Do you think a character should be resurected or changed when it dies ?

[Kilmore]

I'm in the pro ressurection camp. Al hits the nail right on the head about high level character death. Say you're in an epic level campaign and the rogue gets waxed. Where in the campaign world can you realistically get a new epic level character, which until now there's been not a word from? Adventure-Temps? Some DM's mentioned keeping a character pool handy, and that's a pretty good idea for a few reasons, but I find that my players don't really go for taking over NPC's.

That said, anything that the PC's have access to the bad guys have access to as well. The players have been fighting their way through boss after boss up the big bad guy's orginization? Right before the final confrontation, make them have to go through it all again! The party took out everyone but Naughty Joe? Guess he's going back to the other hideout that has all the DNA samples and scrolls. This works wonderfully for any full blown rivalries between PC's and their rival NPC's as well.

 

[The Blue Elf]

I don't mind playing a new character, when my PC is dead, but if the players need that PC to really bad to help them in something they can't handle then they would bring him back to life, or if a Cleric is not in the party then the Party could be screwed sometimes if you play like a team.

 

[Hackenslash]

I played the raising/resurrection rules as per PHB in 3e, and tend to prefer the 3e costs to the 3.5e costs. The reason is simple...continuity.

Due to either the heroic nature of the setting or the deadly nature of (especially high-level) combat, death in DnD is surprisingly common. Unfortunately, character development is necessarily hampered by it. I invest a lot of time into my characters when I play, and as a DM I tend to expect my players to do likewise. I worked out a good, long and interesting background with one of my players which meshed well with the campaign world and had some nice backstory NPCs. He died the first session, and, being low-level, there was no chance of raising. His new character has a background of trivial complexity by comparison.

Now, this may be tolerable at low levels, but at high levels, it is a nuisance both from the point-of-view of the DM and of credibility. Sure, credibility can be tested by constant raising, but it's more tested by 17th level characters popping out of nowhere and joining the party. Given that a 17th level party will face mass death effects such as Wail of the Banshee, character turnover is going to be huge. Without resurrection, there'll be a whole new party in about two or three sessions, with no motivation for the plot other than 'well, we met these guys who were doing this quest'. For a tough module, there could be an entire party turnover in the case of *one adventure* which does wonders for plot consistency (hey, didn't I hire a totally different group of people?) Too high a party turnover negates long-running friends and allies, destroys backstories and past NPCs, undermines the notion of BBEGs, thwarts PC motivation and fundamentally breaks a campaign. Given 13 combats/level, with mass death enemies like 17th level wizards and dragons, high level PC turnover can range around the 10-15 area just for one level, which is, needless to say, a nightmare.

That's why I favour easy resurrection.

YES.....my own sentiments exactly.....but tring to convince my group will be another story.....they just don't see it that way. I am not very impressed with gung ho attitudes to new characters, just to "try them out" with out thought to development and/or backgrounds and also it does effect the over all roleplaying experience, group continuity, effectiveness and in fact takes something away from the roleplaying aspect of the game IMHO. So I am definitely in favor of raising or resurecting but with some sort of penality to keep continuity in the party and to generate some further opportunities for roleplaying and quests etc...However we come to the old "I'm fed up with this character and I wanna play a new one..." scenario. But what are they really fed up with....and if fed up...why did they play the character in the first place. As this is a game, surely a character that was created a few sessions ago and has died is worth at least one raising, if only to explore more possibilites for the character. Being raised IMO is a life changing, soul churning and very moving experience and has got excellent possibilites for roleplaying and character development. Alignment, Outlook and over all character personality could change dramatically because of it and that in itself could generate a "new character" as it could be played in a different way, whilst still keeping party continuity. I just think that raisings/resurrections should be more of an option than what they are for most players and I will be developing a system for this in my new campaign. Yes, people can still create new characters if they absolutly have to, but they will undergo a tough scrutiny and some penalty to make sure they fit into the party and not just create any old character just to see what it's like, irrespective of whether it fits in or not. Any other thoughts or ideas...Cheers all and thank you all very much for voteing in my poll and voiceing your comments.

 

[diaglo]

roll up a new character

3d6 six times in order and start them out at 1st lvl.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Why I like allowing Raise Dead:


1) I like characterization. If a player comes up with an extensive background and fleshed out family, and then dies randomly, their next character is guaranteed to be "Mage 2" or "Eric the Cleric."

2) I enjoy the roleplaying opportunities available to raising the dead. Roleplaying the PC's spirit in the Beastlands and the rest of the party's quest to Raise their companion can be worth it.
.
.
.
I agree that having Raise Dead in a Hacknslash game is silly. That's why hardcore Diablo 2 was far better than softcore. But then again, there wasn't any characterization in that game...