What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 46
Thread: New raise dead. thoughts?
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 01:19 AM #1
Gallant (Lvl 3)
New raise dead. thoughts?
Okay so the topic of death as a revolving door is a continous complaint among gamers with seemingly everyone disliking how newer editions have done it but without really being able to agree on a better way.
With the current RAISE DEAD you have a 1 hour casting time, material cost, limits on the condition of the body and pretty serious penalties for the first few days after being raised.
To me this doesnt completely solve the problem but does go a good bit to giving a serious penalty to dying now, at least for a while. Thoughts?
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 06:04 AM #2
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
This is one of those things that different groups are going to disagree on.
Some people would prefer that there be little or no penalty for dying. They would argue that it isn't fun to lose a character because of a bad roll, and they don't like the idea of players being penalized for days on end afterwards, either. This only encourages extended periods of downtime and just isn't fun, they'd say.
On the other hand, some people think the dead shouldn't be able to be raised at all. They perfer for actions to have serious consequences and feel that the ability to be raised to life cheapens the risks of adventuring and ruins setting immersion. After all, it's pretty annoying when the big bad guy you killed comes back again and again. And it does kind of ruin the setting for simulationists. Surely kings and emperors can afford to be raised back to life no matter how expensive the ritual is, so that pretty much makes it impossible for anyone to ever commit regicide.
And then there's many different preferences inbetween those two extremes. There just isn't a right or wrong answer on this. I think this is something that should be modular. Several different options should be provided and people can choose which one works best for them and their game world.
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 11:59 AM #3
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Casting time is irrelevant but the rest sounds good; I'd like to see some sort of permanent penalty as well e.g. the loss of a Con. point as per 1e.
Lan-"once upon a time my Con was 16"-efan* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *DM: Telenet 1984-1994, Riveria 1995-2007, Decast 2008 -->* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 12:11 PM #4
Superhero (Lvl 15)
I still think 500 gp is way too cheap for raise dead.
My group will likely carry on with our tradition of banning it. Most of us prefer death to be... well, final.Your skill in reading has increased by 1.
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 12:24 PM #5
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 09:11 PM #6
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Another edition-neutral way of looking at it: expense vs. share. After each adventure the treasury inevitably gets divided down into shares, one way or another depending on group, and each character gets a share. Over the long run you'll get a vague idea what an average share from an average adventure is going to amount to in your game. (this holds true regardless of edition or other considerations as you're only looking at your own game)
So, in regard to shares, how much should a raise dead cost? Ditto resurrection, a higher-level spell that should cost more?
'Round here, a raise puts a dent in an average share but that's it; you've still got some left over*. A resurrection puts a big hole in your share and might, where an adventure isn't as lucrative as some, wipe it out entirely.
* - which is handy, as we also have training rules - and training ain't cheap either!
Lan-"party treasurer, most of the time"-efan* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *DM: Telenet 1984-1994, Riveria 1995-2007, Decast 2008 -->* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 09:35 PM #7
Gallant (Lvl 3)
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 12:16 PM #8
Gallant (Lvl 3)
In our Pathfinder group we totally ignore all death penalties. There is no level löss, the rest of the party only needs to find a cleric/druid/oracle of high eough level and convince him why he should ask his god to intervene and bring your character back to life. Dying is preety much "flavour" without any mechanical asides other than spending the required amount of gold. This is in part due to our unique party compositionm, though: Human Druid 6(Caster Spec, Elven Rogue4/Sorcerer 2(Face and Skillmonkey), Halfling Dragonblood Sorcerer 6(blaster), Human Wizard4/Cleric2(supporter), Halfling Ranger 6(Archery Style), Human Invulnerable Rager 6 (tank and killing machine combined, the only melee decent combattant).
What I dislike about death penalties is that they can lead to circles of death(die once, take a hit to your saving throws and hit points, face a similar challenge to that which overwhelmwed you in the first place and you will fall all the easier.) Also some classes, like casters with a delayed progression such as sorcerers suffer more than others. It is already hard enough to be behind one level of spells, but being two levels behind kind of blows.
I kind of like the 4E approach, where you simply suffer a fixed death penalty without losing clas abilities or the like.
Saturday, 17th November, 2012, 11:09 PM #9
Superhero (Lvl 15)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Li Shenron
Anyway I think that setting prices for "services" (i.e. spells) in D&D is always a bit dangerous, because what looks expensive at a certain level will normally become cheap or outright irrelevant at higher levels. It's the same problems with Rituals, and could be one reason why Mearls has said they might just remove their costs.
A spell like Raise Dead actually serves mostly the in-between.
Those who want "no or little penalties" (this really means that they don't want their characters to die BTW), can just agree with the DM that in their campaign dead doesn't mean dead for a PC. It may mean knocked out for the rest of the combat or the day; it may mean to have a temporary penalty as if "dead" is replaced with "seriously injured"; it may even mean to have a permanent penalty. Either way, they don't really need Raise Dead in the game to represent these cases.
Those who want "death is permanent" obviously don't need Raise Dead. The DM can still have a rare and specific exception for a PC or NPC and base it entirely on narrative (it could also be a spell, but something so unique and complicated that will work only for such exception).
This leaves us with the in-between groups... I think it'd be nice to have an "optional" spell called Raised Dead to provide a reference standard, but as you say, the best solution is always going to be the group's own solution, depending on (1) if they want this only in high-level campaigns or also immediately, (2) if they want it to take time so that the penalty is being out of the game, (3) if they want short-term, long-term, or permanent penalties, (4) if they want it to cost money, (5) if they want it to work 100% of the times or less... really, the combinations are so many, that the best way not to make anyone unhappy is to make Raise Dead be a DIY spell!"There is no survival without order, there is no evolution without chaos."
"You have to see past the RAW to understand the rules of the game."
"And rules are OVERRATED by the way!
Tuesday, 20th November, 2012, 11:22 AM #10
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Personally, I felt that this was one area that 4e excelled in (at least in PHB1) - raise dead was a fairly costly ritual that applied some hefty penalties to the character who was raised, but that those penalties gradually faded as milestones were attained.
However, I would prefer WotC actually provided several options in the rules - the "just tick off 500gp" option, the "temporary penalty" option, the "permanent level-loss" option, the "permanent Con-loss" option. Oh, and options where there's a hard limit to the number of times you can be raised, and options where there is not.
By Gort in forum Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 47Last Post: Monday, 16th January, 2012, 03:24 AM
By Jack99 in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 2Last Post: Wednesday, 3rd December, 2008, 02:14 AM
By Mordfane in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 38Last Post: Thursday, 29th July, 2004, 05:45 PM
By Hawklord in forum Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 2Last Post: Friday, 19th December, 2003, 10:44 AM
By Messageboard Golem in forum Fan ReviewsReplies: 12Last Post: Thursday, 31st July, 2003, 06:00 AM