• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Why penalize returning from death?

5ekyu

Hero
The character should have known better. That they made such a mistake can be attributed to poor (unskilled) roleplaying. The player didn't have the character act in accordance with the character's understanding of the world, because the player didn't understand as much as the character did about how the world actually works.

I don't mean that as a slight against the player at all. Roleplaying is a learned skill, and the specifics are different for every game. You have to know a lot about the world and how things work in that world before you can say with confidence how a character living in that world would act. The first few sessions are bound to be rough, until everyone figures out what they're supposed to be doing.
Wait what??? The low level character **should have known** the enemies were about to get two good hits for good damage in a row? Did i miss the low level barbarians never make bad choices or are able to see the future?

If the attacks had missed and the barbie killed them and had the rage left that would also be bad roleplaying?

Just before turkey weekend i saw a party of four make decision to hold back for an encounter to manage resources. Combat went bad but they pulled it out and they had those resources for next fight where it paid off.

Have to tell them how thats just their inexperience at roleplaying showing, which should be hilarious. All things considered.

I would see the choice made and result as a gamble that failed. A low level char took a risk and it went badly.

Not a roleplaying problem, just an unfortunate turn.

But hey, each his own.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Stalker0

Legend
I'm assuming you're talking about the function of these spells in 5th edition, as that's what the OP stated. Revivify can only be cast on a creature that has died within the last minute, it's a clutch spell with a material cost of diamonds worth 300gp. It's very situational, in a combat situation you've got ten rounds to get the character that can cast Revivify into touch range of the recently deceased target; on top of that the character with Revivify needs to have the diamonds on them (300gp worth of diamonds should be pretty costly for a 5th level character). Additionally, usage of Revivify takes up a third level spell slot - a pretty powerful slot for characters of that level.

Raise Dead costs, at minimum, a diamond worth 500gp. The character casting this should be at least 9th level, since that's when they get the spell slot. Characters of this level are beginning to enter a stage of power and ability beyond the comprehension of an average creature. I mean, they're not quite at 20th level but they're still quite powerful. Even though it's quite a powerful spell slot, Raise Dead has its own set of limitations. First of all, the creature has have been dead for no longer than 10 days and can't have died too violently. The spell closes mortal wounds, but it doesn't restore missing body parts or organs. If a character suffered a particularly brutal death in which they now lack an organ or body part necessary for survival, you simply can't Raise Dead them. The spell automatically fails.

I agree that playing in a particularly high-death campaign can mean that death loses it sting, but it completely depends on the player. I, for one, start to lose my immersion when a fellow player has died five times and somehow finds a way to weave their new character back into the party. Death, for people like me, is a massive punishment in and of itself -- I put massive amounts of work into each character, losing them is like throwing dozens of hours down the drain. I must have a connection with my character to be immersed. It would be easier for me to play in a campaign where player death is taboo, but I feel that that would be equally immersion breaking in the end.

Anyway, without going on a tangent, I feel like you're purposely minimalizing resurrection spells - Revivify has a very short time span in which it must be cast and a rather high material cost barrier for it's level. If your party is at the point where they are dropping Revivify's left right and centre in combat, they're probably at a high enough level where you could expect a character of their power to not simply succumb to death like a normal person. They're beyond that stage. If you don't want to roleplay them as being beyond such petty things as death, you don't have to accept resurrection spells. You have the final choice of whether someone can resurrect your character, not them. The same goes for Raise Dead, but in a different way.

My point was that 5e already makes coming back fairly easy. Honestly, the timelimit of revivify really doesn't matter. Combats in 5e are very short, even a 7 round combat is a long one. And yes while this is a powerful spell at 5th...you still have that option for every level going forward.

10 days for Raise Dead could easily be 10 years in terms of how much it matters. Even a single day is enough time for a player to get their slots, memorize the spell, and cast it.

All of this said, the death penalty in 5e is an attempt to give death some sort of sting...even if its not much. But without that, then its not even a speed bump. Getting plane shifted is a speed bump, death not so much.

So that's why the death penalty exist. That can always be removed of course, as can the Resurrection spells, but of course you are changing some of the fundamental assumptions of the game.
 

Wait what??? The low level character **should have known** the enemies were about to get two good hits for good damage in a row? Did i miss the low level barbarians never make bad choices or are able to see the future?
If the player would have made a different decision for the character, had the player known more about the world and how it worked, then the decision was made incorrectly; the player thought that's what the character would have done, but they were wrong, as they are now aware.

It's also possible to play a reckless barbarian, of course, who would have done the exact same thing even if they'd known how dangerous a goblin is to an inexperienced character. If the player would have made the same decision, even knowing how dangerous goblins can be, then the character was played correctly... although perhaps not on purpose.

I don't want to read too much into this story, but it sounds to me like the player may have been operating under a misconception about how powerful a goblin is relative to a level 1 character. In many games, a level 1 character can mow through goblins like they were nothing.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Oh yeah, totally. I played AD&D from 1981 to 2012 before 5e came out. Players (even the same players over the years) play both games completely differently. 5e is much more rush in Leeroy Jenkins than 1e ever was.
HAHAHA IN your xp Sacrosanct not mine. I don't have the same players I started out with from 1980. But I do have the same types. Thinker, Rules Lawyer, Rusher (regardless of class), Casual. I have seen team play change depending on who sat at the table, or who had a bad week. Team play ranges to wasting time having fun, murder hoboing, or wait let think our way to the boss.
....
As to starting over at 1st level in AD&D I was never in a group which did that. I would have not played in a group which did that after tier 1. In my play groups it ranged from bring in new pc same level and magic to new pc matches lowest level of group and has no magic.
.....
I had only one technical TPK so far in Adventure League. I was a D*** and used Plane shift offensively on a Tier 2 group. And the father/son team fireballed their own position. But if the group in general does not want death to have penalties that is their play style. I call it star immunity. AKA the Stars of show will not die die or even dye their hair.
 

ad_hoc

(they/them)
Cleric casts Revivify: "Dead....psh! Get up you pansy!"

Or

Cleric: "Hey guys, why don't you take a short rest. I'm going to get Ed back into action" (Cast Raise Dead). Ed...get up your Pansy!"


If death only means that your character skips out on 1 short rest....it really loses its sting.

Why are you replying to me and what does it have to do with my post?
 


Celebrim

Legend
To discourage careless and disinterested and often dysfunctional play. If death has no negative consequence, players will tend towards playing like it's a video game with a save feature.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
HAHAHA IN your xp Sacrosanct not mine. I don't have the same players I started out with from 1980. But I do have the same types. Thinker, Rules Lawyer, Rusher (regardless of class), Casual. I have seen team play change depending on who sat at the table, or who had a bad week. Team play ranges to wasting time having fun, murder hoboing, or wait let think our way to the boss.
.

Not sure why you're laughing. Yeah, I put "IME" because I can't speak for others, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that in general, players were more cautious in 1e than they are in 5e because that's how the rules are designed. We can have different preferences and playstyles, but the rules are objective:

* In 1e, PCs were much more fragile because they had much fewer HP due to things like lower hit dice, and no longer getting CON bonuses or rolling for hp after level 9. A 10th level magic user in 1e is going to have an average of 23 or 24 hp. In 5e that's going to be much higher. So 5e PCs can take a lot more punishment than their 1e counterparts
* In 1e, there are a lot of save or die effects. These don't exist in 5e
* In 1e, there are level drains. Not in 5e
* In 1e, traps and frequent dungeon hazards are much more deadly (slimes, damage from traps, etc)
* In 1e, you didn't get raise dead until 9th level. In 5e you can raise a dead ally at level 5.
* In 1e, level gaining was much slower than it is in 5e.

All of those things means that you need to be more cautious as a player in 1e because you can't afford to make a mistake. 5e is much more forgiving. And it's a fact that peoples' level of caution is reflective of the amount of risk in any given task. The more risky, the more cautious, as a general rule.
 

Arilyn

Hero
Death is always meaningful. A character dying has a huge and meaningful impact on the story.

The only time the cause of death wouldn't be meaningful is if it happened off camera.

From a narrative point of view, yes, there are meaningless deaths. Luke Skywalker is not going to be killed by the only accurate stormtrooper in the galaxy. If the movie was real life, sure. And Leia, Hans and Obi Wan would be very upset. As a story, however, it would be silly. Even in Game of Thrones, we are not going to see Jon Snow or Tyrion die before their story arcs are played out.

My players come to the table with characters they care about. We start building stories together and death through random bad luck is not satisfying for anybody. Stores focus on characters who survive long enough to actually have complete tales. These tales can end with death, heroics or tragedy, but they shouldn't be cut off prematurely.

This is, by far, my favourite way to play, and fortunately, I have a group who agrees.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top