let's face it death in pathfinder is not the end


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Scythia wrote:

Playing smart that will keep a character alive:

After the first dungeon/ruins/mysterious cave or mine...
"That was fun guys, but I'm taking the 200 gold that's my share, selling my gear, and starting a farm. I'm not crazy enough to keep doing this adventuring thing, it seems like the sort of thing that could get a person killed."

The rest of the group agrees and they all settled down and live peaceably for a few months until they're slaughtered in whatever catastrophe the campaign was set up to have them foil.

Grand Lodge

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

Why does it always have to be a world-shattering catastophe?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does it always have to be a world-shattering catastophe?

It doesn't have to be a world-shattering catastrophe. It could just be a very young Red Dragon (CR 8) spreading its wings over it's newly claimed territory.

Sovereign Court

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does it always have to be a world-shattering catastophe?
It doesn't have to be a world-shattering catastrophe. It could just be a very young Red Dragon (CR 8) spreading its wings over it's newly claimed territory.

If thats all it takes why are there any towns left?


No doubt as talked about above, writingup a new character gets harder the highe rlevel characters gte. A 10th level character who got disintergrated in a dungeon will pretty much mean the game stops while the player spends hours making a new character.

Perhaps that is an idea, make '1st 5th 10th, etc' adventurer packs for those who want to get back in quicker. A fighter could have say '+1 magic weapon of your choice, +1 armor, +1 shield, 5 healing potions and a cloak +1'. The costs are just rounded down/up to keep from having to deal with futzing around with spare change. Wizards could get '10 levels worth of scrolls and/or a wand of 1st level spell' Just slot in spell names for your Scroll of Mage Armor and Wand of Magic Missile.


Pan wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does it always have to be a world-shattering catastophe?
It doesn't have to be a world-shattering catastrophe. It could just be a very young Red Dragon (CR 8) spreading its wings over it's newly claimed territory.
If thats all it takes why are there any towns left?

And if it's an AP, what do you do if they get a TPK...evil wins?

Or do you have replacement NPCs and such which fill in when someone bites it hard?


Zhangar wrote:

Returning from death in D & D requires (1) resources, (2) allies who are willing to bring you back, and (3) an actual desire to return.

PCs sometimes lack no. 1, but normally have nos. 2 and 3.

Usually. But an adventurer can very well decide to enjoy their well earned afterlife and decline to come back. More so if it is not the first time they died. "Seems I'm not the right one to do this. Let someone else take up the flag".


Galnörag wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I'm not going to account for how other people run their games. That's their lookout, not mine. In my games though, things matter, the passing of a character matters, and I don't invite the quality of players who replace a Bob with a "Bobby".

If you would care to give an example of having a death causing a penalty in your games I'd appreciate that. Also a brief rundown of what type of new character would be allowed into the party, since, if I understand you, you said you "don't allow" people to bring in a character that does the same thing as their old one. Because even in the most Roleplay heavy campaign I'm having problems seeing how bring in a new guy will cause any serious effects, especially 7000gp worth of effects.

But if you don't want to that's fine. I can't force you to share, but I seriously am curious as to what you do.

Just an interesting thought semi-related to the quoeted posts. Often a character plays a particular party role, especially if the party is small, there might be limited overlap. I.E. only one character who has key divine spells like remove disease/curse/blindness/deafness/etc'ness. Or perhaps only one martial to soak up the big hits, or the trapsmith. While their is a lot of material to support a different character / class, the player often is required by the situation to fill the role they just died doing. To do otherwise will often bring down death on a different member of the party, resulting in a less voluntary role switching between players.

Could be the case. Could be that in the beginning everyone wanted to play the strong classes and one player felt forced to build a beatstick with a sigh. Now the beatstick gets killed because of lack of options and now you want to punish him for building something else just because the rest of the "team" was too selfish to play the beatstick themselves.


Pan wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does it always have to be a world-shattering catastophe?
It doesn't have to be a world-shattering catastrophe. It could just be a very young Red Dragon (CR 8) spreading its wings over it's newly claimed territory.
If thats all it takes why are there any towns left?

Well usually it's because adventurers get stronger and eventually fight the dragon before it destroys the village.

But since, in the context of the conversation, the adventurers retired after their first job....

thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Playing smart that will keep a character alive:

After the first dungeon/ruins/mysterious cave or mine...
"That was fun guys, but I'm taking the 200 gold that's my share, selling my gear, and starting a farm. I'm not crazy enough to keep doing this adventuring thing, it seems like the sort of thing that could get a person killed."

The rest of the group agrees and they all settled down and live peaceably for a few months until they're slaughtered in whatever catastrophe the campaign was set up to have them foil.

Also, "why are there any towns left" is a question along the lines of "how exactly does X creature exist/feed itself/repopulate." It's best not to ask or most fantasy worlds will probably collapse in on themselves.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Playing smart that will keep a character alive:

After the first dungeon/ruins/mysterious cave or mine...
"That was fun guys, but I'm taking the 200 gold that's my share, selling my gear, and starting a farm. I'm not crazy enough to keep doing this adventuring thing, it seems like the sort of thing that could get a person killed."

The rest of the group agrees and they all settled down and live peaceably for a few months until they're slaughtered in whatever catastrophe the campaign was set up to have them foil.
Also, "why are there any towns left" is a question along the lines of "how exactly does X creature exist/feed itself/repopulate." It's best not to ask or most fantasy worlds will probably collapse in on themselves.

Not necessarily "why are there any towns left?", but "Who handled the specific threat this campaign was focused on?"

Of course if it was a sandbox kind of game, with no real driving threat, then it's not a problem.

OTOH and more importantly, retiring to become a farmer generally isn't a very fun way to play the game. The Reluctant Hero who just wants to get back to his farm is a perfectly good character type, but requires hooks to keep him from actually doing so. Or he's out of the game.


Hi all a lot of interesting stuff here maybe I should have made my postion clear.
I'm not against players bringing back dead characters with magic in whatever form
, I just feel that it should be more difficult than just spending a few grand and spending a few days in bed.
There needs to be a lasting cost to being brought back to life be it lvl loss or a stat loss
I also feel that it should take time to do as in hours of preparation for the casting of the spell.
I think the best example in movies of how I feel raise dead should be is in the original conan movie, the scene where they have covered him in runes and still have to fight of the spirits to keep his soul in his body.
This is of course just my opinion but I think it could make for some dramatic gaming as the party have to all help the prist to save there friends
It could almost be a mini adventure
You could even say that the more holy the place the easier it is for healer to cast the spells needed, and so going to a major temple or church would benefit the process


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Hi all a lot of interesting stuff here maybe I should have made my postion clear.

I'm not against players bringing back dead characters with magic in whatever form
, I just feel that it should be more difficult than just spending a few grand and spending a few days in bed.
There needs to be a lasting cost to being brought back to life be it lvl loss or a stat loss
I also feel that it should take time to do as in hours of preparation for the casting of the spell.
I think the best example in movies of how I feel raise dead should be is in the original conan movie, the scene where they have covered him in runes and still have to fight of the spirits to keep his soul in his body.
This is of course just my opinion but I think it could make for some dramatic gaming as the party have to all help the prist to save there friends
It could almost be a mini adventure
You could even say that the more holy the place the easier it is for healer to cast the spells needed, and so going to a major temple or church would benefit the process

The issue with punishing a player for dying with permanent irreversible damage is that it isn't particularly good game design. Then a PC ends up being significantly worse than their allies, which just isn't fun for the player who is going to have to put up with this for long periods of time (years, potentially). On top of that there is the risk of a (both figurative and literal) death spiral occurring, where the PC gets weaker, and then dies because they are weaker, and they get even weaker, so they die again because they are really weak, and then they get weaker again. Reversing death shouldn't be a false option where the player whose PC died gets punished for not wanting to roll up another character until they give up and just retire the now crippled PC or not bother to have them revived when they next go down. A GP cost on the other hand is much better in this regard because the rapid increase in WBL as you level up means that the loss of several thousand gold only hurts a lot short term. In two levels time the PC will barely be behind their allies (if the team didn't pay out the cost together, which a lot of groups do). It's much more fun for the players that way.

Running off to do a mini adventure has it's own problems. It's not a bad idea for a one off, but on the third go the players are going to be sick of having to jump through hoops and will just want the damn spell to work without several sessions of screwing around. God help you if the original adventure is on a timer and wasn't just about over. There is also the issue that until the dead PC is back up a player is sitting around playing Candy Crush. This is terrible for obvious reasons. This sort of thing might be entertaining for an outside observer, like someone watching a film, but it sucks in interactive media where someone has to suffer the entire time.


tony gent wrote:

Hi all a lot of interesting stuff here maybe I should have made my postion clear.

I'm not against players bringing back dead characters with magic in whatever form
, I just feel that it should be more difficult than just spending a few grand and spending a few days in bed.
There needs to be a lasting cost to being brought back to life be it lvl loss or a stat loss
I also feel that it should take time to do as in hours of preparation for the casting of the spell.
I think the best example in movies of how I feel raise dead should be is in the original conan movie, the scene where they have covered him in runes and still have to fight of the spirits to keep his soul in his body.
This is of course just my opinion but I think it could make for some dramatic gaming as the party have to all help the prist to save there friends
It could almost be a mini adventure
You could even say that the more holy the place the easier it is for healer to cast the spells needed, and so going to a major temple or church would benefit the process

I agree that it should be more... epic... but killing someone and THEN permanently penalizing them for having died is like punching a baby AFTER you dropped it.

They already died, don't make it worse for them.

Permanent penalties just make them more likely to die again.

Would you enjoy playing a character like that?

Let them make a temporary character, send the party on a quest to the underworld/afterlife to recover their fallen comrades soul.

Make it an adventure.


If you cannot kill them, destroy their lives.
For each time they fall and return, annihilate a thousand of their kin.
Ruin everything they live for, and leave them to witness it.
Twist and corrupt their friends, their loved ones.
Make them wish they had never roused your villainous wrath.
Make them wish they had stayed dead.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Hi all a lot of interesting stuff here maybe I should have made my postion clear.

I'm not against players bringing back dead characters with magic in whatever form
, I just feel that it should be more difficult than just spending a few grand and spending a few days in bed.
There needs to be a lasting cost to being brought back to life be it lvl loss or a stat loss

The level loss doesn't work in Pathfinder due to the exp system. In 3E it wouldn't have been SO bad, as the character would have caught up in a couple levels due to getting more EXP for the same CR encounters etc.

In Pathfinder they'll be behind forever.

tony gent wrote:

I also feel that it should take time to do as in hours of preparation for the casting of the spell.

I think the best example in movies of how I feel raise dead should be is in the original conan movie, the scene where they have covered him in runes and still have to fight of the spirits to keep his soul in his body.
This is of course just my opinion but I think it could make for some dramatic gaming as the party have to all help the prist to save there friends
It could almost be a mini adventure
You could even say that the more holy the place the easier it is for healer to cast the spells needed, and so going to a major temple or church would benefit the process

So - make that player sit out for a couple sessions and just watch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"I used to be an adventurer like you until I took an arrow to the eye, and a sword through the heart, and an axe in the gut, was incinerated by dragon fire, and had accumulated so many permanent penalties as a result that it just wasn't worth it anymore."

Er, no. F that.

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:

"I used to be an adventurer like you until I took an arrow to the eye, and a sword through the heart, and an axe in the gut, was incinerated by dragon fire, and had accumulated so many permanent penalties as a result that it just wasn't worth it anymore."

Er, no. F that.

(The arrow should be to the knee. :P)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

"I used to be an adventurer like you until I took an arrow to the eye, and a sword through the heart, and an axe in the gut, was incinerated by dragon fire, and had accumulated so many permanent penalties as a result that it just wasn't worth it anymore."

Er, no. F that.

(The arrow should be to the knee. :P)

I know, but arrows to the knee tend not to kill you, which is the point--dying so many times that you are actually weaker for having gone adventuring in the first place!


Let us not forget poor Beric Dondarrion after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with the others in thinking this might not have been well-thought-out:

tony gent wrote:
I just feel that it should be more difficult than just spending a few grand and spending a few days in bed.

Fair enough, but the key here is to make sure the living player of the dead character has something to do.

Saying "Here, you play Fred's cohort for a couple sessions" probably won't cut it - he didn't create his awesome (but now deceased) PC just so he could play some other (weaker) character. Saying "Hey, why don't you run the monsters during our combats" can be fun for a battle or two but that player is still going to want his PC back; rolling dice for the monsters' attack rolls is not a lasting substitute.

So, by all means, make it difficult, but don't leave that player thinking that he should have gone home for the rest of the boring session and maybe should find a better way to spend his time next week too since he still won't be back in the game.

tony gent wrote:
There needs to be a lasting cost to being brought back to life be it lvl loss or a stat loss

This is where it becomes a BAD idea.

Why did that character die? Probably because he wasn't quite powerful enough to survive whatever happened to him. Knocking him down a level makes him weaker and more likely to die again. And then even more likely the next time. Even knocking down stats (the number 1 target for permanent stat loss due to Raise Dead is the one listed in the book, Constitution) makes him weaker and more likely to die in the future.

In such a game, after I had lost two levels, I would make a new PC to match my group's current level (the only way to get back to parity) and then convert my PC to be the cohort of my new PC.

tony gent wrote:
I also feel that it should take time to do as in hours of preparation for the casting of the spell.

What does that achieve?

In-game time can pass in the blink of any eye:

NPC Cleric: Sure, I can bring your friend back to life. It will take me 12 hours to prepare the ritual.
PCs: Go ahead.
(at the game table, a whole 3 seconds pass)
Cleric: OK, all done. Thanks for waiting so patiently. Let's start that spell now...

Unless you mean that the PLAYER needs to be penalized by missing hours of gaming time? I sure hope not...

tony gent wrote:

I think the best example in movies of how I feel raise dead should be is in the original conan movie, the scene where they have covered him in runes and still have to fight of the spirits to keep his soul in his body.

This is of course just my opinion but I think it could make for some dramatic gaming as the party have to all help the prist to save there friends
It could almost be a mini adventure

This might be fun. Let the dead guy roll the combat/CMB rolls for the fiends that come to steal his corpse and the PCs battle them. Make a little mini-game out of it, kind of like Decking in Shadowrun.

tony gent wrote:
You could even say that the more holy the place the easier it is for healer to cast the spells needed, and so going to a major temple or church would benefit the process

This could be the seed of a pretty good house rule idea: Jack the levels way up - Raise Dead is 9th level, Resurrection 12th level, and True Resurrection 15th level. Then let holy places remove some levels:

Simple shrine: -1
Elaborate shrine: -2
Church: -3
Cathedral: -4
Grand Temple: -5
Most revered holy temple/religious capital of the world: -6

So if you're powerful enough, you could Raise Dead in a dungeon. Otherwise it's a field trip to some location where you can cast it, or pay for it. Not sure I like the idea, but at least it strikes me as an interesting nerf - still has the problems I mentioned above, but it feels less arbitrary/punitive while being more integrated into the game world.


DM_Blake wrote:
I'm with the others in thinking this might not have been well-thought-out:
tony gent wrote:
There needs to be a lasting cost to being brought back to life be it lvl loss or a stat loss

This is where it becomes a BAD idea.

Why did that character die? Probably because he wasn't quite powerful enough to survive whatever happened to him. Knocking him down a level makes him weaker and more likely to die again. And then even more likely the next time. Even knocking down stats (the number 1 target for permanent stat loss due to Raise Dead is the one listed in the book, Constitution) makes him weaker and more likely to die in the future.

In such a game, after I had lost two levels, I would make a new PC to match my group's current level (the only way to get back to parity) and then convert my PC to be the cohort of my new PC.

Well the obvious way to prevent that is to require new characters to be brought in at a lower level.

If you really want to punish players that is.
DM_Blake wrote:
tony gent wrote:
I also feel that it should take time to do as in hours of preparation for the casting of the spell.

What does that achieve?

In-game time can pass in the blink of any eye:

NPC Cleric: Sure, I can bring your friend back to life. It will take me 12 hours to prepare the ritual.
PCs: Go ahead.
(at the game table, a whole 3 seconds pass)
Cleric: OK, all done. Thanks for waiting so patiently. Let's start that spell now...

Or it keeps you from proceeding on your mission. Makes you choose between completing the job and letting Bob keep playing.

So does "Well you have to journey to the big city where there's a major cathedral".

Admittedly, there's no practical difference between "journey back to town to find an NPC to raise him" and "journey back to town to find an NPC to raise him and wait some hours once you're there".

Practically speaking it's either: Standard action, can do it in combat.
A few minutes: Can do it between fights, but still during the adventure.
Hours: Have to either finish the mission without the character or fall back and hole up/return to town.
Days: Pretty much the same as hours, but missions with longer deadlines are affected. "Have to go on some quest" fits in here, with the added question of what the player will be doing in the meantime, since it's active play, not downtime.

In game terms, that's what you should be thinking about. How will changes in the way resurrection is handled affect how the game is actually played.

Nothing inherently wrong with any of them, but they will all play out differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:


No Bob you can't play a 1/2 Drow 1/2 Iffrit Harajuku girl called Ms Kitty.

flips table


It might be better to have some kind of set "death buff" abilities a character can choose from to replace lost levels(with so many gained or what kind depending on the level) if you decide to go the route of removing levels like the kind of boons a lich gets, to balance out level loss, after all, level loss wouldn't be awesome, but if you could regain them and had extra, it could be kind of awesome and different for the PC character.


Dying doesn't give you "level loss", it gives negative levels. They can be restored by a Restoration spell.


In 1E and 2E, you permanently lost a point of con, and also had to pass a system shock roll (based on your reduced con) to be able to come back.

In 3.0 you leveled down after a death, unless True Resurrection was available. If you were first level, you lost con score instead.

I don't remember if 3.5 took out down-leveling.

Pathfinder removed a lot of the sting from dying, since you can actually fix the drawbacks by throwing more spells at them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:


No Bob you can't play a 1/2 Drow 1/2 Iffrit Harajuku girl called Ms Kitty.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Fixed that for you.


thejeff wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Playing smart that will keep a character alive:

After the first dungeon/ruins/mysterious cave or mine...
"That was fun guys, but I'm taking the 200 gold that's my share, selling my gear, and starting a farm. I'm not crazy enough to keep doing this adventuring thing, it seems like the sort of thing that could get a person killed."

The rest of the group agrees and they all settled down and live peaceably for a few months until they're slaughtered in whatever catastrophe the campaign was set up to have them foil.
Also, "why are there any towns left" is a question along the lines of "how exactly does X creature exist/feed itself/repopulate." It's best not to ask or most fantasy worlds will probably collapse in on themselves.

Not necessarily "why are there any towns left?", but "Who handled the specific threat this campaign was focused on?"

Of course if it was a sandbox kind of game, with no real driving threat, then it's not a problem.

OTOH and more importantly, retiring to become a farmer generally isn't a very fun way to play the game. The Reluctant Hero who just wants to get back to his farm is a perfectly good character type, but requires hooks to keep him from actually doing so. Or he's out of the game.

It wasn't meant as a suggestion of how to have a fun game, obviously.

It's what I think of when people say "if you just play your character smart, they'll live longer". Being an adventurer isn't smart. Adventurers are their world's version of people who film themselves doing dangerous stunts to post online. The smart thing to do would be not to put oneself into mortal danger constantly.


Personally, I have so many character ideas in my head that I usually just skip the resurrect and roll a new character built around another idea (still usually based around a gap in the party that the surviving PCs cannot fill)


I usually do too, but I always like having the option. For some characters it's a hard choice.


At our tables death is not reversible and if you bring in a replacement character they start a level lower. At that point you basically have to build new relationships with in the group(It's like going from close friend/trusted ally to unknown intern). You could try Lichdom I guess, but your character would had to have been preparing ahead of time.


My main issue with no-resurrection is that my group of players aren't amazing roleplayers yet, and have difficulty creating reasons for them to spontaneously allow a new person into their party without harming their immersion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ziggy Sprinkles wrote:
At our tables death is not reversible and if you bring in a replacement character they start a level lower. At that point you basically have to build new relationships with in the group(It's like going from close friend/trusted ally to unknown intern). You could try Lichdom I guess, but your character would had to have been preparing ahead of time.

All the games I am currently in do leveling by milestone, which I find a lot better the micromanaging XP (as both player and GM)

Sovereign Court

Ziggy Sprinkles wrote:
At our tables death is not reversible and if you bring in a replacement character they start a level lower. At that point you basically have to build new relationships with in the group(It's like going from close friend/trusted ally to unknown intern). You could try Lichdom I guess, but your character would had to have been preparing ahead of time.

Do you at least use 3.5 exp table so that you can actually catch up over time?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jericho Graves wrote:

Here's the thing about character death and resurrection that no one has mentioned. If let's say, two characters die and manage to beat the BBEG at the end, who's to say a minion in the shadows didn't get even a lock of hair from the heroes' bodies and escape?

Then, before the party is able to bring their friends back from the dead, the real villain, the master of the last BBEG just reincarnates/true rez's the heroes, and pushes them through a portal to hell to sell as slaves.

Now the heroes who survived make it to a temple, contact a cleric, give over the money. Only to be told "Your comrades are not dead. They are living, and we do not know where."

Bum Bum BUUUUUUUUUM. Now you have an involved rescue mission to deal with. It's not just a case of "why doesn't the king come back?" It's also a case of "Why doesn't the villain raise his enemies and entrap them to keep them from being able to directly attack him."

It's no challenge to screw with your players and put them in a permanent lose situation. You're the DM, you can do that at any time. Once you do that to all your players though... the game kind of ends.

Plausibility comes back when you realise that the world isn't perfect for villains any more than it is for Humans. Batman knows that Arkham Asylum is a confinement with paper walls, but he doesn't kill Joker or any of his other rogues gallery because he knows that he has to have lines that he won't cross. It's the one thing that separates him from the other monsters of Gotham.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:

For the people who ban rez spells, I have a question. How does banning rez spells make the game more fun and immersive in the scope of a campaign's story? How about punishing?

I mean, you've got two options. 1) Dock the player 7000 gp (raise dead + 2 restorations) and let them back to playing the character they want to play, or 2) have them lose that character forever, and make a new one.

So with option 2, there's suddenly a stranger that's exactly as strong as the character that died, with thousands upon thousands of gold he just happens to be carrying around (WBL). And the party has to justify bringing this stranger into their group, trusting their lives to him, and he to them. I.E. the party has to use metagame knowledge to realize that this stranger is controlled by a PC, and not simply treat him like any other NPC. The stranger has to quickly find reasons to care about all the problems and plot points that the rest of the party has experienced from the beginning of the campaign, and the player has to find reasons to become emotionally invested in their new character after the loss of their old one, the one they wanted to play to begin with. In terms of punishment, the character didn't get punished at all, because they didn't lose 7000 gp like the old character would have if they'd been allowed to get rezzed. In addition, the new character could be built more optimally for the level they're starting at, compared to a character that had been in the game since level 1. The only punishment happening here is that the player doesn't get to have fun with their original character.

So with that in mind, I'd love it if someone could explain to me why option 2 makes the game more fun, immersive, and punishing of death.

Exactly.

As I posted before:

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always felt that death is punishment enough. Add to that the fact that coming back from it costs money, and it's a double whammy.

If I played in a game where the GM punished me for not surviving an encounter by taking away character points or levels (or really anything permanent) he would be making my character even weaker than it was before it failed to prevent it's own death.

I would make a new character, and if the GM said no, or that I just arbitrarily HAD to be weaker than the rest of the party, I would tell him to go F himself in the A.

I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because he sucked at staying alive.


alexd1976 wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because he sucked at staying alive.

Oh, it's worse than that. I'll fix it:

alexd1976, fixed wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because a previous character sucked at staying alive vs. an encounter the GM created - and then punished me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because he sucked at staying alive.

Oh, it's worse than that. I'll fix it:

alexd1976, fixed wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because a previous character sucked at staying alive vs. an encounter the GM created - and then punished me.

Nicely done. :D

I've been stuck with GMs like this, it isn't fun.

Me-Well, you have succeeded in killing my character yet again with your unlimited resources, congratulations. My character is now FIVE levels lower than the rest of the party. That will teach me to try and fight things to gain levels, silly me.

GM-Hah hah, yeah, guess you better try harder huh?

Me-Actually I was thinking that this level disparity is a bit much, it wouldn't really make sense for my level 2 Sorcerer to stay with a party like this, their COHORTS are three levels higher than me. I'd like to make a new character please.

GM-Okay, but since you are changing characters by choice, and not because you are unable to raise your existing one, you lose a level. So feel free to roll a level 1 character of your choosing.

Me-*door slams, sound of car starting*


alexd1976 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because he sucked at staying alive.

Oh, it's worse than that. I'll fix it:

alexd1976, fixed wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because a previous character sucked at staying alive vs. an encounter the GM created - and then punished me.

Nicely done. :D

I've been stuck with GMs like this, it isn't fun.

Me-Well, you have succeeded in killing my character yet again with your unlimited resources, congratulations. My character is now FIVE levels lower than the rest of the party. That will teach me to try and fight things to gain levels, silly me.

GM-Hah hah, yeah, guess you better try harder huh?

Me-Actually I was thinking that this level disparity is a bit much, it wouldn't really make sense for my level 2 Sorcerer to stay with a party like this, their COHORTS are three levels higher than me. I'd like to make a new character please.

GM-Okay, but since you are changing characters by choice, and not because you are unable to raise your existing one, you lose a level. So feel free to roll a level 1 character of your choosing.

Me-*door slams, sound of car starting*

frankly I'm surprised you gave them that much time...


M1k31 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because he sucked at staying alive.

Oh, it's worse than that. I'll fix it:

alexd1976, fixed wrote:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because a previous character sucked at staying alive vs. an encounter the GM created - and then punished me.

Nicely done. :D

I've been stuck with GMs like this, it isn't fun.

Me-Well, you have succeeded in killing my character yet again with your unlimited resources, congratulations. My character is now FIVE levels lower than the rest of the party. That will teach me to try and fight things to gain levels, silly me.

GM-Hah hah, yeah, guess you better try harder huh?

Me-Actually I was thinking that this level disparity is a bit much, it wouldn't really make sense for my level 2 Sorcerer to stay with a party like this, their COHORTS are three levels higher than me. I'd like to make a new character please.

GM-Okay, but since you are changing characters by choice, and not because you are unable to raise your existing one, you lose a level. So feel free to roll a level 1 character of your choosing.

Me-*door slams, sound of car starting*

frankly I'm surprised you gave them that much time...

Sometimes you only have access to a single group of gamers... and I wanted to play bad enough to put up with this abuse for a while.

I literally said nothing, left while he was out of the room, and haven't talked to him since.

I totally abandoned my five nights a week gaming group over this. I had to move to a new city and go to university to start gaming again. :D


Well still lots of good stuff being posted
But I still feel that raising characters is to easy and cheap let's be real most pc's have 7k going spare by the time there able to have casters of a level high enough to cast raise dead.
And death needs to be something to fear otherwise players just act recklessly never fearing the consequences of their actions.
So how about the players lose a % of there total xp when they die enough to be a pain but not so much that they are forever a lvl behind the party
Or they could just not receive any xp for the fight they died in , or just have a limit on how meny times you can be brought back to life
It's just that I've seen to meny players who's characters just charge at anything they meet safe in the knowledge that so long as someone survives the fight they'll be brought back.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:
Well still lots of good stuff being posted

Agreed.

tony gent wrote:
But I still feel that raising characters is to easy and cheap

Oh, so you didn't really read the good stuff here?

tony gent wrote:
And death needs to be something to fear otherwise players just act recklessly never fearing the consequences of their actions.

So which one of the failed methods of making players fear PC death do you prefer?

tony gent wrote:


So how about the players lose a % of there total xp when they die enough to be a pain but not so much that they are forever a lvl behind the party

Ahhh, an oldie but a goodie. How big a percentage?

1% : Players wouldn't even notice this loss. Wouldn't change a thing.

10-100% : Anywhere in this range and the player will just roll a new PC. Apply the same penalty to the new PC and the player will feel feel cheated and/or angry and/or sad and/or disappointed enough to lose much of the fun of playing his character, new or old.

2%-9% : Exactly like 10% (see above) but it happens more gradually and maybe not on the first death, much, but accumulates over a few deaths until the player loses much of the fun.

What benefit is there to making players have less fun?

tony gent wrote:


Or they could just not receive any xp for the fight they died in

See above - this falls into the 2-9% category.

tony gent wrote:
, or just have a limit on how meny times you can be brought back to life

What's the limit?

Once? I'd like to introduce you my new character, Bob, the twin brother of my dead character.

Twice? Hey, I'm back... I'd like to introduce you my new character, Bob, the twin brother of my dead character.

Three times? Hey, I'm back... Hey, I'm back... I'd like to introduce you my new character, Bob, the twin brother of my dead character.

Four times? Hey, I'm back... Hey, I'm back... Hey, I'm back... I'd like to introduce you my new character, Bob, the twin brother of my dead character.

Five times? Hey, I'm back... Hey, I'm back... Hey, I'm back... Hey, I'm back... I'd like to introduce you my new character, Bob, the twin brother of my dead character.

You get the picture.

tony gent wrote:


It's just that I've seen to meny players who's characters just charge at anything they meet safe in the knowledge that so long as someone survives the fight they'll be brought back.

Then stop giving them encounters that can be solved by charging into battle. Give them roleplay encounters, puzzle encounters, other non-combat encounters, etc. Or add terrain/environmental obstacles like pits or ravines or rough terrain or fog or darkness or blizzards or lava or all kinds of other things to make them figure out how to win rather than just charging.

And if someone dies, he gets to see everyone else finish the fight he isn't participating in. That's boring. It's punishment enough. And even if they have 7k GP lying around, I bet they have better things to spend it on that wasting it on a Raise Dead (unless you're totally ignoring the Wealth-by-Level guidelines) so paying to raise means waiting longer to get that next sweet item they're drooling over. That's punishment enough.


tony gent wrote:

Well still lots of good stuff being posted

But I still feel that raising characters is to easy and cheap let's be real most pc's have 7k going spare by the time there able to have casters of a level high enough to cast raise dead.
And death needs to be something to fear otherwise players just act recklessly never fearing the consequences of their actions.
So how about the players lose a % of there total xp when they die enough to be a pain but not so much that they are forever a lvl behind the party
Or they could just not receive any xp for the fight they died in , or just have a limit on how meny times you can be brought back to life
It's just that I've seen to meny players who's characters just charge at anything they meet safe in the knowledge that so long as someone survives the fight they'll be brought back.

Or, as I said, make the character lose a level and gain a few abilities to make up for it. If you gain some abilities not normally garnered through the leveling process that increases survivability and if they actually have a chance to gain enough experience to catch up makes them both slightly OP and underpowered at certain junctures of the game... which really helps the cohesion of the group as the others don't need to baby as much and the player feels they can contribute... as long as these abilities are not transferred to other paths(unless the entire party does) or gimmicked in character creation the overall balance would be held in place, while the actual fun of the game itself would be maintained... no-ones going to kill themselves for anything because lets face it, if you as a GM make a list of the kind of abilities you would allow before hand and scale them there wouldn't be a power better than the average level.


I think that's just your table, Tony.

You can always have an enemy spend a little time trashing corpses if you want to deny the party raise dead - raise dead requires a mostly intact corpse.

Or you can try running two encounters in a row?

If your players are that sloppy, it's because they know it'll be fine =P


I'm not talking about my table .
I noticed the gung ho attitude when I was at a convention a few months ago this was confirmed to me by conversations I had with some of the ref's who where running a lot of pfs games

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

I'm not talking about my table .

I noticed the gung ho attitude when I was at a convention a few months ago this was confirmed to me by conversations I had with some of the ref's who where running a lot of pfs games

In PFS dying actually IS a big deal. Moreso than in most home-games. Most of your PFS career you only have access to Raise Dead through use of limited resources. (Raise Dead isn't available until 9, and PFS mostly ends at 12.) And any wealth you may give-up is a permanent hit to your character. If you can't get Raise Dead, you DO end up with a lvl 1 character. (Unless you have another character who you've already leveled.)

The reason for the 'gung-ho' attitude (you're giving it a more negative connotation than how the word is usually used) is two-fold.

1. With a few notable exceptions, PFS sessions aren't very difficult.

2. At a convention you have limited time to finish. If you don't finish the session during your time-slot, you don't get to finish at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, death should be final. It's so in the real world and we fear it because of that. Death being final adds drama and verissimitude to the game, so in the name of fun, I ban all rez spells.

And that is just the beginning...

You see... Losing your hearing or sight is a permanent life-altering event. And we fear it because of that. So, in the name of drama and verissimitude, I ban all spells that heal blindness and deafness. Fun!

Additionally, losing a limb is a permanent and life-altering event. Therefore, in the name of drama and verissimitude, I remove all sorts of regenerative effects. Fun!

Similarly, losing all your money may not necessarily be permanent, but it's a very serious and life-altering event. So we fear it. Therefore, in the name of drama, every time my PCs lose money for whatever reason, I make sure they work in-game months (maybe years) to recover it. It's very dramatic. Fun!

Also, learning new skills is difficult. No one wakes up a mage or elite warrior. Every player has to play as an NPC class for in-game years before they are allowed to play the class they want. Fun!

It's truly enhances drama and verissimitude... It's awesome! My players LOVE these house-rules! Or at very least, they will, once I find someone willing to play with me...


tony gent wrote:

Well still lots of good stuff being posted

But I still feel that raising characters is to easy and cheap let's be real most pc's have 7k going spare by the time there able to have casters of a level high enough to cast raise dead.
And death needs to be something to fear otherwise players just act recklessly never fearing the consequences of their actions.
So how about the players lose a % of there total xp when they die enough to be a pain but not so much that they are forever a lvl behind the party
Or they could just not receive any xp for the fight they died in , or just have a limit on how meny times you can be brought back to life
It's just that I've seen to meny players who's characters just charge at anything they meet safe in the knowledge that so long as someone survives the fight they'll be brought back.

Hmmm. How about, instead of the permanent loss, we give them a penalty or condition that can't be healed immediately?

Like a couple negative levels. Only one can be restored per week, so you're stuck with one for awhile, unless you can just sit around for a week. I've played plenty of games where we'd gain multiple levels in a week of game time.


I suppose the question is, what is the objective behind penalizing players for raising their characters? Is it because you don't want raise dead to be a viable option? If so, that would probably work. As a GM, do you want that character to come back and be in the game? If so, then permanent penalties are a powerful incentive to just make a new character instead.

So as GMs, the question that should get asked is: what do I want to accomplish by making it more difficult to bring dead characters back to life? Now, I'm not criticizing this at all, I don't think there's a bad or wrong answer here. Just saying having an overall goal in this case is useful.


thejeff wrote:
tony gent wrote:

Well still lots of good stuff being posted

But I still feel that raising characters is to easy and cheap let's be real most pc's have 7k going spare by the time there able to have casters of a level high enough to cast raise dead.
And death needs to be something to fear otherwise players just act recklessly never fearing the consequences of their actions.
So how about the players lose a % of there total xp when they die enough to be a pain but not so much that they are forever a lvl behind the party
Or they could just not receive any xp for the fight they died in , or just have a limit on how meny times you can be brought back to life
It's just that I've seen to meny players who's characters just charge at anything they meet safe in the knowledge that so long as someone survives the fight they'll be brought back.

Hmmm. How about, instead of the permanent loss, we give them a penalty or condition that can't be healed immediately?

Like a couple negative levels. Only one can be restored per week, so you're stuck with one for awhile, unless you can just sit around for a week. I've played plenty of games where we'd gain multiple levels in a week of game time.

If only, right?

101 to 150 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / let's face it death in pathfinder is not the end All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.