PC dies. What does replacement come in at??

[garhkal]

OK. This is to see what generally folks do here (different than over on DF that is) about players who have a character die..

Does the replacement come in at say 50% or 75% of their former (now dead) pc's XP?
1 level lower than they were?
1st level?
One level (or two) under the remaining group's lowest character?
Something else??

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I try to have the player write up a new character who is of the average level of the party. So if the party average is 14th level, the new character comes in at 14th. The rest of the party may be 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th, for an average of 13.5. So the new character (rounded up) comes in at 14th.

[garhkal]

SO basically there's no loss for dying... Then why bother even having raise dead/resurrection etc in the game, if replacements are exactly the same level?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

The loss for dying would be just that - dying. At low levels it's very unlikely the PCs will be able to afford a raise or resurrection. So then sure, start the new character at 1st level (say if the group average level is 3rd or maybe even 4th).

At higher levels being raised is still costly but may not happen within the time limit, or the PC may fail his resurrection survival role. At that point, it's time for a new character. However, I've never been a fan of starting the new character at 1st level within such a higher level group. Makes no sense. If you have a party of 12th level characters on average and one dies but fails to gain a raise or resurrection, then you start a new 1st level character with that group, the new character might as well be the water boy. He's lower level than most of the henchmen and followers, and likely won't survive the next encounter. He's just too weak. He can't contribute much of anything either.

So I always roll up new characters that at least fit into the party as a functioning member of the team. Sometimes we've started them at the same level as the lowest member of the team, other times at the same level they died at, and eventually we started just going with the average level of the team members.

[garhkal]

To me, that seems more like how PC games allow you to 'restart from last save point".. YES a 1st level pc in a 5-7th group is gonna suck, and more so in that 8-12th level group. BUT having someone die at L9 and come right back in at L9, makes it seem like there's no real downside FROM dying..

[Crasez58]

Personally I would have them come back at the same lvl as the lowest party member

[garhkal]

If i could find the post, i had a system where they got half (or lower) of the lowest active PC's XP.. So they would be at least 1 or 2 levels lower than everyone else. BUT if the group was 4th or lower, the new guy came in at 1st anyway..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

To me, that seems more like how PC games allow you to 'restart from last save point".. YES a 1st level pc in a 5-7th group is gonna suck, and more so in that 8-12th level group. BUT having someone die at L9 and come right back in at L9, makes it seem like there's no real downside FROM dying..

Well they wouldn't be coming back, technically. I mean, unless they got raised/resurrected. But if it were a whole new character, then I don't see another choice. I've never seen someone in a 10th or 11th level party die and then start a new 1st level character and actually enjoy running the practically useless new 1st level character. Hell, at that point the PCs' henchmen's followers (if you allow that, for sake of argument) would be higher level than the new PC.

[Stik]

In order to keep the game flowing, and the new PC viable, the new PC needs to come in at a level where he can survive what is being thrown at the party. After all, why would an established adventuring party want to take in some weak rookie that they need to babysit all the time? But the rest of the players worked to get their PCs where they are, so bringing a new PC in at the same level isn't right, either. (And before you say that the player of the new PC worked, too, well, he did. Right up to the point where he got himself killed.)
I would bring a new PC in at half the XP of the lowest party member. That would typically put him a level or two lower than the others, depending on class.
It's not an insurmountable handicap, and typically a PC can catch up fairly quickly.

[garhkal]

What of henchmen. OFten i see them lagging 2-3 levels behind the group. Do they consider it babysitting when they are in the group?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

In most of my campaigns, it seems henchmen and followers tend to be pretty low level compared to the PCs. Taking a peek at the 2E followers chart for fighters, for example, shows the 9th level fighter gaining one 5th, 6t or 7th level leader and a whole bunch of 0th or 1st level troops. Thieves tend to get higher level followers - at 10th level the thief gains 1st to 8th level followers, though the average rolls to determine levels would be 2nd - 4th. Clerics gain a shitload of followers (20-200 with an average of 110 followers). But they're all 0th level. Rangers get a lot of animals of low HD.

Stik's idea of creating the new PC with half the HD of the now-deceased PC would seem to work fine, because as he points out, it keeps the new PC withing +/- a couple levels. I think going with the average level of the party pretty much accomplishes the same thing - the new PC tends to be within +/- a couple levels from any other party member.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Well no, it wouldn't be baby sitting for several reasons. First, henchmen are usually higher levels, so they're not being baby-sitted. Say a party with an average of 12th level has henchmen in the 6th level range or so. The PCs still take center stage, being the heroes of the adventure. But the henchmen can pull their weight as support members. However, a new party member coming in at 1st level would indeed be a protectee, not one of the heroes of the adventure. He would have a hard time fighting a single weak orc, much less the types of opponents a 12th level party faces. And being a party member (not a henchman), the character should be one of the main characters, one of the heroes of the adventure, not a weakling that needs the protection of the henchmen (who are also higher level than him).

Lagging behind 2-3 levels is fine. Usually there's a range of 2-3 levels of difference between the highest and lowest level characters within a party anyway, due to different xp requirements needed for each class. But being 10 or 11 levels behind the rest of the party? That is baby-sitting!

[garhkal]

So if the party's ok with henchmen being (ave) half their level (not just half XP), why not start new/replacement PCs at that half level?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Because PCs are not henchmen. They hire henchmen to serve them.

What happens with a 12th level party where a PC dies, the player is allowed to roll up a new character at half that level (6th level) while another PC in the party has a henchman who's 7th or 8th level? Maybe several PCs have henchmen of 6th-8th level. Now the so-called PC is below even henchman status. PCs should always be well above follower or henchman status. I would think that goes without saying, otherwise lower level henchmen and "followers" would be hiring and leading the higher level PCs.

Again, using the movie analogy - the PCs are the stars of the show, so to speak. Super-stars, even. But henchmen, followers, NPCs...they're at best minor co-stars. Mainly they're bit-part actors. Reducing the new PC to minor co-star actor level, though not as bad as featuring them as bit actors (1st level), makes them less a member of the party.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

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.