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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 4116061" data-attributes="member: 2656">I will note that everyone who abolishes or massively restricts resurrection magic in previous editions of the game is applying house-rules - the core setting assumes the (limited) availability of this magic.I really don't know why the discussion here has centred on PC resurrection, when the rule is actually meant to address NPC resurrection primarily, and its consequences for the game world. In previous editions core D&D has always failed to address in a coherent way why the rich and powerful are not constantly raised/resurrected. The societies portrayed in the backgrounds and novels don't reflect the availability of this sort of magic. I'm not surprised as it produces a very different setting feel where eg. in the case of the Steven Brust Dragaera books people are killed as a warning with the expectation they would be subsequently raised. While such ideas are intriguing and can be played with, a setting closer to our own is easier to plot for and easier for players to understand.What the rule does is imply campaign settings where most NPCs die permanently, and there is no automatic expectation that the rich and famous can be routinely resurrected. It implies a world closer to our own, where the vast majority of people fear death as permanent, whether  they be paupers or princes. It allows mundane assassinations without high-powered magic, duels to the actual death etc. This makes the mechanics of the typical campaign better match the setting writeups and plots typical in gaming and other literature, and as such is more consistent than just ignoring the whole issue. Consistency is a core component of simulationism as I understand it and so it could be said the rule is more simulationist for the average campaign world.Resurrection magic was in the game to compensate for the arbitrarily high chance of death in mid to high level adventuring. Low level pcs just died, mid level pcs might be raised with difficulty, high level pcs generally got rezzed if the players wanted to still play them. The more IC hated and OOC appreciated a BBEG the more likely they would return even from death. What has been described for 4e PC resurrection is basically what happened in most of the D&D campaigns I played in or ran in previous editions.The PCs are generally exceptional. This sort of thing is always a negotiation between the player and the DM, where the player wants the PC back and the DM has to consider the ramifications of allowing it. Do remember it can be the other way around as well - sometimes the DM wants the PC to come back due to ongoing plot reasons and the player may want a new character.I like this rule as IMO it won't change anything for the PCs, but makes the average campaign world more consistent. And for those who don't like resurrection, the rule can work for you as well, maybe no-one has a destiny to return, or perhaps its a one in a million chance that just might work...</blockquote>

Verification