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

[Treebore]

I handle it this way.

"Hey player #6! Your character bit the big one. Do you want it to be raised? No? Cool."


"Hey player #4! Your character bit it too! Do you want it raised? Yes? OK, then this is who you have to look for...."

Unless the party cleric is alive and able to cast "raise dead".

Normally a player has a "competitive bone" somewhere in their body. So when they die they feel failure. Plus I make doing it a hassle. So I figure the point is proven well enough.

I suppose there are those who have the "video game mentality" about dying, but I have been fortunate enough to not run into them. I hope I stay that fortunate.

Plus, I have also found it to be a mistake to make games "too realistic". Players want escapism, not to be reminded about the negative things they deal with in the real world. So just another one of the "fine balancing acts" us DM's have to do while running our games.

 

[JustKim]

I suppose that depends

a) if you use a lot of sourcebooks
b) you don't enforce the level loss on the new character

You might think so, but it's the same even when we play differently, with fewer books and PCs joining a level behind. The only compromise is in the enjoyment of players who spend money on books, and those who want to change out a character they're no longer happy with.

The point where restrictions make raising a character more appealing than switching exists in very close proximity to the point where PC death means the player simply leaves the game.

 

[phindar]

Sometimes the finality of death is in the player's mind even if it isn't in the system. "Well, Gorbeck the Mighty bit it. Maybe I'll try a Beguiler." Also, if you have more desire to play than available time, you usually have three or four character concepts batting around in your head that you'd rather try, rather than keeping going with the character you just planted.

 

[Victim]

Yeah, sure.

Then massively trim damage per round from spells and attacks, and remove/cripple some of the nastier save or X effects.

Also, forcing people to do more characters isn't necessarily a good thing, IMO. People have good and bad ideas. Raise spells act as late stage selection mechanism. Sometimes, characters aren't so fun to play as they might seem when under construction. If the character is working and fun to play, then get a raise. If playing the character isn't working so well, then come up with another one.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Personally, I don't mind raise dead as long as it is rare, which can be accomplished with the level scale used in the campaign, or with plot-elements apart from game mechanics. Or both (my preference). I like the approach implied in the Holmes basic rulebook, where it says "A seventh level cleric can raise the dead, if you can find one!" That is, clerics who can raise the dead are not easily located just by travelling to the nearest city of appropriate size, but are rare. My approach to level scaling assists, there.

Another viable approach is to cut-off access to spells of that level. For example, Meepo's Holmes Companion gives a level progression from 4th-8th (it is intended to continue the progression from the Holmes basic rules), but no fifth level spells are granted: fourth level is a high as the spells go.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

For anyone who wants rid of Raise Dead and a slightly more dangerous campaign world, check out Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms.

 

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I have absolutely no problem with Raise Dead. In fact, I've lowered the GP cost and altered the level loss rules so it's not quite so much a penalty.

Simple fact: players invest time into developing their character, and few find it fun to have that investment snatched away? "Realistic?" Perhaps, but not more fun for most of them. Some players like highly fragile characters who can never return, but I find them to be in the minority.

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.

 

[Thurbane]

Wrong.

Next?

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

 

[shadow]

Yes! Get rid of raise dead! Resurrection, raise dead, and reincarnation only make sense in metagame thinking. Think of their implication on the setting - it be profound! Why should there be any fear of death if a character could get raised? What's the point of assassinations? There would be no question of what happens after death. In short, death ceases to be Hamlet's "undiscovered country" in games that allow resurrection magic. Perhaps to make the game a little less deadly, action points, or something similar, could be spent to declare a fatal hit "just a wound". Of course, there could always be the legendary quest into the land of the dead as with Orpheus...

 

[phindar]

To a certain degree, I see Raise Dead as patch for a combat system that's probably too deadly for some playstyles. (That's not meant as a knock versus playstyles, patches or lethality.) In fiction, characters live or die when its dramatically appropriate, and in D&D you die at -10 HP (or neg Con, or whatever House Rules you use). Raise Dead is a way to keep characters that the system kills but the story or the player still wants.

As a flight of fancy, let's say we took Random Death out of D&D. A character reduced to -10 can be captured, knocked unconscious, stripped of all gear, lose a limb, lose an eye, lose stat points, lose his title, lands or whatever; but can't die. (Let's assume that the losses can be repaired or replaced through spells like Regeneration, or through adventuring to escape from the prison or track down the people who took his gear.) The only way the character can die is for the player to specifically risk it, to say that if his character dies in this combat he's dead forever, but if he prevails he achieves a specific goal.