Monte on Life and Death (And Resurrection)

[frankthedm]

Hard to get ways to raise the dead don't work. The dead character's player has to sit out a whole adventure or is already playing a temporary character and might as well be playing a new character.

 

[Lanefan]

Hard to get ways to raise the dead don't work. The dead character's player has to sit out a whole adventure or is already playing a temporary character and might as well be playing a new character.

Which is why you play two characters in the party...

Lan-"I keep raising this dead horse so I can flog it some more"-efan

 

[Sunseeker]

Which is why you play two characters in the party...

Lan-"I keep raising this dead horse so I can flog it some more"-efan

Which isn't any different than making a replacement character later. Multiple characters leads to design bloat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Which is why you play two characters in the party...

Lan-"I keep raising this dead horse so I can flog it some more"-efan

This isn't really a great solution for all groups.

I have one player who refuses to run more than one character at a time. He really doesn't like to do it, irrespective of the edition we're playing.

Additionally, we've noticed that whenever someone is controlling multiple characters, their quality of role play tends to diminish.

Point being, while having multiple characters may work for some players/groups, it is by no means a universal solution.

 

[Elf Witch]

This isn't really a great solution for all groups.

I have one player who refuses to run more than one character at a time. He really doesn't like to do it, irrespective of the edition we're playing.

Additionally, we've noticed that whenever someone is controlling multiple characters, their quality of role play tends to diminish.

Point being, while having multiple characters may work for some players/groups, it is by no means a universal solution.

I agree on everything you just said.

In all the years I have been playing I have never seen running multiple characters work if they are in the same adventure. What tends to happen is that one of the characters gets ignored unless they are in combat. And it bogs down combat especially with players who take forever to make a decision on what they are going to do.

Most people are not comfortable having a discussion with themselves so they can't role play any interaction between the characters.

In a heavy role playing game they don't work.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Which is why you play two characters in the party...

Lan-"I keep raising this dead horse so I can flog it some more"-efan

This has been my policy since I started DM'ing in 1980 and it has always worked very well. I really don't want players sitting out part of the game when they're spending some of their limited time to have fun at the game. It helps in a lot of situations: death, disablement, party splits, or even when one character has to be cautious because it's low on resources.

I've never seen any of the problems with this others have mentioned above either.

 

[Mattachine]

Multiple characters is a play style thing. My players generally dislike multiple characters, and they aren't fans of having a group of NPC henchmen/hirelings, either. In some games, it's great, especially when there is less roleplay, a pickup group or tournament, and so forth.


As for 5e raise dead rules, I would like them to be in the DMG, not the PHB. That way, it will specifically be a DM/campaign-level call. Even spells that raise the dead could be in the DMG.

Also, any rule which purports to make raising the dead rare/expensive has to actually be rare and expensive. In 3e and 4e, bringing someone back costs a lot of gold . . . except that PCs of a level able to cast the spell themselves can easily cover the cost.


Again, I hope the new edition moves some rules that have been in the PHB for 3rd and 4th edition back to the DMG. Examples: raising the dead, wealth expectations, magic items, item creation.

 

[Klaus]

I've allowed a 2e Paladin raise the deceased party cleric based solely on roleplaying, in a Crowning Moment of Awesome.

 

[Lanefan]

Which isn't any different than making a replacement character later.

Yes it is, in that the player still has something to do when one of their characters goes down.

In all the years I have been playing I have never seen running multiple characters work if they are in the same adventure. What tends to happen is that one of the characters gets ignored unless they are in combat. And it bogs down combat especially with players who take forever to make a decision on what they are going to do.

Players who take forever to make decisions 'round here get decisions made for them by the rest of the group and-or the opponents as the combat rolls on while they dither. (in game terms, they hold their action as their character is indecisive)

Most people are not comfortable having a discussion with themselves so they can't role play any interaction between the characters.

This, I agree, is sometimes a problem. When I'm running two I usually try to make them either have good reasons to get along (e.g. brothers in arms) or be so unalike as to rarely want to interact with each other (e.g. flighty spellcaster, dour surly fighter).

Multiple characters leads to design bloat.

Depends on edition, I suppose. If you're trying to run 3e or 4e by the book and keep everything perfectly balanced then yes, big parties throw the numbers off. 0e-1e-2e didn't care as much how big the party was as the math was by and large flexible enough to handle it.

Lan-"the Fellowship of the Ring, the archetypal adventuring party, had 9 characters"-efan

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes it is, in that the player still has something to do when one of their characters goes down.

In that immediate time-frame. I don't think sitting out for a week while they make a new character is that big of a deal.

Players who take forever to make decisions 'round here get decisions made for them by the rest of the group and-or the opponents as the combat rolls on while they dither. (in game terms, they hold their action as their character is indecisive)

Yeah, that'd probably get me to quit your game and/or punch people in the face. I do not tolerate people making decisions for me or being ignored because I take more than 5 seconds to pick something.

Lan-"the Fellowship of the Ring, the archetypal adventuring party, had 9 characters"-efan

Two of those characters were overtly minions. The other two probably didn't get any PC levels until they went off on their own. Two of them died in the first book and only one was replaced, and he was mostly a plot device. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas were probably the only characters with more than one level in the whole party.