D&D 5E An additional component for Resurrection

[cthulhu42]

I was thinking, in an effort to give death a little more bite, to add an additional component to Resurrection spells.

Raise Dead would require, from the caster, one constitution point for the length of one year.

Resurrection would require a permanent point of Con.

True Resurrection works as Resurrection unless a brand new body has to be produced, in which case the cost is 2 points of permanent con.

It would add such drama and an element of sacrifice on the part of the caster. A Resurrection would become an especially special thing. It could really deepen the bond between the caster and the resurrected.

Or it could be a huge cause of guilt and debt.

Too much?

 

[Sunseeker]

In my Ravenloft campaign Resurrection (and similar spells) require a living sacrifice equitable to the soul requested back, ie: a fair trade.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not a fan of ability drain, personally.

 

[5ekyu]

I was thinking, in an effort to give death a little more bite, to add an additional component to Resurrection spells.

Raise Dead would require, from the caster, one constitution point for the length of one year.

Resurrection would require a permanent point of Con.

True Resurrection works as Resurrection unless a brand new body has to be produced, in which case the cost is 2 points of permanent con.

It would add such drama and an element of sacrifice on the part of the caster. A Resurrection would become an especially special thing. It could really deepen the bond between the caster and the resurrected.

Or it could be a huge cause of guilt and debt.

Too much?

I think the cost and availability of raise dead and above are a YUGE setting defining aspect for a campaign. I find mechanical limitations to typically be rather bad at making them "better" in most cases as much as the lack of them does.

Its literally one of my core campaign definitions from the start of campaign design.it then shapes lots of other developments as i build the campaign world.

So much of any world hinges on the life and death cycle (or the healthy/sickly cycle. Fed, starving etc)

Games can work either way. Setting can work either way.

Altered Carbon is a nice scifi series with ressurection easy for many. The quality of your new body varies with your insurance premiums.

So your Con thing seems OK. Its rather flavorless IMO.

It has tgr feel of a death tax, a penalty for dying and being brought back visited on the various parties.

So why do you see it as needed or helpful? What is the problem it is solving or benefit and improvement you hope it adds?

Other options i would consider iinclude:
Obligation - require a significant debt of duty to the divine source by the dead AND also some extra show of faith by the intermediary. (Consider what that means for power structures of the world)

Sacrifice - Consider a much different form of cost. It could be "life for a life" with obvious degrees or values applied. It could be either up front or debt owed.

Restricted - Often in mythologies, death has its own deity and other gods cannot break that with impunity so maybe to bring back the dead you have to go to specific type of temple and deal with them and their preferences and agendas. (Perhaps that is the only real influence the death god gets into the world of the divine - through those beholden to them.)

Insurance - Maybe (offshoot like in AC) you need to pay ahead for your come back by "paying" tribute or service to the death gods. Keep your "premiums" up they approve the come back request. Fall behind on payments...? Could even work for more open divine spurces... Everyone who wants to come back will be making sure they got some church paid up.

Of course there might be darker "alternatives" for those less devout.

But if i were going to look at a chance to the basic filler bring backs, it would start from campaign world level decisions and goals and likely not result in mechanical changes as "numerical" as what you suggest.

Go BIG not by the numbers.







Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

Now, two very down to aerth brass tacks observations.

Practically speaking, the real options after PC death are bring back old or bring in new. So the "costs" you apply to one have direct impact on the desirability of the other. One cost baked into "new character" is the storyline loss.

Second, it is IMO extremely bad to add in noticable, weakening caster side restrictions as *often* the loss of new character is fun for that player - they would have more fun keeping their existing one.

So putting PLAYER Joe in the position of harming *his character that survived* or being *the PLAYER who refused to let PLAYER Bob keep playing the character he loved* is a very IMO bad idea with lots of potential pitfalls at the gaming table side.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[cthulhu42]

In my Ravenloft campaign Resurrection (and similar spells) require a living sacrifice equitable to the soul requested back, ie: a fair trade.

I like that, but perhaps a bit darker than I was going for. lol

 

[Sunseeker]

I like that, but perhaps a bit darker than I was going for. lol

Sure, but it certainly makes players think about using such a spell, when in most games it's just a matter of resources.

Alternatively, the options for bartering with the Gods (aka: make a deal with the DM) is a good approach as well. The petitioners are put under a Quest/Geas spell to find some holy artifact, locate the Chosen One or kill a dangerous thing. If the petitioners fail, it may mean the gods get to bring them back against their will until the job is done. I mean, it's one thing to die. It's another thing to not be able to die.

Personally, I find mechanical penalties added on to these spells to add very little. The cost should really be in the RP costs.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Instead of making Death a penalty, how about looking at it as a storytelling opportunity, or opportunity for adventure?

You could try incorporating the after life into your campaign. The dead PC becomes a ghost and somehow the entire party gets involved in an adventure together with a ghost until they can find a way to bring back the PC.

Perhaps the PC travels to the divine realm of a god, and the god decides to teleport the entire party to its audience hall after conversing with the PC, for the purpose of granting them a mission of supreme importance.

There are endless possibilities.

 

[cthulhu42]

Instead of making Death a penalty, how about looking at it as a storytelling opportunity, or opportunity for adventure?

You could try incorporating the after life into your campaign. The dead PC becomes a ghost and somehow the entire party gets involved in an adventure together with a ghost until they can find a way to bring back the PC.

Perhaps the PC travels to the divine realm of a god, and the god decides to teleport the entire party to its audience hall after conversing with the PC, for the purpose of granting them a mission of supreme importance.

There are endless possibilities.

Sure, these are all good suggestions, and I've done some of them in one form or another. I'm just suggesting a mechanical function that jump starts role playing and inter party drama that feeds itself rather than me having to force them on some potentially lengthy side quest.

It's very common to see assertions that character death inspired side quests are the optimal way to go, and I'm not saying they are without value. One of the best games I ever got to play a character in veered off on a side quest to find the soul of a dead friend PC. It took months of game time and was amazing!

But. There are times, say, in the middle of a dungeon or an already existing quest, where the players (and DM) would just like to get the character back on his/her feet so continue on with the mission at hand. The rules as written provide for that, but as evidenced by the many, many, resurrection house rules suggested on this forum, many DMs are looking for a way to make death cost something tangible while still making resurrection worthwhile.

A sacrifice made by one character for another is heroic and memorable.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, these are all good suggestions, and I've done some of them in one form or another. I'm just suggesting a mechanical function that jump starts role playing and inter party drama that feeds itself rather than me having to force them on some potentially lengthy side quest.

It's very common to see assertions that character death inspired side quests are the optimal way to go, and I'm not saying they are without value. One of the best games I ever got to play a character in veered off on a side quest to find the soul of a dead friend PC. It took months of game time and was amazing!

But. There are times, say, in the middle of a dungeon or an already existing quest, where the players (and DM) would just like to get the character back on his/her feet so continue on with the mission at hand. The rules as written provide for that, but as evidenced by the many, many, resurrection house rules suggested on this forum, many DMs are looking for a way to make death cost something tangible while still making resurrection worthwhile.

A sacrifice made by one character for another is heroic and memorable.

"There are times, say, in the middle of a dungeon or an already existing quest, where the players (and DM) would just like to get the character back on his/her feet so continue on with the mission at hand."

That seems to run directly at odds with the "heroic and memorable" goal, doesn't it?

Also in 5e barring disintigrate type effects you have the low level revivify for just dead now, which i put in a different category from raise dead and the like which i thought was the focus of your question. I myself treat rev as more the magical CPR putting the body back in working order before the spirit moves on.

My last 3.5 game used afterlife scenes and had cults that views coming back as special or abominations etc and it was lots of fun. The way i did it was between session, not during, often by email, though a few times it started the next run. Usually, the battles that resulted in PC death were the big ones and by the time the fight ended the session was over anyway so no real interruption overall. Any follow-up side quests then would be worked in with the existing storylines by the characters.i did not have anymajor disruptions by dint of making the specifics play well with the existing storylines and add more. This was easy as every major storyline was directly tied to the PC's personal backstories.

Honestly, i do not think just adding another accounting attack does anything to add heroic or memorable. It just puts one player's fun on the back of another and makes the caster choose between a cut back to their own fun or looking like a jerk.

Consider this, if you make the "cost" enough to be meaningful, memorable then you **will** hit cases where someone decides "no, i dont want to lose that. I wont raise him." That might be very much the case if the casyer had already paid the price once or twice and the "memorable" was starting to cut into their own character playability.

You think that player's choice to tell another player "you dont get your character back" is going to help your game and player dynamics?

If so go with the 1-2 con and i hope it works out and gives you all you hope it does.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app