Define "lasting". 3rd pretty much allowed you to undo it, given time.
|
How often do people die in games now? Does anyone have a stat, or maybe a guestimate? Is there an epidemic of repeat offendors?
Well, counting only my PF history:
Campaign 1 (Levels 1-15): Five deaths, all above level 11, four in the final battle against the BBEG, and two immediately reversed with Breath of Life.
Campaign 2 (Levels 1-11): Five deaths, one character twice, and four of these while facing overwhelming enemies (eg 9th level party vs 20th level fighter).
Campaign 3 (Levels 1-16, fast progression): Zero deaths.
Prior to starting PF, I can only recall one PC death. I don't think my experience indicates a particularly high death rate or suicidal action. In general my group is happy to run from dangerous random encounters and likes to think tactically wherever possible. Eight of the ten PC deaths I've seen playing PF occurred because overwhelming threat X was placed directly in front of critical objective Y.
We never have less than 5 deaths in any given adventure path. The farthest we have ever made it in any given adventure path is part way through module #3. Most of our games fall apart because the story stops making any sense with the revolving door of characters. We are on our third party in in Carrion Crown with next to no ties to the original party.
I really wish they wouldn't make the adventures so fiedishly hard all the time.
I doubt your typical commoner has access to 9th level clericsI'm sure Pharasma has no problem with mere mortals treating Her domain as if there were a permanent revolving door installed...
I can just picture it now:
A long line of people who magically blink in and out again.
"NEXT...oh dammit where did he just go..."
The Gamemastery guide say that you can get a caster capable to cast 5th level spells in a large town 2.001-5.000 inhabitants.
The CRB say that spellcasting: cost Caster level × spell level × 10 gp, so 450 gp for a raise dead sans components.
A guy with 1 rank in a craft or profession, that craft or profession as a class skill and a +0 modifier from his characteristic taking 10 will have a Profession check of 14 and get 7 gp week, 28 gp month. subtract the 10 gp/month of a average lifestyle and he will have 14 gp/month of disposable income.
No he will spend the rest on beer, bribes and protection money. Obviously he will pay for occasional spells such as CLW, remove disease and get himself and his family a good sun block (Endure Elements). If he doesn't have a family he probably will pay for prostitutes.
You are making this a NPC problem. It doesn't have to be a problem.
|
What I said about evil v. non-evil, means simply this: people (and their gods) are going to be discerning, and ultimately there are going to be people behind the casting of the spell
For some reason you assume that a city or civilization will be leaning toward good.
A city cleric probably would not raise a serial killer but you think that the RL priests that even today make suffrage mass [I hope that is the right translation] in memory for Mussolini would not have raised him from the dead if it was possible?Any reason not to raise the evil champion that was killed while wiping out the orcs in the region? That is goal was to extinguish a race is not a problem for most city dwellers.
Adabar, a LN god, would probably approve the raising from the dead of both those figures and probably a large percentage of the city populations would approve.
How often do people die in games now? Does anyone have a stat, or maybe a guestimate? Is there an epidemic of repeat offendors?
Also are there tens of thousands of players abusing raise dead so vehemently that there is a sense that modern RPers don't give a care about their characters or the game? Is that the perception of modern gaming culture?
I don't have my finger on the pulse; I don't go to cons anymore, I only chat on ONE forum, and I only play w/a dozen gamers. In my limited field however these are not my perceptions. I don't believe but 2 character deaths have occured over the past 7 years and I don't know that my players even know or care about the consequences of Raise Dead.
Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn/frustrating the thread/stepping on any toes.
... And making me laugh. Thanks :)
R_Chance, I hate you ;-)
Half a hour of posting lost because you added a post while I was editing mine with some further reply to Tactilson.
My evil plan has been exposed! :)
Been there and done that on losing a post. When I go to do a long post now I do it in Word first and paste it in on the forum. When the forum hiccups and loses your post you just copy and paste, fix the formatting up and you're good to go.
|
|
How often do people die in games now? Does anyone have a stat, or maybe a guestimate? Is there an epidemic of repeat offendors?
Also are there tens of thousands of players abusing raise dead so vehemently that there is a sense that modern RPers don't give a care about their characters or the game? Is that the perception of modern gaming culture?
I don't have my finger on the pulse; I don't go to cons anymore, I only chat on ONE forum, and I only play w/a dozen gamers. In my limited field however these are not my perceptions. I don't believe but 2 character deaths have occured over the past 7 years and I don't know that my players even know or care about the consequences of Raise Dead.
Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn/frustrating the thread/stepping on any toes.
3 PC deaths in the last year playing Kingmaker from level 1 to 9. One was very bad luck (a scythe tree rolling and confirming 3 criticals against a wizard), 2 were the same character taking the hits to protect the other party members.
Probably the people that want to keep a drawback to death are GM of players of groups with a low death rate, not the groups where the players already treat death as a revolving door.
R_Chance, I hate you ;-)
Half a hour of posting lost because you added a post while I was editing mine with some further reply to Tactilson.
My evil plan has been exposed! :)
Been there and done that on losing a post. When I go to do a long post now I do it in Word first and paste it in on the forum. When the forum hiccups and loses your post you just copy and paste, fix the formatting up and you're good to go.
Usually ctrl-c and ctrl-v is sufficient, you don't even need to open word. The problem is when you forget to do that.
Well, it happens. I doubt I will re-type all that text. Better to go on.
|
|
I doubt your typical commoner has access to 9th level clericsI'm sure Pharasma has no problem with mere mortals treating Her domain as if there were a permanent revolving door installed...
I can just picture it now:
A long line of people who magically blink in and out again.
"NEXT...oh dammit where did he just go..."
The Gamemastery guide say that you can get a caster capable to cast 5th level spells in a large town 2.001-5.000 inhabitants.
The CRB say that spellcasting: cost Caster level × spell level × 10 gp, so 450 gp for a raise dead sans components.
A guy with 1 rank in a craft or profession, that craft or profession as a class skill and a +0 modifier from his characteristic taking 10 will have a Profession check of 14 and get 7 gp week, 28 gp month. subtract the 10 gp/month of a average lifestyle and he will have 14 gp/month of disposable income.No he will spend the rest on beer, bribes and protection money. Obviously he will pay for occasional spells such as CLW, remove disease and get himself and his family a good sun block (Endure Elements). If he doesn't have a family he probably will pay for prostitutes.
You are making this a NPC problem. It doesn't have to be a problem.
This cover most of the expenses you cited:
Average (10 gp/month): The PC lives in his own apartment, small house, or similar location—this is the lifestyle of most trained or skilled experts or warriors. He can secure any nonmagical item worth 1 gp or less from his home in 1d10 minutes, and need not track purchases of common meals or taxes that cost 1 gp or less.
stuff
beer, bribes, sun block and prostitutes.
You obviously missed my attempt at delivering my point with a sense of humor.I think it is apparent that you and I (and my friends) play different game. I not saying you are doing it wrong, but we just can't bother with what A NPC earns a month or if my neighbor can afford a new cow after 1, 2 or 10 months of labor. Or worry if Craft or profession is balance in regard with financial theories of Golarion or any similar fantasy world that might reveal that it work/make sense or doesn't work/make sense and any discourse regarding any problem this might have on gaming.
Nor do I/we bother with tracking every minute in game unless we are have short time buffs or need to solve a problem in X minutes.
This is not why we play the game and so I/we don't care if an NPC can save cash to get a Raise dead or not. If I GM next campaign (or the one after that) and decide to do away with the 5 000 Gp cost, the NPC issue won't be an issue. Why? Because:
A) It all about having fun and playing a hero, not micromanaging a city's or a world's economy. I'm not playing Simcity
B) As a GM I can solve this kind of problem as I see fit with the aid of my fellow friends. I'm sure they don't mind saving 5 000 Gp and they won't bother with if a NPC can save 1, 5 or 15 gp a month.
I seriously doubt the Devs have carefully calculated that Craft, Profession, use of magic and everything else make sense from an economic perspective or from a population perspective. Nor do I think that they have carefully analyzed every demographics that can be analyzed.
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
I can see arguments for not wanting to remove the 5000 gp cost. NCPs or world economy is not one of them.
|
|
stuff
And you have totally missed my point with your micromanagement comment.
I don't care what the NPC do every minute, but I care about the consistency of the world.a) raise dead is made accessible for a small cost.
b) most non destitute people can afford it.
c) most people will use it.
So the hero putting his life at risk?
"Let's drink to Zark, he risked a year of his savings for the city." don't sound so heroic.
One give you a gold medal, the other give you a thank you note from the town hall, sighed for the major by his undersecretary.
What I said about evil v. non-evil, means simply this: people (and their gods) are going to be discerning, and ultimately there are going to be people behind the casting of the spellFor some reason you assume that a city or civilization will be leaning toward good.
A city cleric probably would not raise a serial killer but you think that the RL priests that even today make suffrage mass [I hope that is the right translation] in memory for Mussolini would not have raised him from the dead if it was possible?
Any reason not to raise the evil champion that was killed while wiping out the orcs in the region? That is goal was to extinguish a race is not a problem for most city dwellers.
Adabar, a LN god, would probably approve the raising from the dead of both those figures and probably a large percentage of the city populations would approve.
Diego. You are both missing the point and are taking away something incorrect from my post (basically nitpicking word choice instead of an actual, valid argument).
Let me quote myself and explain a bit so we can both know what I'm talking about.
Further, auto-raising everyone 'cause high level clerics is neat and all, but it may very well be that they don't want to come back. Good souls get a reward of immense magnitude, after all, and that leaves mostly the neutral and evil ones that are more-than-willing (at least some of them... some probably can't wait to be demons or devils or whatever). As for evil, some will have unbreakable soul-bargains, and some will be preyed upon by daemons; and many people good or evil wouldn't raise evil people. While fewer neutral than evil, neutral people would be preyed upon by daemons. And then the cleric in the city might not be the 'raising' type. After all, it simply tells you the highest level NPC cleric, not who that cleric is, their alignment, or what deity they worship. Pharasma, Urgathoa, Norgberger, and Rovagug are likely to be hesitant unless it's a worshiper (and even then in three out of four cases, there's likely to be some hesitation). Nethys, Gozreh, and Zon-Kuthon are likely to give odds-to-even chance for something strange or outright refuse for various reasons (ranging from balance of life and destruction, to the natural cycle, to the mourners haven't suffered)*, and Asmodeus is likely to require extensive (and probably secretly extremely costly) contracts to do anything. Erastil and Iomedae* are likely to be quite picky in many cases. Lamashtu is likely to have something "go wrong" (though there's no rules in place at present). Abadar, Calistria, Cayden, Desna, Gorum, Irori, Sarenrae, Shelyn, and Torag are left over as will-probably-raise-you-normally/readily (though Torag will be picky based on the race of the deceased). This is just as true of their worshipers. slightly-less than 50% with no further strings attached... isn't great. Having a 20% chance of finding a cleric who'll just not raise you outside of rather extraordinary circumstances? Well, that's a fair balancing point right there, from my point.
In the above I assert:
- many good people won't come back 'cause awesome
- some evil people will have unbreakable bad stuff
- many people (regardless of alignment) won't want evil people back 'cause reasons^ (this can also apply to good, neutral, law, or chaos, but, you know, I covered some good above, and I kind of figured it was obvious)
- gods (and their loyal followers) will have strictures on who can and can't be raised
- I totally pointed out that Abadar (among others) would be one of those who would tend to raise people readily
^
My mention of and slight focus on evil was not because society leans towards good, but because evil people would be more likely, over all, from the initial point to want to return when raise spells are used on them (at least they are likely to); I was explaining why they would (as a group, not individuals) tend not to be raised as much.
As far as powerful rulers: okay, and your point? As it stands now, House Thrune seems to have access to a similar bargain, at least once a year. That Pit Fiend does have a free wish once per year, after all. Seems entirely reasonable that in a fantasy land such things exist. And for people with as dedicated a following as Mussolini (or others of similar caliber), a 5k gold price tag isn't going to stop them.
On that topic...
"Let's drink to Zark, he risked a year of his savings for the city." don't sound so heroic.
... that sounds really, really generous, though. That dude spent an entire year's savings? Whoa. That's it's own kind of heroism.
ciretose:
Raise Dead 3.5-style.
You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than one day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.
Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell loses one level (or 1 Hit Die) when it is raised, just as if it had lost a level or a Hit Die to an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised). This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means. A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised, in addition to losing spells for losing a level. A spellcasting creature that doesn’t prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell, in addition to losing spell slots for losing a level.
A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current Hit Dice. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.
Material ComponentDiamonds worth a total of least 5,000 gp.
For rules contexts,
Energy Drained
The character gains one or more negative levels, which might permanently drain the character’s levels. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit Dice, he dies. Each negative level gives a creature the following penalties: -1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks; loss of 5 hit points; and -1 to effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities). In addition, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from the highest spell level castable.
Meh... the second quote isn't as helpful, but at least it shows I've done my homework.
ANYWAY. Here's the thing: the CON drain? Permanent. No way to get that back. I agree. Hope you're not first level! But only a very strange reading would result in the inability of a character to raise their level again, which is pretty much what I meant by being able to "undo it, given time". In this case, I think we're just looking at the words "undo it" differently.
Then, of course, there's the thought bottle.
Thought Bottle: A flask of thick green glass, a thought bottle can be used to store thoughts, memories, experience, or spells. A single bottle can hold five thoughts or memories at a time, or a single creature’s current experience, or a single spellcaster’s collection of prepared spells. Any individual that
touches the bottle and speaks the command word instantly gains a general knowledge of the bottle’s contents, but doesn’t actually access the thoughts, memories, or spells within until she consciously decides to do so. Storing or retrieving anything from a thought bottle requires a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.Thoughts: The bottle can store specific ideas, communications, or conclusions. Once a memory is stored, it disappears from the user’s mind, but she remembers the general nature of the stored thought. For example, if the user stored the name of a murderer, that name would disappear from her memory and be unrecoverable from her own mind by any
means, though she would know that the thought bottle now contains the murderer’s name. Similarly, secret messages and intelligence can be hidden in a thought bottle to pass them to someone else.Memories: The user’s recollection of a single day’s events can be stored in the bottle. Once stored, the user remembers the general nature of the memory (“the day we performed the Ritual of Binding”) but loses all details of the event itself.
Experience: A thought bottle can be used to offset level loss as a restoration spell can, but is effective against level loss that even restoration can’t undo (including levels lost due to death, but not the negative levels bestowed by magic items such as a holy weapon). When a user’s experience has been stored within the bottle, he can subsequently access the bottle to restore his XP total to exactly what it was when it was last stored, negating any levels lost in the interim. Storing experience in the bottle is difficult, and the user must pay 500 XP (deducted before storing) to do so. Only the creature that stored experience can retrieve it, but if the bottle is destroyed or lost, the user suffers no ill effects.
Spells: An owner who prepares spells can store some or all of her memorized spells in a thought bottle. Any spell she puts into the thought bottle is expended as if she had cast it, but the spells in the bottle can then be retrieved at any later date to be prepared as normal. Wizards often use this function of the bottle to create a kind of backup spellbook, concealing thought bottles in well hidden boltholes against the eventuality of their grimoires being stolen or destroyed. Only the
character who stored the spells can retrieve them, and if the bottle is destroyed, the stored spells are lost with no effect.Strong enchantment; CL 13th; Craft Wondrous Item, demand, modify memory; Price 20,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
I bolded the important part. But! It still costs XP, right? 500!
Well...
CR 1 provides 200 at 8th lvl
CR 2 provides 225 at 9th lvl
CR 3 provides 250 at 10th lvl
CR 4 provides 275 at 11th lvl
CR 5 provides 200 at 12th lvl
CR 6 provides 325 at 13th lvl
CR 7 provides 350 at 14th lvl
CR 8 provides 375 at 15th lvl
CR 9 provides 400 at 16th lvl
CR 10 provides 425 at 17th lvl
CR 11 provides 450 at 18th lvl
CR 12 provides 475 at 19th lvl
CR 13 provides 500 at 20th lvl
... so I could pretty much just go, by myself, and kill a goblin or three by myself, and teleport back (or plane shift twice, depending on how far away I am), and be exactly as good as I was before.
Anyway, in 3.5, aside from the drain, it could be undone.
While I don't have my 3.0, so I can't quote it to you exactly, I'm pretty sure Raise Dead worked the same way.
|
|
"This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means."
If a splatbook tried to over-rule that, someone messed up by not understanding what "cannot be repaired by any means." means.
Not uncommon in the splatbook of the month era. Complete Arcane I believe was also the book that had a Full BaB full casters, so yeah...
Actually, in that case, I think it's more a question of specific v. general.
General: the spell means forever.
Specific: this item overwrites the general.
Also, it probably has to do with the fact that the spell was written before the item existed, and it's intent was, "No, blast it all, Greater Restoration doesn't work that way, stop asking."
Do you interpret "cannot be repaired by any means" to be "unable to level again" or just "you have to level to get that back"? (Because I meant the latter, though I can understand if you don't agree with my word choice.)
If you mean prestige classes, well none of those had best base attack (not even the Suel Arcanamach, and that was it's whole schtick: hit it with magic-and-your-sword).
Only five of the prestige classes (alienist, geometer, initiate of the seven-fold veil, mage of the arcane order, and wild mage) grant full casting, one of which (initiate) is only seven levels long, and another (geometer) is only five.
(Various other prestige classes claim to be full casters, but aren't really: for example both the argent savant and effigy master drop a caster level right off the bat, and all drop at least one caster level somewhere; and that's not as "bad" as the PF Core Eldritch Knight.)
The Suel Arcanamach and Sublime Chord have variant spell progressions. The former has it's own spell list that's pretty weak (sorc/wizard spells from abjuration, divination, illusion, and transmutation) with a limited number of spells known, though it peaks at 5th lvl spells. The latter lets you turn your bard into an all-around lesser sorcerer, with a couple more hit points and skill points (but not enough to offset the losses or cross-classing weakness or justify having to put ranks into profession (astrologer) to make it work).
Probably one of the most all-around powerful classes in that book is the Enlightened Fist, which costs you two caster levels (more if you multiclass as monk) and - of course - your caster bonus feats/familiar benefits (if you chose them), and nets you a moderate BAB, a good reflex, two additional skill points, and a the ability to work moderately well in melee with magic melee damage in exchange.
The intermediate BAB classes are the acolyte of the skin, the enlightened fist, the green star adept, seeker of the song (a bard prestige class), and suel arcanamach. Of those, the enlightened fist has by far the most potent casting (the seeker gaining none at all).
I think you might be thinking about the Complete Mage (specifically the abjurant champion, a badly thought-out five-level prestige class; none of the others in that were full attack full casters, though several were intermediate BAB: these usually required moderate multiclassing or were class-specific prestige classes for those that already had BAB).
|
|
... that sounds really, really generous, though. That dude spent an entire year's savings? Whoa. That's it's own kind of heroism.
"Let's drink to Zark, he risked a year of his savings for the city." don't sound so heroic.
At least, read what I wrote: "risked", not "spent".
As a fire-fighter risked his life to quench a blaze (but hopefully he I didn't die), or a cop stopping a murderer, or a person jumping on the metro track to save someone.Risking your life and losing it are two differnt things. Risking a year of your savings for the city and spending them are two different things.
About your tirades on who will raise who, you are falling on your assumptions, at least in Golarion.
After someone has been sent to his final destination by Pharasma he can't be raised and his soul don't even remember his previous life. Before that moment he don't know if he really will be rewarded or punished. He can assume, but he is no sure at all.
Witches can raise the dead at a slightly higher cost (660 gp) and almost certainly the people paying for a raise will be capable to find one that don't care for who is the dead.
A priest will care for who he is raising but I suspect he will not start a popularity contest to see if the populace want the dead raised or not. So what the people want is mostly irrelevant. It can be much more important what the government want if the church desire to stay in their good graces.
And a last thing: most of that post was in the part edit that was eaten by the forum. You could guess that by the exchange of jokes with R_Chance. Your idea that good guys will be the first to be raised was simply the first thing I wanted to address. Even after your tirade I think there is little basis for it.
Edit:
The basic premise of your post has been already covered a few post ago:
you can do whatever you want when creating a city or a civilization in your world. That don't change anything for me.
On the other hand if Paizo were to decide to change one of the tenets of the game it will affec how I play.
I want to be clear: I think you are using "tirade" as a polite and succinct way of saying "Tacticslion, you type way too much", not to tell me that I'm bitter, frustrated, or angry. However, "tirade" often connotes the latter too, which I'm not. Again, just to be clear.
Reference board-deleted stuff: sure, okay, I understand that (Also, I'm sorry: I know how frustrating that is), and I did note your back-and-forth with R_Chance. But you kind of left the post as it was, so I responded to what you'd left there. (Personally, I usually copy/paste my post in a word document before posting, so I don't get 'part of an argument' out, unless I've tried repeatedly and can only get a small bit through. If you use a phone or other mobile device, I know how difficult that can be, though.)
Reference risking: look, if I'm literally placing my entire year's savings and a lot of discomfort on the line, I'm being really, really generous. That's a kind of heroism right there. I submit that I definitely overlooked the "risk" v. "spent". Still really generous.
Reference who will raise who: well, yes, I'm falling on presumptions, but in any living campaign setting - any living campaign setting at all - that has the slightest hint of consistency with RAI about it, there are going to be people casting the spells. The rules for the availability of spellcasting are generally meant to reflect adventurers and what adventurers can (and do) find. However there are going to be people, specific people, who do the casting and make the decisions.
And I mention Golarion repeatedly not because it's the only way to do things, but as a perfect suite of examples of what we're talking about, and how such things work out in practice in a living campaign setting. The gods, though Golarion specific, are also part of the Core Rulebook, and thus taking a look at them is a valid way of analyzing the system in general (in a light way) and of 'iconic' (after a fashion) examples of how gods might view things. While other settings might contain other gods, I've yet to see a setting that completely goes, "Nope, there is no god that can handle that situation you just came up with."
A priest will care for who he is raising but I suspect he will not start a popularity contest to see if the populace want the dead raised or not. So what the people want is mostly irrelevant. It can be much more important what the government want if the church desire to stay in their good graces.
You are correct in that someone will determine who's doing the raising. However, by your own assertions, it doesn't matter, because, regardless of who the current ruler of a city, state, nation, or anything is, everyone who has the money will have access to any spell they want, and pretty much anyone who has ranks in anything will have the money for most major things. That's a really good lifestyle right there.
Ultimately either a) someone, a real person, with real discernment, is going to make a decision (and there are finite numbers of those people) or b) they are not, and it's just a mechanic, and it doesn't matter. In the former, there're going to be limits on who gets raised for various reasons. In the latter, there are none other than gold (which you've pointed out, isn't a limit). In the former, there is more of a self-consistent world. In the latter there tends not to be (though some exceptions to this can be made).
And also: you were the one who initially pointed out that a priest would raise Mussolini in the first place. I actually agreed with you, but didn't see your point in mentioning it. The only thing I added is that many powerful rulers have the same kind of deal available to them already, and that a mere 5k in diamonds isn't going to stop a dedicated following from generating what's needed to do it anyway (and the priesthood you brought up in the first place would be the ones to cast it with said funds). Either the priests are more afraid of the government (in which case the government is deciding whether or not you can pay for a raise dead) or the priests are more dedicated to Mussolini and they will raise him no matter what. Either way, the 5k isn't going to be the deciding factor.
The basic premise of your post has been already covered a few post ago:
you can do whatever you want when creating a city or a civilization in your world. That don't change anything for me.
On the other hand if Paizo were to decide to change one of the tenets of the game it will affec how I play.
I... don't know how this is the basic premise of my post?
One point is that in Golarion canon, "free Rez" can more or less work out because there're plenty of checks and balances, and that in any sort of even remotely normal-ish setting (one that almost certainly uses the RAW presumptions you cite with settlement statistics) there will be similar checks and balances that keep the world turning smoothly, regardless of the presence of "free rez".
The real point being argued, however, is the merit of free rez for adventurers. Bringing up its availability to the general public as well (and thus campaign-shattering) was an argument against it being free. There are many numerous ways of handling how available it is to the general public, however: have a cost (the current form), have a quest (a proposed yet rejected form), have a potentially unwanted side effect (like reincarnation*), have to deal with an outsider, or lower the general level being just a few.
A secondary point being argued is that death "should have a lasting impact". There is a minor debate over what that means.
These are the points of my posts.
* Reincarnation can actually give a character many boosts, though it's high roleplaying implications make is unpopular, apparently. Which is actually fair: there's nothing wrong with having a specific character concept that you want and don't want it messed with, however make sure to communicate with your GM, as the two of you might not have the same definition of "not messed with".
One of my players actually covered a point of Tact's for me, so it's not GM fiat. He asked me, as an oracle of Pharasma "can I make a roll to decide if it's Brianna's (NPC victim) time to die?" I shrugged; we were in the middle of a battle and I didn't want to deal w/a debate on the use of Augury so I just said "sure; make a Knowledge: religion" Danged if he didn't roll a 19 while using his last knowledge of the ages for a 34. So I said - you get the sense Brianna might still have more to do before the Mother of Souls calls her to the spiral.
So now...is it one of the PCs time to go or can they be rez'd? Make a knowledge: religion roll...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ, if you ever see ANYTHING as a problem I'm making my peace with my god, cause it's all over
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hail Mary, full of grace, the lord is with thee...
I heart the last seven posts. :)
|
|
There was a prestige class that was full BaB and gave you continued caster levels. Maybe it was in Complete Mage rather than Complete Arcance (I don't have my books in front of me). I remember by DM facepalming. I think it was Abjurant champion.
TOZ isn't like others on here, Mark. Don't paint with that broad a brush.
|
|
I want to be clear: I think you are using "tirade" as a polite and succinct way of saying "Tacticslion, you type way too much", not to tell me that I'm bitter, frustrated, or angry. However, "tirade" often connotes the latter too, which I'm not. Again, just to be clear.
I mean the latter. When you start a post with "(basically nitpicking word choice instead of an actual, valid argument)" to defend your position you sound exactly "bitter, frustrated, or angry".
My reply was on the same tone.I disagree with a good percentage of your interpretations of way or how or when the evil/neutral deities will raise the dead, plus I think that the availability of casters with raise dead that don't need to answer to a deity (oracles and witches) make the deity opinion way less relevant than in the past.
You see the evil gods like the incompetent version of a protection racket, the one where the racketeers strangle the protected people, destroying their capacity to make money. I see most of them (there are exceptions) like the competent racketeers, those that know when they are cutting away fat and maybe a bit of flesh but know that they shouldn't bleed they targets to death.
I see them as entities that actually want to keep and expand their following and that will be aware that you are pushing people away if you give your faithful a hard time to return from the dead while in the adjacent nation good people get a easy deal.
Give your followers a stick on the head while the good deities give a big carrot and your followers will dwindle.
Asmodeus in particular is way smarter than that. He is the kind of guy that give wonderful with a well hidden extra cost.
Mussolini is a splendid example of a evil guy that was appreciated even by non evil and sometime even good people and I used him in that function.
Being raised based on your alignment.
Sure, depending on your city/country general alignment it will be easier or more difficult to be raised, but it will not always depend on you evil-good axis.
Elven mostly CG settlement? Who will have a harder time, a carefree CN guy that has armed a few people in pursuit of vengeance or a LG character that constantly give stern lectures about proper behavior?
LG settlement of followers of Torag, who will be raised first, the LE hard taskmaster that will not pay a penny above basic rates and will never help anyone or the CG rake that squander most of his money on booze and womens. He can be a generous guy willing to give his money to the first poor he meet but he will be the "bad example" of the city.
Followers of Gorum? What matter is your martial prowess, not your alignment.
And so on at libitum. Pigeonholing it into a good/evil dichotomy is extremely restrictive.
Diego... now I'm getting frustrated, but we seem to just not be communicating at all, and you seem to be focusing on all the things I'm not trying to argue. I'll talk to you about it more later when we've both cooled down. I do apologize for hostile-seeming word choice.
@Tacticslion - If a spell specifically says "cannot be repaired by any means" and you create a means, you fail at development IMHO.
To me it's simply a fact that one is newer than the other. Fifty years ago cell phones could not have existed "by any means", but time and technology change, and here we are.
I see it similarly. Thus, specific trumps general. To me, that's not bad game design or bad comprehension, that's coming up with a nifty idea after the fact and implementing it.
None of that negates the point: in latter 3.5, it could easily be reversed. Latter 3.5 was a very short step away from earlier 3.5 in which you could gain the level back with thirteen encounters. 3.5 and 3.0 were on the same page. Thus... reversible.
I am curious, though. If a fifth level spell like Raise Dead requires a high cost or else it's campaign shattering, why isn't Teleport? That would have enormous impact on cities, long-distance transportation, and the like. The occasional mishap isn't really an issue if the mages become very familiar with places. It would only make perfect sense for a mage to do so and begin raking in the cash.
You're definitely thinking of the ill-thought-out Abjurant Champion in the Complete Mage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Teleport would have a much greater impact on a medieval society.
You build teleport rooms, with distinct difference (probably the primary one being color). You also always build two of them within about a mile of each other (that way a result of Similar hits the other teleport room). A 12th level caster could bring two fully loaded down horses to transport goods back and make a couple trips a day, reduced by the number of "Off Target" which just requires a second casting to fix (since you can never be off target by a greater distance than you originally traveled, so you're always in range).
Information, goods and people can all travel nearly instantaneous very long distances. It's also probably safer than taking the road with bandits and the like. As long as the wizard survives, mishaps don't even matter, you just buy new horses to put the weight on (or ox, dogs, or whatever is cheap and can be semi-trained to not run away constantly).
Its ineffective for troop movements, but leaders and specialists can be moved around as needed, long distances to even help cover two different fronts.
|
|
I think Teleport would have a much greater impact on a medieval society.
Agreed. In 1st and 2nd edition it wasn't a problem as destination error had a good chance to kill you. 1% chance to die, even if you know perfectly the destination, is a great incentive to not use teleport needlessly.
If you miss the target the similar area destination say that you usually get to the nearest similar area, so it is not automatic that you will get to the second room you suggest, but still it will be a minor inconvenience most of the time.
The off target chance is what would reduce this use of teleportation.
"I teleport to Kyonin" roll 98, check direction and distance ... "What, I am in the middle of the Lake Enchartan .... Blub, blub."
Your pack animals would die and their cargo would be lost and, depending on the situation, you could die too.
You can take precautions to avoid that or the risk to be teleported on a steep muntain slope (mostly casting fly for all the creatures to be teleported, but your pack animals would require special training to learn to use it) but it all add to the needed preparations. Sill a fast "wizard courier" system for messages and parcel delivery could easily be organized.
|
|
Not uncommon in the splatbook of the month era. Complete Arcane I believe was also the book that had a Full BaB full casters, so yeah...You must have bought your books from Bizzaro World, cause I've never heard of such a thing.
Complete Mage not complete arcane.
There is a reason many DMs banned splatbooks. We just required approval at our table, but this one was banned for all the obvious reasons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being raised based on your alignment.
Sure, depending on your city/country general alignment it will be easier or more difficult to be raised, but it will not always depend on you evil-good axis.Elven mostly CG settlement? Who will have a harder time, a carefree CN guy that has armed a few people in pursuit of vengeance or a LG character that constantly give stern lectures about proper behavior?
LG settlement of followers of Torag, who will be raised first, the LE hard taskmaster that will not pay a penny above basic rates and will never help anyone or the CG rake that squander most of his money on booze and womens. He can be a generous guy willing to give his money to the first poor he meet but he will be the "bad example" of the city.
Followers of Gorum? What matter is your martial prowess, not your alignment.
And so on at libitum. Pigeonholing it into a good/evil dichotomy is extremely restrictive.
I think you and Tacticslion are agreeing on the main point, though either of you should feel free to correct me.
The point as I see it is that you can't assume that free Raise Dead means that everyone will be raised, because someone is in charge of casting the spell and that someone is able to make decisions about who they're willing to raise, whether that decision is based on "Paladin Pete was a good man and a hero" or "That bard was a laugh and a half, I miss him" or "My slavemaster served me well and that service will be rewarded" or "I've got one spell slot and two corpses, who is the higher bidder?"
Yes, Tacticslion over-focused on the good/evil issue, but if I'm reading him correctly he just meant "not every high-level caster wants every dead person to be raised - for example, good clerics might not want to raise evil people. This may result in a fair percentage of people staying dead."
stuffAnd you have totally missed my point with your micromanagement comment.
I don't care what the NPC do every minute, but I care about the consistency of the world.
If consistency of the world means worry about how much a NPC can save during a month or a year I don't.
a) raise dead is made accessible for a small cost.
Small cost doesn't have to equal accessible
b) most non destitute people can afford it.
b1) Not a problem even if most "non destitute people" can afford it. House rules can fix this problem. Decide they earn less money, increase cost of living, hit Raise dead with some drawback, Decide that there are other issues with raise dead, Decide that casters or deities don't raise all people, just some (can afford it does not equal that casters will cast the spell or that deities will let your soul return).
b2) I also think you are wrong: The quote on "Cost of Living" from the PRD you posted are for PC:s, not NPC:s." You can certainly handle these minor expenditures in detail during play, but tracking every time a PC pays for a room, buys water, or pays a gate tax can swiftly become obnoxious and tiresome."
It there to speed up game play, not as a base for calculating how a spell would affect world economy or vice versa.
c) most people will use it.
edit
Not necessarily. This is only true if:1) Small cost = accessible (caster will cast it if they get paid and deities won't mess with you or the caster), and:
2) Small cost = small enough so that many people can afford it: rules on craft, profession and Cost of Living being perfectly balanced and thus in conjunction with other rules creates a base on how economics relate to access to magic and the game world at large, and:
3) There is no law or other problem stopping people from getting raised all the times, and:
4) Raise dead work they way it does now (no consequences), and that there is no problem getting raised multiple times, and:
5) No other issues interfering, and:
6) People not having other things they want the spend their cash on, and
7) people not having religious or moral issues or superstitious issues on being raised.
So the hero putting his life at risk?
"Let's drink to Zark, he risked a year of his savings for the city." don't sound so heroic.
Perhaps not, but if he can afford it, he can. He could also afford to go on vacation with his family with a Plane shift to meet some angels or pay magic users to increase is crops or improve his labor or kill is neighbor or whatever. The game world has magic and monsters. Magic (and monsters) messes with stuff.
Consistency of the world? I think Mending, Make Whole, Plant Growth, etc. etc. is far more problematic than Raise dead. There are an infinite number us spells that would affect how WE lived if we had access to magic. I don't think haste or fireball would be the post important spells but all spells that: could core and heal, Travel spells; Divination spells such as locate objects (where did I put that xxx); Spells that mend stuff; spells such as Modify Memory (that let you recall stuff), etc.If I would worry about how all spells and rules affect the consistency of the game world I would go crazy.
|
|
Being raised based on your alignment.
Sure, depending on your city/country general alignment it will be easier or more difficult to be raised, but it will not always depend on you evil-good axis.Elven mostly CG settlement? Who will have a harder time, a carefree CN guy that has armed a few people in pursuit of vengeance or a LG character that constantly give stern lectures about proper behavior?
LG settlement of followers of Torag, who will be raised first, the LE hard taskmaster that will not pay a penny above basic rates and will never help anyone or the CG rake that squander most of his money on booze and womens. He can be a generous guy willing to give his money to the first poor he meet but he will be the "bad example" of the city.
Followers of Gorum? What matter is your martial prowess, not your alignment.
And so on at libitum. Pigeonholing it into a good/evil dichotomy is extremely restrictive.
I think you and Tacticslion are agreeing on the main point, though either of you should feel free to correct me.
The point as I see it is that you can't assume that free Raise Dead means that everyone will be raised, because someone is in charge of casting the spell and that someone is able to make decisions about who they're willing to raise, whether that decision is based on "Paladin Pete was a good man and a hero" or "That bard was a laugh and a half, I miss him" or "My slavemaster served me well and that service will be rewarded" or "I've got one spell slot and two corpses, who is the higher bidder?"
Yes, Tacticslion over-focused on the good/evil issue, but if I'm reading him correctly he just meant "not every high-level caster wants every dead person to be raised - for example, good clerics might not want to raise evil people. This may result in a fair percentage of people staying dead."
From Tacticslion posts I get the impression that his opinion is that this will greatly impact the number of raise that would be done, i. e. that to most of the dead the chance to be returned would be refused.
My opinion is that even with that culling process most people with the money would find a person willing to raise them.
The largest part of the population is fairly amorph about alignment or personal qualities that make them stand out between their equals.
The clerk that has done his job normally, nor evil nor good, never showing any particular quality? for me he would get his raise from most clerics if he has the money.
I would not be the first in a queue if there is a queue, but a single cleric could cover the needs of a city if there isn't a epidemic, war or some other disaster with multiple deaths.
To be refused a raise would require to have done something visible against the religion. And some deity will give the dead a chance even if he had acted against the faith, if there is a reasonable chance for repentance.
|
From Tacticslion posts I get the impression that his opinion is that this will greatly impact the number of raise that would be done, i. e. that...Being raised based on your alignment.
Sure, depending on your city/country general alignment it will be easier or more difficult to be raised, but it will not always depend on you evil-good axis.Elven mostly CG settlement? Who will have a harder time, a carefree CN guy that has armed a few people in pursuit of vengeance or a LG character that constantly give stern lectures about proper behavior?
LG settlement of followers of Torag, who will be raised first, the LE hard taskmaster that will not pay a penny above basic rates and will never help anyone or the CG rake that squander most of his money on booze and womens. He can be a generous guy willing to give his money to the first poor he meet but he will be the "bad example" of the city.
Followers of Gorum? What matter is your martial prowess, not your alignment.
And so on at libitum. Pigeonholing it into a good/evil dichotomy is extremely restrictive.
I think you and Tacticslion are agreeing on the main point, though either of you should feel free to correct me.
The point as I see it is that you can't assume that free Raise Dead means that everyone will be raised, because someone is in charge of casting the spell and that someone is able to make decisions about who they're willing to raise, whether that decision is based on "Paladin Pete was a good man and a hero" or "That bard was a laugh and a half, I miss him" or "My slavemaster served me well and that service will be rewarded" or "I've got one spell slot and two corpses, who is the higher bidder?"
Yes, Tacticslion over-focused on the good/evil issue, but if I'm reading him correctly he just meant "not every high-level caster wants every dead person to be raised - for example, good clerics might not want to raise evil people. This may result in a fair percentage of people staying dead."
In fairness it all depends on your world. In my world Raise Dead can't be bought as a service because the raising of the dead is something that's on a miracle type of level. If Raise Dead was such a simple and easy thing then every god out there would be commanding it's followers to raise each and every champion they've ever had on a regular basis and before long the world would be full of super powers fighting each other. Also, NPC clerics don't auto know all spells so you have some clerics who don't even know raising the dead is possible, even at the level required to cast the spell.
In my opinion, being raised is not as casual as getting your hair done.
What if, by GM fiat you only allowed one cleric in your entire world to rez one day of the year. Its free, there's no consequences, and this miracle worker can do it like a dozen times that one day. Only problem is access.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if, by GM fiat you only allowed one cleric in your entire world to rez one day of the year. Its free, there's no consequences, and this miracle worker can do it like a dozen times that one day. Only problem is access.
In a fiction and world building sense, that's a cool idea.
From a game perspective it suffers a little. If a character dies and wants to come back, but it's 7 months until the miracle day, does the party just sit around and wait? Does they keep adventuring and he just waits? Does he make a new character in the interim? They are all answerable questions, but they're still difficulties involved no matter what.
I do enjoy concepts that alter the feel of the worlds relationship to magic though, so it's an interesting concept.
Personally I prefer no magic. I play a version of the game called "historically accurate life-simulation #37" wherin I've perfectly recreated medieval england. I have a life-size recreation of a village but had to move it to Wales since it wouldn't fit in my living room anymore. When a player rolls an attack roll I fire up my armor vs weapon simulator and we run a thousand test scenarios to determine the mean average effectiveness.