How awesome is resurrection in 13th Age???

[Manabarbs]

Depending on how you read the spell, you may not actually have exactly five extra lives; you can theoretically be resurrected an unlimited number of times. It's just that after a few times it's so risky to the person casting the spell that you'd have to have several high-level clerics willing and/or coerced into laying down their lives for you to keep going.

The one part of the resurrection rules I would change is that in the fifth casting, I don't like that it only has a 50% chance to work. I think that if somebody is willing to definitely die to bring somebody back, then it should just work. How anticlimactic is it for somebody to decide that they're willing to do that, and then the coin toss comes up tails? (To date, the fifth-casting has never come up in any 13th Age game I've been a part of.) The resurrection rules are definitely way better than the D&D stabbed-in-the-wallet resurrection rules or other systems' death spiral of death rules, but if I was DMing and it ever came up, I'm pretty sure I'd let the fifth res just work. It's a major sacrifice, and it seems more satisfying if it actually works. (Not to mention it makes the option way more appealing.)

 

[fjw70]

I like that 13A tones back ressurection but in my games I don't use ressurection or similar spells/rituals. I like death being final.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Depending on how you read the spell, you may not actually have exactly five extra lives; you can theoretically be resurrected an unlimited number of times. It's just that after a few times it's so risky to the person casting the spell that you'd have to have several high-level clerics willing and/or coerced into laying down their lives for you to keep going.

The one part of the resurrection rules I would change is that in the fifth casting, I don't like that it only has a 50% chance to work. I think that if somebody is willing to definitely die to bring somebody back, then it should just work. How anticlimactic is it for somebody to decide that they're willing to do that, and then the coin toss comes up tails? (To date, the fifth-casting has never come up in any 13th Age game I've been a part of.) The resurrection rules are definitely way better than the D&D stabbed-in-the-wallet resurrection rules or other systems' death spiral of death rules, but if I was DMing and it ever came up, I'm pretty sure I'd let the fifth res just work. It's a major sacrifice, and it seems more satisfying if it actually works. (Not to mention it makes the option way more appealing.)

This actually I agree with, on further reflection. It would be such an epic sacrifice, probably one of the pinnacles of the campaign, that it would be a shame to let it fail. As a DM I can tell you that if I DID roll a save for it I would definitely fudge the roll.

You know, for the right player/character, this could really be something to build a campaign around: "My One Unique Thing is that my death will bring peace to the realms." And then character could roll up a cleric who at some point would have to res an Icon or a great hero knowing that the process would kill him.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Frankly, that makes me like it less. I've got plenty of games that have hard caps where the game STOPS. They're called MMOs, once you defeat the final boss the game is over, go reroll. The thing I like about TTRPGs is that they don't have to end at a specific point or level. Sure, content peters out after level 20 in most, 30 in others, but really there's no reason the game has to STOP being official content ends.

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.

If resurrection is something that doesn't come up much, why so many rules for it?

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.

I'm not a big fan of the crunch dictating fluff. The reverse is okay, but I'd generally prefer rules that don't force my story in a specific direction, especially if it's the "go reroll" direction.

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.

But tough choices are a result of presentation, they don't need any mechanical backing to be tough. Tension and drama exist on a bell curve, up to a certain point it is good, beyond that, it's more of a drawback.

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.

I'm not sure why. You knew the rules, you chose to exercise the option, which is why I feel the last rule should be 50/50 chance of death, flip a coin. Maybe you thought you were going to make the ultimate sacrifice, but fate leaned in your favor and hey, you're reduced to 1 hp instead, only recoverable though non-magical means.

Martyrs are so overplayed.

 

[Agamon]

I'm not sure why. You knew the rules, you chose to exercise the option, which is why I feel the last rule should be 50/50 chance of death, flip a coin. Maybe you thought you were going to make the ultimate sacrifice, but fate leaned in your favor and hey, you're reduced to 1 hp instead, only recoverable though non-magical means.

It's a spell, so it has some rules, but I wouldn't say a lot of rules though. And this is a reasonable house rule and pretty easy to implement.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's a spell, so it has some rules, but I wouldn't say a lot of rules though. And this is a reasonable house rule and pretty easy to implement.

Yes, though to be fair I feel you could simplify the whole thing and just make it the only rule. "Resurrection has a 50/50 chance to kill the caster, if it does not kill the caster, the caster's health is reduced by half, recoverable only though non-magical means." Even that's a little verbose. "Resurrection has a 50/50 chance to kill the caster." would IMO be a clean and simple rule that would add tension, drama and create tough decisions when considering whether or not to res somebody.

 

[Agamon]

Yes, though to be fair I feel you could simplify the whole thing and just make it the only rule. "Resurrection has a 50/50 chance to kill the caster, if it does not kill the caster, the caster's health is reduced by half, recoverable only though non-magical means." Even that's a little verbose. "Resurrection has a 50/50 chance to kill the caster." would IMO be a clean and simple rule that would add tension, drama and create tough decisions when considering whether or not to res somebody.

That could work. A bit harsh for me, but it is easy and there's nothing to track, so I can understand the appeal.

 

[Dungeoneer]

"Resurrection has a 50/50 chance to kill the caster." would IMO be a clean and simple rule that would add tension, drama and create tough decisions when considering whether or not to res somebody.

Yeah, and no player would ever risk it.

I like the rules as they are. They are interesting, mechanically balanced and they inspire cool ideas for roleplay scenarios. Which I think ultimately is what you want from rules.

 

[Warbringer]

Survival Shock .. add if the the target fails to come back and dies, the caster dies...

done!