Raise Dead now costs 5000 GP!

[Agback]

A king ruling one million subjects, who earn an average 1sp/day, and charges a 10% tax rate (pretty gentle...) can afford two raises *per day* (level loss notwithstanding)

10% is a "gentle" tax take by modern standards (most advanced countries take over 45% when you take all tiers of government into account and include indirect taxes). But it is not "gentle" by ancient, mediaeval, or even early modern standards.

The income tax that got Britain through the Napoleonic Wars was sixpence in the pound (2.5%), and applied only to incomes over 120 pounds per year. It was considered onerous, and promptly repealed when the wars ended (both times). The income tax that got Britain through the First World War started at a shilling in the pound (5%) (and has never been repealed since, only increased).

In mediaeval England there were no taxes in the normal course of things. Taxes were levied only on special occasions such as wars and the knighting of the King's sons and the marriage of his daughters. In the normal course of things that King was expected to run the government out of the income of his own estates. That is gentle taxation!

Now, the King of England in middle and High mediaeval times was the richest king in Western Europe. He ruled about 6 million people, and in the 13th century his income was about 30,000 pounds per year. The wages of an unskilled labourer at this time was about 1.5 pence per day. So the king of 1 million subjects earning 1 SP per day might on the same standard be earning 80,000 GP per annum. But not (principally) through taxes.

This king is very nearly as rich as the one you calculated. But you seem to have got the cost of Raise Dead wrong. If the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Abbot of St Denis don't have Mitres of Resurrection or even Palliums of True Resurrection there is something seriously wrong. And if they do, the King can afford to have everyone who dies in his kingdom Raised, provided that the bodies are to hand.

Adds a new meaning to the idea of Habeas Corpus.

Now obviously, the amount that a mediaeval kingdom could and would pay up to resurrect a king who died in battle would be comparable to the amount it could and would cough up to ransom one who was captured. For some indication, the English paid a ransom of 150,000 marks (100,000 pounds) for Richard I in 1194, and after the Battle of Poitiers the French agreed to pay (but never managed to raise) 4,000,000 ecus d'or to ransom Jean II.


Regards,


Agback

 

[Metalsmith]

I'm definately in favor of the change... raise dead/res/etc were just too damn cheap for me.

Then you're more than welcome to spend More than what it costs to assuage your feelings of guilt.

Just don't expect me to do the same.

 

[seankreynolds]

I don't like the change to raise dead's material component cost.

Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.

As for the more powerful spells, sure, raise the cost on those, as they replace the character cost (the lost level) with a $ cost.

This just means that far fewer people are going to be able to get raised.

The core books are supposed to set a _standard_ for what a _typical_ campaign is like. In a world where 9th-level wizards can teleport and 9th-level rogues can sneak attack twice a round for +5d6 damage each time, being able to grab a willing soul and cram it back into its own body isn't that hard.

After all, wizards can use one of their 5th-level spells to force an extraplanar being into a trap until it performs a service (at no $ cost, mind you), and clerics can use one of their other 5th-level spells to get 9+ correct answers directly from their deity, or bring himself and a handful of friends bodily to another plane ... why is it so hard to accept that raising the dead isn't that difficult and is appropriately placed at 5th level without a costly material component?

 

[Agback]

In a world where 9th-level wizards can teleport and 9th-level rogues can sneak attack twice a round for +5d6 damage each time, being able to grab a willing soul and cram it back into its own body isn't that hard.

Hear! Hear!

Why do people who have no trouble believing in eighty-tonne fire-breathing flying lizards suddenly have trouble believing that in a world stuffed to the gunwhales with powerful magic only the old and poor might be in serious danger from death? Face facts, guys! A society with access to D&D magic is going to be unlike any real society. If you want a game setting that is just like mediaeval Europe but with a smidgin of magic, play Ars Magica or C&S.

Besides, if you are worried about cheap Raise Deads, worry about the fact that even with the new rules the market rate for getting a friend or relative back from the dead is still less than 22 GP. The broken rule that needs fixing is still the ridiculously high return on investment in wondrous items that cast a number of spells per day.

Regards,


Agback

 

[hong]

I hate the idea of some sort of res-check. How much would it suck to fail that roll?

Note that under my system, it's possible to reduce the DC to the point where you can't fail the roll. However, you'll pay for it in XP (but not in levels).

[edit: Also, for more squeamish groups, the res check thing could just be what you need to survive a standard resurrection. If you fail, that could just mean having to resort to _nonstandard_ resurrections, ie quests to recover the soul 'n stuff.]

 

[Gizzard]

After all, wizards can use one of their 5th-level spells to force an extraplanar being into a trap...

This is the sort of logic I was looking for when I asked what level characters people thought deserved a Raise Dead.

So, 500G was a bit cheap; even a first level party with a couple successful encounters behind them could afford a Raise Dead. But if first-level characters getting Raised is silly, what level characters should be seriously thinking about getting Raised?

Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.

Are you saying that there should be no material cost to Raise Dead? ;-)

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I hate level loss and won't institute any rule that involves it.

Imc I use a compulsory 'quest' spell on all those ressurected as decided by the cleric in accordance to their religion. While undertaking a 'death-quest' you cannot be raised if you die and if you renege, your link to life can be revoked and again death is unraisable. Plus a material componant.

Pros: No level loss. Can create an adventure hook out of thin air.

Cons: The quest needs to be significant in difficulty for it to be valued. The quest needs to be compatible with both religion and character. The quest has to be undertaken immediately and this may detract from the campaign plot, best to keep the quest tied to the advancing plot somehow.

I really don't care how expensive the diamonds needed are and so 5000 is ok to me.

 

[Chimera]

Basically as a handwave to deal with the age-old "why can't Joe Commoner get raised every time he falls under his plow" question. Death is something that's final for 90% of the population. The remaining 10% are exceptional, and it's from these exceptional people that PCs are drawn.

Gee, IMC Raise Dead costs the equivalent of about 20 years of income for Joe Commoner, so it's highly unlikely that his family will be able to, or interested in, coming up with the money.

Solves that problem without special rules.

 

[green slime]

I don't like the change to raise dead's material component cost.

Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.

So, would you choose to stay dead, or come back alive a grad student? Not much choice there. Given the commonality of levelled NPCs, raise dead is still fairly common.

The level loss sucks because it means the adventuring character is far more likely to die again. The average level of the party gets all spread out, and it becomes more difficult to challenge all the players equally.

It would be far better if the game had a system whereby the "heroes" could avoid certain death, (without DM fudges) rather than allowing the return from death be something that is not only achievable, it is expected at a certain level of play. You know sooner or later, your character is going to die, but it matters not.

Death is such a huge part of life, our stories, myths and legends, and yet in this game, it is as meaningless as the porridge the farmer had for breakfast. No Epic quests of legend to defeat death here.

Being raised from the dead isn't heroic. Let the heroes avoid the death, through use of action points or similar. Then should bad misfortune strike, the story and legend of the character can continue, in the memory of the players.

The core books are supposed to set a _standard_ for what a _typical_ campaign is like. In a world where 9th-level wizards can teleport and 9th-level rogues can sneak attack twice a round for +5d6 damage each time, being able to grab a willing soul and cram it back into its own body isn't that hard.

And you have first hand experience of this?!?! Or is this just an opinion, as valid as others?

After all, wizards can use one of their 5th-level spells to force an extraplanar being into a trap until it performs a service (at no $ cost, mind you), and clerics can use one of their other 5th-level spells to get 9+ correct answers directly from their deity, or bring himself and a handful of friends bodily to another plane ... why is it so hard to accept that raising the dead isn't that difficult and is appropriately placed at 5th level without a costly material component?

Because it disrupts the versimilitude of my game? Because none of the other examples listed actually cause any player expectations as to how ordinary people live their lives? Because there is then no logical reason why even the moderately wealthy die young? Because so many plot devices and adventures become completely pointless, or at best contrived and ludicrous, after a certain level.

You can't have a murder mystery, without involving magic in the murder, and once you involve magic, any use of logic flys out the window. Thus the solution of the murder relies not upon the use of logic (as a good detective story) but on how well the player can manipulate the PHB spell section.

IMO, a cheap raise dead cheapens the gaming experience. It stays as is in my Greyhawk campaign, but in my homebrew, returning from the dead is not an option.

 

[dcollins]

Besides, if you are worried about cheap Raise Deads, worry about the fact that even with the new rules the market rate for getting a friend or relative back from the dead is still less than 22 GP. The broken rule that needs fixing is still the ridiculously high return on investment in wondrous items that cast a number of spells per day.

Agback, no such item exists in the rules -- and thus no such item exists in the standard campaign world.

You're making an error in thinking that "new items" can be designed at will by characters using the pricing guidelines in the DMG. No such rule provides for that freedom at will. The pricing guidelines in the DMG are explicitly only for "new items" that the DM creates and wants to add to his or her own individual campaign. (More: www.superdan.net/dndfaq3.html )