Even with a perma-death concept, the game is still fun. It's up to a great DM to give you an amazing experience, not just the setting and system.
+1
We've played with permanent death and it makes for a different play experience, a lot edgier even at high levels. It makes higher level a lot tougher for the GM though because once you get past a certain level regardless of how careful you are death can come FAST. This to me is the biggest concern.
A quick comment on your 1 round spell. Maybe make it 2d4 rounds. Give the players a little bigger window to fix death but give them a little uncertainty.
A couple options beyond your 1 round spell.
Resurrection Survival - revive these rules from 1st Ed. AD&D. You had a survival chance based on your CON score and could only be resurrected a set number of times.
I can dig up more details on these if you want.
|
I'll be honest, I don't think I would do well in a game where characters couldn't come back from the dead.
You see, I'm an extremely personal roleplayer, I get into a role and get attached to my characters. There's always a strong distinction between us, thankfully I've never been plagued by the rumored 'loss of identity' crap you hear about from time to time, but my characters are important to me. Almost... almost like a little brother or sister I guess you might say.
When a PC of mine that I've had a chance to get involved with dies, in a setting where death = the end, it's a very big deal. I certainly don't make a new PC right away, and in fact it's rare that I'll be willing to roleplay any characters in any game for upwards of a week or two, and not ready to replace that particular character for up to a month.
I don't know, maybe I'm just exceptional in that way, but it's how I play. If I were in your game, expect me to miss a good number of sessions morning the lost character before I come back ready to take on a new one.
i get attached to my pcs too. they end up dying or losing playability in some other form, such as his passing of an index card that reads " Do You Want Free Levels" you can choose to accept or decline, declining requires the additional act of a wisdom check (not a will save or skill check) at a humoungus dc. (30+) the higher ones wisdom, the more he increases the DC. this is how he eliminates unwanted characters. accepting means the character goes evil and dissapears, with 5 free levels (DM choice of what they are) denying but failing the wisdom check means go evil without the levels and dissapear, deny and make the check means no evil, no dissapearance and no free levels. this always happens, (3 i mean 2 of my characters died in shackled city) right when i get the feel of the character. and i died once in RotRL. priestess Luminiere Solas of Sarenrae Died. she got Replaced by a Loli (little girl) in a black Yukata. i got attached to Luminiere, but knew all she could do right was healing and undead nuking. she was slowly becoming dead space. DM did the party a favor (accidentally) with the stirges ganging up on priestess Luminiere. she reached her goal (not in desired form, but reached it). i hope i can get the feel of the little girl in the yukata. before the scenario which she dies.
I'll be honest, I don't think I would do well in a game where characters couldn't come back from the dead.
Do you play levels 1-4 often? Because generally it's quite hard to get raised at these levels due to wealth limits and these are often some of the most lethal levels.
No point here, genuinely curious if it's an issue for you.
If combat is all your PCs have to do, oh well, I guess a lot of their talents are being wasted. Besides, did you notice the part where I indicated the penalty wouldn't last long because lower level characters level up faster than higher level?
First, please leave off the passive-aggressive "oh, but my games are superior to yours because you obviously only do pure combat hack-and-slash" insinuations. Especially since a 1st level PC isn't going to be able to contribute to non-combat situations involving skill checks intended for 10th level PCs, either. "Everybody roll sense motive checks against the NPC's 35 bluff roll... what, Mr. Noob? You can't possibly roll that high? Shouldn't have let that guy kill your last character then!".
As for "catching up" ... Using Pathfinder Medium progression, if a character dies at 10th level and returns at 1st level, it will take until he and the rest of the party are at 13th level before he "catches up", and even then his party members will be 25k from leveling again. That's if he survives the inevitable area-effect attacks that high-level combat brings, with save DCs he cannot hope to pass reliably.
If the party was 10th level, I'd say "new" PCs should start at about 5th level. Survivable if they're not stupid and don't mind playing assistant to the higher level PCs for awhile.
The difference between starting at 5th and starting at 1st is negligible, especially for melee characters. And, again, why should the player be punished by being forced into being a sidekick for dozens of sessions simply because he was unlucky?
Beyond the pale is criticizing someone elses game without reading the whole post, or at least questioning their meaning or responding to the whole post.
I did both read and respond to your whole post. I didn't quote the whole thing because your topic sentence captured the tone of your whole post adequately and there's no need to clutter up the board by quoting everything when quoting one sentence will do the same job.
Of course, if feeling superior is your thing, have at it.
Nope, I think you've pretty well pinned that down for yourself.
But of course, that would mean he would come back as level 2.I think I mentioned earlier that you can get Restoration cast twice and then you're back to original character level . . . was that rule not active when you were playing, or was there some other reason why that couldn't've worked? I sure hope it wasn't because nobody thought of it. O_O
Well, I'll be damned.
Frankly, it wasn't because "nobody thought of it".
Instead, it was because we're all very thoroughly familiar with 3.5e and nobody had actually read the Pathfinder Core Rulebook cover to cover yet (it being a new book and all), and none of us had ralized that something we'd taken for granted for nearly a decade had been surprisingly dumped on its ear like that.
Raise Dead always drained a permanent level that could not be restored. We saw the Raise Dead in Pathfinder had been bumped up to two permanent levels, but I don't think anyone read the bit that says Restoration can fix that now.
Knowing that, I might have replied differently, although since the paladin had completed his quest, saved the town, eliminated all known threats, and had absolutely no game reason to leave Iomedae's grace and return to the mortal world, I think he still would have remained dead.
I can't actually remember a character of mine dying before level 6. It's the higher levels where caution and tactics start losing their ability to keep you safe compared to mechanics and magic.
Ugh... seems to me that's where most die... well that and...
That, and we actually don't play levels 1-4 as much as we play higher levels, because there are more of those higher levels. My groups tend to play from 2 or 3 to 19 or 20 (though we do start at 1 from time to time and extend into 'epic level' play periodically as well)
I agree, once you get past... somewhere around 12-14th level the game starts to get really uncontrollably lethal. It's one of the reasons I don't like higher level play. From my experience levels 4-10 are fairly survivable and characters generally have to do something stupid or have a run of bad luck to get killed.
A bit blown away by the number of comment still.
Thank you again for all of your posts.
James Risner.
My player do not have invincible death machines.
Just because I have removed raise dead does not mean that there is less of a level of lethality.
My players simply pick and choose there fights.
They are heroic because they put their life on the line.
But they are not at the level where the heroic stupid where they are always putting their life on the line.
Luminiere Solas.
This to me sounds like a much different topic.
The randomness of the game well always be present should we negate it completely?
R_Chance.
Calm down buddy were all friends here.
Unless someone has declared me as there enemy, then I just look silly now.
Combat for me is not the main part of my game ethier.
Lathiira.
My players are very attached to their characters.
It's almost tangible.
I do not feel that death is meaningless.
Infact I would go to far as to say the oppest.
I can honestly say that it is not born from anything where people keep getting brought back.
It has been such along time since I remember that spell being used.
It is because of the large implications of spell.
Imagine if you will your looking at a new setting for a modern era and they say here is how power works and they show you some form of cold fusion or some other ultra efficient form of renewable energy.
Thats it.
Could you imagine the implications that it would have on our world today?
It would be massive.
Thats similar to how I feel about this and any other res' type spell.
So much more work has to be done and all for what?
So that the players can futher remove themselves from reality?
It seems to me like it disrupts the FLOW of the whole role playing asepct.
R_Chance.
You love this thread don't ya :D
Well I have to say that demons and such don't feature promently in my world.
When people summon things I give them the appropriate aspect.
I have some people that worship light, there is alot more but thats a whole nother topic.
When they summon somthing it glows and it orifices shine with light mostly the eyes and when the mouth is opened.
But it resembles something in the world.
That way is them 'summoning' it or a heavenly body bring it?
Also I was not talking about clerics going against the divine, I was talking about them going against the church, say Lutheran was cleric do you think he would have lost his powers?
It's not about fraud or anything like that it's about mystery and giving a mystical element to magic.
Thats one of the reasons I dislike the spell and the concept of res'ing because it brings alot less mystery to the setting.
kyrt-ryder.
We are very heavy into role play.
Were not amber diceless but were very heavy into it.
Character death is a huge thing for us.
We had one person die a high level and was with the group for sometime.
He was an evil bastard no two ways about it.
But they missed him comment on his passing wanted to look for his body and they blamed the person he was with for his death.
I doubt I would need the same ammount of down time as you but I know what your saying.
Dennis da Ogre
Hey man good to see you away from the chat again.
Henry Graham remember?
Like I said above there can be varients and such of that spell.
And not my spell miniatures handbook spell.
Basicly it's not so much the spell it's the concept.
Death being something that must be fixed in rounds ie, seconds.
Not minutes and certainly not days.
DM_Blake.
I hate that feeling where your like I know how it works, what you think I am a smuck?
Oh right I am a smuck.
I know thats not quite it but thats how I feel.
Dennis da Ogre.
I would say that level 13 thats where high level play begins.
For sure no question.
And I am kind of fearing my PC boardering on that level creating threats that are that threats not death on a stick.
Well thank you all for posting once again I will respond regardless.
First, please leave off the passive-aggressive "oh, but my games are superior to yours because you obviously only do pure combat hack-and-slash" insinuations. Especially since a 1st level PC isn't going to be able to contribute to non-combat situations involving skill checks intended for 10th level PCs, either. "Everybody roll sense motive checks against the NPC's 35 bluff roll... what, Mr. Noob? You can't possibly roll that high? Shouldn't have let that guy kill your last character then!".
Rather snide of me, I admit. Your comment precipitated that, and my reply was unneeded. Still, if the player thinks and adds his opinion, he contributes. Rolls aren't everything, and, as you noted below, I wasn't planning on putting a 1st level character in that position. As for passive-aggressive, no. Just irritated with the superior "beyond the pale" remark you made. And, what's the point of continuing the 1st vs. 10th level bit if you understood (as apparently you do) that I meant lower, but not that much lower?
As for "catching up" ... Using Pathfinder Medium progression, if a character dies at 10th level and returns at 1st level, it will take until he and the rest of the party are at 13th level before he "catches up", and even then his party members will be 25k from leveling again. That's if he survives the inevitable area-effect attacks that high-level combat brings, with save DCs he cannot hope to pass reliably.
I didn't say a PC should be 10 levels below the party. I said substantially lower. I'd say 5th level for a party whose highest character is 10th level (as you attributed to me below). As for catching up to a party, what do you do, give them the exact amount of experience everybody else has? Do you start them at the basic for the level? I'm curious -- really.
The difference between starting at 5th and starting at 1st is negligible, especially for melee characters. And, again, why should the player be punished by being forced into being a sidekick for dozens of sessions simply because he was unlucky?
So, the hit dice, skills, feats, class abilities and BAB increases between 1st and 5th are negligable? Really? Personally I'd say a 5th level character of any class is much more likely to survive, and much more usable, than a 1st level one. Death has never been a "good thing" for players in the game, much less the character. Outright sucks a lot of the time, especially if it's due to bad luck. Giving them a brand new character of the same level is going a bit far though. Curiosity -- do any of your players just decide to change characters via death?
I did both read and respond to your whole post. I didn't quote the whole thing because your topic sentence captured the tone of your whole post adequately and there's no need to clutter up the board by quoting everything when quoting one sentence will do the same job.
There's no need to "clutter up the board" with the meaning of a post? Strange idea of communication you have. If anything, given the lack of context inherant in posting on a board, more is needed to convey meaning, not less.
Of course, if feeling superior is your thing, have at it.
Nope, I think you've pretty well pinned that down for yourself
Sorry for responding, in what I felt was, kind. I can see your point about the "unfairness" of death, but I believe it should come with penalties. I run a world, not an AP. There is no absolute need for characters of level "X" to finish a game, because the game never finishes. Players can, and do, go on side adventures and not everyone is the exact level at any given time. That does change things and give me a different perspective.
A bit blown away by the number of comment still.
Thank you again for all of your posts.R_Chance.
Calm down buddy were all friends here.
Unless someone has declared me as there enemy, then I just look silly now.
Combat for me is not the main part of my game ethier.
I am calm, now. One post, not by you obviously, irritated me. Usually I don't take it personally, it's too easy to mistake tone and misinterpret posts on a board.
R_Chance.
You love this thread don't ya :DWell I have to say that demons and such don't feature promently in my world.
When people summon things I give them the appropriate aspect.
I have some people that worship light, there is alot more but thats a whole nother topic.
When they summon somthing it glows and it orifices shine with light mostly the eyes and when the mouth is opened.
But it resembles something in the world.That way is them 'summoning' it or a heavenly body bring it?
Also I was not talking about clerics going against the divine, I was talking about them going against the church, say Lutheran was cleric do you think he would have lost his powers?
It's not about fraud or anything like that it's about mystery and giving a mystical element to magic.
Thats one of the reasons I dislike the spell and the concept of res'ing because it brings alot less mystery to the setting.
It's an interesting thread, so yeah, I love it :)
It would take a skeptic with serious convictions to be an unbeliever given everything the priests do in a typical D&D world. Still, I suspect we all know people who would, if nothing else, just to be different. As for Martin Luther going against the Church, I can see a deity allowing that if it didn't involve the tenants of belief in the god, just Church governance or politics. A chaotic deity might find it to be particularly appropriate. In my world there is one deity who is worshipped by two different churches. The basic tenants of belief in him are the same. One worships two other gods, the other denies that the other gods should be worshipped. They have been in conflict for centuries. The god doesn't step in because both Churches promote his worship and ideals in their part of the world.
I can also see your point about mystery. The more contact with the divine, the less mystery. Still, I'd say that given the presence of organized religion with access to miraculous power, some of that type of mystery is toast.
Well, I'll be damned.
Frankly, it wasn't because "nobody thought of it".
Instead, it was because we're all very thoroughly familiar with 3.5e and nobody had actually read the Pathfinder Core Rulebook cover to cover yet (it being a new book and all), and none of us had ralized that something we'd taken for granted for nearly a decade had been surprisingly dumped on its ear like that.
Yeah I know what you mean. I've pretty much resigned myself to relearning everything and taking pretty much nothing for granted.
At least now you know. :'P
Knight Errant Jr, suggested I should look at a dragon magazine which I have since proquired, the very first lines of this article, beyond the pale summed up my feels very well.
Well this pazios property so if I am stuffing up they can remove it and I apologise for misusing it.
"Death is a chilling and usually
tragic constant in the lives of
all mortals. A person who is
vibrant and full of life one day can
suddenly be gone the next. Most
mortals fear death to some degree,
either because it forces them to face
the unknown or because it takes
them away from their loved ones or
great works. A person’s death o��en
deeply affects those who knew her
well, and even casual acquaintances
or total strangers might mourn a
person’s death for weeks. Death is
the end of the line, the final chapter
in life, the first step on a new path
into the a��erlife. Death is permanent
and eternal.
Except in Dungeons & Dragons.
With the abundance of spells
like raise dead and resurrection, death
ceases to become a tragic, soulsearching
event and simply becomes
a nuisance. A character’s death is
usually no more than a stumbling
block requiring a trip back to town
and the hiring a cleric. For the
deceased, death usually causes little
more than the frustration of facing
level loss, causing her to lag behind
her comrades. Moreover, it becomes
more and more difficult to decisively
defeat a villain, especially one with
an experienced cleric at his side, as
a vanquished foe can o��en reappear
thanks to powerful magic. Since
one of the cornerstones of fantasy
roleplaying is the ability to do the
impossible, bringing a character
back from the dead is perfectly
appropriate given the extent and
power of magic.
Yet these spells and abilities can
also cheapen death, a major event
not only in the lives of all people,
but also in storytelling. When the
ability to raise a character from the
dead is present, death ceases to have
any dramatic or storytelling value.
Such power transforms tragedy
into a matter of economics. Why
mourn the king’s assassination or
honor a paladin’s noble sacrifice
when their faithful clerics can
simply bring them back to life?
Moreover, evil characters can avert
their punishments in the a��erlife
by remaining alive for as long as
possible. Granted, most of the
spells that bring characters back
from the dead have expensive
material components, but even midlevel
parties can o��en pool their
resources and sell a magic item or
two in order to avert the natural
process of life and death. These are
but a few examples of how magical
resuscitation devalues death and—
by extension—life, leaving many
DMs seeking alternatives."
This I think perhaps sums up my views better than I was able to express perhaps not.
Anyway they come up with the following suggestions.
1. Keepers of the Dead, So basicly only one deity is able to bring people back.
The god of death.
Well now you can see the extra added bonus of worshiping this god why any other as an adventure?
Basicly they suggest that your player will have to do an eye for an eye sort of thing.
Finding a suitable similar person to your friend and then offering them up so you can get your friend back.
Well if your a good party which is often 'assumed' but you know what assuming did?
But if your a but evil party, you don't care, your like barry the fighter is much more important than douche bag look like number 12
2. A feat to be able to raise dead.
Oh let me count the ways that I hate this idea.
If a healer slot character fears one of the members of the party 'buy the farm' well then he has to alter his/her build just for the sake of this feat.
What about leveling taking away, party infighting and a long list of others.
I just hate this idea.
3. A certain day of the year when the nethier realm is close to our own is the only day someone can come back.
Well I don't like this for one reason.
The race against the clock style campaigns where there is a sense of urgency behind your actions limiting your moves.
Other wise it can be a very heavy punishment alot can happen in a year and if can only be performed once a year then it is very likely that people may have moved on with there lives, wife as remarried, has a kid, take the spawn story and shorten it to a year.
(look it up I am sure wiki has some blurb on the guy)
4. A location, a land of the dead, a place in your campaign where people say this is where souls 'rest'.
Basicly the party has to adventure here rather than getting on with the same old same old.
The only problem is see with this is that the dead player will not be included but you could have a two part burning wick.
Having the party one on end and the dead person on the other.
So it's hardly impossiable to get around I thought of this and I am almost falling a sleep as I type this right now.
5. They are marked as someone who has died.
This mark can not be removed by any means.
Really I don't see this as much as a problem as they make it out to be.
6. Something about familiars it didn't really matter a huge ammount.
7. What I have been suggesting and apperntly the spell 'REVIVIFY' which I worried was wizards well turns out pazio made it.
Well I'll leave you guys to muse on that.
The seventh suggestion is resuscitation spells.
They don't bring you back from death they just stop you from dieing.
Now when I suggested 'REVIVIFY'.
That was not the only spell I was suggesting what I was saying was that spells that resuscitation spells add an element of drama and real consquence to the game.
At higher levels have more powerful version of the spell(s).
Whatever the case maybe.
The idea is that Raise dead and it's ilk.
Bad for GMs or DMs or no there is nothing more to that...
I will walk away in shame now.
Caladors: I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, as the post is too long for me to thoroughly read ATM, but has anyone mentioned Breath of Life on p. 251 of the core book? It's very similar to what you want to do with your "Revivify" concept. It might need very slight modification as I'm not sure if it works on death type spells like Finger of Death, as it states that it doesn't revive creatures slain by death effects.
Not sure if you really need to remove the raise dead spells completely from the game. As suggested by other posters & articles, just make them less accessible.
To share my experience, I've only seen characters come back to life in my campaigns from level 9 onward. Before then, they just don't have the resources, or could have access to the resources, but things just didn't fall their way… took to long to get to a capable cleric, were temporarily out of money, the other players didn't want that particular PC raised, etc. An a funny note, one player, a barbarian PC, would carry around a shovel that would be put to use in the case of a companion's mishap.
|
Moto
SB5101
In my return to gaming with my Beloved Spouse (Kobold Chorus: "We love you!"), death became a matter of fact in very short order for our party. It was Important. It was Real. And it was definitely something to fear. This was before PFRPG, so there were no negative levels, you just LOST a level if you were brought back. Erase it from the sheet, refactor your stuff, it's GONE.
The party was comprised of two Paladins, a Rogue/Ranger, and a Sorcerer. They became known, over time, as Hildebraun's Revenants. For the longest time, the Main Character (Hildebraun) was the only one who had NOT been raised.
This was well AFTER Hildebraun's Really Bad Month, wherein anyone and everyone she grouped with died. Most of them horrifically. We're talking 'red-shirt bad' deaths. They weren't raised. I'm pretty sure the count of these would be somewhere between 5 and 12. Dead, no zappy bringing back, they're all dead Dave.
Then we start getting a bit more butch and/or lucky.
Corrian, the Sorcerer, actually died on Hildebraun's first adventure (being the second of her companions to buy the proverbial farm) and was animated as a Skeleton by the Evil High Priest. Many adventures later - in the Tomb of Absathor - Hildebraun encountered Undead Corrian and put him down. Then, with a Staff of Life, brought him back. (Yes, that's Ressurection, not Raise Dead, but I figured it relevant)
Bannor (the other Paladin) was raised early on by the fact that a town cleric had a scroll of Raise Dead. As it was, we had to race across country at breakneck speeds to get to said cleric before the body went gamey. This was the first person to return from the Beyond, and was Just Blind Pure Luck because the Good High Priest (who died horribly and refused to be raised) insisted we keep her only scroll of Raise Dead.
Vola, the Rogue/Ranger, died much later in the group's career, while running through Clydewell Keep in "Demon Within". Foot was chopped off and preserved, the rest was cremated, and the foot goes back to the rest of the party. Who have the Staff of Life. Zap, pow, done.
These were the partys' first deaths. Some had more, some had only the above, but they started calling themselves the Revenants nonetheless. Hildebraun bought it once too. Staff of Life, zap zap... dead less than an hour. Body hadn't even cooled.
Do these experiences cheapen the impact death has on a party? No. Death really sucked. Each of them would be at least one level higher if not for death. But it also provided a bonding experience that nothing else would have. Hildebraun didn't figure out that she actually loved Vola until after she'd lost her. (Revelation came while she was sleeping in the arms of a Nymph while riding back to have Vola ressurected...thus the only reason Hildebraun didn't get compelled to stay with the Nymph forever and ever)
Corrian came back incredibly changed, as he'd been dead the longest and had already started the process to become a petitioner.
Vola went to the Beastlands, and it wasn't terribly traumatic. When she came back, she found that Hildebraun had some new notions of what each meant to the other. Very fluffy RP, but cool.
What threatens a level 20 character? The spell's called "Imprisonment" and it sucks the big one. There are things worse than death, and that should, in my opinion, always be true. Trap the Soul, Imprisonment, Temporal Stasis (though I think that's a voluntary only spell, can't be bothered to check), that sort of thing should be the fear into epics.
The other thing that I feel should be addressed is.. What happens after you die? Where does the soul go? How? How fast? What then? Those are the building blocks for good RP and a continuation of a character's experiences. I'd love to see a TPK turn into the actual BEGINNING of a game just once. "Ok, you all failed that DC 40 Fort save. You're dead. You each wake up in Ysgard, and there's Odin giving you this odd look. What do you do?"
Death shouldn't be the end, no matter of cost and circumstances. It's a matter of good RP, good players and a good GM. The important thing is the fun.
I find it a rather interesting topic, really. As a player of many games where res does not exist and AD&D player (which difficults it a lot, specially with RP reasons). I find it that the good answer would be to keep things as 2nd edition, or that only one Deity could have this. Or some bargain with that deity.
I don't think REMOVING it entirelly is fun. Not in D&D anyhow. I think it should be hard, and costy and an adventure on itself though.
I agree with many of the points raised here (no pun intended).
What I quite liked was how "The Drow War" books dealt with them - Raise Dead is only possible if the person is a reincarnated star (which the players and VERY limited few of the villains are)...everyone else just dies.
{"but where do all the calculators go ?"}
|
My take: Any GM who wants to remove raise dead from the game or similarly "harden" the death rules should first play a campaign (not a game, but a full campaign over the course of at least 13 character levels). What might feel fun on one side of the screen isn't always fun on the other...
AKA: For a while, I had similar rules for death and resurrection in my game, but that was at a point where I was always the GM and never the player. After playing in a few campaigns, I realized that even WITH resurrection and the like, there's still very much a fear of death for your character. Just the fact that you can be brought back to life doesn't make dying any more sucky... even if it only amounts to the fact that you don't get to take action in the game for an hour or two. Not being able to play the game you want to play because your character died for an hour is, frankly, bad enough.
Also, playing a story-heavy campaign like an Adventure Path, you really SHOULD have raise dead options. No raise dead only really works in a true sandbox game where being the same character in a carefully plotted storyline isn't as key to enjoyment of the game.
Definitely agree with the AP argument - bringing in new characters as a DM is a hassle. The spell doesn't break the in-game realism because of the cost. It's another reason adventurers are willing to be what they are - with enough wealth you can risk more for more reward.
Conversely, the original criticism ignores the fact that a player may not always want to bring their character back to life. I've had several characters die very satisfactorily and decided to bring in a new character rather than mess with their "ending".
A spell that brings someone back to life in the middle of combat may in fact be nothing but a bullseye on the cleric and the resurrected character. I know as a DM that my giants and goblins like nothing better than desecrating corpses and "might-be-deads".
3rd edition came with a clear message that "if it works for the PCs, it works for everybody else equally well". There are a multitude of spells and abilities that I don't mind the characters having (or having access to), but the fact that everybody else has equal access is sometimes bogging my mind.
Raising the Dead is only one of the many. I admit that the spell is part of the game; it is a necessary spell to play the game as intended. As it has been said before, killing PCs and not give them other options than making a new character or leaving the game isn't fun for everyone.
But trying to imagine that Raise Dead and Resurrection have been around for much longer than the PCs, it would have left its mark in history. It would have important consequences. Basically, I'm not willing to accept that high level of fantasy in my world because the scope of what powerful casters can do is beyond my ability to imagine it all. This is a sad thing, because I have a pretty good imagination.
At one point, I simply decided how I wanted my world and told myself that this and that had no big influence on the wide world because... because I don't want them to have a big influence. Somehow, there is another, as powerful 'something' that imposes the status quo. Some I try to explain, some I don't bother until the issue is raised in-game.
All that to say that the "if it works for the PCs, it works for everybody else equally well" message should be taken with a grain of salt.
'findel
Someone brought up the idea that even if there is no raise dead or any res' type spell that healing would allow the church to always apper as having sort of divine channel.
So gods are real no arguement no shades of grey, welcome to high fantasy.
My rational to counter the arguement was then countered by the idea that, they have to all be frauds or most PC's or people must be sceptics.
I brought up the lutherans and books how not everyone could read ecta.
Perhaps not the whole concept but pieces.
Anyway there is another way of looking at it.
They simply don't fully understand.
They believe it is gods work ecta.
Much like us using computers.
Wile I am sure they are some of you whom read this understand the codes and such behind computers, most of us don't but we are still able to use computers and 'we' are quite literate with them.
Some more than others but the computer illiterate we seem quite adpet at using computers.
This is where I would see clerics and other people whom can use divine channeling.
They have an understanding of how things work and they know the correct way of doing things to get the results they want.
But sometimes turn the dial this way and that just doesn't quite work out for them.
But just cause you couldn't insert your image map with image into wiki so you just shove'd the image there.
The computer illiterate says look at that they can put pictures there thats pretty impressive.
Now in a world where most people are computer literate it's not that impressive but imagine only one or two people a TOWN could do such a thing?
Well that would seem really decent.
If not damn impressive.
The impression got from every single book I have read in regards to 3.5 and it's ilk.
PC classes are rare.
Captain of the guard is a fighter.
Guard is a warrior.
Prince is Swashbuckler
Noble is an aristocrat.
The list goes on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Point<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<
Now taking this idea that clerics are rare.
Removing the raise dead spell makes relgion more mystical.
It's a compination of faith, ritual and superstition.
With no one that truely understads the interface they are working on.
It stops things being so certain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;End of point<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<
Mikhaila Burnett.
The first thing that worries me here is the comment.
'Red shirt deaths'
Raymond E. Fiest.
Prince of blood, though the name of the character escapes me now and his over all relevence, I rememeber that I was very attached to this character and in this book he was not the main character I don't thinkg he ever was.
But he was very important off sider.
In this book he wasn't he was background at best.
But Ray just killed him off, it was brutal, no comments on how he died or whom killed him or anything he was just dead.
And I was like, "You bastard, how dare you kill my beloved background guy", but I realized thats what he wanted to hit home.
Death is final it's brutal and it doesn't make sense.
But that was a book.
Not a game where people have interactive control.
As a DM I create challanges.
For the longest of time I thought of myself being a killer DM or perhaps the softcore version of.
More recently I just think I am half decent.
Death is random, savage and brutal.
I try to repesent it as such.
Highest level character we had die in our last campaign was level 11 or 12.
It was part of a two party adventure and he ran off to somewhere he shouldn't have.
Lost to a hold person spell.
And got coup'ed to near death.
At -?.
The other player went to 'rescue' him, but encountered a dragon, this player tried to play chicken with a dragon, you wouldn't do anything you lose your leverage ecta.
Squish.
However I can see this in a book.
As people I hear that we like to hear three kinds of stories.
Stories that 'have' to be told, high real life impact stories.
Falls from graces.
And stories of rises aginst great resistance.
D&D will never fall into the first.
That death, though realtively quick, falls into the second.
That idea of oh his really hot stuff not that his level 11-12, ohh no, I am out, no your stable, but your in a dragons claw, your friend is here, alight, your friend is a moron, bummer, you are dead, sucks to be me.
These few stages it took for the person to finally die.
Thats something I could read or see.
This how I see D&D deaths should be, if your going to have TV tropes I want them to be redemption deaths,heroic deaths and my favourite ALL death if FINAL
I try to avoid DM cheating and stuff of that nature but losing your character to kobolds is no death at all.
It's not something that anyone could retell and fansinate people with the story (please anyone who has a story about dramtic kobold death I am SORRY but I don't care)
What your story sounds like is exactly why I didn't like death in D&D in the first place it's like opps you stuffed up I guess you have to go back a square it's like in snakes and ladders.
Yeah I know not exactly a perfect refence.
I think it is square 97 or something? but as a kid I remembered it.
You were winning all until you hit this square.
And now your back at five or seven or something.
It's like death in MMORPGs that have a permadeath system it doesn't matter that you level more quickly you spend 20 hours doing something and then 6 guys attack you.
What that is, is not fun.
I refuse to punish my players for playing the game and them having things go against them.
'Punishment' for being stupid or arrogant thats just the world reacting to them.
But this is starting to get off topic.
Level 20 characters can have horriable things happene to them.
But death is destroys setting not just the mechanics of the game.
LazarX.
Do not worry my players are well aware of the permadeath concept.
I have had a player retreat instead of being heroic not only because his concept holds that honor and surivial are bound but also he did not want his chracter to die.
Thanks for support.
Tigger_mk4.
Laurefindel, really answered this better than I could.
So rather than trying to reiterate her? point I will simply say, I agree with Laurefindel.
Jal Dorak.
Here is the problem with that idea of I liked there ending.
Lets say you have non meta gaming group.
And they have access to raise dead, you say "Hey guys I don't want to be raised" we know that they respond, "But our characters don't"
So you have the in game 10 to 30 minute arguement no I don't want to come back vs we need you bobby.
I know this is a little pedantic, my point is that death being final people say well darn.
Rather than opening this can of worms and screaming "DIG DEEP BOYS"
Laurefindel.
It is unfornate that I do not have alot to say.
I really agree.
Thats all I can do, and I kinda hate it the people whom I am disagreeing with a provide pages of words but for someone whom sums up their arguement so succinctly I just can't say anything.
Thank you everyone for your comments, both for the for and the against.
I appreciate the OP’s point and largely agree. However to me there needs to be something between “able to jump back in to the fight upon application of a low level curing spell” and gone, roll up another character.
Traditionally this has been ‘death’. When my character dies it is taken back to town- has a spell cast upon it and is back. I like the fact the game has a ‘condition’ which can be imposed by pure damage (ie not a spell like maze or effect like petrification) means the character is no longer able to participate in the fight and his/her comrades need to ‘fix’ him up. This mechanic works for me – as does the flavour.
Sure I am happy to get rid of raise dead but only
1- if death is less common for PC’s; and
2- if as a DM I can inflict something on my characters which brings them to a state of having to carry their comrades back to town or camp out for an hour or so until they are ready to fight again.
Any suggestions?
For Werecorspe.
I suggested rather than raise dead spells such as revivify or breath of life.
And simply upgrading these spells with the levels where the other brothers of raise dead and it's ilk.
As for your carry them off?
So you want a war wounded sort of feel?
Well I had a talk about scaring and healing with a player, he was convinced that healing didn't leave any scars.
So I said prove it, I had books dating back to second and he couldn't show me anything.
Why I bring this up?
Well theres not a lot of hard rules on the effects of healing other than it removes injury but how it does it is another story.
Perhaps healing for you can cause rapid again of a single area, all of the pain of that healing would cause them to 'grog' out with pain ecta.
This is only one suggestion, I am sure there are many ways of doing this I hope it gets those thoughts firing.
Well I had a talk about scaring and healing with a player, he was convinced that healing didn't leave any scars.
So I said prove it, I had books dating back to second and he couldn't show me anything.
I think that fact was pretty much left open on purpose by the designers. Given the abstract nature of hp, you'd probably have the same trouble 'proving' to your player that loss of hp created a wound to scar in the first place...
Otherwise, yes. That is a way to look at things. On the same note, one could see Raise Dead more as a re-animation technique than a 'miracle'. For the average fantasy character, when does somebody die? When he stops breathing? Nowadays, we know that you are still 'alive' for a relatively long time even when you stopped breathing. Raise Dead could be just that, a magical defribrillator.
'findel
Laurefindel, really answered this better than I could.
So rather than trying to reiterate her? point I will simply say, I agree with Laurefindel.
For the record, it's his point. Lets dispel this Vaarsuvius-syndrome gender-confusion vis-à-vis elves; Laurefindel's a He :)
*Snaps my fingers* EUREKA!
I've got it Werecorpse. Stolen right out of the Wheel of Time d20 game.
Instead of having healing truly remove lethal damage, have healing spells turn lethal into non-lethal, and then the PC's have to heal it off over time. (at the accelerated non-lethal healing rate of course)
Nice idea. Also eliminates that instantly ready to hop back into the fight after being beaten / cut / punctured / etc. to within an inch of their lives...
For Werecorspe.
I suggested rather than raise dead spells such as revivify or breath of life.
And simply upgrading these spells with the levels where the other brothers of raise dead and it's ilk.
but effectively these spells (breath of life) take 1 round to cast then the character is back to full fighting capacity (less some hit points)- ie they can be healed back to full in a minute or two and it is like it never happened. This is very different from the raise dead cost (ie time to cast, loss of skill (level) etc).
I am just saying it's a big mechanical difference
I like the wheel of time idea, even if it cured half and converted half to non lethal.
[sidetrack]I once ran a system where each melee wound (not fireball etc) was recorded seperately and could only have 1 magical healing applied to it (and 1 bandaging, which cured a couple of points). the rest had to be healed over time. So after a fight and curing most people had a couple of hit points that could only be cured by rest- worked pretty well [end sidetrack]