Alternate penalty for raise dead? Instead of level loss?

[Shin Okada]

Hmm. Who is paying the cost for Raise/Resurrection? In my playgroup, those costs are payed fast from the total treasure the party got from the adventure. Thus, every member of the party loose some amount of money if some member dies. As a result, when it seems that a particular member is always in danger, the PCs (and their players) try to see the way to avoid that. Say, create and give good protective item to that character, try to find more efficient tactics and formation, and so on. It costs 15,000 gp to raise someone 3 times. With another 3,000gp, a party caster can create Amulet of Health +6!

In the previous campaign, my cleric PC did it much. Maybe too much. He was often a level behind other PCs due to XP cost for creating magic items.

But better than suffering level drain and paying money for resurrection.

 

[Krelios]

Thats they way its suposted to work. But when you are the only PC in the game that has dies and came back, AT ALL. And it happened to you 3 times, you do fall behind. Thanks for the ideas, everyone.

Not to be offensive, but if you're the only one who's died, and you've died three times, you probably ought to reconsider your tactics and find out what you're doing wrong. Or, it may be something that the party isn't doing to support you. Either way, if you don't address that issue, none of these suggestions will matter.

Your goal shouldn't be to make Raise Dead less painful, but rather to avoid dying in the first place.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not to be offensive, but if you're the only one who's died, and you've died three times, you probably ought to reconsider your tactics and find out what you're doing wrong. Or, it may be something that the party isn't doing to support you. Either way, if you don't address that issue, none of these suggestions will matter.

Your goal shouldn't be to make Raise Dead less painful, but rather to avoid dying in the first place.

I'd say that whether or not this is accurate really depends on the style of campaign you're going for.

If you're playing D&D with at least a large portion of focus on tactics, combat, and teamwork, then yeah, frequent death likely indicates that someone, somewhere, is doing something in a less than optimal manner.

If, on the other hand, one is going for a more role-playing/story-intensive campaign, it may simply be a factor of the character's personality. Maybe he's trying to portray a character who's impulsive, or headstrong, or stupid, or foolhardy. In such cases, I can definitely see why he and his group might be looking for ways to deal with the "death problem" without discouraging the role-playing by penalizing the character.

 

[Pinotage]

In my playgroup, level loss is making no problem. If a character is a level or two behind others, he gets more XP from the same encounter. So he soon catch up with others.

We play something similar to this. Characters that lose levels gain twice the XP from the DM than they normally would until they catch up. It's not so brutal that way, but still a deterent to dying at the same time.

Pinotage

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

The PC can always decide whether or not he wants to be raised. Raise Dead SRD:

Yeah, I read that once...

Another possibility would be a flat rate, but one that would still have meaning in later levels. Even 5000 xp is a small sum to a high level PC. Say, 1000 xp per level of the raised PC. They have to pay this off before they can begin collecting xp for their levels again.

Res might cut this down to a)750x level or b)500x level, and True Res down to a)500x level or b)0. Depends on how painless you want the higher level spells to make things.


I must say the way Andy Collins does things is precisely the way I use. Its like the idea was just sitting there in the books, but the writers missed it, and decided to come up with something else just for the sake of it.

 

[Darkness]

Not to be offensive, but if you're the only one who's died, and you've died three times, you probably ought to reconsider your tactics and find out what you're doing wrong.

Yeah, survival can sometimes (i.e., depending on class, ability scores, equipment, etc.) take some additional care if you're lower level than the other PCs. (By the way, what level are you and the other PCs, Ken?) He also said he's a dwarf fighter, which might very well mean he's a lower-level character who's often fighting at the front - not exactly a low-risk position. (Though if - if - the party doesn't have another tank/not enough other tanks, there's little to help it unless this problem can be rectified.)

So yeah, tactics can matter a lot in Ken's situation. Though whether it's his tactics or the party's in general (e.g.: "I'll heal the fighter next round; I want to attack now!" or "Yeah, I'll hit the dwarf as well with my fireball, but that's okay - he can take it.") that aren't optimal is anyone's guess.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So yeah, tactics can matter a lot in Ken's situation. Though whether it's his tactics or the party's in general (e.g.: "I'll heal the fighter next round; I want to attack now!" or "Yeah, I'll hit the dwarf as well with my fireball, but that's okay - he can take it.") that aren't optimal is anyone's guess.

To keep playing Baatezu's advocate , who says tactics have to be optimal to have a fun game? I've played clerics who would never dream of interrupting melee to cross the battlefield in order to heal an ally; they were far more focused, in terms of both spell selection and personality, on smiting the foes of their god.

Optimal? Probably not. But it was a fun character to play, and I made it very clear from the beginning that this was what the character was like, and that he should not be relied on as group healer until/unless combat was concluded and he still had spells left.

So, should my companion, who fell in combat, be punished because I'm not playing a "traditional" cleric?

 

[Shin Okada]

So, should my companion, who fell in combat, be punished because I'm not playing a "traditional" cleric?

It will not because you are not playing a traditional healer cleric. But IMHO, could be an entire party's fault if they do not compensate that weakness of the party.

In one ongoing campaign, our party's main cleric is a very melee-heavy type. From the beginning, he had much higher Str than Wis. He took feat such as Weapon Focus (Longspear), Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, etc. He is also not good at turning undead (Cha of 8). Knowing that, other PCs tried to maintain other ways of healing (items, cohorts, Practiced Spellcaster: Healing, etc.). Also, we always keep that Ghostblight alchemical capsule ready.

 

[Bront]

If I used the EXP mechanic, I would charge the exp it cost to go up the level you lost (So 4,000 for 5th level) instead of all the way back to the start (to 6,000, which could be as big a cost as 9,999).

Temporary loss, or debt isn't bad either. In particular though, the penalty for death should be somewhat severe, or else it's not a consiquence to be avoided (Much like falling damage was/can be)

 

[Li Shenron]

A variant which I haven't seen suggested before is:

- every time you're raised, you permanently lose 1 point in your highest stat -

I think this is generally more scary to players than Constitution, plus it affects everyone more equally.