Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 87457" data-attributes="member: 537">Thinking too hard about D&D is bad. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I concur with Jordan's post; the fact is that challenges in D&D at high level are not the same as those at low level. You can't assume that the same things that give a 1st level party pause will have the same effect on a 10th level one. That said, the finality of death is one of the universal aspects of the human condition, and tampering with it could lead to all sorts of icky world design questions.Resurrection does have a role to play in a _game_, because it gives players more freedom to do all sorts of hair-raising, death-defying stunts with their characters. This is good, if you like lots of swashbuckling action in your game (as I do). The problems only crop up when you start asking why other people besides PCs can't be raised as well. Assuming you don't ban resurrection altogether, the solution I suggested in another thread applies here: assume that resurrection magic only works on a select few -- call them "heroes" or "chosen ones" or "masters of fate", or whatever you like. This means that PCs (who are heroes by definition) and important NPCs (who are heroes/anti-heroes by DM fiat) can continue to be raised. It also ensures that death isn't taken lightly, nor is the threat of being killed.</blockquote>

Verification