D&D 5E An additional component for Resurrection

[Sadras]

We predominantly play in Mystara , so besides the requirements of the spell as listed, the spell also demands specific components related to the Spheres of the Power.

Sphere of Time - 1 year of age is required from a participant (does not need to be the caster)
Sphere of Matter - 1 Permanent Hit Point from a participant (again does not need to be the caster)
Sphere of Thought - Cumulative loss of 1000 experience from one or many participants (again does not need to be the caster)
Sphere of Energy - 1 Magical Item or Rare Consumable (Potions or otherwise)
Sphere of Entropy - A shift or change from the recipient (the person being resurrected), it be could be physical, emotional, spiritual or mental shift/change. This provides a roleplaying aspect to the spell should the player wish to use it as the player selects the shift/change.
Examples - age 1 year, permanent change in hair colour, a shift in 5e Ideals, Personality or Flaw, change in alignment, loss of use of an eye....

By making the additional requirements of the spell not dependent on the caster to pay for all these components, it leaves it up to the party/caster to make the resurrection process as dark or light as they want.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I can see two completing concerns at play here, coming from different sources.

It's a thematic concern that death should have consequences and not be cheap or trivialized.

It's a gaming concern that players don't want to discard a PC they're heavily invested in due to an especially unlucky string of dice rolls, nor do they want to sit inactive for long periods of time without a way to participate in the game.

I disagree. Both are gaming concerns and both are thematic concerns. Games with high consequences of death must remove (from a game perspective) easy avenues of resurrection. The second is also a thematic concern because of the exception (or lack thereof) that a certain set of characters will travel from 1st to maximum level together.

The baseline rules of 5e favor the gaming side. The death rules are forgiving enough that it's hard to be taken out of action for long. This is a deliberate design choice to keep the players engaged over any sort of verisimilitude or desire to make death "count". Now, is it possible to house rule and change that? Absolutely. But what people in this thread are trying to point out is that to do some comes with a cost, and it's a cost you need to be clearly aware of.

Of course. Players should always understand the mechanics and theme of the game they are signing up for. No one is arguing against that.

What I'm less sure of is keeping the idea of resurrection magic while attaching progressive stat loss to it. That sort of "you're not gone you're just permanently less cool" penalty is not any sort of fun. Doubly so when the penalty puts you at greater risk of dying in the future and compounding the effects in a downward spiral. It's just forcing the players to choose how much they're willing to pay in medical bills for their favorite pet before they decide it's better to just put it down. How miserable is that.

That's a great point. It's neither a fun nor interesting choice, nor does it solve the in-game concern of why the king doesn't keep returning to life after being killed. It's a rather poor solution.

 

[cthulhu42]

I've decided to abandon the idea of a con point cost from the caster. It's just too much.

Talking it over with the players, they're more comfortable with a loss of a con point from the resurrected creature, ala D&D rules from olden days. But honestly, I'm not crazy about that either.

Here's part of the rub: My group is to a point now (12th level) where death is going to lose it's bite, not only for them, but for the NPC's they encounter.

For example, they've created some enemies in their travels, and those enemies are just the kinds of jerks that might target the PC's families or friends instead of the actual PC's, given how difficult it is to take them on directly. So I was toying with the idea of one of those baddies putting a hit out on a PC family member, and then I realized that our cleric would simply go, "Hey Presto!" and bring that family/friend back, good as new.

Now currently, the cleric is still only rocking Raise Dead, so the narrow time window is a factor, but he'll be getting Resurrection soon enough, and then all bets are off.

Now, I realize that there are plenty of other ways for a baddie to screw with the PC's in similar fashion. They could kidnap the family/friend. They could murder them and take or destroy the body. I suppose I could invent a spell that cuts off the soul from returning. There are options.

What I want to avoid is the cleric simply dropping resurrections on every dead NPC that takes his fancy. Resurrection should not be taken lightly.

I could go the route of making diamonds super rare, but I haven't done that so far, and to suddenly make them crazy scarce seems a little cheap. Maybe next campaign.

I've got no issue fundamentally with a resurrection kicking off a side quest, but as I mentioned before, I don't want to do that for every death. I've got an overall plot line mapped out, and while it's not absolutely linear, having them suddenly go off on a side quest raises the potential for getting them ahead of the level curve I'm preparing for. Plus, if the death is a PC, that means that character is sitting out until they find his soul and yada yada. I'd rather not have that happen.

So I guess I'm looking for that mechanic that keeps resurrection doable, but makes it something that the cleric really has to consider the ramifications and cost of.

 

[Blue]

The solution is not to play with people who would prefer to play a different type of game, whine my little children, and can't make and accept decisions like adults.

Got it, you define not being able to play a permanent character for multiple sessions as "whining". When you trivialize any problems others have it makes it really easy to defend your own position.

Also, I don't favor specific players. They must come to a group consensus, or else divide their manpower. It's not a decision for the impartial DM.

Okaaaay. So, if the dead player, and potentially others, want to raise the character, and others don't, you either (a) don't do it - which prioritizes the nays above the yeas - or divide there forces. Which unless you split the player group as well means a lot of sitting around by half the players - and everyone suffers.

In other words, you seem perfectly prepared to penalize players if they are not all in agreement. Just like I've said since the beginning and now supported by your own words.

And please, you can't defended this from the "impartial DM" stance when it's you wearing the hat of the "game designer" that caused this. Please stop trying to hide. You are the one creating the situation where player vs. player can come up.

 

[Maxperson]

So I guess I'm looking for that mechanic that keeps resurrection doable, but makes it something that the cleric really has to consider the ramifications and cost of.

I use the 2e explanation about what happens to a soul after death to limit raises and how a cleric gets his spellcasting ability. A soul goes to dwell with its deity and adds to that deity's power. Raising the person removes that power from the deity and puts it at risk. The soul could be destroyed or the person could switch to another deity. That means that the cleric is performing an act risky to his god and generally isn't willing to just do that without good reason.

If gets further complicated if the person being raised follows a different deity. In that case you are using your deity's power to take power from another deity, indebting your deity in the process of raising the deceased. That makes the act of raising even less likely to happen.

As a result of those situations, it is very, very hard to find an NPC willing to raise a dead PC, and even PC clerics really have to think hard before raising a companion, often deciding not to. Should the deceased be of the same religion as the cleric, he will owe his god a debt that will have to be repaid. Should he be of a different religion, both the cleric and deceased will end up owing both deities a debt. The spell could also be refused by any deity involved, but I rarely do that if the deceased is a PC.

 

[Maxperson]

In other words, you seem perfectly prepared to penalize players if they are not all in agreement. Just like I've said since the beginning and now supported by your own words.

And please, you can't defended this from the "impartial DM" stance when it's you wearing the hat of the "game designer" that caused this. Please stop trying to hide. You are the one creating the situation where player vs. player can come up.

There are no "in other words" for his game [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION]. He said that his players enjoy it, so it's simply not a problem in his game. You keep telling him to stop trying to hide, but in this case it's you who should stop trying to create a problem where one doesn't exist. If his method won't work for you and your group, don't use it. It's really that simple. I tried that method once with my group years ago and they didn't like it, so it went away.

 

[Sadras]

I use the 2e explanation about what happens to a soul after death to limit raises and how a cleric gets his spellcasting ability. A soul goes to dwell with its deity and adds to that deity's power. Raising the person removes that power from the deity and puts it at risk. The soul could be destroyed or the person could switch to another deity. That means that the cleric is performing an act risky to his god and generally isn't willing to just do that without good reason.

If gets further complicated if the person being raised follows a different deity. In that case you are using your deity's power to take power from another deity, indebting your deity in the process of raising the deceased. That makes the act of raising even less likely to happen.

This is such a great idea. Missed this explanation completely during my 2e years.

 

[Maxperson]

This is such a great idea. Missed this explanation completely during my 2e years.

I think it may have been spelled out in Planescape. And the whole "debt" thing was my addition due to what I view as a logical consequence of removing that piece of power from a deity.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Got it, you define not being able to play a permanent character for multiple sessions as "whining". When you trivialize any problems others have it makes it really easy to defend your own position.

No. Of course the desire to "permanent character for multiple sessions" is not whining, but to join a game in which that is not the expectation, then complaining that you doesn't like what's being offered, is whining. It's like ordering a steak and then complaining it isn't vegetarian: nonsensical.

Okaaaay. So, if the dead player, and potentially others, want to raise the character, and others don't, you either (a) don't do it - which prioritizes the nays above the yeas - or divide there forces. Which unless you split the player group as well means a lot of sitting around by half the players - and everyone suffers.

In other words, you seem perfectly prepared to penalize players if they are not all in agreement. Just like I've said since the beginning and now supported by your own words.

And please, you can't defended this from the "impartial DM" stance when it's you wearing the hat of the "game designer" that caused this. Please stop trying to hide. You are the one creating the situation where player vs. player can come up.

And that's just it. We've never had a disagreement with regards to character death. It's never been an issue. We're all adults. The death of a non-entity is a non-issue. It's a game. Sometimes you win; sometimes you don't. No one expects to win all the time. Sometimes the rival adventuring group finishes the adventure; sometimes you beat them to the priceless treasure and claim the experience points; sometimes you get eaten by trolls and have to try again next time.

That's the fun of it.

 

[5ekyu]

No. Of course the desire to "permanent character for multiple sessions" is not whining, but to join a game in which that is not the expectation, then complaining that you doesn't like what's being offered, is whining. It's like ordering a steak and then complaining it isn't vegetarian: nonsensical.




And that's just it. We've never had a disagreement with regards to character death. It's never been an issue. We're all adults. The death of a non-entity is a non-issue. It's a game. Sometimes you win; sometimes you don't. No one expects to win all the time. Sometimes the rival adventuring group finishes the adventure; sometimes you beat them to the priceless treasure and claim the experience points; sometimes you get eaten by trolls and have to try again next time.

That's the fun of it.

The positions of "if we all agree ti it then its fine" or "if you complain,about it later its whining" are of course fine for any gaming table and work as they do.

The problem is they provide no filter or relevance to any comparative discusdion because they cover *any and every* thing equally.

You could apply those same covers to "if your character dies, you are out of the game. Dead is dead." Just aa well as "if your character dies, they wake up,in 1 round levelled up one level" and "if your character dies you must bring snacks and chips for a month while we all play and you serve."

It does not seem to add much to a case to point out that like every other idea its under this universal cover-all blanket.

But hey, even if you pick the cards, the cards you have are the ones you have to play.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app