EOM-R Scry skill question


log in or register to remove this ad

I had a very thorough comment typed earlier today before a black-out. Suffice it to say, you still lose a level when you get raised; the quicker casting time and the "CPR" version of Revive at 5 MP just makes it easier for a mage to get a dead party member back into the fight, so that players aren't bored.

Bringing someone back from the dead after a fight is a miracle. Bringing them back mid-fight to help turn the tide is cool.
 

True, but I think the way the phb set up the revives with the time limit and the cost factor is to show how important life and death is. I didn't want my games to get like Dragon Ball Z.

" Oh, he's dead, well we can just bring him back . Oh, seven of them are dead, we can just bring them back. Go get the DragonBallz Goku".

Revive is such a big spell I was a little taken aback by how easy it would be to do it. A six second (prepared) Revive seriously lowers any ecl that you're in. That would mean the characters would have to have lower levels of themselves on hand andsuch.

I can see where a quick six second revivie fits in with my campaign (Final Fantasy and the phoenix downs) but in d and d it could break a ecl or adventure
 

Not really. A 5 MP revive just gets you up to 0 hp. It basically acts as if you were at -9 instead of dead.

When a revised version comes out (not any time soon, but I'm working on it), I'll include a sidebar to discuss what's fair for different types of settings when it comes to revive.
 

I think I have to agree with the Ranger on this one. Among other things, I doubt many EL calculations are even based on the assumption a character will die in the course of the battle; it's quite easy to rarely have it occur, and then usually from dumb luck. Most battles are balanced on resource consumption, and using the spells to revitalize someone, and then the healing magic to get him back to a useful level (a 12th level fighter is almost useless to bring back into most EL 10-14 encounters at 20 hit points; the first time anything hits him or casts a spell at him he'll go right back down, if not die again) is, itself, resource consumption.

As an example, over the run of my D&D campaign, which went up to about 16th level (and therefore had about 45 sessions) I beleive there were a grand total of about 7-10 fatalities, or one every 4-6 sessions; better than half of those occured at levels low enough where the EoM resurrection spells would not have been doable.

A far bigger issue is the reliability of resurrection magic, and that's just as big an issue with standard D&D magic as EoM.
 

Thomas5251212 said:
I think I have to agree with the Ranger on this one. Among other things, I doubt many EL calculations are even based on the assumption a character will die in the course of the battle; it's quite easy to rarely have it occur, and then usually from dumb luck. Most battles are balanced on resource consumption, and using the spells to revitalize someone, and then the healing magic to get him back to a useful level (a 12th level fighter is almost useless to bring back into most EL 10-14 encounters at 20 hit points; the first time anything hits him or casts a spell at him he'll go right back down, if not die again) is, itself, resource consumption.

As an example, over the run of my D&D campaign, which went up to about 16th level (and therefore had about 45 sessions) I beleive there were a grand total of about 7-10 fatalities, or one every 4-6 sessions; better than half of those occured at levels low enough where the EoM resurrection spells would not have been doable.

A far bigger issue is the reliability of resurrection magic, and that's just as big an issue with standard D&D magic as EoM.


Your arguments were well said and you convinced me on teh lower revive I believe i will change this and allow the lower revive to be cast without the limitations of the other two higher revives. I still want to keep the higher resserections as a bit more important campaign wise and more for story context. The lower revive does make sense to not to put so many penalities on.
 

DonTadow said:
Your arguments were well said and you convinced me on teh lower revive I believe i will change this and allow the lower revive to be cast without the limitations of the other two higher revives. I still want to keep the higher resserections as a bit more important campaign wise and more for story context. The lower revive does make sense to not to put so many penalities on.

Well, there are certainly some campaign impact issue with higher order resurrections in D&D; I haven't looked to see if EoM mimics them, but if it does, I'm not sure making them expensive really solves the worst problems.
 

Thomas5251212 said:
Well, there are certainly some campaign impact issue with higher order resurrections in D&D; I haven't looked to see if EoM mimics them, but if it does, I'm not sure making them expensive really solves the worst problems.
When you compare EOM resserection to the PHB they do the same thing except for the cost factor. Once you make them the same cost they are identical.

It doesn't solve the problems with bringing someone back to life. However, I have already used a higher level resserect on an npc (the pcs do not know they believe they killed the individual). However, he didn't come back "right" because of the length of time. IHe didnt' come back quite human.

I got the idea from Buffy the Vampire slayer.
 

Well, the issue with raise dead spells is that leaders should be extremely long lived; given any number of mages of any level, the only thing that should ever kill them for good is old age (since raise spells are useless there). That has a whole bunch of setting implications that D&D mostly ignores.
 

I agree. I think the system ignores the spell's implications on a real world. Powerful people would only die of old age and consistently come back to life.
 

Remove ads

Top