Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8934690" data-attributes="member: 29398">Maybe because they want to honour their now-dead companion by fulfilling the quest?  Maybe because the quest itself piqued the interest of other players/PCs?  Maybe because there's plans afoot to revive the dead character later?  There could be any number of reasons, all of which are as valid as the table decides to make them.While you might feel this way, not everyone does.  I lose a long-standing character, I'll have something else in play ASAP and that's my focus now - oftentimes I've had ideas bubbling for the new one for a long time anyway, meaning I'm glad to finally get it into play.  If the long-standing character gets revived later, I'll play both side-along if I can and if not, I have a choice to make (this exact choice came up recently for me in the game I play in; I stuck with the new one and sent the established one down the road).While I get your point, the specific example you chose isn't the best; in that I've long held that healing is something that shouldn't really be something done during combat (at least, not without very high risk) but should instead be done afterwards.Sorry if it came across that way, I was referring only to myself.With death being pretty much the only true loss condition left in 5e, death being rare does mean victory is close to guaranteed.Which in itself is great!  Kudos to you.So I then ask: how often are those dice liable to fall in such a way as to generate a true-loss condition: a character death, level loss*, major item loss*, limb loss*, or complete mind loss?  I'd guess not very...maybe not at all as it seems you don't like character death.* - loss conditions that I'm aware don't exist in 5e, included here for completeness.We're on the same page with this, then.  I've always got something in mind that I want to run, but in the end I'll run what they give me to run.I'm not sure that selfishness is encouraged by the rules, it's simply a very common playstyle no matter what the rules might say.In 0e-BX-1e at least, only the cleric group can heal while only the thief group can sneak.  Mages can do more if they have the right spells and the slots left today to cast them (a rare thing at low levels!), while the warrior group are very equipment-dependent but with the right gear can do a lot of stuff.  Further, multiclassing (by RAW) is very limited and only available to certain species, and some of the more versatile classes (Ranger, Paladin, Illusionist) are gated behind stat requirements and thus in theory are supposed to be uncommon.  At high levels, mages tend to rule the roost but IMO by that time they've earned it; and they still can't fight worth crap and have the resilience of a wet noodle. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Contrast this with the WotC editions (all of 'em), where it's trivially easy to build a character who can dabble in absolutely everything through unrestricted multiclassing and almost-unrestricted feat choices, while still being baseline effective due to additive levels.I hear you on that one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In both the game and car examples, the design is trying for one thing while the end user wants to use it for another.  I mean, I could have the most fuel-efficient car imaginable but if I drove it like Mario Andretti on a racetrack I'd still get awful mileage.  In the game, the design gently encourages teamwork but the players still want to play individualists.Fantasy takes many forms; and basing it on reality, at least to some extent, serves to make it far easier to relate to and share.Maybe that's where the fantasy comes in: we don't get to act this way in real life but we sure the hell can in the game, so let's get after it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've had 1st-2nd level parties move heaven and earth to get a character revived, usually because it was a character that the rest of the characters genuinely liked in-character.  And while Raise Dead might not be field-castable within the party until late on, it's nearly always available from NPC casters in town - for a price, of course.  I neither restrict nor punish revival beyond what 1e RAW prescribes, and in fact probably make it more available than ol' Gary G would have preferred.You might be surprised to hear that perhaps the longest-running out-of-adventure character saga in our games is an ill-fated romance between one of my PCs and that of another player.  This has been going on since about 1984, and during most of the intervening time one or the other of them - usually mine - has been dead.  They've gone to great, even sometimes ridiculous, lengths to get each other back to life over the years; and are both still going (and, remarkably, are both alive) today.So telling me there's no investment in dead characters just ain't gonna fly.</blockquote>

Verification