Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rodrigo Istalindir" data-source="post: 975979" data-attributes="member: 2810">Maybe, but 'easy' does not equal 'fun'.   I couldn't stand playing in a game where there was zero risk.  Do you not let your player's fail on a quest because that wouldn't be fun?  If you are going to make coming back from the dead a trivial experience, why bother to let them die in the first place?  As a player and especially as a DM, I'm grateful for anything that lowers the power-level of the game.  It's much easier for me to cut a player some slack on a 'raise dead' because he just got unlucky than it is to jack up the price for someone who keeps dying through poor play.You'll get far better results with  your group if you charge them half of list price in an especially deadly campaign than if you charge them double because you think coming back to life is too commonplace.This holds true for all the moaning and gnashing of teeth over the changes in 3.5.  Tis far, far easier (and preferable, in my opinion) to keep the core game relatively tame (re: crits, spell DCs, whatever) and let the DM loosen it as they see fit, than to start with a game halfway over the top to begin with, and expect the DM to reign it in.  This also makes it much easier for inexperienced DMs to run a game without one powergamer running rampant.As an aside, whenever we had a resurrection quest, we had the player whose character had died DM the adventure.  It gave them something to do, it helped them gain experience as a DM, and it gave the regular DM a chance to play for a change.  Plus, in our experience, the player-turned-DM would come up with really epic stuff because they wanted their character's rebirth to be special.</blockquote>

Verification