Average Level of Party 1-10
- Character may enter at any level from 1 to X-1, where X is the lowest surviving PC. Ex: Paladin 6, Thief 8, Fighter 7. (avg 7). Fighter Dies. May re-enter anywhere from Level 1 to level 5.
Average Level of Party 11-20
- Character may enter at any level from 1-10.
Great question
I find that my players generally would rather enter at Level 1 - they want to run the character from the start, earn it - trial by fire. Yeah, mortality rate is theoretically higher, but hey, that happens.
Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Another point I forgot to mention...
It seems to me that coming back at the average level of the party is the most fair. Say we have a party with 5 members - one each at 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th level. The 16th level PC dies. He cannot/is not raised/resurrected. The player rolls up a new character. The new character comes in at the average level of the party, i.e. 14th. He's right in the middle, and 2 levels lower than the character he's replacing. Should the 15th level character suffer the same fate, the replacement comes in a 1 level lower. Should the 14th level character do so, he is replaced by an equal level character.
Now obviously, the problem is that if the 12th or 13th level character dies and needs replacing, this rule (by itself) would result in the new character being 1-2 levels higher than the deceased character he's replacing. So I ended up adding an addendum to that rule - no new (replacement) PC can be created that is higher level than the now-deceased character being replaced. So at best the new character is of the same level, otherwise he's 1-2 levels lower. But at least he's still a major part of the team, not a low-level hanger-on that needs baby sitting. In all my years of gaming, this solution always seemed to work best.
So the two players of the L12 and 13 characters, who earned their way to that level, see's someone die and come in AHEAD of them in the levels, and to you that is "most fair"???
So the two players of the L12 and 13 characters, who earned their way to that level, see's someone die and come in AHEAD of them in the levels, and to you that is "most fair"???
I think you missed part of the second paragraph you quoted. I'm referring to the part where I wrote:
"Now obviously, the problem is that if the 12th or 13th level character dies and needs replacing, this rule (by itself) would result in the new character being 1-2 levels higher than the deceased character he's replacing. So I ended up adding an addendum to that rule - no new (replacement) PC can be created that is higher level than the now-deceased character being replaced."
Emphasis mine. I agree with you 100%, it would be absurd for a player to have a character die (permanently) and therefore have to roll up a new one and have that one start at a higher level than his old one. We'd see mass PC suicides as shortcuts to higher level PCs! That's why I made that part clear to my players - at best you'll create a new character who is equal in level to the old one. Most likely he'll be a few levels lower. But no way in hell are you getting a new one that's a level or two above your old one!
You obviously didn't read what I wrote either. I was not on about the replacement PC for someone who's character died. I was on about if in a part of 5 (12, 13, 14, 15 and 16th level), the player of the 15th level pc dies, and has a replacement coming in at 14 (as you say its the group ave), which YOU say 'sounds to be the farest manner, HOW Is that being fair to the players of the 12th and 13th level characters, who EARNED their way up there, now see someone starting a NEW Pc ahead of them in level?
Ah, I see now what you're saying now. I misread that and was focusing on the new PC. Sorry about that.
It's still the same answer though. Here's my thought process on it...
We have the same party of five - a 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th level character. Each has earned his level (i.e. earned enough xp to gain that level). The 16th level character dies and cannot/will not be raised. So the player rolls up a new character. The new character cannot come in at a higher level than the player's previous character, so in this case he can only come back at 14th level (the average of the party). His new character is two whole levels lower than the previous one. If he's a wizard, his new character is 750,000 xp lower than the old one. Now let's say the 15th level character dies and a new one is substituted. Again, he loses a level, essentially (compared to the old one). The 14th level character is replaced with one of equal value. So none of these new characters has gained anything - the highest level players/characters suffer the most, because they are replaced with lower level characters. The mid (or average) level players/characters gain nothing other than a 1-on-1 exchange - no different than if I handed you two five dollar bills in exchange for a ten dollar bill.
Now the lower level characters (i.e. all those characters below the average level of the party) never lose anything. If the 13th level character dies and needs to be replaced, and the average party level is 14th, and he cannot come back at a higher level than his original level, that means he comes back at 13th level - the same as the previous character. Same for the 12th level character.
So in other words, players whose characters are below or at the average level of the party neither gain nor lose anything - they get a replacement of the same level of their previous character. But players of higher level characters always lose out because in every case they will be coming back at least a level lower than the previous character, and usually a few levels lower.
And let's say the party consists of (one each) 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 17th level characters. If that 17th level character dies and needs to be replaced, guess what? His new character is three levels lower than the character being replaced, because the average party level is still 14th. His new character is 1,125,000 xp lower than the old one. He needs to earn over a million more xp for his new character to reach the same level as his old one (17th). By that time, the 12th level character (I'm using only wizards as an example for easy math comparisons) will be three levels higher (15th), the 13th level character will be 16th level (again, 3 levels higher), the 14th level character will be 3 levels higher (17th level - the same level as the original character was and whose replacement now is). The 15th level character, now also 3 levels higher, will be 18th level, which is higher than the original dying character or his replacement by this point in time.
The low or average level characters never lose out, and eventually several of them will surpass the replacement character. If it's unfair in any way, I'd say it's more unfair towards the higher level characters! Plus, remember - there's an equal risk for everyone. This time it might be my character dying and needing replacement, next time it might be yours.
So using this method accomplishes several things. First, it brings in a replacement character who can keep up with the rest of the party and be a party of the leading cast instead of being a baby-sat bit-player. Second, it punishes poor play (which is the leading cause of PC death) because the replacement character comes in several levels lower than the original - and when he regains the xp of the original highest level character, he's now still only tied for being the second highest level character. Third, it allows the lower level characters to close the gap between their levels and the level of the (previously) higher level character.
I feel like you're looking for an answer I don't have. I don't see (or intend) it as punishment or reward per se. I mean, yes, it is a bit of a punishment in that the new character comes in several levels lower than the previous one, so that's a setback, a negative, an undesirable situation. My main (only?) goal in this matter is to bring in a new PC who can keep up with the others and not become a hindrance to the rest of the party. Make it a fair thing. I mean hell, if a player's character dies in a party with an average of 12th level and the DM says "roll up a new 1st level character", then the player may as well just roleplay the animal followers or hirelings/henchmen/followers of the other PCs, because all of them will be of higher level than the new character. I know I would not have fun playing a 1st level character in a party of 12th level PCs. I'm not sure I've ever known a player who would.
Bottom line - if a player's PC dies and cannot be raised, and the player wants to continue playing, then he needs a new character, right? That's a given. So the question then becomes "what level should his new character be?". In say a 12th level party, we know we can't start the new character at 1st level because that would be ridiculous - the new PC would be nothing more than a clinger-on, a water boy. And we clearly don't want him to start a new character, for example, at 14th level (2 levels higher than his old character) because he didn't earn it. So what's fair? Well, that depends on the playing group. Some would say start him at half his original level (6th) is fair. Others (such as myself) would say this still amounts to rendering him a henchman or a leader/follower (i.e. fighters gain a captain for their followers of 5th, 6th, or 7th level). Some would say start him at 2 levels lower than the previous character, or at the same level as the lowest member of the party, etc.
In any case, I settled on the idea of making the new PC the average level of the party. Everyone has an equal chance of being the one who comes back at the same or at a lower level, so no one gains an unfair advantage and the new PC can contribute as a full member of the team.
And to me that seems very unfair, to the OTHERS who can see someone starting out Ahead of them with a new pc. But if it 'works' for your group, who am i to say what is or is not unfair.
I think part of the disagreement here is based on whether you think the player is directly and solely responsible for their PCs death with no mitigating circumstances or whether it's just something that happens in games sometimes. I'm going to run with the assumption that it just happens as "What do I do when people play badly?" would be a very different debate to me.
So far, it sounds like you guys have mathy solutions to making a replacement PC that you're not exactly in love with but you've found ways to live with them. I have a pretty different approach that seems to be working for me but may not for your games (I'll explain why later). I also have a suggestion that might help get you the best of both worlds on the "start at 1st level" vs "be a useful member of the group" debate.
First, the suggestion. If I wanted someone to be first level but still potentially be useful in the group, I would pitch the idea of a dual classed human to them. There have been several suggestions mentioned for how to choose the higher level so I'll leave that part of the debate for others. But the new class they want to be, that starts at 1st level. The player gets a survivable character, some reward for dealing with being the underdog for awhile and if push comes to shove neither they nor the rest of the group are punished because the new PC can't keep up. It becomes a choice and a sacrifice: do they want to or need to be useful? Use the "old" class abilities and sacrifice XP. Can they get away with their friends carrying them? Play it through and try to make the best of it.
On a side note, I think a multiclass replacement character causes a bit of a snarl with at least some of the non-1st solutions presented.
Now for my game. I basically have campaign XP. Everyone's at the same amount. The trivial things that would break that like individual XP awards and bonus XP for high prime requisites are not used. If a PC dies he makes a new character and comes back at the same XP value as everyone else. If I think a punishment is needed I might dock a level or two and let the PC get back on track one level per adventure completed.
This works for my game because of the style of game it is. An adventure doesn't have many extraneous fights so the fights it does have mean something. The game is largely about presenting a story with a plot to the players and working with them as they decide how to approach it. The opposition has been humanoid tribes, self-interested nobles taking advantage of a medieval style justice system, some animals they wisely chose not to fight, and a handful of ogres and trolls mostly thrown in to spook them a bit and encourage intelligent play (they're 2nd level). Because the adventures are stories I get to work with the backgrounds and in-play choices of the PCs. The big penalty for making a new character is having to start from scratch with that. You may be competent sure, but nobody knows you particularly well at first and I probbly wouldn't feature the new PC in plots until I got a feel for how they came across in play. There's no point giving someone a feature role in a story that doesn't mean much to them.
On another side note, something similar plays out as a replacement for individual XP awards. If someone plays well that gives me more to work with, so of course I'll play off of what they're doing. They've made it easy at that point. Even my players who are really into Pathfinder seem to find this approach engaging, which was a pleasant surprise to me. I thought I'd have to work harder or jump through odd hoops to help them have fun in my game.
As to why this might not work in your games... well, it depends on the rewards and penalties being mostly about the roleplay. If you want a mechanical solution or you're running games with a more dungeon crawl approach, you might need to knock them down a level or two. I would personally still go for a simple approach of just being -2 levels or so and regaining them at a steady pace, but that's me.
SO in essence you are playing a computer game with save points. Which is how i see it, when everyone has exactly teh same xp, regardless of which pc they play...
It also makes it meaningless to worry about even HAVING raise dead and similar spells, if the new pc comes in exactly the same as the old..
And to me that seems very unfair, to the OTHERS who can see someone starting out Ahead of them with a new pc. But if it 'works' for your group, who am i to say what is or is not unfair.
True, what works will differ from group to group. I guess we don't see it as "starting out ahead", but rather starting out with what you've already earned. In other words, a PC who dies permanently at 14th level in a group with an average of 14th level and whose replacement character is 14th level is starting out only with what he's already earned - enough xp for a new 14th level character. If the 12th level character in that group dies, he doesn't get a more expensive replacement (i.e. a 13th or 14th level character). He gets what he's earned - a (new) 12th level character. So no one really "starts ahead". It's more like transferring your earned xp to a new PC, similar to taking your bank savings out and transferring it into an account at a new bank.
If it's unfair to anyone, it's unfair to the higher level PCs who lose a level, i.e. the 16th level character whose new PC is now only 14th (the average of the party). We generally saw it as a trade off - you never have to play a replacement character lower than your original one, but if you're the highest level character (or second maybe), then you're probably starting a new character at a bit lower level than the old one.
Probably the only truly fair and workable solution would be to simply start new PCs at the same level as the PC they are replacing, regardless of level.
SO in essence you are playing a computer game with save points. Which is how i see it, when everyone has exactly teh same xp, regardless of which pc they play...
It also makes it meaningless to worry about even HAVING raise dead and similar spells, if the new pc comes in exactly the same as the old..
So tell me then, how do you handle the situation? In your games I'm saying. So if you have a party of (on average) 14th level characters and one dies permanently, what would you consider fair? What I mean is, I understand what you mean as far as the new PC has not earned the xp needed to come in at 14th level (i.e. he did not start at 1st level and earn the xp needed to reach 14th level). But how do we define "fair"? And fair to whom? Is it fair to force a player to play a 1st level character in a 12th or 14th level party, knowing the other PCs will have to treat him like a pet canary just to keep him alive? Imagine a 1st level wizard replacing the player's previously 14th level wizard. The new character casts his single 1d4 magic missile, does 2 pts. of damage, then spends the rest of the day and night cowering behind the barbarian hoping to stay alive long enough to see tomorrow. Is it fair to the entire rest of the party if the 14th level cleric dies and, being the only cleric in the party is replaced by a 1st level cleric? I'm sure the party will appreciate every one of those 4 hp the cleric can provide for the entire party each day!
So again, fair to whom?
Truly the only fair answer is to start all replacement PCs at the same level as the character he's replacing. It doesn't invalidate or diminish the effect of raise dead or resurrection because those options are still available. Most players get attached to their characters, so they'll prefer to raise the dead character rather than start a new one.
Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:
True, what works will differ from group to group. I guess we don't see it as "starting out ahead", but rather starting out with what you've already earned. In other words, a PC who dies permanently at 14th level in a group with an average of 14th level and whose replacement character is 14th level is starting out only with what he's already earned - enough xp for a new 14th level character. If the 12th level character in that group dies, he doesn't get a more expensive replacement (i.e. a 13th or 14th level character). He gets what he's earned - a (new) 12th level character. So no one really "starts ahead". It's more like transferring your earned xp to a new PC, similar to taking your bank savings out and transferring it into an account at a new bank.
SO IYO XP is all the players, not just the characters in essence..
Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:
So tell me then, how do you handle the situation? In your games I'm saying. So if you have a party of (on average) 14th level characters and one dies permanently, what would you consider fair?
As i said on page 1 It was in a post i made elsewhere (but am still having issues locating).
One method i have used is They get HALF the XP of the lowest level pc in the group if the group is 5th or higher. Otherwise, Back to L1 for you if 4th or lower ave..
I also run it where the players make up 2 pcs at the same time. One at 5k, one at 2.5k. Every 2 levels your primary (the first one made) goes up, the back up (the 2.5k one) goes up 1 level. So if pc A goes from L4 as a straight thief (which is what 5k earns him) up to L8 and then dies, that means his back up earned 2 levels. 2.5k puts MOST pcs at 2nd level, 3rd if a single class thief. So that 2 level boost puts most to L4. L5 if a single class thief. Then you make up a NEW back up pc at L1.. And as your NEW primary goes up, the new back up pc earns one level for every 2 the new primary advances..
Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:But how do we define "fair"? And fair to whom? Is it fair to force a player to play a 1st level character in a 12th or 14th level party, knowing the other PCs will have to treat him like a pet canary just to keep him alive? Imagine a 1st level wizard replacing the player's previously 14th level wizard. The new character casts his single 1d4 magic missile, does 2 pts. of damage, then spends the rest of the day and night cowering behind the barbarian hoping to stay alive long enough to see tomorrow.
But the same logic can apply for "why would this group put up with a new L1 pc, cause so and so decided to dual class his human..
SO IYO XP is all the players, not just the characters in essence..
No, I was just using that as an analogy. All I'm saying is that nobody is being passed up by bringing in a new 14th level character to replace a dead 14th level character.
As i said on page 1 It was in a post i made elsewhere (but am still having issues locating).
I sorta recall it, but I'm also not sure where you wrote it. I sometimes forget even what sub-forum I'm writing in, because I jump from one to another!
One method i have used is They get HALF the XP of the lowest level pc in the group if the group is 5th or higher. Otherwise, Back to L1 for you if 4th or lower ave..
I also run it where the players make up 2 pcs at the same time. One at 5k, one at 2.5k. Every 2 levels your primary (the first one made) goes up, the back up (the 2.5k one) goes up 1 level. So if pc A goes from L4 as a straight thief (which is what 5k earns him) up to L8 and then dies, that means his back up earned 2 levels. 2.5k puts MOST pcs at 2nd level, 3rd if a single class thief. So that 2 level boost puts most to L4. L5 if a single class thief. Then you make up a NEW back up pc at L1.. And as your NEW primary goes up, the new back up pc earns one level for every 2 the new primary advances..
I like the idea of backup characters. In one of my campaigns we ended up with a few players leaving so the others took over their PCs and had multiple PCs. Not the same as your backup method, but it did give the players a second character to play if one of their other characters got incapacitated.
Still not fond of the half-xp method, because like I said before, at higher levels it turns the new PC into a henchman. Fighters gain followers led by a 5th, 6th, or 7th level fighter, so to me making the 10th, 11th or 12th level character who dies be replaced by a character of the same level as a follower reduces that character to follower status.
But the same logic can apply for "why would this group put up with a new L1 pc, cause so and so decided to dual class his human..
Which is why I hate dual classing and almost never use it.
I just remembered when I came up with the rule as we use it. At one point word got around that my campaigns were a lot of fun and very exciting, so we had people wanting to join. By this time, the original members of the party were all higher level. I think word got around about the time the PCs hit 9th or 10th level. So instead of having new players (experienced, but new to our campaign) start out new characters at 1st level that the others had to babysit, we started letting them in at the average level of the party, so that they could keep up. Worked out fine. It was some time after that, that the issue of irreversibly dead characters came up. I forgot who died. So we just grafted on the rule for new players. I knew I used that rule but I had to think back to remember where and when (and why) I came up with it.
That's why I made that part clear to my players - at best you'll create a new character who is equal in level to the old one. Most likely he'll be a few levels lower. But no way in hell are you getting a new one that's a level or two above your old one! 
