyes if they did something with similar mechanics, and get annoyed if it was something with a similar personality. Of course, we're always trying to come up with something new.

[Shuruke]

i feel your pain...

What's even worse is having all those characters

Getting a chance to make one

And making a whole new character rather than using one u have just cuz it came to mind for fitting really well in the world XD

[ZorroGames]

What's even worse is having all those characters

Getting a chance to make one

And making a whole new character rather than using one u have just cuz it came to mind for fitting really well in the world XD

Nah, they are disposable (0D&D roots) until about 5th level TBH.