There is no 4e Rule for Death and being brought back to Life - at all !!!!!!

[ccs]

You would think a rather basic and important aspect of the game would have been well covered.

Its just slack really when you think about it.

No, they said all that needed saying on the subject.
One specific way (the easiest & most oft used) of raising the dead has a penalty attached to it.
Other, more advanced options don't have such penalties.

I don't like 4e, & I think it's full of crap, & I'm glad they pulled it's plug in favor of 5e.... But this isn't part of the crap.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, the rule is that there isn't a rule.

Is that from D&D Beyond... Tunderdome?

 

[pemerton]

You would think a rather basic and important aspect of the game would have been well covered.

Its just slack really when you think about it.

I don't understand what you're complaining about.

The Raise Dead ritual results in a penalty. That is stated as part of the spell.

An ability like (say) the Sage of Ages 30th level feature doesn't result in any penalty, as no penalty is stated.

This has caused zero issues at my table, and I'm not sure what the issue is that you're seeing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You would think a rather basic and important aspect of the game would have been well covered.

I wouldn't call coming back from the dead 'basic.' Basic attack is basic.

Its just slack really when you think about it.

It's exception based design. Lack of a general rule giving a penalty just means that instances where there's no penalty don't need to specifically say so, and instances where that is one, do have to spell it out.

Slack is not producing an Epic focused DMG, slack is not developing martial practices fully... slack is not including Martial controller builds.... Slack was not working the numbers behind Skill Challenges more fully ahead of release.

Those are more valid examples, especially the last.

slack is letting Mearles who thinks designers shouldnt think about action economy take over.

To be fair, whatever suit made that decision probably had no notion of Mearls's design philosophy. And, it's entirely possible that he hadn't lost that particular part of his mind, yet, as it seems a recent development...