I was picturing a roll on every raise attempt.
Also, I was picturing only keeping the number if the raise succeeded. So if you were at 7 with a 10 CON, rolling a 4 on the d4 would make the raise fail. But if you had the resources, you could try again (still on a 7) and hope to roll lower and succeed that time.
I wonder about these campaigns where characters are dying so often this is an issue. How many people actually play in games where PCs are dying so often we need a rule to make them permanently dead after a while over and above the current ways to make someone permanently dead?
Back in 1st edition, I had a character die 4 times and get brought back all 4. character was a 'rogue' and got hit by multiple save-or-dies via traps and curses. His 5th death was a permanent death with no chance of save and no possibility of resurrection. This was by far the most 'dead' I've ever had a character. In Pathfinder (at least this seems to me) most deaths either come about from bad luck, or there's a TPK about to happen.
I've never felt like I needed to go back to System Shock and Resurrection Survival to want to keep my PCs alive, though. Perhaps if I was at a table where we had infinite wealth and time, AND died constantly, this discussion would make more sense?
|
@thejeff - It addresses some of the world issues. Commoners aren't going to have particularly good fort saves I would presume.
You aren't wrong, but it is a step toward consensus.
I would not have it apply to BoL, as that would ruin the spell. I view breath of life more like a heal spell then a Rez spell. You can use it when they are "mostly dead" but next round they are "all dead".
@Jiggy - That works for me with the d4, although I still would like to see some way to incorporate a save of some sort. Maybe it is -1 if you make the save, but you have to roll if you don't.
But that may just be overly complex.
thejeff makes a good point, any ideas to address that concern?
|
|
I wonder about these campaigns where characters are dying so often this is an issue. How many people actually play in games where PCs are dying so often we need a rule to make them permanently dead after a while over and above the current ways to make someone permanently dead?
In high level play, in my experience death happens regularly. Less than in 3.5, but still quite a bit.
RD has a thread about how his party keeps getting TPKed running APs, which are generally fairly tame in my experience.
I don't see an excessive amount of low level death (in part due to playing with paranoid and cautious players and fair GMs), but when you get into the teens in my experience, stuff gets deadly.
Every death, roll a fort save. Base DC 15, +1 for every Rez effect excluding BoL since that is really extreme healing. Make your save = fine; fail your save = still dead.
Edit: sorry, not ever DEATH roll the save; every Rez effect (excluding BoL).
It is a fantasy game that we all play for fun and entertainment. But at the same time we expect a certain amount of realism in the game. I don't view my self as a PC killer DM, but if they make some seriously stupid mistakes, sorry they are going to die. Whether or not that is a permanent thing generally depends on level and resources.
But at the same time with all of the optimizing and power-builds out there, and Honestly everyone, this is the way a good 90% of everyone plays now. The DM using a standard module or adventure path is over whelmed because everything is built to cater to the PC. And in some aspects I can live with that. But when they start cake walking through everything which they generally do. Then you just tweek it here and there so that all partied involved can have a good time.
Overall I think that they (The PC's) should be responsible for their actions. If they step on the Dragons toes and run and he follows them to the city they run to and lay waste to the surrounding areas. THEY are the reason this happened.
Also, how or why is it that almost every group that I've seen as of late think that just because they are a 5th level party they should only run in to CR5 or lower encounters. How does that work? Is that all that's supposed to be around due to your awesomeness? That nothing else will wander through because you aren't of a high enough level? Bullsh!t.
Ok there's my rant.
|
|
Every death, roll a fort save. Base DC 15, +1 for every Rez effect excluding BoL since that is really extreme healing. Make your save = fine; fail your save = still dead.
Edit: sorry, not ever DEATH roll the save; every Rez effect (excluding BoL).
This is interesting. I like the idea of more death making it harder to bring you back. And I like the idea of a fort save being involved for the flavor.
I agree I wouldn't include BoL as that to me is a special circumstance with a lot of things needing to go correct.
Maybe base 12 fort save rather than base 15? Or possibly even lower?
But I like this conceptually a lot.
Other peoples thoughts?
I've heard this before, this theory that "everything is built to cater to the PC", and I simply don't agree. Bear in mind this is an opinion of mine. The GM mechanically has the option to add class levels; in some cases creatures are defined by them. I've done so with some mites and pixies, low level creatures, and homebrewed some fairly epic adventures that nearly ended in TPKs.
Now DOCA makes a valid point in that vanilla modules may play to mean averages but speaking as a GM of that "10%" he speaks of, I think my level 4 PCs would get their HEADS handed to them if I ran them through Carnival of Tears.
This is why I made the point of powers being available on both sides. If the heroes have epic, neverending lives, the same system provides the POSSIBILITY (not saying it has to be used) of the villain(s) having equal staying power.
Yes, a CR1 fight is, by design, a cakewalk for an APL 1 party. But my understanding (I could be off here) was that equal encounters to APL were set that way specifically to be of little challenge, but rather a slight drain on resources. So as CR ratchets up the resource drain expected goes up as well.
If I put my party against a CR 7 young dragon, it would be a hard fight that would drain their resources significantly. If I put the same party against 2 such dragons (CR 9 fight) I'd more than likely kill someone, if not all of them. On the other hand if I put them against 6 goblin warrior 1 with spears (CR 4), they'd more than likely sneeze and the creatures would disappate.
As for this thread, its about the consequences when someone dies. If one character dies holding back the 2 rampaging dragons for a round while the rest of the party manages a hail mary play that destroys the wyrms, then that's meaningful. If however a series of bizarre luck ends with the monk/bard with a spear through her neck from a lucky shot by one of the goblin warriors in a routine sweep, that's kind of lame.
C-wave and others have said they want a system where both deaths, if the characters are rezd have a lasting consequence that can then be excused if the GM so wishes making them the "good cop." I on the other hand favor a system that excuses permanent consequence altogether, reasoning that death in and of itself is punishment enough.
Neither of these views (I don't think) is about trying to balance the gameworld against the might of the PCs. GM's have LOTS of ways to do that. Traps for example, as the mechanics are written, can be game ending with a single roll. I'm sure this will now get debated...
And finally, as to modules or adventures as written being only based around a certain level - that is very true. However the GM has full reign here too. Instead of handwaving "you get to the dungeon" you could add whatever you wanted. I'm going to run some folks through Fallen Fortress to kick off their campaign. The "fortress" in my version is in the middle of some dark woodlands. I have a random encounter chart for the way there that includes a pair of wild badgers (CR 1/2) to a lone wyvern (CR 5); the module is for APL 1.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - make it whatever you want.
|
I have a question for you ciretose: I've generally agreed with your views on character death and the costs associated with getting raised, but I was wondering, since you find PF's cost of getting raised to be just "O.K.", do you use that cost as written or do you have your own houserule that you like to use?
Just curious...
|
|
I liked level loss, but I understood why they got rid of it. Calculating lost levels was really hard to do and it caused a lot of problems. But it fit well with the setting and the mechanics.
I was honestly won over on the gold cost being bad by SKR's argument. But the lack of a replacement troubled me and thejeff has a good point about how without it you have the setting issues.
I'm not sure now. I'm almost thinking about a per cleric cap of some kind to deal with that aspect (maybe max your wisdom) and then using Mark's suggestion.
|
|
His concern was also that it was a party penalty to bring someone back, since it was the party that had to decide to spend the 5k in resources, and he didn't like that aspect.
That was the part I agreed with.
Not that making it a cleric cap wouldn't have a similar problem, but at least in that instance it's a personal rather than party choice that the effect doesn't effect purchases or combat.
I agree with Mark. And yeah Deaths can be kinda lame, but that's the way the cookie crumples. Not all of us get those awesome show stopping death scenes. That's just the way it goes.
But at the same time death needs to feared and respected, which the average PC doesn't. And having the only drawback to dying being linked to a financial drain. To me is just ridiculous.
Stripping the PC of some cash after a while is no big deal. But you strip them of some abilities, then you get their attention.
If death is just a revolving door, linked only to cash and a possible quest type situation, whats the point?
Just a quick thought.
Why not make the raise limit or raise points be tied to level?
That would mean that as you leveled up you encountered more danger and also had a greater ability to overcome it.
It would also allow for class differentiation in the raise limit and prevent "Little Timmy Troublemaker" Lvl 1 commoner from being raised continuously as death would be dangerous for him.
Like this maybe.
Level___Raise limit
___1_____0
___2_____1
___3_____1
___4_____2
Or any other progression preferred.
Fluff it as "A soul gaining strength via experience and challenge" or as "A soul gaining the weight of unfinished business due to responsibilities."
Anyway just off the cuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr => you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.
1) Each time a PC dies, that player has to buy pizza/beer for everyone for the next session.
2) Each time a PC dies, that player has to run around the house naked 3 times.
3) Each time a PC dies, they have to come on the boards and start a monk thread and then reply to each and every post.
There. Now death is something to be scared of again.
|
|
Just a quick thought.
Why not make the raise limit or raise points be tied to level?
That would mean that as you leveled up you encountered more danger and also had a greater ability to overcome it.
It would also allow for class differentiation in the raise limit and prevent "Little Timmy Troublemaker" Lvl 1 commoner from being raised continuously as death would be dangerous for him.
Like this maybe.
Level___Raise limit
___1_____0
___2_____1
___3_____1
___4_____2Or any other progression preferred.
Fluff it as "A soul gaining strength via experience and challenge" or as "A soul gaining the weight of unfinished business due to responsibilities."
Anyway just off the cuff.
A max times raised per level is another approach I think could work quite well and would solve the "raise everyone approach."
Maybe you can't be raised until 3rd level, and then only once before you level. At 6th, you can be raised twice between levels, 9th three times, etc...
That way only special people can be raised (at least 3rd) and dying is still a very high risk, but not a penalty unless it happens to frequently.