RAISE DEAD: get rid of it and make D&D better

[Emirikol]

I predict that by getting rid of raise dead and other effects, character death would actually be less common, as players hoard Action Points/Fate Points/whatever and/or act in a cowardly and truly unherioc manner. Also, in such a situation I see Action Points becoming the new Raise Dead, and the "problem" surfacing all over again.

We use action points. It get's rid of what Remthallis worries about in narrowed campaign points (bad dice rolls in perpetual dungeon crawls where Frodo's replacement dumps the ring as the end of the campaign).

The action points are predictable. A player knows when his luck has run out and he needs to seriously consider why he's sticking his head in the dragon's mouth for the 4th and final time. With action points, it's much easier to call a player foolhardy, but Remthallis points out that with simple dice rolls (of chance) he prefers to have raise dead around (it should be free then shouldn't it?)..

..which leads me to why we need to explore the concept of: if Raise dead is there because sometimes people have bad dice rolls, why punish the player character by making him pay? Why can't it be free? Because there needs to be an aversion? To what? To my former point?

I think a lot of DM's are fearful of eliminating this from the game because they don't have a "nice" rule for replacement characters. DOes your replacement character come back with equal gold and equal x.p.'s? Or are you still punishing the player for a night of bad dice rolls and adding the raise dead mechanic?

jh

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually, I've run games where Raise was not an option, and my players actually preferred it. YMMV.

Good for you, but that doesn't mean that getting rid of Raise Dead makes D&D better. People always have the option to alter their individual games to their own tastes, and that does make D&D pretty awesome.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It's a part of the game that, among the other things I listed, annoying.

Annoying to you. Apparently it's not annoying to everyone else. Remove it from your game and have fun. Projecting your own dissatisfaction onto the rest of the D&D-playing populace is obviously inaccurate.

Raise Dead and similar spells have persisted in the game for a long, long time, and throughout the decades I've played I've rarely seen or heard any objections to them. I haven't seen a big, persistent movement to remove them from the game, so they must be appealing to a majority of players out there. I have run across games and D&D campaigns in which Raise Dead and the like were forbidden, and that's cool for those who enjoy them.

Also, the "let the dice fall where they may; man up and play the game" is a good attitude to have for playing HackMaster if one doesn't take it very seriously. But when it comes to real, flesh-and-blood players sitting at the table, taking into account how everyone wants to have fun is the best attitude to have.

 

[MerricB]

In fact, one of the changes of 3e was to remove the problems with Raise Dead (Resurrection Survival and the like)... that's an interesting decision.

Cheers!

 

[AnonymousOne]

Likewise, lots of DMs complain about how the spell affects the campaign setting - assassinations on monarchs become much less effective, for instance. I say "so what?" If you start valuing the fictional integrity of the setting over making sure the players have a good time, well ... priorities are mixed up.

Honestly, I think Raise Dead offers a lot more storytelling possibilities than it precludes. If nobles can't simply assassinate each other, that what DO they do to seize power and exert influence? How does the "Captain America scenario" pan out, when an ancient hero is resurrected in a world that has moved on from what he knew? These spells are a wonderful tool, both for telling cool stories and maintaining player fun. And that is why I made them more accessible in my campaign.

While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life.

It seems to me that explosives and incineration are not covered by this spell. If there is no body left, the idea of a simple raise dead spell will not nix assassination.

 

[Emirikol]

In fact, one of the changes of 3e was to remove the problems with Raise Dead (Resurrection Survival and the like)... that's an interesting decision.Cheers!

Which brings us back to...why have any "problems" at all then? If raise dead flows like wine, why not just make all damage subdual? Why have a death option at all if it can never possibly occur?

It seems to me like an unnecessary illusion. Either don't EVER let PC's die and save yourselves the boring part of having a Rube Goldberg game mechanic..or make death permanent.

Death is kind of silly in D&D. It doesn't ACTUALLY happen..you don't even need to put in more quarters to continue playing

jh

 

[phindar]

I understand the point that a system with a lot of Save or Dies needs the Raise and Res spells, but for me the question becomes how playable the SoD's are for my gaming style. (IMC, I've already made Save or Die a reduction to 0 hit points, rather than death.) I'd rather modify those and use Action or Hero Points-- as well as run encounters where death is not synonymous with failure-- to make the Raise and Res's mechanically unneccesary. That way, taking them out doesn't screw the players or wreck the game, and it makes death much more final. Which, if that's what suits your sensibilities, works.

I mean, losing a character you've played for years because you rolled a 7 instead of a 9 against a Slay Living is a Big No Fun. I see the R&R's (I'll keep experimenting with abbreviations until I get one I like) as a corrective measure for things that. But those aren't that hard to fix another way (putting the fix in before the character dies instead of after).

In D&D, you almost never can change just one thing.

 

[Mark Chance]

Invariably it seems, saying "Getting rid of X from the game will make the game better" or "Adding X to the game will make the game better" doesn't really mean anything other than "I'd like for my game to be this way."

Removing raise dead from D&D doesn't make D&D better. It doesn't make D&D worse. It is merely a change that suits one person's tastes but doesn't suit another's.

 

[Remathilis]

If you take the chance on fighting monsters, you take the chance with the dice. That's what they are there for. If you don't want to take chances, don't put yourself in danger. Are you saying that once a player has made "enough" bad dice rolls that he is excused from making further bad dice rolls even though he continues to put himself in needless danger and taking more chances? Perhaps if the dice aren't being kind to him, maybe he would want to rethink his strategy and WISEN UP A LITTLE - hence my other argument.
Dice are dice. Don't blame them. Raise dead is not there to counteract nights of bad dice rolls. When you go to Las Vegas and lose your pants, nobody says, oh, well let's just give you some more money then even though you can't read the signs on the walls: if you play games of chance, you may lose everything. Don't come cryin' to us

jh

You're making a better argument for potato-farming than adventuring. Yes, D&D has PLENTY of room for death (I killed two PCs last night, neither are going to be raised due to digestion). but I'll take true example that happened in a game I played. I'm the rogue. Crypt of the Devil Lich (DCC). Walking down a corridor. Missed my Search check by 1 (happens) and BOOM Power Word Kill (no save, under hp cap, good night).

I've been playing this character for 11 years now (he's my handle's namesake). I sure as heck would be upset of 11 years of character creation, interaction, history, and excitement went out by a single failed search check. I'd feel even worse being the only new PC in a group of 11 year veterans.

Spells like Raise Dead, Regenerate, and such gives me, the player, a chance to know that a 11 year investment doesn't need to end in one missed die roll. Or that a near TPK isn't the end of the campaign. Or that I can use new and unique monsters on my PCs without fear of utterly botching my campaign. Or that my players won't run from any matchup that they don't have the absolute advantage to. Or that they won't scour classbooks, messageboards, and char-geners for the absolute best "impossible to kill" builds and instead will take chances with less optimized feats, skills, and such (Animal Affinity? I'm a ranger, why not?)

I guess its a playing style thing, but don't get me wrong, I don't give my players the free pass. I just give them a chance to trade in some of thier earnings from adventuring (gold and xp in the form of a level loss) for a second chance to play the same character again. No one in my games are complaining...I

 

[Sound of Azure]

Which brings us back to...why have any "problems" at all then? If raise dead flows like wine, why not just make all damage subdual? Why have a death option at all if it can never possibly occur?

jh

I honestly don't think is such a binary situation. Having Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc in game doesn't mean that death does not matter, at least not in any of the groups I've been a part of for any appreciable length of time.
A number of my own PCs' personalities changed, or were strongly affected by their death and subsequent resurrection (nightmares, more caution, a more subdued personality, for example). One PC even joined the cleric's church after dying and being returned to life.