How awesome is resurrection in 13th Age???

[Dungeoneer]

But then they didn't take that all the way through. I mean, why have a Resurrection spell in the first place? As thing that just pops up on a spell list? Why not have it be an effect only accessible through special items or rituals or events? Why have PC's who can die from random kobolds and traps (the optional rule of Named Villains being the only killers -- why was it OPTIONAL?)?

And why Five? I mean, what omnipotent, petty divine accountant is sitting up there going "Okay. You can have FOUR more chances!"?

It's like someone looked at the Resurrection spell and thought, "How can I make this better?" rather than looking at the system that the Resurrection spell is embedded in and asking "Why do we even want this thing?"

This seems like nit-picking. The progression of the five (theoretical) resurrections is pretty clearly outlined, so there IS a story behind the mechanics.

And it's worth highlighting that we have been kicking the number five around but it's unlikely in the extreme that a PC will get that many. Don't think of it is 'five arbitrary extra lives'. Think of it as getting the player having one get-out-of-death-free card and knowing that if they die again coming back will be tougher.

Maybe you just don't like the idea of having resurrection spells at all. And that's fair. But Heinsoo and Tweet obviously feel differently. Res spells are a pretty standard part of a d20 game, and they decided to refine the idea rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. But this isn't such an integral part of the game that you couldn't remove it if you wanted. I suspect a 13A game with no res options would play perfectly fine.

Mike Shea referred to 13th Age as an 'opinionated RPG'. That's a great way of looking at it. It's pretty much the D&D game the designers would like to play. It's familiar, but with a lot of clever twists on traditional mechanics. Where Heinsoo and Tweet disagree, you get optional rules like the one about players only being killed by Named Villains.

I personally really like what they were going for: faster, looser D&D with some really great narrative hooks? Yes please.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not trying to knock 13th Age. It's a really awesome evolution of the 3e/4e game and a veritable exploding piñata of great ideas. I'm just saying that the Res seems not-totally-thought-out, like it was trying to fix one specific little problem rather than asking why that might be a problem in the first place and designing the game to prevent the problem from even happening. Heinsoo and Tweet certainly didn't shy away from big, systemic changes. If they didn't want Res to be a speedbump, they could've done a million different things to fix it. This one in particular "fix" seems like a bit of a weak-sauce half-measure to me. It's good. It's just not as good as it could be, IMO.

How awesome is it? It's like a 6/10. More awesome than not, but with huge room for improvement.

 

[Agamon]

I'm not trying to knock 13th Age. It's a really awesome evolution of the 3e/4e game and a veritable exploding piñata of great ideas. I'm just saying that the Res seems not-totally-thought-out, like it was trying to fix one specific little problem rather than asking why that might be a problem in the first place and designing the game to prevent the problem from even happening. Heinsoo and Tweet certainly didn't shy away from big, systemic changes. If they didn't want Res to be a speedbump, they could've done a million different things to fix it. This one in particular "fix" seems like a bit of a weak-sauce half-measure to me. It's good. It's just not as good as it could be, IMO.

How awesome is it? It's like a 6/10. More awesome than not, but with huge room for improvement.

*looks at name of thread* Not sure everyone agrees that it's weaksauce. And if it happens to not be one's cup of tea, it's pretty easy to house rule (especially if there's millions of different ways to do it, yes?)

 

[Sunseeker]

The first time I read the rules for the cleric's resurrection spell in 13th Age, I was cackling with glee. I love everything about 13A resurrection. I love that it's not a free get-out-of-death pass. I love that there are consequences for using it. I love that there are really cool story implications, not just for characters but for the whole world.

Let me do a quick summary of the rules for resurrection in 13A:

- Clerics can only cast res once per level.
- Clerics (or ANY other character or NPC!) can only cast res five times IN THEIR LIFE.
- The fifth time a character casts res, THEY WILL DIE.

I think having it so you may die on the 5th res would be a better option. Give it a really high DC for all I care, but this is pretty much going to guarantee that short of giving their lives to save the god of all things happy and bunnies, we'll never see people use this. The only time you would is if the GM decides to put you into a sucky situation where you basically have to choose to sae oh, the life of your wife at the expense of your own.

But I'm getting ahead of things. Here is how it goes for the first four castings:

- First casting: Takes one standard action. The target is brought back to life in normal condition, or possibly dazed and missing some recoveries if the DM prefers.

Sounds like a fine way to start.

- Second casting: The spell takes three to four rounds. It costs the caster half their hit points, dailies and spells. The target comes back at 1/4 strength.

Sounds good, wouldn't mind this being how it always works, I think that right there is a pretty fair balance.

- Third casting: The spell must be cast as a ritual. It drains the caster down to a few hit points. The resurrectee takes days to recover.
- Fourth casting: The spell nearly kills the caster. The person resurrected is 'a mess for a month or more'.

Unless 13th age has special rules for dealing with characters who are out of it, this is basically going to be a point where, unless the person resurrected isn't a player and can take this sort of time off, the player might as well be dead. Unelss of course, we're in one of those games were "nothing happens if the players aren't active". And I hate that sort of stuff.

- Fifth casting: The caster DIES. They cannot be resurrected. The spell has only a 50% chance of working.

This is just basically never going to happen, short of as above, you're faces with saving the in-game equivalent of Jesus.

And in a final twist:

- IF the target of the res spell has been res'd more times than the caster has cast the spell, there is a 50% chance that the experience will play out using the number of the target's res's. So if the target is on their fifth res, the caster may wind up dead even if it is their first.

Twists are great for M. Night Shamalyan movies. They're not so great in RPGs as they tend to turn into "gotcha" moments.

My one complaint is that res is a 7th level spell. I say, why wait until level 7 to start the fun?!?

Has anyone had resurrection come up in your 13A game yet? What do you think of the res rules?

They're creative, but they're poor rules. They emphasize the GM chuckling behind the screen while the players debate on if they should res somebody or not. That creates an Us v. Them mentality in a game I don't find myself very fond of.

 

[Agamon]

They're creative, but they're poor rules. They emphasize the GM chuckling behind the screen while the players debate on if they should res somebody or not. That creates an Us v. Them mentality in a game I don't find myself very fond of.

You may be reading way too much into this. As I read it in the context of the entire ruleset, it didn't bother me, as I didn't res being something that comes up all that often.

It both reads as cool, and instead of the rules telling the GM or players "no," they are saying "yes, but". The point is, if the party does need a res, it's going to be one helluva favor they're calling in, which is always a good thing for the story. And it has nothing to do with GM v Players. It's just a tough choice for the party. My favorite part of any game I play is deciding how to go with a tough choice. Increasing the tension and drama is what my games are all about.

And as for the 5th res, I can see that having huge story implications, whether it's a PC or NPC. It would almost never come up (that's kinda the point), but if it did, I agree it would be lame if the GM just followed that up with "Okay, you're dead now. Idiot." But then, that's a lame GM. Any worthwhile GM would crank up the awesome factor and reward such selfless actions and give the player some sort of role in whatever final encounter of the campaign it is most likely leading up to.

 

[Gadget]

I'm not sure how it creates an Us vs Them mentality and less the players are deliberately kept in the dark about it until the moment they need to use the res spell. I do agree that the concept could be more refined, maybe only three time with increasing cost? But this is a more narrative focused game.

 

[Dungeoneer]

As a point of clarification, the res rules are in the entry for the cleric's res spell, so the players will definitely be aware of all the implications and consequences. This isn't going to be a 'gotcha' thing in the sense that the DM says "Surprise sucka! You're dead!" It's clear that the players should know about it. I would agree that the intent is definitely to create a tough choice for the party that could lead to some cool events in the campaign.

No one reading the 13A rules in context would ever think it's going to create an Us vs. Them mentality. The rules are heavily focused on doing the opposite.

 

[Nagol]

As a point of clarification, the res rules are in the entry for the cleric's res spell, so the players will definitely be aware of all the implications and consequences. This isn't going to be a 'gotcha' thing in the sense that the DM says "Surprise sucka! You're dead!" It's clear that the players should know about it. I would agree that the intent is definitely to create a tough choice for the party that could lead to some cool events in the campaign.

No one reading the 13A rules in context would ever think it's going to create an Us vs. Them mentality. The rules are heavily focused on doing the opposite.

It becomes a 'gotcha' when the first time a PC tries to raise something, the GM rolls the 50% chance and says "Actually, the target has been raised before so instead of being simple, here's what it costs you (up to and including the PC's life)".

 

[Gorgon Zee]

One thing I passionately hated about 3.5 was the easy resurrection. I recall once chatting to a friend outside the convention room where he had taken a break for the table and someone came out and told them his character had died and been resurrected and he said OK and kept on chatting to me.

In 4e, which I liked much more as a system, it was even easier; totally rotating door. So I made the decision that my characters would never come back. Ever. Hated the easy resurrection.

So, for me, the 13th Age version seems a very good one. I want death in combat to be a serious worry; not one that essentially makes people ask "how much does this cost me?" like it does in 3e and 4e. The solution presented works well for my goal: Death should be character-affecting, something to be scared of, and something that cannot be trivialized by any other affect in the game. As a bonus, it's nice to have actual rules to explain why characters ever die (as opposed to 3e and 4e's "because ummm they don't want to come back?")

I do not care about a style of play that has infinite life characters or one that has players who replace characters by new ones that are identical. I simply don't run those games. If you like the former, just ignore this rule and assign a simple cost to res. If you like the latter, just remove the spell.

So for me, yes, this is the best approach to resurrection I have seen since AD&D. Actually I refer it to the AD&D version as it's less easy to game and wish away the consequences. Win.

 

[TwoSix]

I think having it so you may die on the 5th res would be a better option. Give it a really high DC for all I care, but this is pretty much going to guarantee that short of giving their lives to save the god of all things happy and bunnies, we'll never see people use this. The only time you would is if the GM decides to put you into a sucky situation where you basically have to choose to sae oh, the life of your wife at the expense of your own.

Actually, to use it five times, you have to be at 10th level, the pinnacle of the game, and gotten some in-game boon to gain an extra casting. At that point in the game, a final noble sacrifice makes perfect sense. It's SUPPOSED to be a game-ender.