Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 1,171 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen Fight Club, but I know that neither Lord of the Rings nor Serenity take place within a universe in which the dead are raiseable by mortal beings at all. Unlike the D&D/Pathfinder rulesets.

Also, what makes a good novel/movie is not what makes a fun RPG experience. The first is designed by a single author to deliver his story; the second is designed for a group of people working together to collaboratively create a story they all enjoy.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

In 3.5, I had a player whose character lost an arm and continued joking around. His character later died and had to be raised.

None of that changed the way he played his character, penalties and all.

I would think loss of a level changed some aspects of how he was able to be played.

And of course, die enough times that you lose enough levels relative to the rest of the party (this is a key part) and your player is going to likely need to retire as they are too far behind the rest of the party.

If everyone died all the time, everyone stayed pretty level (I've been in meatgrinders like this) but if you play like crap, or your character isn't working...darwinism.

Because in 3.5 you could only die so many times before your character needed to hang 'em up relative to the rest of the party. Same with 1e.

That got removed in Pathfinder, which is what it is. But there is still some real penalty to it in the form of gold lost. Take that away and suddenly you basically have immortality until aging out with no real impact.

I agree the gold is kind of a crappy way to accomplish it, but removing the only lasting impact without any replacement doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:

I haven't seen Fight Club, but I know that neither Lord of the Rings nor Serenity take place within a universe in which the dead are raiseable by mortal beings at all. Unlike the D&D/Pathfinder rulesets.

Also, what makes a good novel/movie is not what makes a fun RPG experience. The first is designed by a single author to deliver his story; the second is designed for a group of people working together to collaboratively create a story they all enjoy.

*cough* Gandalf *cough*


ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:

I haven't seen Fight Club, but I know that neither Lord of the Rings nor Serenity take place within a universe in which the dead are raiseable by mortal beings at all. Unlike the D&D/Pathfinder rulesets.

Also, what makes a good novel/movie is not what makes a fun RPG experience. The first is designed by a single author to deliver his story; the second is designed for a group of people working together to collaboratively create a story they all enjoy.

*cough* Gandalf *cough*

DM fiat/divine intervention. No clerics or diamonds involved at all. ;)


And on that note....

"Dude, remember when you heroically died holding the bridge against that Balrog?"

"Yeah, and then I spontaneously returned to life with all sorts of superpowers I never had before! That was awesome! My PCs ought to die more often!"

;D

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:

I haven't seen Fight Club, but I know that neither Lord of the Rings nor Serenity take place within a universe in which the dead are raiseable by mortal beings at all. Unlike the D&D/Pathfinder rulesets.

Also, what makes a good novel/movie is not what makes a fun RPG experience. The first is designed by a single author to deliver his story; the second is designed for a group of people working together to collaboratively create a story they all enjoy.

*cough* Gandalf *cough*
DM fiat/divine intervention. No clerics or diamonds involved at all. ;)

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
No one said it does. Just that it doesn't matter if your character is 2nd or 17th level. Death for an invested character is punishment by itself. You can't just swap in a new character and keep going like nothing happened.

But that's what death is supposed to be so I'm not sure why think it should be any different. If you get raised then happy days, if not then your tale ends there and another begins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


It's funny how, dispite the assumption of the commonality of magic to raise the dead, you never see the BBEG of volume 1 of an AP pop up in volumes 2-6 to harrass you until you kill him again.
Death is often assumed to be more permanent for NPCs. Not in my game which has led to some interesting moments :) But then I run a sandbox homebrew campaign, not an AP...
I tend to play it as the villains not having any reason to rez a minion that failed them once already. In fact, I've had villains kill and animate them as undead for retreating/losing a battle.

well......

I understand that POV.

But i remember the evil overlord list.
If he was my trusted lieutenant, i would definitly bring him back, becuase he is my trusted lt.

It motivates my minions to fight to the death if they know they can come back...

(if you play the BEEG as someone who is smart)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, but few of my villains trust their lieutenant. :)

shallowsoul wrote:


But that's what death is supposed to be so I'm not sure why think it should be any different.

Where did I say it should be different?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

I am making the case that in the Lord of the Rings, death was final. Mortal beings have no power to return souls to bodies at all, no matter how powerful they are. Therefore, using it as an example for a ruleset that includes raise dead as a 5th-level spell (and reincarnate as a 4th and resurrection as a 7th and true resurrection as a 9th) is specious. By reference to Tolkien, even your high-level characters shouldn't be able to be raised.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yeah, but few of my villains trust their lieutenant. :)

shallowsoul wrote:


But that's what death is supposed to be so I'm not sure why think it should be any different.
Where did I say it should be different?

They need better lieutenants.

:)

Silver Crusade

If you don't like death and you want it to be softer then default Pathfinder is not for you. I would say the best thing is to find another game or a DM that will homebrew your preferred style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I'd you don't like death and you want it to be softer then default Pathfinder is not for you. I would say the best thing is to find another game or a DM that will homebrew your preferred style.

... like Sean?

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

I am making the case that in the Lord of the Rings, death was final. Mortal beings have no power to return souls to bodies at all, no matter how powerful they are. Therefore, using it as an example for a ruleset that includes raise dead as a 5th-level spell (and reincarnate as a 4th and resurrection as a 7th and true resurrection as a 9th) is specious. By reference to Tolkien, even your high-level characters shouldn't be able to be raised.

In all fairness, Gandalf could have been a 5th level Wizard and we don't fully know who brought him back from the dead when he became Gandalf the White. But typically I see what you are saying.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You have to cut a lot of high level stuff out of PF to approximate Middle Earth.

Silver Crusade

Oladon wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'd you don't like death and you want it to be softer then default Pathfinder is not for you. I would say the best thing is to find another game or a DM that will homebrew your preferred style.

... like Sean?

I'd Sean doesn't like default Pathfinder then yes.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a PC in one of my favorites 3rd edition games that died and was raised. And became obsessed with death to the point of taking silly risks just to get close to that high again.

So much of what you're arguing about depends on the players, NOT THE SYSTEM. Can we confine the discussion to the system?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:

I had a PC in one of my favorites 3rd edition games that died and was raised. And became obsessed with death to the point of taking silly risks just to get close to that high again.

So much of what you're arguing about depends on the players, NOT THE SYSTEM. Can we confine the discussion to the system?

Was the PC's name D'Anna Biers by chance? :-)

Based on what I'm seeing of people's opinions, raise dead as written straddles a lot of lines. As has been pointed out, it's kind of a '5th level+ spell' because of the cost. Likewise, it seems to sit almost in the middle of the 'get out of dead' deck of cards, with "No take backs" and "Expensive/epic quest" on one side, and "Just another 5th level spell" and "LoL Respawn," on the other.

In Arcana Unearthed terms, overcasting (using a 6th level slot) would waive the material cost, while undercasting would either raise the cost, or tack on more negative levels, or a timer (follow up with X spell or die again)

Liberty's Edge

James Martin wrote:

I had a PC in one of my favorites 3rd edition games that died and was raised. And became obsessed with death to the point of taking silly risks just to get close to that high again.

So much of what you're arguing about depends on the players, NOT THE SYSTEM. Can we confine the discussion to the system?

What are the penalties and rewards of the system, with regards to death?

1e was high immediate risk and a finite number of deaths.
3.5 was high cost both financial and by level loss, adding auto success.
Pathfinder is high financial cost with removable short term penalties for additional financial cost.

So if we remove financial cost without replacing it, logically isn't that a significant mechancial difference? It would be the only version where death has no mechanical effect beyond a week after it occured using a 5th level spell.

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

I am making the case that in the Lord of the Rings, death was final. Mortal beings have no power to return souls to bodies at all, no matter how powerful they are. Therefore, using it as an example for a ruleset that includes raise dead as a 5th-level spell (and reincarnate as a 4th and resurrection as a 7th and true resurrection as a 9th) is specious. By reference to Tolkien, even your high-level characters shouldn't be able to be raised.

Final in the adventure that unfolded, which involved players of a level we do not know.

Which is kind of my point.

If the finality of death is part of the wellspring the game emerged from, why is it so important that sting be removed, even at the lowest levels?

The point I was making, which I will remind you that you attempted to dismiss by saying the references were not the same not me, was that in stories death has a role in large part because of how serious an effect it has on the story.

If even death is no serious obsticle, even to the lowest level of characters, what is?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
For comparison...

An alternative comparison:

AD&D

Gamer #1: "Dude, remember when you heroically died trying to open a door while the rest of us watched from a safe distance? It's really too bad you missed your saving throw."

Gamer #2: "You're @$%& right it is! #$%^ Tomb of Horrors! Now I've got to tag along with this worthless low-level character until who-knows-when! That's the last time I stick my neck out for anybody!"

OR

"Meh, I'll just bring in Mack the Paladin. He's Zack the Fighter's identical twin brother with better abilities!"

3e/3.5

Gamer #1: "Dude, remember when you heroically died holding the line in the doorway while the rest of us escaped?"

Gamer #2: "Of course I %^&# remember! It's bad enough that I was already behind a level from when I got Coup-de-Graced by that Fiendish Giant Half-Dragon Ghast; now I'm never going to catch up with you guys! This is the last time I play a Paladin!"

OR

"Meh, I'll just bring in Mack the Paladin. He's Zack the Paladin's identical twin brother. Just hang on for about an hour... what kind of point buy are we using again?

Pathfinder

Gamer #1: "Dude, remember when you heroically died holding the line in the doorway while the rest of us escaped?"

Gamer #2: "Yeah, sorry about that. I really hate to throw off the party wealth by level, but it felt like something Zack would do."

OR

"Meh, I'll just bring in Mack the Paladin. He's Zack the Paladin's identical twin brother. I call dibs on Zack's Holy Avenger, though; I'm thinking of splurging on some cool armor for Mack."

Proposed Change

Gamer #1: "Dude, remember when you heroically died holding the line in the doorway while the rest of us escaped?"

Gamer #2: "Yeah, that was pretty epic! I'm just glad you guys were able to pull off that daring midnight raid to recover my body. Once I recover my full faculties, those goblins are going to pay!"

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:

I haven't seen Fight Club, but I know that neither Lord of the Rings nor Serenity take place within a universe in which the dead are raiseable by mortal beings at all. Unlike the D&D/Pathfinder rulesets.

Also, what makes a good novel/movie is not what makes a fun RPG experience. The first is designed by a single author to deliver his story; the second is designed for a group of people working together to collaboratively create a story they all enjoy.

*cough* Gandalf *cough*

Is an excellent point. He came back better than before. Where was the cost for death there? :)


Also, Gandalf was not of a PC race.

EDIT: If I were to make Gandalf in pathfinder, I'd probably do him as something like a Bard 8, with a few extra racial powers due to being a Maiar. Maybe a mythic tier or two would fit.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gandalf wasn't raised by Mook the NPC cleric, though. He was raised by Eru Ilúvatar...essentially Tolkien's God (capital G).


Sacrificing himself battling the Balrog was his greater trial maybe :)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joana wrote:
'd actually rather lose her at level 17, as she'll have had time to explore some of her storylines and achieve some personal goals instead of "Hi, guys, let me tell you about my long-lost twin sister I hope someday to -- Oops. *splat*" So I either come up with some contrived "Hey, what are the odds, we were actually long-lost triplets!" or I completely throw out the whole idea, an idea which is a lot more complex and specialized than any particular character build. Or, more likely, I quit because the whole reason I was playing was to play that PC. Frankly, I've never found a campaign plot, homebrew or published, anywhere near as interesting as the story of my PC and her friends, as individuals, growing and changing and accomplishing things together. I don't play to experience someone else's story. If I want a plot, I'll read a book or watch a movie. I play to experience my story.

Isn't that a little bit extreme? The logical consequence is that really you should be GMing yourself or just writing fan fiction about yourself, if the stories of others have absolutely no interest to you.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
The point I was making, which I will remind you that you attempted to dismiss by saying the references were not the same not me, was that in stories death has a role in large part because of how serious an effect it has on the story.

I absolutely don't disagree that death is viewed differently in games where death is final and in those where it can be recovered from. I simply posit that, in a world where death can explicitly be recovered from, it plays a different role than in Fight Club or Serenity or real life. In a world where people can cast fly or feather fall, falling off a cliff isn't as much of an obstacle as a world where they can't. Pathfinder simply isn't as gritty a ruleset as you think it is or should be.

Also, in none of your examples were financial considerations part of a reason why a character died, never to return. Fairly certain that if the 'verse had the equivalent of a raise dead, Mal and Zoe would have moved heaven and earth and stolen whatever treasure they had to to bring Wash back. In character, they're not concerned about telling a dramatic story; they care about their friend/husband.

LazarX wrote:
The logical consequence is that really you should be GMing yourself or just writing fan fiction about yourself, if the stories of others have absolutely no interest to you.

I'm concerned about the story of the little cadre of heroes we call our adventuring party. I feel the same way about the death of anyone else's PC in the group. I want to contribute to their personal goals and successes just as they contribute to mine. I don't want to play a solo campaign or be a lone wolf hero; my enjoyment is in the group dynamics. I find the relationships and interaction among the PCs to be far more interesting than the metaplot of the campaign. I'm not claiming my way is the only way to enjoy the game, but it's how I enjoy the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know it's a good discussion when you find yourself liking both sides posts all the time.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Kthulhu wrote:
Gandalf wasn't raised by Mook the NPC cleric, though. He was raised by Eru Ilúvatar...essentially Tolkien's God (capital G).

PCs aren't raised by Mook the NPC cleric either. They're raised by Mook's god. Maybe not God with a capital G, but a god nonetheless. Mook only acts as an intercessor.

And still, the point remains. Gandalf suffered no ill consequences for his valiant death. He's a literal case of the mocking example ciretose gave upthread.

EDIT: Fixed Attribution

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

In 3.5, I had a player whose character lost an arm and continued joking around. His character later died and had to be raised.

None of that changed the way he played his character, penalties and all.

I would think loss of a level changed some aspects of how he was able to be played.

And of course, die enough times that you lose enough levels relative to the rest of the party (this is a key part) and your player is going to likely need to retire as they are too far behind the rest of the party.

If everyone died all the time, everyone stayed pretty level (I've been in meatgrinders like this) but if you play like crap, or your character isn't working...darwinism.

Because in 3.5 you could only die so many times before your character needed to hang 'em up relative to the rest of the party. Same with 1e.

That got removed in Pathfinder, which is what it is. But there is still some real penalty to it in the form of gold lost. Take that away and suddenly you basically have immortality until aging out with no real impact.

I agree the gold is kind of a crappy way to accomplish it, but removing the only lasting impact without any replacement doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

In 3.5 you were getting more XP than the other PC for being at a lower level, so recovering was fast enough.

In 1st edition the loss of 1 point of constitution generally wasn't so hard unless you had a starting constitution of 15+. You had no bonus hit points with less than 15 constitution and you had to get to 6 constitution to get a malus to your hit points.
With an average starting value of 12 you had the possibility to die a few times with little secondary effects. Add the possibility to return to life thanks to a wish or resurrection spell and you could die a few times with a moderate negative effect. (BTW, surviving to resurrection wasn't a fortitude save fortitude saves didn't exist in 1st ed] it was a resurrection survival check, a % roll against a value that was dependant on your constitution score)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:

I haven't seen Fight Club, but I know that neither Lord of the Rings nor Serenity take place within a universe in which the dead are raiseable by mortal beings at all. Unlike the D&D/Pathfinder rulesets.

Also, what makes a good novel/movie is not what makes a fun RPG experience. The first is designed by a single author to deliver his story; the second is designed for a group of people working together to collaboratively create a story they all enjoy.

*cough* Gandalf *cough*
DM fiat/divine intervention. No clerics or diamonds involved at all. ;)

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

Actually it spring more from Poul Anderson and Jack Vance books and plenty of other sources.

- trolls with regeneration and whose part continue to fight while separated: Three hearts and three lions
- soulless elves: Three hearts and three lions, The broken sword
- the magic system: Dying Earth series
- ranger: Fafhrd
- barbarian: Conan
- simulacrum spell: Florimel from the Iron castle
and so on.
Tolkien was way less influential than you think.

The first edition of D&D was published in 1974, the Silmarillion was published in 1977, Gygax cite Lo hobbit and Lord of the ring as some of the books that influenced D&D, but there are plenty of other books in that list.

Liberty's Edge

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Gandalf wasn't raised by Mook the NPC cleric, though. He was raised by Eru Ilúvatar...essentially Tolkien's God (capital G).

PCs aren't raised by Mook the NPC cleric either. They're raised by Mook's god. Maybe not God with a capital G, but a god nonetheless. Mook only acts as an intercessor.

And still, the point remains. Gandalf suffered no ill consequences for his valiant death. He's a literal case of the mocking example ciretose gave upthread.

EDIT: Fixed Attribution

Gandalf got a drawback too: a short time in Middle Earth. From what I recall he say at some point that he wouldn't be capable to stay there for long.

And there were a few other "return from the dead" events in Tolkien books:
- Sauron, 2 times
- Beren
I don't recall if there were other instances of people returning from death beside those.

Maybe we should count the elves reforming in Aman after death as people returning from death? I don't think so as they cant go to the Middle-earth after that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

I would strongly make that case and if Gygax was still alive, I suspect that he would. Dig out your old D&D books and check the Bibliography in the back of the Player's Handbook (or it might be the DMG). Tolkien's work is just one item out of a very long list.

I wouldn't even say that Tolkien was even a dominant influence on the intended style and feel of the game, and it's practically absent on the worlds of Blackmoor and Greyhawk.

I would say that he did lift some particular items, one race, and seasoned his elves and orcs from Tolkien, but as far as it's dominant influences, I'd say that Jack Vance, Friz Leiber, and Roger Zelazny were far greater influences on the atmosphere of D&D and Greyhawk and that Tolkien was just used as a mine of particular things but not the atmosphere attached to them.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alitan wrote:
I agree with most of the above... but, yeah, it does have SOMETHING to do with being videogamey. Because of the way that "oops I'm dead... gotta respawn and redo this screen" happens in many (most) video games.

Except that in PF you can't redo a screen or a mission or whatever. If you die on a mission, then that likely has some effect on the outcome of the mission. That outcome sticks. PF does not generally have "save points."

ciretose wrote:

Respectfully, you aren't seriously going to try and make the argument that the D&D/Pathfinder setting doesn't conceptually spring largely from from Tolkien, are you?

You can't really be trying to make that case, can you?

No, she's trying to make the point that despite the fact that D&D/PF springs from Tolkien, the transition from novel to game involved several changes, one of which was that you can be a wizard without being a minor god in a mortal body. Another was that a dead hero could be revived by something other than the spontaneous intervention of the most powerful divine agent in the universe. And that was done because while in a novel character death serves a distinct purpose in the story that the author is telling and is completely under the control of that author, in a roleplaying game death can be random and meaningless and the permanent loss of a major character can decrease the co-author (player)'s enjoyment of the overall story. So while available resurrection will spoil a lot of novels or movies, even fantasy stories, it is much less likely to spoil an RPG.

(And that's without the above points about other conceptual sources for D&D/PF)

Ilja wrote:
You know it's a good discussion when you find yourself liking both sides posts all the time.

Agreed.

Liberty's Edge

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Gandalf wasn't raised by Mook the NPC cleric, though. He was raised by Eru Ilúvatar...essentially Tolkien's God (capital G).

PCs aren't raised by Mook the NPC cleric either. They're raised by Mook's god. Maybe not God with a capital G, but a god nonetheless. Mook only acts as an intercessor.

And still, the point remains. Gandalf suffered no ill consequences for his valiant death. He's a literal case of the mocking example ciretose gave upthread.

EDIT: Fixed Attribution

He leveled up a few times during the Balrog fight then while his body traveled outside of time :)

Liberty's Edge

You can't simultaneously argue you should be allowed to not die without any penalty for the purposes of forwarding a communal story while at the same time arguing that you shouldn't be held to the constraints of good story telling.

Again, if your party, not you personally but your party, wish for you to be brought back, even at low levels it is possible with party investment of time and resources.

If you aren't willing to invest time and resources, how valuable was that party member to the party and to the story?

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

ciretose wrote:

You can't simultaneously argue you should be allowed to not die without any penalty for the purposes of forwarding a communal story while at the same time arguing that you shouldn't be held to the constraints of good story telling.

Again, if your party, not you personally but your party, wish for you to be brought back, even at low levels it is possible with party investment of time and resources.

If you aren't willing to invest time and resources, how valuable was that party member to the party and to the story?

Authors don't generally roll dice to determine whether they should kill off their characters :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is "good story telling" differs based on whether you're a spectator on that story or a participant in it. An enjoyable football game means something different to a spectator who just enjoys watching a close and well-played game and to a fan of one of the two teams; the former cares about the "drama" and the latter about the outcome for their chosen side. And it means something else entirely to a player in that game. A quarterback breaking his leg in the first half and being replaced by a rookie back-up who proceeds to dazzle the world with his unexpected talent makes for a great Hollywood movie -- but it sucks to be the quarterback who just lost his job. I don't think he'd tell you he enjoyed the game.

As I said, if I want a good story, I'll read a book or watch a movie; if I want to participate in a story, I play Pathfinder, and I have fun to the extent that I am able to contribute to that story, regardless of its putative literary merits.

Liberty's Edge

And if the football game rules are changed so nobody can lose, because losing may be upsetting to one side or the other, who watches? Who cares?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

In 3.5, I had a player whose character lost an arm and continued joking around. His character later died and had to be raised.

None of that changed the way he played his character, penalties and all.

Should have offed himself sooner. He would have gotten the arm back.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

After 500 posts, I've concluded the following:

1. People don't buy new editions of anything unless there's new stuff in it. 2nd edition made Resurrection age the caster 3 years. Not really a good reason why, but it was different.

2. Gary Gygax and future designers had it right when they said if it doesn't work, modify your own table rules. Obviously game designers don't always get it right, and perhaps they never can because each game table is unique and different.

3. As a GM, I know I've done right by my game when players (1) care about the world they are playing in and (2) feel excitement when those dice begin to rumble and roll. I could care less about the game mechanic that makes these 2 conditions happen so long as they do.

4. What convinced me to ignore the 5,000gp diamond cost and go back to 1st edition standards:

Spoiler:
Last game session, my players raised an NPC because he died fighting for his kingdom, was a leader of his people, and they had fought too hard to reunite him with his daughters. They had plenty of cash, so teleporting to get a 5000gp diamond (which show up in game modules with sufficiency anyways) is really anti-climatic.

However, before this session started, I declared (with my player's unanimous support) that we're going to go back to 1st edition rules because I felt, at our table where the GM rolls the dice in front of the players, that randomness adds a thrill and excitement to the game.

In this scenario the NPC had an 80% chance to survive the raise dead, pretty good, but in this case, failure didn't allow for "rolling up a new NPC." Dead was dead. It was a 1 in 5 chance that this leader, this father, a person they had risked much to keep alive, wouldn't come back.

Ah but he did, so there was a happy reunion with father and daughters. But for a brief moment, as those dice hit the table, a glimmer of anxiety hit the players. I go with what works.

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.

You don't 'win' at Pathfinder so I'm not sure why that was even said. Also 'you', the player, get to continue playing but it just might be another character. The default way to play the game is you may lose. You are not guaranteed to succeed at anything, the joy of succeeding comes when the threat of failure is real but you managed to somehow beat it. Does thiamin always happen? No it doesn't and I am glad of that.

Also I don't think SKR said that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

And if the football game rules are changed so nobody can lose, because losing may be upsetting to one side or the other, who watches? Who cares?

Who cares? The players, presumably. Sure, some people play sports for the fame and the glory, and there might be less of them if it's not a big spectator sport any more. But a lot of the others just enjoy the game and want to strive to be the best they can be.

Tabletop RPGs aren't really a spectator sport to begin with. Regardless of how much risk or cost there is involved in resurrection, you're probably not going to get many people watching your campaign without playing. So who cares if it's less interesting to watch because eventually the PCs will win? As long as the players are having fun and enjoying the game world unfold around them, that's the important part.


shallowsoul wrote:
Also I don't think SKR said that.

He said it right here (and I paraphrased because I didn't remember his exact phrasing):

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I would say that raise dead is supposed to be difficult. That's not an expression of an adversarial style of play, merely one where the players are not expected to succeed. The difference being that I don't expect them to fail, either.
Except in D&D and Pathfinder, the PCs are expected to succeed. An average CR fight isn't a fair fight, it's all stacked in the PCs' favor. So saying "they're not expected to succeed" is contrary to the actual math of the game.

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Also I don't think SKR said that.

He said it right here (and I paraphrased because I didn't remember his exact phrasing):

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I would say that raise dead is supposed to be difficult. That's not an expression of an adversarial style of play, merely one where the players are not expected to succeed. The difference being that I don't expect them to fail, either.
Except in D&D and Pathfinder, the PCs are expected to succeed. An average CR fight isn't a fair fight, it's all stacked in the PCs' favor. So saying "they're not expected to succeed" is contrary to the actual math of the game.

Incorrect.

You "hope" to succeed but aren't guaranteed. "Expecting" to succeed could set you up for disappointment and the game shouldn't, and doesn't accommodate you. Only your DM can do that.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Joana wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Also I don't think SKR said that.

He said it right here (and I paraphrased because I didn't remember his exact phrasing):

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I would say that raise dead is supposed to be difficult. That's not an expression of an adversarial style of play, merely one where the players are not expected to succeed. The difference being that I don't expect them to fail, either.
Except in D&D and Pathfinder, the PCs are expected to succeed. An average CR fight isn't a fair fight, it's all stacked in the PCs' favor. So saying "they're not expected to succeed" is contrary to the actual math of the game.

Incorrect.

You "hope" to succeed but aren't guaranteed. "Expecting" to succeed could set you up for disappointment and the game shouldn't, and doesn't accommodate you. Only your DM can do that.

What Sean means is that the game is mechanically weighted in the PCs favor, which is true.

Silver Crusade

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Joana wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Also I don't think SKR said that.

He said it right here (and I paraphrased because I didn't remember his exact phrasing):

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I would say that raise dead is supposed to be difficult. That's not an expression of an adversarial style of play, merely one where the players are not expected to succeed. The difference being that I don't expect them to fail, either.
Except in D&D and Pathfinder, the PCs are expected to succeed. An average CR fight isn't a fair fight, it's all stacked in the PCs' favor. So saying "they're not expected to succeed" is contrary to the actual math of the game.

Incorrect.

You "hope" to succeed but aren't guaranteed. "Expecting" to succeed could set you up for disappointment and the game shouldn't, and doesn't accommodate you. Only your DM can do that.

What Sean means is that the game is mechanically weighted in the PCs favor, which is true.

Now that I can agree with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
If you want to run a game like a video game, feel free. I think it is safe to say most people would rather just play a video game, but YMMV.

My point was that if people want to complain about video games influencing RPGs to be too easy, I'm going to respond by pointing that they are in fact categorically wrong in their generalization of video games.

Just like if they complain about comic books, I'm going to ask them how American Splendor is ruining anything.

Running an RPG "like a video game" is a useless statement. There are too many different kinds of video games, so they either need to before specific, or lay off the comparison. Even saying "like an MMO" is useless, because there are plenty of different styles.

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.

So nothing bad should ever happen to the party, ever.

501 to 550 of 1,171 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.