@Tacticlion - The question isn't what should or shouldn't be allowed in a home game, it is a Dev asking why it should exist mechanically.

If your players are really invested in the "roleplay" aspects, death will have an impact regardless, because they "care" about what happens to that characters. You aren't playing for the math, your playing for the setting.

But that wasn't the question. The question was the mechanics.

And I am arguing that mechanically death requires a significant enough penality to effect decisions in play.

Removing the gold is probably a smart thing to do mechanically on one side of the scale for a couple of reasons.

1. It penalizes the party for bringing the person back.
2. It is rather arbitrary.

At the same time, without the gold (and I am assuming we are also removing the gold from Restoration, as that was hinted at), what is the penalty? 2 Negative level that can be removed over the course of a week. What is that? A -2 that can be made a -1 immediately and absolutely no effect in a week when you cast it the 2nd time.

For what is basically the pentultimate negative thing to happen to an adventurer, you basically take a -1 for about a week?

Compare this to 1e when a failed fort during the spell made death permanent. Or compare this to the same gold cost and irreplacable loss of a true level in 3.5.

We have already reduced the penalty dramatically in Pathfinder relative to past version. This in addition to making it harder to die in Pathfinder thanks to other bonuses (HP is negative con, not -10, death effects were largely nerfed, etc...)

Everyone agrees players at a certain level should be able to be brought back from the dead. Frankly death is kind of a given to occur at higher levels, so the game needs a way to address this.

I agree with SKR that gold isn't the way to do it, but I don't agree if he is arguing (and I don't know if he is) that removing the gold without an alternative penalty doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

It certainly does.

It may have no effect on players who avoid death for external reasons, but SKR made clear this was for him a mechanical, not emotional or setting based argument.

That your players still get mad when they die isn't the same as the nerve racking moment in a 1e game when you were trying to make that fort save to see if dead meant really dead. And it certainly isn't the same as being a level behind your party going forward.

We are playing Pathfinder, not 1e.

Don't like it? Go play some 1e D&D then.

That's a bit bluntly put, but also 100% fact.

As for myself, I am running Rappan Athuk an old 1st Edition style dungeon where the risk of death is not only just real but to be expected. The nearest Cleric capable of casting Raise Dead is over 2 weeks away so the point is moot for the 3 player and 1 NPC deaths thus far. Are the players complaining and running away? No, they are flocking to my table! I now have 14 players who rotate in and out of my game and those that can't make it that week are upset that they are missing a session. I had 13 at the table 4 weeks ago. We counted a total of 24 players and NPCs, 4 of which have died. That is 1 of 6. I expect at least one more this week. Don't cheapen death for the players and they will respect you for it and enjoy the game even more.

I think true failure risk for certain spells would be a better way to go.

I think you want powerful spells to be possible for story purposes, but having those spells have great risk both makes sense for flavor and mechanics.

For example, a lot of the planar binding cheese goes away with a 5% "thing eats your face if you roll a 1" component.

Yes. This, so much this.

(though personally we mostly use Alexandrian HP and then raising the dead works very differently)

@ Icy - Deleted before I could flag it :)

@brvheart - And I'm not saying that has to be the way to played. I'm not saying it is wrong to lessen the sting for death if you have a game with players who have enough penalty from the concept that you don't need to extra sting.

But it should mean something. It should be an event players should fear. When a player risks certain death holding off an enemy, it shouldn't be because they are making the calculation that "Why not, it's only -1 for a week..."

ciretose wrote:

I think true failure risk for certain spells would be a better way to go.

I think you want powerful spells to be possible for story purposes, but having those spells have great risk both makes sense for flavor and mechanics.

For example, a lot of the planar binding cheese goes away with a 5% "thing eats your face if you roll a 1" component.

Yes. This, so much this.

(though personally we mostly use Alexandrian HP and then raising the dead works very differently)

Not familiar with Alexandrian. Do you have a link?

Ilja wrote:

ciretose wrote:

I think true failure risk for certain spells would be a better way to go.

I think you want powerful spells to be possible for story purposes, but having those spells have great risk both makes sense for flavor and mechanics.

For example, a lot of the planar binding cheese goes away with a 5% "thing eats your face if you roll a 1" component.

Yes. This, so much this.

(though personally we mostly use Alexandrian HP and then raising the dead works very differently)

Not familiar with Alexandrian. Do you have a link?

Link

The tl:dr; is that you die at -HP, then lose 1hp/round while dead and if you're healed to positives you're alive again. But there is no raise dead or similar. So if the cleric gets to you just past death, you can get brought back even at low levels, but if it takes half a day you're dead and gone and not coming back.

We are playing Pathfinder, not 1e.

Don't like it? Go play some 1e D&D then.

That's a bit bluntly put, but also 100% fact.

I may play Pathfinder rules, but I do it 1st edition style and have been doing it that style for over 32 years now. You want to be blunt? People are finding it refreshing that they can't just run over everything they find, but then I am just a surly old dwarf. What can I say? :)

ciretose wrote:

Ilja wrote:

ciretose wrote:

I think true failure risk for certain spells would be a better way to go.

I think you want powerful spells to be possible for story purposes, but having those spells have great risk both makes sense for flavor and mechanics.

For example, a lot of the planar binding cheese goes away with a 5% "thing eats your face if you roll a 1" component.

Yes. This, so much this.

(though personally we mostly use Alexandrian HP and then raising the dead works very differently)

Not familiar with Alexandrian. Do you have a link?

Link

The tl:dr; is that you die at -HP, then lose 1hp/round while dead and if you're healed to positives you're alive again. But there is no raise dead or similar. So if the cleric gets to you just past death, you can get brought back even at low levels, but if it takes half a day you're dead and gone and not coming back.

Interesting. In some ways it is harsher and in some ways less harsh. I might see if I can talk a group into giving it a try.

So far the best 'mechanical' reason I read for the cost is that Raise dead is a 5.25th level spell. I've not seen anyone argue against that.

I do agree, there should be some kind of cost for raise dead/ressurect.

Few take reincarnate if raise dead is an option. (per the campaign setting old age is the only reason to use reincarnate)

I hope the topic of "Death as a removable condition" is touched on in Ultimate Campaign.

Actually someone pointed out that the closest comparable spell would be Gate(9th level). After all, raise dead does call a specific outsider to you.

For people who can teleport across the world, literally travel to Hell and back, and conjure deadly fire and stone out of thin air, death is a trivial obstacle.

In terms of game math, the 5000gp cost for the spell also encourages metagaming, which is bad. See, if you have a party of 3 live PCs and one dead PC, they have two options:

1) Scrounge up 5000gp (either from the dead PC's stuff or from a group donation) and have the dead PC raised. Net result: party has 5000gp less than before and two more negative levels than before.
2) Leave the PC dead, divide his stuff among the PCs or sell it, have the dead PC's player bring in a new character (who has full gear for his level, and no negative levels). Net result: party has X more gp than before (where at worst X is half the expected wealth for a character of their level) and no extra negative levels.

In other words, it's better for the party to bring in a new PC than to resurrect the old one. Which is lame. In a "roleplaying" game that barely encourages roleplaying at all, costly PC death actively DIScourages roleplaying someone who's compassionate about a fallen ally, and ENcourages you to be a mercenary metagaming player who's only interested in the wealth and damage output of the group.

I don't like the expensive material component for a spell that is critical and necessary to the typical game experience, and I don't use it.

Very good insight.

This would also apply nicely to planar binding, planar ally, and so on. Arcane spells which don't involve another intelligence would be exempt from barter, obviously; they're more like recipes.

Interesting. In some ways it is harsher and in some ways less harsh. I might see if I can talk a group into giving it a try.

One big part is not going unconscious at negative HP unless failing a fort save. Greatly improves survivability of front-liners (and the party in general) as they get a good indicator of when to use their legs rather than fists.

ciretose wrote:

Interesting. In some ways it is harsher and in some ways less harsh. I might see if I can talk a group into giving it a try.

One big part is not going unconscious at negative HP unless failing a fort save. Greatly improves survivability of front-liners (and the party in general) as they get a good indicator of when to use their legs rather than fists.

One of the things I liked about the 1e rule (I never played it, and so only just read that spell for this thread) is that is clearly is a benefit to classes most likely to be up front soaking damage to have the save be a fort save.

I think that a fort save is probably a bit much, as I do think being able to bring back a companion from the dead is a reasonable expectation at high levels, when deaths are going to happen. Perhaps a fort save to see if you are going to be brought back with that casting of the spell, and then a 2nd save to see if you are lost forever.

Make that the spell and I'm fine losing the 5k. That will keep the table tension up without causing the concern about the gold.

Although again, if it were purely math, not bringing them back and stealing all their stuff is always better :)

I think the best mechanics reason for a material component is the lack of a chance for the spell to fail. Teleport and Plane Shift are both imperfect spells with inaccuracies, while Raise Dead cannot fail if the conditions are met (Assuming you have a valid target, not like a devoured soul or anything like that).

If raise dead however had like a 10% chance for you to come back permanently insane, or grab the wrong soul, or something crazy, then the cost would make less sense.

The problem with allowing the spell to fail is that your fate is out of your hands and in the hands of a die roll. Perhaps that was the original mechanical reason for the price? In return for coming back intact and non-crazy, you have to suffer a temporary financial setback?

@James,

Isn't that always the issue though? "Roll save vs Fortitude." "No problem, I've a +28 Fort save! Crap, I rolled a 1."

When I ran Crypt of fools, part of the tension came from the gnome (their only healer) jamming 2 wands (one with a portfolio reroll, twice). They're underground, out of healing, and things got serious from there on in. While they survived, their entire ability to heal came down to 'a die roll.'

@James,

Isn't that always the issue though? "Roll save vs Fortitude." "No problem, I've a +28 Fort save! Crap, I rolled a 1."

When I ran Crypt of fools, part of the tension came from the gnome (their only healer) jamming 2 wands (one with a portfolio reroll, twice). They're underground, out of healing, and things got serious from there on in. While they survived, their entire ability to heal came down to 'a die roll.'

Down to the die roll is part odds what makes the game great.

Matthew Morris wrote:

@James,

Isn't that always the issue though? "Roll save vs Fortitude." "No problem, I've a +28 Fort save! Crap, I rolled a 1."

When I ran Crypt of fools, part of the tension came from the gnome (their only healer) jamming 2 wands (one with a portfolio reroll, twice). They're underground, out of healing, and things got serious from there on in. While they survived, their entire ability to heal came down to 'a die roll.'

Down to the die roll is part odds what makes the game great.

I can see the point, but how I think is this: A die roll lead to your death, be it a save failed or an attack that hit and dealt enough damage to kill you. Why should getting back into the game and playing be resolved with another arbitrary roll? Shouldn't you at least be able to get back in the game, sporting two negative levels, before you get thrown out of the fun due to a die roll?

shallowsoul wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

@James,

Isn't that always the issue though? "Roll save vs Fortitude." "No problem, I've a +28 Fort save! Crap, I rolled a 1."

When I ran Crypt of fools, part of the tension came from the gnome (their only healer) jamming 2 wands (one with a portfolio reroll, twice). They're underground, out of healing, and things got serious from there on in. While they survived, their entire ability to heal came down to 'a die roll.'

Down to the die roll is part odds what makes the game great.

I can see the point, but how I think is this: A die roll lead to your death, be it a save failed or an attack that hit and dealt enough damage to kill you. Why should getting back into the game and playing be resolved with another arbitrary roll? Shouldn't you at least be able to get back in the game, sporting two negative levels, before you get thrown out of the fun due to a die roll?

What are negative level anymore? It's not like 3.5 where you couldn't get rid of them.

I look at it this way. I died because of the dice, I have a chance to get back in because of an arbitrary amount of gold or...the dice.

And when we say thrown out of the fun, what we are really saying is "have to roll up a new character unless DM fiat helps me out".

Sometimes characters die.

No, when I say thrown out of the fun, I mean "having to sit there, rolling up a new character while everyone else plays, then waiting for X minutes until the DM can find a place to insert a brand new character in an existing game, when the PCs are just going to treat the new character like the old one anyway."

No, when I say thrown out of the fun, I mean "having to sit there, rolling up a new character while everyone else plays, then waiting for X minutes until the DM can find a place to insert a brand new character in an existing game, when the PCs are just going to treat the new character like the old one anyway."

Then you should try really hard not to die.

When you play any other table game, what do you do when you lose and the game is still going?

We have people die all the time - even though we use Alexandrian HP and hero points we still play at mostly low levels so people more than occasionally die (4 months into the current campaign I think we have 5 dead characters, though that's more than usual).

We've solved it by letting the players with dead characters play NPC's; if there's no good NPC around (cohort or similar) they get to play the bad guys in combat and the people they meet in social situations. The only time they have to sit out is if it an "exploration" situation or similar, AND there is no NPC travelling with them (which is quite unusual).

Now, I realize this doesn't work for all groups, but I just thought I'd throw it out there - maybe someone else has use for that method.

Pathfinder isn't Monopoly. Monopoly has a set goal, a set time period in which to play. Pathfinder is, in part, a social experience where you play as a character and enjoy yourself.

If characters didn't want to die, they would never leave home. Death is a risk, but death shouldn't be arbitrary, meaningless or completely at the whim of a die roll. If I wanted to play in a world where death can be meaningless, I would just, you know, live. I want to play a hero, whose death means something. If it doesn't, I want the ability to come back and play until it is.

Yes death should be a penalty. But it should also be a part of the narrative.

And if dying has no impact on the game, what does that do to the narrative?

I'm not re-inventing the system, these are the rules that have always existed. Losing a level worked just fine in 3.5, and I'm guessing the fort save worked fine in 1e. And 5k and two negative levels is a nasty little pill to swallow in and of itself.

But yeah, it sucks to die. It means you have to either roll up a new character or wait a bit until the party can save you.

Death is by the nature of the game at the whim of a die roll. That is my whole problem with the "Player vs GM" argument earlier. It is random chance if you make or don't make the save.

At high levels, the cost isn't that bad. Even losing a level in 3.5 was made up for by leveling faster when you were lower level. But it had a bite that was strong enough you didn't just let yourself be killed for a random party goal knowing you could be brought back without it having a major effect.

That is the line I'm shooting for.

One of the few things my RL DM has done correctly is decided to let us just use GP for the cost of spells like diamond dust for ressurections and many other things, otherwise you run into the issue of having a rotting party member being dragged around to the nearest villiage, which most likely does not have a huge supply of gems to use and crush for the spell.

When you play any other table game, what do you do when you lose and the game is still going?

While there is some similarity, I don't feel this translates very well... Disregarding that many people might not play other table games where one can lose while the game is still going, I feel that there are some huge differences.

EDIT:
James Martin, if arbitrary, meaningless random deaths are what bothers you, have you tested hero points? I too dislike deaths in random minor encounters just due to a bad dice roll, and if the players have hero points, the risk of that is far less. Players in our games nowadays usually die either in important fights, by acting stupidly, or by taking extreme risks for the team. We've only had one "random" death, but that was extreme unluck (getting critted by three orc longspears at first level)

Ilja,

I've used Hero Points (or some variation thereof) in the past and generally I found that they work well, though I've had to fiddle with the number assigned to characters to ensure they stay useful and not too common.

Ciretose,

Even without the 5k cost, dying still involves a negative level penalty, as well as time lost until they can raise you. I think that's penalty enough for me the PC to want to avoid it as much as possible. I think death can help or hurt the narrative, depending on how the DM treats it, but that's a DM issue and not a mechanical issue with the system itself.

The negative level penalty is fairly trivial if we remove the cost component, which was also hinted at as part of the proposal. With one restoration, it becomes a -1 for a week until you can cast another restoration.

That really isn't much of anything, particularly at the levels we are discussing.

@Ilja - If any of those are factors, you pointed out the things the GM can do to soften the blow depending on the style. I don't think the game is more lighthearted than Risk or Monopoly. I think it is actually much more intense.

I get it sucks to die. I hate when I die at the table. But fear of that outcome is part of why I care about the outcome of dice on a table so much.

Ciretose, I think you and I simply disagree on the impact of the negative level cost.

I get it sucks to die. I hate when I die at the table. But fear of that outcome is part of why I care about the outcome of dice on a table so much.

I don't see myself caring any more with the 5,000 gp cost than without the cost. Does 5,000 gp really make you more likely to care?

That really isn't much of anything, particularly at the levels we are discussing.

Those aren't the levels I am discussing.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why high-level characters should be able to be raised on a whim and low-level ones shouldn't. Or why high-level parties with their own cleric and a party fund for raise dead aren't just killing themselves willy-nilly if the cost is the only thing that keeps players from engaging in suicidal tactics.

My RL group has never enforced a material cost for raise dead, and I can count the number of PC deaths over a decade or more on my fingers. We still don't want to die, if only because of the sitting out and the interruption in our quest to go find a capable caster.

Because death at lower levels:

1. Represents less investment
2. Isn't as likely to be a single arbitrary failed roll.

And 5k is too high a cost to make suicidal self sacrifice as a tactic rather than a last resort viable.

Edit: To turn the question back, if the 5k is so trivial, why do you want it gone?

Pathfinder isn't Monopoly. Monopoly has a set goal, a set time period in which to play. Pathfinder is, in part, a social experience where you play as a character and enjoy yourself.

If characters didn't want to die, they would never leave home. Death is a risk, but death shouldn't be arbitrary, meaningless or completely at the whim of a die roll. If I wanted to play in a world where death can be meaningless, I would just, you know, live. I want to play a hero, whose death means something. If it doesn't, I want the ability to come back and play until it is.

Yes death should be a penalty. But it should also be a part of the narrative.

So what happens when you are stunned or you are sleep? Sometimes you don't get to do something all the time. If mean of you have to sit there then so be it. If someone else is in your shoes then they have to do the same thing.

You know about these things before you play so I don't know what else to tell you. If you don't like to wait then play a different game.

2. Isn't as likely to be a single arbitrary failed roll.

You've obviously never been critted by a greataxe at level 2. :P

While low-level deaths are less likely to be attributable to spell effects, I find that a great many of them are due to being taken from full hp to dead-dead in a single unlucky blow. Certainly many more happen that way below 3rd level than above 7th.

And 5k is to high a cost to make suicidal self sacrifice as a tactic rather than a last resort viable.

Not if the money is already set aside in a neat little party fund earmarked for raise dead and not going to be spent on any other expense, which is the tactic mentioned by many on this thread as what "smart" parties should do. If it's not being taken from someone's gear or weapon fund,

Edit: To turn the question back, if the 5k is so trivial, why do you want it gone?

It's only trivial at high-levels; at low-levels, it's prohibitive. That's why I'd prefer a sliding scale so it represents the same amount of relative penalty at any level rather than favoring high levels.

Even a crit greataxe requires you to have put yourself in harms way and them to roll well. You have max hit points plus negative con at first level.

Much of SKR's point was that the 5k was a party wealth penalty, meaning you are encouraging the party to not bring back a friend due to financial advantage of leaving him dead.

I agree with that part, I do think the gold cost is wrong, but I do think it needs to be replaced, not removed.

I kind of like the fort save idea, as it aids frontliners who are taking the heat, but I would have it be one fail mean you aren't raised today and a second means not brought back at all barring GM intervention.

That way the only substantial penalty is on the player who died.

I kind of like the fort save idea, as it aids frontliners who are taking the heat, but I would have it be one fail mean you aren't raised today and a second means not brought back at all barring GM intervention.

That way the only substantial penalty is on the player who died.

Two fails in a row, or two fails period?

Method one gives you a fairly easy 'do over', method 2 makes that 'second death' much more scary.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Okay, let's back up a little bit because people still aren't able to explain, in game mechanics terms, why the +5,000gp cost for raise dead is appropriate.

So let's slightly alter the question:

Why is the cost for raise dead 5,000 gp? Why isn't it 100 gp, 1,000 gp, 7,350 gp, 10,000 gp, or 20,000 gp? Why is 5,000 gp the appropriate additional M cost for this spell?

Anyone?

Let me take a shot: 1) Expensive components and foci are a good way to adjust the effective power of a spell without changing the level. 2) We compare the relative power of Raise Dead to other similar spells. 3) We decide the diamond is an excellent component of contagion and sympathy. And the purity of a soul deserves the purity of diamond often expressed in game economy as having a value; we also we consider the forces the spell is shaping i.e. the compression of a soul back into it's host body. 4) We look at the spell's power (and description) in relation to other spells (of similar kind) and determine the value of 5,000 gp (rather than 100 gp, 1,000 gp, 7,350 gp, 10,000 gp, nor 20,000 gp) because although pricing is an art that leverages guidelines, we see Restoration with 100gp diamond dust or 1,000gp, we see Reincarnate with 1,000gp in oils, we see Greater Restoration with 5,000gp diamond dust, and Resurrection with 10,000gp diamond. During this review we also see that the -2 Negative Level penalty is exactly 50% of the penalty suffered after full Ressurection (which holds a -1 negative level penalty). We also notice that these are appropriate progressions: the L3 spell enables you to animate the dead, the L5 spell enables you raise the dead, and the L7 spell lets you ressurect the dead. Conclusions: Thus we feel comfortable, given all the above, and from a game mechanic perspective, with placing Raise Dead as having a 5,000gp diamond value for M component since the cost is also 1/2 the value of the M component for the Resurrection spell which requires a L13 Cleric to...

I'm totally satisfied with this.

This thread reminds me of a friend I watched playing Bioshock once. For those that don't know about that game, there are respawn tanks that you appepar in if you die. So, my friend had decided that he wasn't going to bother with any of those wussie guns or plasmids. He would just run up to an enemy, wack it with the wrench until it killed him, then repeat until it died. He used this strategy even on the Big Daddy "bosses". While it had a certain hilarious novelty value for the first few times, it really showcased how the lack of any consequences for character death can dramatically impact someone's playstyle.

One of the few things my RL DM has done correctly is decided to let us just use GP for the cost of spells like diamond dust for ressurections and many other things, otherwise you run into the issue of having a rotting party member being dragged around to the nearest villiage, which most likely does not have a huge supply of gems to use and crush for the spell.

Your DM isn't more "correct" than one who insists on following the rules text for the material component. He's just taking his Book Given right to invoke Rule Zero. It's an entirely proper move, but that doesn't make a DM who goes by rules text.. "wrong".

Wow... so I'm not sure if you guys' games are completely different, but I had a character die in a live (weekly) game of RotRL in late September, and it still hasn't been a week of game-time for her to get the second negative level from reincarnate taken care of.

Everyone seems to be saying that the negative levels are trivial, but... a week of game-time isn't necessarily a week of real time.

Edit to add: And there've been tons of rolls in that time where the -1 really hurt.

Diego Rossi wrote:

- * -

A possible example of a super broken item:

Bier of revivification:
this bier cast raise dead over every body placed in it.

Use activated, unlimited uses, no slot,
CL 9, spell level 5
Price 9*5*2.000*2 = 180.000 gp, production cost 90.000.

With he diamond cost: add 250.000 gp = price 430.000 gp, production cost 340.000.

Extremely broken in both versions, but the first is affordable by a 12th level character sinking almost all of his money in it, the second require most of the wheat of a level 17 character.

GM fiat will instantly ban the item in almost all games but I see a lot of posts in these boards against GM fiat.

- * -

I know, it is a doom prediction, but we are approaching the 21 and so it is appropriate.
:-P

For a little over half that price, you can buy a staff of life, which essentially does the same thing (free raise dead) about once a week.

Notice the difference:

(5 days to recharge the rise dead effect, not 7)

The negative level penalty is fairly trivial if we remove the cost component, which was also hinted at as part of the proposal. With one restoration, it becomes a -1 for a week until you can cast another restoration.

That really isn't much of anything, particularly at the levels we are discussing.

I disagree. I think -1 (or -2 if you can't get or afford a restoration) is a big deal even at level 9. Especially if your hit with the:

The creature is also treated as one level
lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as
spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.

(BTW, I'm still not entirely sure what qualifies for level-dependent variables or how it supposed to work.)

I also think 5000 gp and the cost for restoration is a big deal.

I'm aware some don't agree.

1. Represents less investment

If raising isn't easily available, many high-level characters will be created as high-level characters due to character deaths, so not really.

2. Isn't as likely to be a single arbitrary failed roll.

But they're more likely due to opponents arbitrarily rolling good and critting. Have you seen what a common longspear crit can do at low levels with just a little strength behind? An orc that crits with a longspear deals 3d8+9 damage, and that's a CR 1/3 creature. Throw on a level of barbarian and we're looking at something like 3d8+18 damage crits.

I disagree. I think -1 (or -2 if you can't get or afford a restoration) is a big deal even at level 9. Especially if your hit with the:

If we deem the cost of raise dead arbitrary, why isn't the restoration one arbitrary? I think a removal of one gold cost due to "costs being bad to balance stuff" means we have to think twice about the gold costs of other spells.

(BTW, I'm still not entirely sure what qualifies for level-dependent variables or how it supposed to work.)

As far as I've understood, they only lose effect (like dice on fireball), not ability to cast the spells. There was a comment from a dev on this some year(s) ago if I remember correctly. Could be mistaken though.

Death is a penalty. Without penalties the game stops being a game.

It is a game, simply it is a different game.

To reply to the "in Germany they play differently" citation, Pathfinder audience is planetary, not only the US. A medium between the different playstyles probably net Paizo more costumers than a no penalty/very harsh penalty choice. The current cost for returning to life seem that medium to me.

I noticed this earlier, but some of the people who want to keep death with penalties are very cynical.

They assume that it will instantly move to the players abusing the metagame knowledge of temporary death.

Even if they could be revived with magic, my characters would preferably stay alive and avoid dying as much as they can.

Dying hurts, and being revived is probably quite uncomfortable as well. There's a logic there for those who do RP their characters that defies meta-gaming.

Cynic, Icyshadow? Less than the people that argue that the 5,000 gp cost will convince people to bury their comrade and split his gear?

Even if it didn't cost Gold, dying in the middle of a dungeon will increase the chances of TPK if the enemies are smart.