Resurrection Complications

Blue said:

The OP is proposing a system that is applying in most cases a Death Tax. Any discussion needs to start from that context.

The discussion in this particular case is that since there IS a death tax, does there need to be a "ditch my character and make a replacement to avoid the death tax" tax? To stop, well, exactly what it says.

That wouldn't apply at all to characters dying before the game started. And while I didn't state it, it probably wouldn't apply to characters who die before raising becomes available (I also said that I don't think revivify should have the Death Tax, so that's not an issue).

Also, if someone doesn't like their character just retire them. No "tax", come in just like a new player to the group.

So, should there be encouragement to ditch a character if they die to avoid the Death Tax that OP wants to put in, or should there be some sort of tax either way?

Click to expand...

Yes the OP is proposing a death tax and comments about such - favorable and unfavorable - are allowed.

"Also, if someone doesn't like their character just retire them. No "tax", come in just like a new player to the group."

Even if the reason is "they died, got raised and i dont like the results"?

Ok.

Then its only a tax on those who want to keep their character.

But, what is gained then by making your group pay to raise the dead guy and then see it retired over just bringing in the new guy as replacement for the dead one in the first place - tax free?

Not sure i get the notion that death and return only has negative consequences after you hit a certain level - one would think the consequences would apply to everyone. I mean, we can raise a commoner killed by orcs every day and twice on Sundsy and he never gets nervous but the 9th level paladin gets a phobia about liches?

Huh?

Yeah - not an approach i think my table would go for.

Blue said:

The OP is proposing a system that is applying in most cases a Death Tax. Any discussion needs to start from that context.

The discussion in this particular case is that since there IS a death tax, does there need to be a "ditch my character and make a replacement to avoid the death tax" tax? To stop, well, exactly what it says.

That wouldn't apply at all to characters dying before the game started. And while I didn't state it, it probably wouldn't apply to characters who die before raising becomes available (I also said that I don't think revivify should have the Death Tax, so that's not an issue).

Also, if someone doesn't like their character just retire them. No "tax", come in just like a new player to the group.

So, should there be encouragement to ditch a character if they die to avoid the Death Tax that OP wants to put in, or should there be some sort of tax either way?

Click to expand...

Yes. This would be in place of any sort of death tax, and potentially superseding the normal recovering times listed in the player's handbook.

5ekyu said:

I think what was being expressed was problem with penakty from dying and being raised plus potentially that forcing a "ditching" or character change penalty.

My players dont try to get their characters killed. They try to keep their characters alive within the cintext of the campaign snd story so, yeah, they risk the characyer lives when appropriate.

But there isnt any conga line of "we just get raised" death runs.

Basically, i never see a need for a "death tax" or "replacement tax" to make deaths matter. They already do.

I also see and have seen problems from death taxes in games i ran back in the day, especially when combined with replacement taxes.

Simply put if a player did not like his character the game does not get better by making him play it anyway and that does not change if that reason for dislike is bevause it died and the GM hands them some tax on future play and effectiveness.

Had a player once whose concept was "used to be farmer - but in an orc raid did something herpic and got killed. Raised by local cleric as reward and became a follower, cleric, adventurer following that."

I thought it was a fantastic bsckground and concept and he played it well. Lotsa fun.

How many penalties should i have insisted he take at level one that the others did not due to the joyous fun that death penalties bring to the game? A -1 to his Con?

Click to expand...

I had players upset with the death tax of a level or more lose, and the con lost you got from being raised in 1E. I had players who I was happy if they played the same pc 4 sessions in a row. I had players get upset even tf their PC was cursed for one session. I had a lot of bad players at my table.

The death tax and level lost slows down the group a little. The group now has to go into protect the weakest link mode.

The death tax only works if everyone agrees to it. However unlike a chunk of DMs here, I never had a stable group where I could do interesting Campaign add ons. So the death tax will only work if 1 DM and the group buys into it.

jasper said:

I had players upset with the death tax of a level or more lose, and the con lost you got from being raised in 1E. I had players who I was happy if they played the same pc 4 sessions in a row. I had players get upset even tf their PC was cursed for one session. I had a lot of bad players at my table.

The death tax and level lost slows down the group a little. The group now has to go into protect the weakest link mode.

The death tax only works if everyone agrees to it. However unlike a chunk of DMs here, I never had a stable group where I could do interesting Campaign add ons. So the death tax will only work if 1 DM and the group buys into it.

Click to expand...

"The group now has to go into protect the weakest link mode."

No, they dont.

Especially if its not a stable group of players in a campaign.

Making "if I die" more serious to "me" does not make me want to spend resources in crisis to save others... The exact opposite if those resources might kerp me alive later.

Also, they can choose to protect the unlucky without a death tax. Thst is not precluded by not having a death tax.

I recall a combat in October last year... The first round the party heavy armed slugger got to front line and took three crits and a regular hit from the hard hitying bad guts and went from "most hp in group" to 6 hp in a single round.

She went defensive, others piled on healing, distractions and disads vs the bad guys until they got her to some level of fighting ttrim not about to drop.

It was great scene, tactical reactions and tense fun... Death tax not needed and would not have changed a thing.

I often wonder about something...

My experiences are that when PCs die its rarely, very rarely, that its solely due to that one player's or character's choices. Often its a good dose of luck combined with dubious choices but frequently those choices are somebody else's. Maybe the cleric decided to heal themself, not the most hurt or most likely to get slammed - or maybe the wizard went for a risky save-or-suck vs the boss instead of a safer guaranteed buff on the group.

Yet, the death tax hits **one** guy (only the one killed). It is a tax on the party indirectly - having a weaker guy - unless they just go find someone else.

You want a death tax to "sttongly encourage" the team to save their weakest... Dont make it "if I die I get major whammies" but rather "if any of you dies you all get major whammies" and expand the **loads of such funny fun times** GM whammy chart rolls to the whole party - cuz seeing your buddy die can be traumatic too. Phoias, PTSD, lotsa "fun" for everybody, not just the dead guy.