Death Penalty & Extended rest

[CapnZapp]

Does the Death Penalty for being Raised fade after an Extended Rest, or do you need to pass three Milestones specifically?

 

[James McMurray]

You need three milestones.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks for replying!

However, I'm not sure I like this.

Let's picture the following scenario: in the climactic fight against the BBEG, Zolkar the Wizard bites the dust. His comrades carry the day, though, so he's rather quickly raised.

Now, this concludes this adventure and begins the next. Which starts off with a lot of talking, easily covering two full sessions (say). None of this constitutes adventuring or danger. There are no bugbears to fight and there are no princesses to skill challenge.

Now, as the DM I know this beforehand. But Zoltar's player don't. from his perspective, he's at -1 for a very long time, where combat might break out at a moment's notice.

It doesn't, so having the death penalty doesn't make any difference. But it sure won't feel that way for Zoltar.

Instead, he might be inclined to go down to the local pub house and bash some heads. (Or the city cemetary, or it's local branch of the Evil Death Temple, or whatever)

That is, cause those three milestones to happen sooner or later. Better that than the uncertainty.


Thoughts? Am I unreasonable? Or do you feel this makes a good argument the DM should feel free to lift any death penalties inside of the three milestones whenever appropriate? (The end of any big campaign arc could theoretically mean an unlimited amount of milestones, followed by an extended rest).

 

[JasonZZ]

Milestones don'te come exclusively from combat encounters. A series of skill challenges or other noncombat encounters should also count as encounters toward milestones.

 

[James McMurray]

Any encounter can count as a milestone if the GM wants it to, whether dice are rolled or not. And not every encounter will help reach one. Just some random peasant bashing won't work unless the PC is very low level.

But you could always change it to be a -1 until the party earns their next major quest reward. Then instead of risking a death drawing them away from what's happening so they can fight stuff, it pushes them into it. Though players who dislike railroads may see this as the GM using a hammer to make sure they stay on his story line.

Then again, if there's no die rolling, there's no -1 penalty, so it shouldn't matter. Has this been a problem, or are you looking to preemptively avoid something that may not exist?

 

[LostSoul]

Change what a milestone is.

Maybe if he role-plays getting drunk with his buddies that's a milestone. Or whatever you think would be cool, helping him get over his "mostly-dead but partly-alive" state.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then again, if there's no die rolling, there's no -1 penalty, so it shouldn't matter.

Again thanks. However, my point is that while you might know this, and I might know this, the player doesn't necessarily know this. And that uncertainly alone could lead a player to try to provoke events that lead to milestones.

No, for me it's still a theoretical objection. I'm asking if anything similar has been a problem to you all. Has it?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Again thanks. However, my point is that while you might know this, and I might know this, the player doesn't necessarily know this. And that uncertainly alone could lead a player to try to provoke events that lead to milestones.

So I'd recommend talking to the player - I'd be pretty annoyed, personally, if this happened in a game I was playing in and the DM didn't explain their position.

The whole point of the -1 penalty is that it reflects the character being slightly weakened for a period of time. If they're not in danger, then it doesn't matter, as noted above.

If players metagame to try and avoid in-game penalties, the best option is always to talk to them about it, either in the session or between sessions. There's not much else to say, surely?

I'm not quite sure I understand your theoretical problem - that if Zoltan is raised from the dead he might not like having a penalty? He might try and metagame his way out of it? That's not an issue with the penalty, it sounds more like an issue with an asshat player who is trying to avoid the rules.

 

[Darth_Asparagus]

Again thanks. However, my point is that while you might know this, and I might know this, the player doesn't necessarily know this. And that uncertainly alone could lead a player to try to provoke events that lead to milestones.

Isn't that the whole point of death penalty that the player suffers a bit for screwing up?

And that uncertainly alone could lead a player to try to provoke events that lead to milestones.

Here is what I would do (in a friendly, tongue-in-cheek way):

0. Tell him that he deserves his current state but that it will go away as soon as you say so. There is nothing he can do to change it or speed things up.

1. Tell him that he cannot provoke milesstones by attacking random people and that in his weakened state he should be careful whom he challenges. Hint at the authorities looking troublemakers who have been resurrected recently and now (in vain) try to provoke milestones.

2. If that does not work, tell him that the -1 makes no difference. Ridicule the overall effectiveness of his character in front of the group. Remind him of the pitiful way his pathetic character died. Question the ancestry of the character and suggest he might be better off with a new one. Repeat every time he raises the issue again.

3. State how annoyed you are by these discussions and how unrealistic you think Raise Dead is. Think out aloud how much easier things would be without this ritual.

Is that evil? Yes, but that is why you are the DM. (Or was that the other game... Paranoia?)

 

[Sunglare]

You should change the -1 penalty into a +1 bonus and see what kind of craziness that will cause in your campaign