Resurrection Complications

[MechaPilot]

I also prefer resurrection to have consequences.

When a PC is raised in my homebrew setting, there are a number of complications.

• Firstly, the gods jealously guards the souls they claim. If you want one back, you have to give them one in return. Think of the challenge of a good-aligned party trying to find someone to volunteer for the sacrifice.
• Secondly, the person who comes back from the dead remembers how she died. If she faces a situation similar to that in which she was killed, she must make a DC 20 Wisdom saving throw or else become frightened of the appropriate creature, or circumstance. She overcomes this fear if she succeeds in this saving throw.
• Thirdly, the person who comes back from the dead remembers where she went when she died. This can be a source of angst or comfort, depending on the character's disposition and where she ended up going.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. V0.2 is up. I've cleaned up the writing, made a few changes, and am considering others.

 

[Blue]

Some of these my players would complain are telling them how to play their character. New-Found Mercy is an example. Inflicting them with nightmares, sure. But mechanically being unable to kill and must protect is another deal.

A very similar outcome but pushed a different way would be that sleeping after killing a humanoid is unsettling and they wake with a level of exhaustion unless they take 12 hours of downtime instead of just 8. This leaves the choice of how the character acts still within the player's control, but incentivizes them to take the same path voluntarily.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Some of the stuff is nice, but in prior editions I always ruled characters lose one level when resurrected (they are placed mid-way through the prior level). It makes keeping your character alive that much more important.

 

[jgsugden]

In my game, I use something similar to Matt Mercer's method of requiring a challenge to raise the dead.

Basically, you need to persuade the power that holds sway over the soul to allow it to return. This might require bribes it might require begging, it might require thoughtful negotiations, or it may just be an intellectual discussion with the appropriate power.

Then, the soul of the departed must be persuaded to return, and they're effectively charmed by the afterlife. If you're in the 'Good Place', you risk losing your spot in the Good Place as the events that take place upon your return on the PMP can only make your position in the afterlife worse. This is also true of those that go to the 'Bad Place'... and that is even if your soul returns to the afterlife. If you decide to come back, when you next pass, if it is not a natural ending, your soul may not survive a second death and it may stop existing. And coming back a third time puts your immortal soul in even greater danger...

Finally, once you return, you have a death taint. It will be with you forever. It has a lot of role playing impacts, but it also has some mechanical implications, including greater vulnerability to the undead, and an inability to use certain Holy (and Unholy) instruments.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Things I've used over the years:

1. AD&D system shock rules to return from the dead. Failure = dead permanently.
2. AD&D homebrew: you don't lower CON each time you die, but your CON is considered 1 lower for purposes of raise dead. No matter your luck, if your raise dead CON ever hits 0, you can never be raised again. Puts a limit on it.
3. D&D core: the -4 to d20 rolls that gradually degrades is pretty nasty by itself.
4. D&D Ravenloft "Dark Gifts" homebrew: for our Strahd campaign I've been using the d20 table of Dark Gifts for anyone who is raised. It leans to physical deformities, but the concept could be knocked down a level.

 

[jasper]

Just looking for clarification, are you disagreeing with the specific level-1 I posted, or are you disagreeing with the concept that there needs to be some penalty for creating a new character otherwise there are players who will always sidestep the chance for resurrection penalties, to the detriment of the game in other ways.

I disagree with the penalty. I did it for decades. If didn't tick off the player, it ticked off the player's spouse, or just slowed down the game while the pc had to catch up. Also I never really had a steady group due their jobs(etc) so it was harming the infrequent players.

 

[Blue]

I disagree with the penalty. I did it for decades. If didn't tick off the player, it ticked off the player's spouse, or just slowed down the game while the pc had to catch up. Also I never really had a steady group due their jobs(etc) so it was harming the infrequent players.

You say that you have a problem with the concept of a penalty, but none of your examples address the penalty. There is no penalty for keeping your character, just for ditching your character to make a new one. Or are you saying that you had players regularly ditch existing PCs instead of raising them?

I have played with players who would drop a character with a permanent flaw if there was no penalty for creating a new character. So at at least some tables there's a need for a penalty otherwise it both (a) completely removes the effects of having the table if people will just avoid it, and (b) breaks down the narrative, all of the work put into that character (relationships with other PCs, character arcs, etc.).

But the penalty doesn't need to be coming it at a lower level, it just needs to be something that is a disincentive to just ditching their existing PC to make a new one if they come back with a flaw from the resurrection chart.

 

[5ekyu]

You say that you have a problem with the concept of a penalty, but none of your examples address the penalty. There is no penalty for keeping your character, just for ditching your character to make a new one. Or are you saying that you had players regularly ditch existing PCs instead of raising them?

I have played with players who would drop a character with a permanent flaw if there was no penalty for creating a new character. So at at least some tables there's a need for a penalty otherwise it both (a) completely removes the effects of having the table if people will just avoid it, and (b) breaks down the narrative, all of the work put into that character (relationships with other PCs, character arcs, etc.).

But the penalty doesn't need to be coming it at a lower level, it just needs to be something that is a disincentive to just ditching their existing PC to make a new one if they come back with a flaw from the resurrection chart.

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?

 

[Blue]

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?

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?