So, raising the dead: a perennially controversial topic. No two groups see eye to eye on how this should work out. I personally am unhappy with the extreme ease of returning to life under default 3.5 rules, but also want the penalty not to make the play experience unfun. Moreover, I realize that some people prefer easier resurrections, that high-level play often demands it (death becomes too commonplace for it to be a big deal) and that backwards compatibility means not much may change. I just want to preent the way I play as an option for those who like it, and a conversation starter that could turn into a potential sidebar.
In my games, I generally completely remove the spells Raise Dead, Reincarnate, etc. These effects become plot-device level magic only possible throuhg extraordinary locations, prophecies, or the intervention of gods, dragons, etc. So while the uinderstanding is that I will eventually allow any dead PC a chance to reutn to life, it may not happen right away; generally, only after a prolonged quest. When your charatcer dies, you lose XP as though you had died and ben raised, then roll a new character with the same XP total.
The trade-off I give my players is this: any and all experience earned by the replacement character will instantly transfer to the dead one should they ever return. This generally means that a dead hero returns to life several levels *higher* than they died, which actually fit the genre conventions just fine. Whatever event or power restores them to life generally also bestows them with new equipment or powers that bring them up to speed on missing treasure; if not, I just seed the equipment they need in the next few treasure hoards.
Thoughts?
This should just be your house rule I think
As with alot of the things that have been posted here on these threads
my 2 cents
Oh, I have no illusions that it's apprpriate or desireable for everyone's game. I shared it because someone might like it, and because afaik we haven't had a discussion about death in Pathfinder yet, and I think it *should* be discussed at some point. Although, probably little can be changed without wrecking back-compatibility.
Its nothing against your idea it sounds pretty cool for the right game I just dont want the book completly full of optional rules