Raise Dead now costs 5000 GP!

[Emiricol]

I'm all for it. I don't really care how lethal the game "is" (as if that's an absolute), it ought to hurt to come back from the dead.

Some groups may well play meat-grinder style campaigns, and they can certainly Rule Zero it. For the rest of us, I think it puts life and death in a much better perspective.

So, I think making it cost more is a good idea, and about damn time.

 

[jasamcarl]

No, that logic really doesn't make any sense. I mean, make it cost whatever you like, I don't care, I can house rule all I like. But don't try to justify it with convoluted logic. "I get weaker, therefor I get poorer" doesn't make any sense. I can only marginaly stomach the "I get weaker, therefor I get dumber" bit that happens when you loose feats, skills, or mental ability boosts.

Convoluted? The game is balanced based upon a level/gp value pair. Determining appropriate encounters for a 1st level character with 20,000 gp values would be ridiculous, just to take an extreme example. I'm willing to be this was one reason high-level combat broke down so easily.

As to the flavor argument, resurrection is a precious resource worth about as much as someones life. 5000 gp seems like a viable value.

You seem to have confused the rules and flavor and thus are inhibited in your appreciation of both.

 

[MojoGM]

Hi,

Besides the 500 gp of the spell, I assume the actual CASTER of the spell would charge, in a HEFTY donation to the church or whatnot...

I have two characters who just perished and are going to be looking to be raised...I'm going to let them, but oh, there will be a cost....not 500...but not 5k each either...somewhere in-between.

I'm thinking 3000 gp each and a service for the church for each character.

That should do it.

 

[Tsyr]

You seem to have confused the rules and flavor and thus are inhibited in your appreciation of both.

I am not "confused" about anything, thank you. This isn't even about "flavour". It's about logic.

Convoluted? The game is balanced based upon a level/gp value pair. Determining appropriate encounters for a 1st level character with 20,000 gp values would be ridiculous, just to take an extreme example. I'm willing to be this was one reason high-level combat broke down so easily.

I'm not willing to bet that.

In any event, yes, the game is balanced on a level/GP pairing. But unless you are meticulously carefull, you're never going to have *exactly* the level of treasure that the books suggest for your level anyhow, your group will normaly be a little above or below it. So there is some definetly leeway in the calculation, leeway I think could be used here.

As to the flavor argument, resurrection is a precious resource worth about as much as someones life. 5000 gp seems like a viable value.

That's another arguement alltogether. I don't allow resurections in my game at all, outside of miracles or epic (As in Heroic, not Epic Level) quests. Though I'm going to be starting up a Ghostwalk game, so that will of course change a bit.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Welcome to "Wal-Mart" character creation instead of "Wal-Mart" resurrection.

I expect that this rule will be an almost universally negative change.

Player of any pre-8th level character who just died (of course, post-8th level characters may have died to death effects and consequently may need the 10kgp Resurrection so only the cause of the conversation is likely to change before 12th level): So, if I don't raise my character, what level do I start as?

DM:
A. Average party level.
Player: No problem; new character for me. Why lose a level and all my gold/equipment when I can start a new character at the average party level?

B. Average party level -1
Player: No problem; new character for me. Why lose a level and all my gold/equipment when I can start a new character at the same level without losing all his equipment and being almost certain to die again?

C. Average party level (or -1) and no equipment.
Player: Can I have my old character's equipment? (Of couse, this means the new character should be designed along the lines of the old character or the equipment won't be useful).

D. No, you can't have your old character's equipment.
Player: Gee, this is fun. I'm lower level than the rest of the party and I have no equipment. Why don't I just fall on my sword right now and save us all the trouble?

E. First level. We're Old Skool here.
Player: Neat. I'm Old Skool too. I'll just hope that a wounded kobold manages to make it past the rest of the party's fireballs and great cleaves so I can actually contribute to the adventure--well actually so I can roll my dice. Considering that the party wizard is probably a more dangerous melee combatant than my new 1st level (whatever), I can't pretend that killing a wounded, non-levelled kobold is actually a "contribution."

 

[Stalker0]

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

Will we see a lot more new characters? Probably yes, and I'm all for that too.

Raising should not be expected, it should be a miracle. If my character dies, I don't want it to be, "Of course I'm going to get raised!!" I want it to be, "Wow, you guys have the funds to raise me, that's really cool, thanks guys, hehe I'll want to see the look on the BBEG's face when I'm back in town."

If your game is too deadly to you and your dm's taste, then maybe tone it down a bit. If the save or die spells are what's teh problem, I completely understand that- and I personally think that's more of the problem.

For those who like meat grinders, house rule it back. But I like party's being cautious, thinking things through... and the extra cost to raising helps that along.

 

[jasamcarl]

Perhaps you should clarify your definition of logic. On mechanical/gamist assumptions of balance, this change is pretty logical. Unfortunatly, assuming that there is leeway, the orginal version of this spell only works if we assume that parties are usually rather severly underfunded given their level.

By using narrative terms such as 'poorer' and 'weaker' you are most certainly making a flavor argument.

 

[Tom Cashel]

This isn't even about "flavour". It's about logic.

No it isn't. It's about rules.

Logic breaks down in both sub-atomic and d20 systems.

D. No, you can't have your old character's equipment.
Player: Gee, this is fun. I'm lower level than the rest of the party and I have no equipment. Why don't I just fall on my sword right now and save us all the trouble?

Um...because you don't have one.

 

[Tsyr]

By using narrative terms such as 'poorer' and 'weaker' you are most certainly making a flavor argument.

I am most certainly not doing any such thing. "poorer" and "weaker" are quantifiable states of being that can be compared to the prior state of existance.

Perhaps you should clarify your definition of logic.

Fine. By "logical" I mean anything that has a logical, *in game* reason for it to happen. This is not the same thing is flavour! But I've never heard a good explanation offered up by WotC as to why characters actualy get dumber when they loose a level, for example. It's pure mechanics.

On mechanical/gamist assumptions of balance, this change is pretty logical. Unfortunatly, assuming that there is leeway, the orginal version of this spell only works if we assume that parties are usually rather severly underfunded given their level.

No, it doesn't. It works either way.

 

[Simplicity]

GOOD. Raise dead was way too cheap before.
A ten-fold increase is surprising, but it's too early
for me to say that it's too much.