Why so? I disagree, the risk of dying is cumulative.
The only thing which decreases is e.g. a level 5 adventurer got better chances to survive to level 10 than a level 3 adventurer.
D&D 5E Exploring the economics of Raise Dead
The only thing which decreases is e.g. a level 5 adventurer got better chances to survive to level 10 than a level 3 adventurer.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
One thing I liked about 3e, though I didn't really use it, is that they at least had a method for establishing how many members of each class existed. The first population centre that could field a 9th level cleric was a large town which had a population of 2000-5000 and then you doubled the number of each level below (2 8th level, 4 7th level, etc). While this might seem to mean that there were a large number of adventurers kicking around since you rolled to find the highest level of each class to determine the total number of members of each class, this was using a completely different system where NPCs were built as PCs, they may not have actually been adventurers instead gaining a few levels after years of working in the local temple or as town guards whereas now NPCs are simplified.
Some things I'm not so sure I'd worry about is members of a different faith. More likely, the faith is following the same pantheon of gods, not a singular god. You might have a patron god that you pray to most often, but you're likely following the same pantheon as the rest of your people. That means that a dwarf who has Clangeddin as his patron is still just as likely to be raised by a priest of Moradin, an elf however, is not.
That whole thing where you must be willing to return is an odd requirement in that if you have reached your version of heaven, would you really want to return? If I died and my soul ended up in an eternal paradise, I'm not coming back. DnD is bit different though, we have raise dead spells for a reason so I guess if you still feel you have work to do amongst the living, such as slay that dragon that's been bothering the country, then you will be more willing to accept resurrection. A merchant or farmer (who has somehow managed to pay for this insurance) might be less inclined.
I also like to think that priesthoods aren't running some insurance scheme to raise the populace, I certainly don't think that the sole 9th level cleric in a large town is wanting to run around raising the dead everyday, they are likely the local leader of their church and have more important things to do, though if they are Orzhov then maybe this is exactly part of the service, other than them, I'd say that raising the dead is reserved primarily for the wealthy (I include adventurers here since they often have more money than some kingdoms), nobles, and aristocracy, perhaps they have a time limit so that if the king dies and no one can raise him before sundown the next day then he stays dead and the heir to the throne takes the crown.
Some things I'm not so sure I'd worry about is members of a different faith. More likely, the faith is following the same pantheon of gods, not a singular god. You might have a patron god that you pray to most often, but you're likely following the same pantheon as the rest of your people. That means that a dwarf who has Clangeddin as his patron is still just as likely to be raised by a priest of Moradin, an elf however, is not.
That whole thing where you must be willing to return is an odd requirement in that if you have reached your version of heaven, would you really want to return? If I died and my soul ended up in an eternal paradise, I'm not coming back. DnD is bit different though, we have raise dead spells for a reason so I guess if you still feel you have work to do amongst the living, such as slay that dragon that's been bothering the country, then you will be more willing to accept resurrection. A merchant or farmer (who has somehow managed to pay for this insurance) might be less inclined.
I also like to think that priesthoods aren't running some insurance scheme to raise the populace, I certainly don't think that the sole 9th level cleric in a large town is wanting to run around raising the dead everyday, they are likely the local leader of their church and have more important things to do, though if they are Orzhov then maybe this is exactly part of the service, other than them, I'd say that raising the dead is reserved primarily for the wealthy (I include adventurers here since they often have more money than some kingdoms), nobles, and aristocracy, perhaps they have a time limit so that if the king dies and no one can raise him before sundown the next day then he stays dead and the heir to the throne takes the crown.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I imagine that the curve might be caused by adventurers trickling in through the first tier, and then pooling in the second tier (advancing and dying more slowly than they trickle in).
I don't use such a curve in my game, but at the same time I think one can easily choose tuning values that support it.
Fanaelialae
Legend
I think what he may be going for is there is heavy die off at the beginning, as the wheat is sorted from the chaff. Then things stall out towards the middle as adventurers retire or simply reach the limits of their potential.
I think they're both valid approaches, personally.
Don't forget that its not only a question of economics, but also society.
Most countries in D&D are feudal societies or at best oligarchies. Although of course D&D mostly just pays a weak lip service to such things.
A powerful ability like coming back to life will not be available to everyone. For nobles sure, they have the money and the influence to come back to life in most circumstances. But it will probably be forbidden to raise commoners, or at least it would require the consent of the local lord.
And the ability to raise dead is a powerful political tool, not handed out for free. If a noble wants to be raised he better has a good relation with the churches or bard guild. Although the polytheistic setting of D&D waters that down a bit as one church does not have a monopoly on raising dead.
But most people playing D&D will ignore such world building anyway and instead reserve it exclusively for the PCs so they can continue dungeon crawling after an encounter gone wrong...
Most countries in D&D are feudal societies or at best oligarchies. Although of course D&D mostly just pays a weak lip service to such things.
A powerful ability like coming back to life will not be available to everyone. For nobles sure, they have the money and the influence to come back to life in most circumstances. But it will probably be forbidden to raise commoners, or at least it would require the consent of the local lord.
And the ability to raise dead is a powerful political tool, not handed out for free. If a noble wants to be raised he better has a good relation with the churches or bard guild. Although the polytheistic setting of D&D waters that down a bit as one church does not have a monopoly on raising dead.
But most people playing D&D will ignore such world building anyway and instead reserve it exclusively for the PCs so they can continue dungeon crawling after an encounter gone wrong...
I think that only PCs are fool enough to go adventuring at level 1. Other npc know that fair xp budget encounter only exist in fairy tales! So npc wait and train safely in their platoon, behind temple wall or with their trainers until they are strong enough.
clearstream
(He, Him)
Dwelling on this further I agree that a bell curve is valid - and possibly more valid for PCs - from a meta-game perspective. It is very noticeable in D&D that the most dangerous time to be alive is low level. At higher levels, DMs are noticeably less likely to perma-death characters. That is in part due to normal evaluations of player investment.
Once one takes into account revival magic, which - barring insurance plans of the kind proposed in this thread - is usually far more available to high-level characters than low, I think the bell curve becomes quite plausible.
To further my comments above, historically diamonds were extremely rare and normally worn by royalty.
I compared the 2sp/day to the modern $15/hr to give a little bit of perspective in relative buying power. Based on how long it would take a commoner to earn enough for a 500 gp diamond would be the equivalent of someone making $15/hr trying to spend approximately $250,000 on a diamond.
The difference between skilled and unskilled labor in D&D is a factor of 10. That 500 gp diamond is 9 months pay for someone making $150/hr in comparison. Financing loans to skilled labor seems a more likely business model than a shared risk model for insurance.
Diamonds are mined by underground races where volcanic activity exists or existed. That generally means a dwarven merchant who deals in gems and jewellery who carries enough inventory per trip to cover approximately 2 castings per day. That's sounds like a monthly trip to stockpile 60+ diamonds worth 500 gp each. How much goes into paying for security to prevent a 30,000 gp diamond heist or the caravan trying to carry that gold back to the dwarven lands?
I foresee logistics issues because supply wasn't taken into consideration in the math.
I compared the 2sp/day to the modern $15/hr to give a little bit of perspective in relative buying power. Based on how long it would take a commoner to earn enough for a 500 gp diamond would be the equivalent of someone making $15/hr trying to spend approximately $250,000 on a diamond.
The difference between skilled and unskilled labor in D&D is a factor of 10. That 500 gp diamond is 9 months pay for someone making $150/hr in comparison. Financing loans to skilled labor seems a more likely business model than a shared risk model for insurance.
Diamonds are mined by underground races where volcanic activity exists or existed. That generally means a dwarven merchant who deals in gems and jewellery who carries enough inventory per trip to cover approximately 2 castings per day. That's sounds like a monthly trip to stockpile 60+ diamonds worth 500 gp each. How much goes into paying for security to prevent a 30,000 gp diamond heist or the caravan trying to carry that gold back to the dwarven lands?
I foresee logistics issues because supply wasn't taken into consideration in the math.
Ok I agree on part of what you say, namely I did not take into account that higher level PCs have access to resurrection more often than low level. So if you deduct that "NPC adventurers" are quite similar in their resources the bell curve might be accurate.
What I disagree a bit is that low level is more dangerous. At least in my game the danger grows with the level.
It still leaves the individual aspect open:
Do NPC adventurers retire at some point, and if so, at what level?
Do most of them give up adventuring when in mid tier or are there some which will always outshine the PCs (Drizzt, Elminster, the heroes of the lance
)Similar Threads
