Is RAISE DEAD (etc.) too readily available in most D&D campaigns?

[molonel]

There are inumerable core ways to die in this game, including many, many magical ways, from low levels to high levels.

Getting eaten by a barghest is always fun:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/barghest.htm

I haven't yet incorporated weapons like those in Stephen Brust's writings which deliberately destroy the soul, but I've toyed with the idea once or twice.

There are just three* core ways to come back to life, and they all require a mid- to high-level cleric, 5,000, 10,000, or 25,000 gold pieces worth of a specific component. And the "cheapest" requires the intact body and a level loss. Yet people consider this too easy?

Different strokes for different folks. Some people think it should happen once or twice in a campaign, and substitute or deploy elements that prevent it from happening.

Jeez. I've made raise dead as readily available to the PCs as I possibly can, and there are still a score of dead PCs through 3 campaigns. My current campaign started at 9th level and is now 11th level, and there have been 2 permanent PC deaths (0 raises).

Oh, absolutely. So have I.

Has nobody ever been in a game where the only cleric in the party got capped?

That's always a fun one. The slow motion "Nooooooo!" amongst the other party members is always so delicious.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

D&D3 actually makes raise dead much more expensive than previous editions of the game. So I am totally stunned and slapped silly that people are saying that raise dead is too readily available. I'm finding revivication not readily available enough.

Yep

Maybe a previous campaign consequence for raising the dead could give a more realistic context for the game rules.

Something like: a ruler was killed -> the heir took over -> the ruler was raised -> a civil war raged -> benevolent clerics couldn't rationalise why the ruling class got raised while poor true believers didn't -> religious fragmentary war -> creation of a raise dead treaty.

Some kind of campaign specifc context like that could contextualise the game mechanic. In effect you can have your cake and eat it, if you just make sure the PCs have exemption under the right (and current) circumstances.

 

[Hussar]

Put your dungeons where you want to, but have a reason behind it. IN a typical world even the most desolute place is usually not more than 10 days travel if you know where you're going, and again, we're talking on the way back. Everyplace you just listed, an experience party can get back to a city in 10 days from there with the proper preperations.

Is having fun enough reason?

Umm, well, this isn't true. The Savage Tide AP has numerous examples where the party is more than 10 days from any help. One adventure has the party more than two weeks from any habitation and that habitation certainly doesn't have a cleric that can raise. Another adventure occurs at sea and the party is again well more than 10 days from ANY habitation.

The World's Largest Dungeon has two regions out of 15 that the party could get raised. To get to either one requires you to pass through at least three regions, the third going up to about 9th level. Half the campaign and you can't get a raise dead. Never mind that there is nowhere to buy the spell components.

10 days travel by road is a long way, true if you have a road. But, in a jungle, you're talking 40 miles. That's hardly huge travel distances. Mountains also. Desert travel, you're looking at a bit more than a hundred miles. And that's all assuming clear weather. A simple snowstorm, heavy rains, a sandstorm, and you're losing days of travel.

This idea that all dungeons must be an easy walk from fairly large centers is just silly. There is no reason that dungeons must be so close. In fact, there are several reasons why they wouldn't be. The old Keep on the Borderlands scenario is pretty unrealistic.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I recall reading somewhere (montecook.com, perhaps?) about a house rule wherein people returned from the dead were noticeably tainted and carried that stigma with them throughout the rest of their life. I like this idea and will be using it in the next campaign I run.

I haven't yet incorporated weapons like those in Stephen Brust's writings which deliberately destroy the soul, but I've toyed with the idea once or twice.

Since Brust's world was originally a game world, this circular journey seems almost poetic.

 

[Nightfall]

Good luck getting that thought through.

It got through here. I just kept hoping that Krusty Mate would respond.

eh.

In any case time to test the raise dead problem with Age of Worms. Now THAT should get me some PCs deaths.

 

[Storyteller01]

Heh. I just realized I forgot to put a smiley in my post. I wasn't trying to start anything.

I should have too. It was supposed to be a joke.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

Losing a character is just annoying. PC's are more likely to die in some stupid fight in a bar as they are to die defeating some legendary evil. A PC death is usually some stupid niggling little thing leading to a complete anticlimax, especially when they're at the 'legendary hero' point.

Legendary hero. Saved the world. Fell off a cliff, went splat and got eaten by rats. Bleah.

Therefore, we play with action movie physics firmly in place. A PC in our campaigns is never dead - they're comatose and won't wake up without serious medical attention. It's less annoying that way for everyone concerned.

 

[molonel]

Therefore, we play with action movie physics firmly in place. A PC in our campaigns is never dead - they're comatose and won't wake up without serious medical attention. It's less annoying that way for everyone concerned.

That's similar to the fate point mechanic in Conan d20, from what I've been told. I'm using a similar mechanic in my two d20 Modern campaigns right now, although I'm still fleshing it out.

 

[iwatt]

Therefore, we play with action movie physics firmly in place. A PC in our campaigns is never dead - they're comatose and won't wake up without serious medical attention. It's less annoying that way for everyone concerned.

Cool. That would make the Raise Dead spells actually more like Super Cure Spells. You could simply say that the time someone can spend in this comatose state is equal to their HD (instead of the cleric's CL).

This would work well in SF campaign, if you included something like Hiberzine (from John Ringo's Legacy of the Aldenata series). Hiberzine is a nanite injection that slows the body down to almost dead, allowing for transportation to a medical facility were massive injuries could be healed.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

That's similar to the fate point mechanic in Conan d20, from what I've been told. I'm using a similar mechanic in my two d20 Modern campaigns right now, although I'm still fleshing it out.

It can lead to some nasty 'believability disconnects', like the time one character survived having 3/4ths of his head blown off with an explosive bullet, but it gives players the gumption to throw their carefully-built, highly-detailed characters into some truly insane stunts.

Like the firefight in a white-out. That was... interesting.

Generating a character in our system takes about an hour, maybe an hour and a half, so killing off characters is the last thing anyone wants. It allows some seriously personalised characters, and you start off play with a very good idea of what your character's all about, but you're hesitant to throw him headlong into battle due to the time it'll take to build a new one. Our unkillability system isn't a written rule and doesn't have any rule mechanics; it's a tactic agreement in our gaming group that no matter how smashed up a character gets, they'll recover.

EDIT: And then there's the time our team sniper got rushed to medbay with his heart very literally in a sandwich baggie...