limiting raise dead

[calighis]

I really hate the rules regarding raise dead and true resurrection. Put simply, there is no fear in risking your character's life knowing full well that it can be restored to you with little difficulty.
Also the very act of raising the dead is cheapened by the fact that it has a GP price attached to it and can be performed multiple times.
By the time your cleric can raise dead it might very well become once a day phenomena.
No magic, no angelic chorus or demonic presence as the case may be... just poof your alive.

I think there ought to be a balance for the rule. That resurrections of all kinds ought have some serious strictures on them.

1) The same character ought not be able to res more than three times through any agent be it wish, miracle, or true res...

2) Part of the spell requirement for all res spells ought to be that the divine agent granting the resurrection be granted a boon by the characters. Paladins of sufficient level would be exempt from that one. If not a boon then perhaps the character have to retrieve an extremely intractable scroll or ointment in order to perform the deed. No GP cost unless it is a god of wealth or greed and even then it ought to be some outrageous sum.

3) A cleric can only cast a res spell with the direct approval of his god and further more, he can prepare no other spells that day as all of his prayer and preparation is absorbed into being a direct conduit for the most powerful expression of his divine agents might. If the God's approval is not obtained the cleric cannot res.

4) A cleric can only cast resurrection three times a year. If there is anything a divine agent hates its recidivism.
This prevents the characters from going back to the same damn cleric to get res'd like its a walk in clinic every other adventure.
That way they would have to go and find another scource after the first however many times and that can be exciting. Imagine having to go to the lizard folk to ask their most powerful shamans a favor?
What kind of crazy stuff would they ask you to do?

Now these are what I am trying to stipulate for the group but I have a veteran player who tells me that I should not be messing around with the balance of the game. I can see his point. Why should certain characters have to struggle just as hard and not get all of the rewards he is entitled to while others etc...
So my question is.. how can i make a balancing equation here?
What can I give the cleric if I take this away from him?

One of the biggest reasons to play a cleric is that you can resurrect your fallen comrades while fighting in the abyss. Totally essential.. True res is the difference between victory and TPK a great deal of the time.

I would provide a cleric that was better at keeping his comrades alive. perhaps allowing him to cast instantaneous heal spells over the course of combat at a distance providing he take some damage doing it...
or even that one spell... don't have spell compendium.. that allows you to res if its during the same round. I might extend that by a round.
I might provide a ray to him that if he could hit a comrade with it in the same round that he went down he would roll a 1d4 and that character could be healed back above -10 hp before that many rounds expired. maybe call the spell homeostasis.
The fact that you cannot be res'd willy nilly would make these abilities essential and make the role of the cleric even more essential cause staying alive is suddennly much more important.

Tell me what you think please.

 

[Kat']

One of the biggest reasons to play a cleric is that you can resurrect your fallen comrades while fighting in the abyss.

And that would be exactly the wrong reason to play a cleric, which is IMO the crucial point about the whole Resurrection problem.

DnD is neither a board game nor a computer game, it's not all about strategy and "filling distinct functions", it is a ROLEPLAYING game. If you play in a group of people who think the perfect party is Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric because of the complementary mechanics then you better forget your thoughts about Resurrection right now because it is gonna be the least of your problems anyway.

Now if you're playing with people who see more to the cleric than a healing/resurrecting machine, then the issues you're pointing will solve themselves alone. For example, if I'm playing a cleric of Kelemvor, I will never ever resurrect a comrade, because it would be denying the fact that death is a part of existence one has to accept. If I'm a cleric of Pelor, I shall not resurrect the neutral evil Necromancer just because he appears to be in the party. If I'm a cleric of Tempus, I shall not resurrect a comrade that fell sword in hand on the battlefield. And if I'm a cleric of Olidammara, I shall very well happily resurrect anybody, but ask for a very high reward. Resurrection, just like healing, or buffs, or ANY spell that benefits a comrade, shall never ever be automatic. It's all about how the cleric feels related to the target, and what his faith dictates him.

 

[Treebore]

If people want their character raised so they can keep playing it then raise it. Its a GAME. Treat it like one rather than some pseudo realistic imitation of reality.

Its to be played for fun. Chill out and let your players play their character if they want to. If they don't want it brought back to life, it stays dead. If they think there is still fun to be had, its brought back to life.

If you have to have some kind of limitation on it, at least be pretty generous about it. Such as making the limit equal to their original starting CON, with a minimum of 10.

Besides, if your killing PC's 10 times or more over the course of a campaign your probably designing overwhelming encounters, or you have players who insist on being careless players.

The idea is to come close to killing their PC's, not succeeding as often as possible.

Raising Dead gives your players chances to learn to play a character better, and also give you a way to fix any mistakes you made in designing the encounter.

The only time I ever saw players treat being brought back from the dead the way you describe is when the DM makes it meaningless. Players, normally, hate to lose. They know that dying is essentially losing/failing. Being brought from the dead gives them the opportunity to redeem themselves.

Having deities "charge" them in some manner, such as a quest, is fine. It even has literary precedence. It can be a great way to start them on an important quest and finish it. But to out right tell your players your character can only die "X" times and then they can't play it any longer, no matter how much they like the character? That changes it from being a game.

 

[Jhaelen]

Tell me what you think please.

I think, this thread should be moved to the house rule forum.

 

[darthkilmor]

Tell me what you think please.

Simplify, Simplify! Overly complex mechanics are not fun, and it honestly seems like you're looking for a problem that isn't there.

All the raise dead/resurrection/true resurrection have long casting time, so nothing about that is going to let them avoid a TPK while fighting wherever, unless your combatants regularly take 10 minute time-outs.
Also, if the gp requirement isn't a deterrent to your players, maybe they have too much treasure. Besides, with Raise Dead, you lose a level!! That is non-trivial!

Whenever making a new rule, ask yourself, "Is this going to make anything more fun?"

 

[azhrei_fje]

I agree with the "simplify" mantra.

I've been running a RttToEE campaign for 4 years now. I've had a total of 11 character deaths in this famously deadly module/campaign. The near-TPK at level 4 meant that three of the five PCs didn't come back. Later deaths were quite glorious as well, but it gave the players a chance to try something else and they did so more than once.

Because it's so deadly, I cut the gp cost in half for the material components of the raise-type spells. But RttToEE is not a treasure-rich module, so even with that house rule being raised is still tough. So I used Andy Collins' "negative level instead of real level" loss on raise dead. That helped significantly in terms of making characters more playable.

It's a game. Allow the players to win, just don't make it easy (that results in an empty victory). There should be consequences for their actions, but there should also be options and alternatives for how to accomplish their goals.

Good gaming!

 

[Rackhir]

I really hate the rules regarding raise dead and true resurrection. Put simply, there is no fear in risking your character's life knowing full well that it can be restored to you with little difficulty.

This simply isn't true. Dying even with easy access to rez, means a loss of resources, perhaps all or some of a character's magic items, if Raise Dead a level loss, which is quite a hefty penalty.

It also means failure, defeat and/or humiliation. Things almost all PCs hate. Lots of players would rather have their characters die than be defeated and captured.

Resurection magics are also in the system in order to help compensate for save or die effects, which are particularly common at high levels. If you're going to drastically restrict them, you also need to balance it out by reducing or eliminating those save or die effects. So you're starting to get into really ripping out large chunks of the system.

Both of the campaigns I'm in at the moment (and in my sig) have all but eliminated PC Death, except under rare situations. Yet this hasn't eliminated player's fear of failure or defeat.

Finally, if you are doing any degree of shaping the campaign around the characters. Then permanent death can rip large holes in the story of the campaign.

In short, don't worry about it. Players hate having characters they've grown attached to die, even if they can be rezed.

A factor a lot of DMs don't consider is that the availability of ressurection magics helps to mitigate the occasions when the DM misjudges the difficulty of an encounter or situation or simple bad luck/good luck. Do you really want to wipe out a character someone has been playing for a year simply because they rolled a one on a save? Or because you had 3 demons instead of two?

 

[moritheil]

I think, this thread should be moved to the house rule forum.

I know that we've been told to not reflexively post this, but I too feel that this topic would benefit from the attentions of those who make house rules. It's pretty clear that the OP wants to make some additional rules not found in the books.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I really hate the rules regarding raise dead and true resurrection. Put simply, there is no fear in risking your character's life knowing full well that it can be restored to you with little difficulty.
Also the very act of raising the dead is cheapened by the fact that it has a GP price attached to it and can be performed multiple times.
By the time your cleric can raise dead it might very well become once a day phenomena.
No magic, no angelic chorus or demonic presence as the case may be... just poof your alive.

The existence of resurrection magic in the game is ENTIRELY meta-game. It exists so that players can continue to play characters they like rather than have to roll up new ones anytime their dice get cold. Think of it only from that perspective. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for players to be able to get their preferred characters raised so they can continue to play them?

If you think it's bad then by all means quit monkeying around with it and just disallow it entirely. If you want to let players raise dead PC's at all, then... what's your problem?

I think there ought to be a balance for the rule. That resurrections of all kinds ought have some serious strictures on them.

No they shouldn't - because it's much more of an either/or choice. Either you want to let players resurrect their dead characters or you DON'T. Pick one. If it's the former you have no reason to then make it a complicated process, difficult to obtain, rare to succeed, and too costly or irritating to make it worth while. Certainly no more than it is as written. Either allow it or don't.

Any limitations that are necessary are only necessary on YOUR side, that is the DM's side in how it applies to NPC's. By the simple roleplaying expedient of having the dead unwilling to leave paradise, or a preferred afterlife to return to mortality you have all the control you need there. And if players are that cavalier and careless about their characters deaths that the existing penalty of LOSING A LEVEL isn't meaningful then details of Raise Dead are NOT your problem.

It's far more likely a roleplaying problem. The players don't have their characters react appropriately about death of their own or other characters because YOU don't have your NPC's react appropriately to the PC behavior or perhaps react just as inconsistently as the PC's.

Have NPC's react with sadness and solemnity to PC deaths. Sure the SPELL just has a gp cost but if YOU just let the reactions to PC's throwing a dead compatriot at the feet of the high priest begin and end with, "Pay me," then YOU are every bit as much of the problem as the players. If PC's act uncaring and unconcerned about death then NPC's should react with shock and horror (especially if as I recommended you make it exceptionally rare that anyone OTHER than a PC elects to return willingly to life from the afterlife) - and that means their reactions mgiht extend to refusing to cast the spell for those who disrespect death in such a way.

And just because the spell has a casting time of 1 minute doesn't mean that the clerics casting the spell won't insist on additional APPROPRIATE rituals and services.

The fact that you cannot be res'd willy nilly would make these abilities essential and make the role of the cleric even more essential cause staying alive is suddenly much more important.

All that adding those restrictions will do is add irritation and frustration because it isn't the mechanics of Raise Dead itself that CAUSE the problem of players not having their characters fear death.

After all, what happens if you go the full monty and just BAN resurrection magic altogether? Players aren't going to come to you and say, "Thanks Mr. DM. I really appreciate the importance of being ABJECTLY PARANOID about the possible death of my character. If he dies from my own stupid mistakes or from a lucky crit I'll be forbidden to play him any further - and that's just what we all need and want." If you just make it more difficult to obtain and make use of, your players likewise aren't going to come to you and say, "You're exactly right about this. I ALLOW my characters to die too often. I play like an idiot and I needed you to threaten me with not being able to play my character again AT ALL to get me to be sensible. Now I'll only let him die three times a year instead of four since that's all the more often that resurrection will be available. What was I thinking? I should have had a more restrictive schedule for how often I LET my character die rather than having to force you to resort to writing it into the spell."

I appreciate what it is you want to acheive. I've been there, and plenty of other DM's are there too. But I cannot see how the approach of adding restrictions, drawbacks, and complications well beyond what is already written into the spell would EVER produce the results you want. If you want less frequent character deaths intimidating the players by fear of not obtaining or being able to use resurrections is NOT the way to get it. If you want more appropriate roleplaying reaction towards death and resurrection then it is NOT a problem of insufficient rules crunch but a problem of roleplaying (and should be approached as a roleplaying problem, not a rules problem).

Besides, I don't think there's any way that you can convince me that LOSS OF A LEVEL is just insufficient penalty to inspire the necessary fear of character death on the part of the PLAYER.

 

[calighis]

Y'know what? I think I'm beginning to understand your points.
Character death is still a huge bunch of suck regardless. Thanks for all your input. I think we will be keeping the standard rules.