The fear of death.
Some psychologist say that it is everything that drives us.
Even the desire to reproduce is merely our way of 'cheating' death.
I am unsure whom said this but
"The timid are afraid before the action, the coward is afraid during the action but the hero, is afraid after the action"
It may have been event or chaos rather than action but you get the picture.
Heroes, are people whom we are in awe of because they have over come and some times tragically lost their life in the process.
D&D people are fearless.
I don't mean there not effected by the spell fear, but look at the average person they charge in recklessly and do things with disregard to their own life.
Why?
Not because there heroic or chivalrous but because they have no need to fear.
Raise dead will save the day.
Well why isn't billy being raise?
Because his parents don't have enough money to pay to the church?
I am sure they are good gods fearing folk.
Still no?
Well I could see roits and all sorts of 'fun' from that.
Why not just do it to avoid the bad PR?
It breaks the setting.
Raise dead no matter how high magic your world is, removes it completely and totally from reality.
Imagine armies that don't fear death on both sides?
There village priest has raised someone before or at least the stateone has that they have seen.
It just seems unlike some ability or spell that maybe unbalanced that would wreck the game this seems like it is something that would.
'Break' your world.
But as all people should when they say that they want to get rid of something have an idea to fix the problem.
Raise dead is wanted for the mechanical value of it.
At a certain level it is hard to play the game with out it.
Spells may simply out right kill people rather than just damaging them or some other ill effect.
'Breath of life'
I do believe its from minutes handbooks this not being open content.
But I can still give the rough idea.
You may bring people back from the dead, but only if you reach them within one round.
More like a D&D Defibrillator.
Which makes more sense to me.
Just because you can cast spells and heal people doesn't mean you should mess around with the afterlife.
Peace all.
|
I get your point and to some extend i agree with it but D&D is STILL a phantasy game. It does not have to stick with each and every basics of real life like fear of dying and fear of the unkwon.
It all depends on how YOU run your game. In my game peoples have learned to fear death for the last 20 years because of the way i run the gods.
Clerics will have the power to bring back from the dead only those who still have a major part to play in their god's agenda. So if fighter Bob dies at level 15 after a fight with some mobs he just dies and is buried with all honors due to his acheivements but thats all!
The same fighter Bob dies at the hand of the archvilain seconds away from retreiving the major artifact that would put to an end a major ennemy of the group's cleric? The cleric will most definitly raise Bob right on the spot to finish the jobe!
Anyway thats my point of view and everything that regards God interactions with their cleric and how they choose to do it is up to me and me alone... no rule will bypass that!
Raise Dead is fine the way it is and doesn't break anything, Caladors. I think you're making a number of faulty assumptions.
The first is that raising magic is some kind of special exception to the usual rules about power and privilege. Billy doesn't get raised because his family can't afford to buy the diamond that's worth more than their entire town. The church or the local government can keep down peasant uprisings the way they always do, with force.
Second, you seem to have forgotten that people may very well not want to be raised in the first place, which means the spell just won't work. Billy's in heaven and doesn't want to take two points of Con drain or, worse, two negative levels. That's a poor choice for everyone who isn't either madly in love with the thrill of living (adventurers), or else needs to accomplish something so important that not even the lure of heaven itself can keep them from it (heroes).
Nevermind that (in many settings) most people who die probably can't find a 9th level cleric within 9 days of death, period. Getting around with nothing but a wagon is slow, and high-level casters are supposed to be sparse, at least by default. The 3.0 and I believe 3.5 DMG had a great table for figuring out who the most powerful cleric in town was. Hint: Not all that powerful. This also neatly destroys your notion of an army that doesn't fear death, because most of the soldiers have never seen high-level magic at all.
Nevermind that one high-quality diamond per dead soldier is a completely absurd way to spend military funds, given that those soldiers are going to lose most of their usefulness after you raise them.
Putting fear of death into the game is a reasonable goal as a DM. The problem I have is that with the threat of permanent death I would have to tone down to much of my epic battles or the players will be to timid.
Throw a real penalty for dying and players will take it much more seriously.
The original rules said that each time you died your con was reduced by 1 point permamently and your starting con score was the maximum number of raises your character could survive.
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
D&D people are fearless.
It breaks the setting.
I don't get your point.
If your point is "Remove Raise Dead etc from the game" then that won't help.
See:
a) Character Dies, level 10 Cleric with X, Y, Z named Joe.
b) Player says "can I get a Raise Dead?" DM says "No"
c) Player says "Ok, I have my new character ready." Level 9 Cleric with X, Y, Z named Joey
Putting fear of death into the game is a reasonable goal as a DM.
Agreed wholeheartedly. I think though, that if you GM the game carefully, that a fear of death usually does exist. D&D (and Pathfinder therefore) really only has two rewards: Level and loot. Level is sort of sacred nowadays; the game just refuses to irrevocably take away levels. Loot, on the other hand, is fair game, and all the raising magic takes lots of it. I mean, look at the facts:
* Raise Dead costs 5K gp, but inflicts two permanent negative levels.
* Restoration removes a single negative level in exchange for 1K gp.
* The total, 7K gp, is roughly equal to the total wealth given to an 8th level heroic NPC.
That's steep, or it should be, at least in the default game.
If you strip out Raise Dead, you also need to strip out Slay Living. Otherwise, your evil clerics are much more powerful than your good ones.
It also changes the balance of power. If the clerics can no longer bring back the dead, can the wizards also no longer Wish that something never happened? For example, the entire party save the teleporting wizard have perished in the dragon's cave. The wizard casts his mightiest spell: "I wish we'd known this was going to happen and gone to the pub instead of deciding to fight that awful dragon." *POOF* Reality changes, and everyone's in the pub, alive but shaken and wiser.
But the way I play it, plenty of things can mess with Raise Dead and the more powerful variants. Ditto wish. But most time they work to product specifications.
It's fine to run a game where Wish is not an option as well, but if you do, you better remove all save-or-die effects and carefully vet all powerful opponents or you'll have the problem of someone coming up with an extremely fun and interesting character which they like a lot and then you kill them in the first or second session as the infamous "Killer DM." Then you will probably attempt to apologize by allowing them to play the most insipid NPC you have on hand, someone who in a play would just be called "Spear Carrier #2."
Trust me, but I've played in games where there's easy death and no resurrection. They can become exceedingly boring fast.
Well that was extemely frustating.
I had answer all of you however the messageboard dicided to eat my post after I foolishly clicked without thinking and not copying before hand.
Frustration.
Now I will attempt to repeat everything.
Vaahama.
The question becomes how 'Fantastic' is your game.
The way you pose your statement you suggest that raise dead has some taboo behind it.
Only raise when 'needed'
But thats putting flavour to it as well.
Not that I mind it that way it is very interest it's just not as written.
T O.
The economics of D&D is a rant for another day.
Since alot of what I said was eaten I will leave it short and sweet in this regard.
A CEO earns roughly 430 times the ammount of the average worker.
Strong feelings have been expressed in regards to that.
An adventure of third level, assuming that he took a year to get there.
Earns 1000 times a labourers wage of 1sp a day.
Now it is never a strong arguement that leads with semantics but you said Soilder no? not milita.
A soilder is trained by the state.
This means that they would be trained by people in a Metropolis or in a very large city.
Accord to those same charts, the number of magic users in those places well.
You would be very 'lucky' not to see one.
You assume it would be a waste of funds to bring people back.
Well since were assuming, lets say you win your war.
Imagine your side does not have a single loss.
Imagine every soilder comes back better prepared for the next venture.
Soilders from a war can train other younger soilders better.
But seriously imagine, not one loss.
Who would question a ruling body that started that venture?
Your land is expanded, more wealth flows into your contery (minus ofcorse the necessary mines that need to be set up)
Suddenly you have a very, very, very scary people.
They literally do not fear death some of them have died before, brought back no probs.
These people march on a place...
kyrt-ryder.
Here is the problem.
How do people know about the afterlife?
Priests become just as exhausted by there magics as a mage does.
Do they not run out of spells?
Well if it's as is here they don't.
But wait someone has been brought back, not just someone multiable people.
So people know about an afterlife for sure.
So yes raise dead is a problem even there.
IF you have a suugestion on how create a greater fear of death for players or in flavour for a world.
Please take the soap box and preach.
dulsin.
Ahh my comment to you is most proberly what did it.
I discovered 'breath of life' is not the spell I thought it was it was accually 'revivify' from minitures handbook.
Mini's book is not open content as far as I can find.
After reviewing some copyright law I believe with the US law, I think I am able to quote the spell.
'Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.'
It took me some time to quote it.
I put this up tentatively and will remove on request.
There is no intention to break copyright in anyway.
"Revivify
Conjuration (healing)
Level: Clr 5, Hlr 5
Components: V,S,M
Casting Time: 1 Standard action
Range: Tocuh
Target: Dead creature touched
Duration: Insantaneous
Saving Throw: None; see text
Spell reistance: Yes (harmless)
Revivify miraculously restores life to a recently dead creature.
However, the spell must be cast with in 1 round of the victim's death.
Before the soul of the deceased has completely left it's body, this spell halts the journey while repairing somewhat the damage to the body.
This spell fuctions like raise dead, execpt that the raised creature recives no level loss, no Consitution loss, and no loss of spells.
This creature is restored to -1 hit points (but stable).
Material Component: Diamonds worth at least 1,000 gp."
See the problem is not in with 'punishing' the players I know that may seem odd for someone whom wants to remove raise dead.
But the idea of having this spell around.
James Risner.
I understand for some hack and slashers that maybe the way it is.
And I am not talking about the hack and slash game.
I am talking about flavour and role play with some depth.
My point is this.
How can you have people not have there minds warped by the concept of this spell?
Kevin Andrew Murphy.
All of your points are valid.
I thought I had preemptively answered this with the idea behind 'breath of life' but well you would be asking questions and posing statements if I had done it properly.
I reconginize the mechanical need for such a spell in a tatical game.
High level play is often based around save or die spells and it's a very different game lets just say that rather than me writting everything I said again *sigh*
Also as a sidebar I don't allow wish but thats not what we are talking about so I remove that from this arguement.
Now lets take your dragon example.
Lets say I wish we had never fought this dragon...
So there you are at the mouth of the dragons cave, everyone starts walking in and the wizard says "What the Fudge!" "What your problem?" "Don't you remember what just happened" "We walked up really steep mountain to get here..."
There is great fodder for role play.
Yes I understand kill GM can be very fun, but was the game not fun because of loss of raise dead or because of the GM?
I think we both no the answer to that...
In Closing.
I recognize the need for such a spell for players to be able to enjoy play.
However being the spell raise dead completely bleeps the general populus head.
It makes magic, mundane.
And removes an element of drama, tension and action from the game.
Leaving players lest vest in the game.
And the game world less believeable.
My group primarily plays in the Scarred Lands setting, which boasts a "no resurrection" rule. The god of the underworld, Nemorga, keeps close tabs on his souls, and nobody gets out without a god petitioning on their behalf- and that's IF he says yes.
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.
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
I keep my game a bit more interesting by having a Wild West sort of Shadow Lands, meaning a place of variable laws and a good deal of "might makes right."
Two characters have died in the game so far. One fell into the Shadows of the dungeon they were in, which were far more interesting than the current dungeon. That was the ruins of the ancient imperial baths. The Shadows? The Imperial Baths in their heydey (inhabited by the shades of those who died there and in their personal heaven of being forever in a resort spa of the empire, though they forgot about the being dead part) and the druidic holy site it was before, with the ghost of high druid imprisoned as part of the bath's dedication ceremony by the emperor's priests and sorcerers. The PC was a shadow caster and managed to manipulate enough shadows in the shadow lands to get some omens to the living PCs, who overturned the fountain over the ancient spring and freed the druid's spirit from his imprisonment. He then cast Reincarnation for himself and the PC.
The next PC was eaten by infernal sharks in a sea where sea devils were catching souls in soul cages to sell in Hell. Even a True Resurrection would not work here. But a high level of Diplomacy with an elderly duchess who knew people who knew people who knew people whom you shouldn't know, along with a large and suitable gift, led to strings being pulled and diabolists purchasing the soul from the devils along with magics to put him back into some semblance of his former form. Which lasted until he used Use Magic Device on a luckblade to figure out what it did. Now he knows.
That said, this is all in a game with a highly active and variable afterlife, and even Gods of the Dead who claim dominion over all souls are only doing that--claiming it--and will have to embarrassedly tell wannabe Orpheuses "Her soul is not among those in my domain, even if it's supposed to be. Damn those necromancers, cultists and petty local gods. Devils too, but that sort of goes without saying."
There's more than one way to get around the problem of having a church on every corner with "Resurrection Sunday" meaning a coupon in the local broadsheets with two-for-one specials.
|
There really is a merit to both sides of the argument. A lot of DMs really want their players to be able to get attached to their characters and for them to have time to really get into their characters mindset. There are so many magical ways that can cause things to be much more deadly in the game, that its very easy to have a character just taken out quickly and if there is no way of revival then that characters story ends right there and any connection there has to be rebuilt.
The drawback to this is that you can't have a very gritty game if all the horrors can't cause their end permanently. It also can rule out a number of different types of adventures that have a lot of story to them, from hostage situations(Ok, lets try and save the hostage, since if he takes the hostage out we'd better bring them back and that will cut out of our reward...) and it also makes legends of revival like lazarus much less impressive.
Something that I have seen that was really neat(but was more a story specific thing rather then something that could fit in a core setting), was in the drow war campaign. The characters were effectively reborn as heroes of old, and so even though there was no ressurection in the world they had ways of coming back through sites that were tied to their legend. It allows the heroes to have a real legend among the people as word spread that they could beat death, and it made things more difficult in their considerations for keeping innocents from dying as well as having to be aware that there aren't going to be any priests who could bring back a character who was dead.
Dark and gritty can be good, if that's what's actually being portrayed.
Unfortunately, I've seen this used as an excuse by DMs who want to run virtually roleplaying free combatfests where characters are basically interchangeable collections of hit points that might as well be the Monopoly dog for all the difference it makes.
I've yet to see one of those games where characters actually mourn the dead, as opposed to looting his corpse the same as any other and awaiting the next replacement redshirt who walks in the door. And this is fine if this is the sort of game the DM and all the players want, but personally it's not my cup of tea and I feel gypped if what I was told would be a "roleplaying game" is basically just a miniatures battle with a couple cut scenes.
The fear of death.
Some psychologist say that it is everything that drives us.
Even the desire to reproduce is merely our way of 'cheating' death....snip...
Why?
Not because there heroic or chivalrous but because they have no need to fear.
Raise dead will save the day....snip...
It breaks the setting.
Raise dead no matter how high magic your world is, removes it completely and totally from reality.
Imagine armies that don't fear death on both sides?
There village priest has raised someone before or at least the stateone has that they have seen.It just seems unlike some ability or spell that maybe unbalanced that would wreck the game this seems like it is something that would.
'Break' your world.
It doesn't break my world. As I thinks others have pointed out there are more than simply mechanical restraints on Raise Dead. Besides the expence, rarity and so on. Besides the "I like heavan" objection too. My gods will only raise someone who benefits their own agenda. Otherwise, it's a "no go". And, to be blunt, they're a bit like loan sharks. You're going to pay for that ressurection in more ways than one :D
I have to say that I personally remain convinced that the RAW actually preserves a fear of death and its meaning as a generally one-way trip, given all the stuff I've already discussed:
* In broad society, most people can't afford raising magic.
* Of those that can (privileged people and PCs), 7000 gp + possibly a mandatory donation is still a big deal.
* The afterlife, for some people, will be irresistible.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
MEI understand for some hack and slashers that maybe the way it is.
And I am not talking about the hack and slash game.
I am talking about flavour and role play with some depth.
I dunno, I guess because in D&D there is the concept of the resurrection is a "thing you do when you die" at higher level thing. Like quintessential D&D. This isn't a Roleplay vs Rollplay thing. This is a 'the world is this way' thing.
I've died 5 times so far in my Wed night game, currently a 13th (was 14th) Cleric. Death is a "you will die several times or there isn't a challenge" type thing. Frankly, if I didn't think death was a possibility I wouldn't play (it is no fun to never have a chance to lose.) Additionally, if I thought I would NEED to bring in a new character every time I die I also wouldn't play that game.
What of having the chance of something bad happen if you use raise dead? say a 1/4 chance you can summon undead or something. sure you might be able to raise your loved one but on the other hand you might have a zombie to deal with. jusst an idea
I can agree wholeheartily with the OP. The more ressurection magic that exists, the more death simply becomes an inconveince. I've never liked ressurection magic. I can understand the mechanical need for it, but that doesn't change my view. It's quite immersion breaking when the heroic fighter charges the uber-boss, get's slain, then immediatly after is brought back via a scroll.
"They don't have to come back" isn't always a viable option. What if you don't like ressurection magic, but theres absolutely IC way your PC wouldn't accept it? Generally speaking, if you're adventuring you're planning to do something, so having unfinished buisness isn't going to be uncommon for the standard adventurer. This has happened to me a few times IG, despite not liking ressurection magic, theres been quite a few situations where I've died, but the party cleric just happens to have access to a large amount of diamonds and time to spare, or the party have a scroll they found/bought earlier. And well...the PC just plain doesn't have any reason to say no. It just makes me feel...well..."What's the point?"
And ultimately, what is the point? Why go to such effort to defeat the BBEG when all that's needed is for an ally powerful enough and they'll just come back? Or better yet, if they just happen to be a cleric, they can just give their lesser allies scrolls (and it's not like you're going to throw a low-level BBEG against the party).
Theres also the setting aspects as well. Suddenly, it becomes difficult for gods and the realms of the divine to be ambigious, since anyone brought back from the dead can simply say "Yeah, I was actually dead, it's like this.." and I don't mean dead and back the way some folk RL have been. It's possible for the person to be gone for more than a few minutes. Not only can the see the next world, they have a chance to get a damm good look while they're there. (Admittly, this can also happen as a result of clerics and other divine casters getting obvious magical powers, but that's a whole 'nother matter).
Revivify was something I loved the moment I saw it, particularly since it's a way of providing the mechanical need without the annoying fluff aspects. Suddenly, death is deadly, since revivify is required immediately after death and for the body to be within range. If the normal ressurection system was replaced with this, death would be scary, yet with one or two variations the niche could still be filled easily.
Oh, and just an FYI, you shouldn't need to worry about posting Revivfy, it's OGL despite not being core. You just need to look in the right place
Do you allow Resurrection and True Resurrection just not raise dead? Or no resurrection magic at all?
Mechanically speaking, the primary restrictions on resurrection magics are the cost of hiring a spellcaster and the material components. Not everyone plays in a gritty, low-magic/low wealth campaign, so in many cases these limits fall to the wayside at higher levels, presuming that the party cleric can find appropriately-large diamonds.
Fluff and flavor can be used to limit revival magics (not saying mechanics can't) depending on the nature of the world. For example, the Scarred Lands god Nemorga was brought up as one means of slowing down the revolving door. Another point was that people are going to the afterlife they desire-why would you come back if you're in paradise? Obviously, depending on how your pantheon and cosmology is set up this may not apply. A third valid point was that a given church might not authorize just anyone to be revived but only those who are members of the faith or otherwise extremely important (when the King asks you to raise his son, you don't say no).
That said, death at higher levels even in a regular campaign (i.e. not low-wealth) doesn't have to be trivial. If the threats the heroes face are sufficiently epic (and I don't mean suited to levels 21 or up), then reviving your allies becomes important. Look at the Savage Tide. If the heroes fail, Demogorgon is going to do things that will alter the balance of power in the MULTIVERSE. You don't get more epic than that. So reviving your friend, who is one of the few aware of that plan and able to help, becomes important. Death drives home how dangerous the Prince of Demons really is. You postpone your afterlife to make sure everyone else has one that doesn't have an address with a '666' in it.
I guess my point is that part of this is how you deal with the situation in-game. If your players trivialize it, then they need to be reminded how rare it is to come back and how special. There was a Dragon Magazine article under the Paizo run that talked about this a bit, don't remember which one it was.
For the record, I like both revivify and breath of life; I was quite happy to find breath of life in my Core Rulebook when I got it.
Stuff
Well..it's not always about running games that are gritty. I don't want it to be a case of "You made a mistake *character drops dead*", but even in fantasy stories ressurection is often rare (if used at all) in any setting, and often comes with a load of drawbacks. It's more like I just want death to be feared.
Think of it this way. Lets say you're in a party of 4 and about to fight the big villlan. If someone just happens to have bought/written 3 scrolls of True Res, then you can't really lose the fight. Just have one person stay behind while the party try to take on the boss. If they fail, no biggie, their friend can just revive them, then they can either try the tactic again (in the case they only just lost) or try another straegy, but still keeping more scrolls aside just in case.
I know it's a kind-of extreme example, but you can see what I'm getting at right? It suddenly becomes like a computer game where you have so many "lives", and as long as you beat the baddie before you run out everythings honkey-dorey. And well...fluff reasons like "Well...the death god watches this region" and "Gods just don't want you back" are all well and good, but they need to be enforced by a DM, and you're essientally removing mechanics considered mandatory at high levels (since high level play was built under the assumptions that death would be more likely). Theres also the fact that the players might feel like you're "out to get them" if you just point-blank refuse ressurection.
I don't know, I think this is one of those places where the rules and people's perceptions of how their characters perceive things hit a disconnect. Kind of like how a high level fighter has no idea that he has X number of hit points, and so Y should never be a threat to them, even though Y has a really big, sharp axe, and normally that could still cut his head off.
Just because raise dead and similar magics exist in the world doesn't mean that they are common, or that most people in a campaign world would count on them or expect them. Beyond the fact that the material components for such spells are way beyond what most people in a setting will ever see, there is the fact only fairly large settlements of any kind will have someone powerful enough to cast these spells.
Sure, adventuring parties are exceptions to the rule. They are constantly pushing themselves to do more, and to do dangerous things that others wouldn't, and they must be somewhat special if they survive all of the nasty things that have tried to kill them over time. And yes, kings and major guildmasters and what have you probably do fear death a little less if they have powerful priests available to them, but then again, in a world where you plot to kill a king with powerful retainers, you probably know how to foil such measures as well.
It can be hard playing a character as if they don't quite know if their cleric friend is powerful enough in his worship of his chosen god to actually pull off a miracle, but in truth, until someone in the party is raised, its all still the stuff of bard's tales.
I just think its a matter of those of us playing the game knowing "facts" that the majority of the people in a setting would never assume is a fact at all.
All of that aside, Rodney Thompson did a really good article about this in Dragon Magazine a few years back:
Basically, my favorite of his alternative options is to have only clerics that take a feat be capable of raising the dead, and in this case, it pretty much means that they are among the very, very rare few that can do this. There are a few other interesting potential limitations as well.
Creative Director
|
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.
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.
Very much what James said: Story heavy games especially need a beginning, middle, and end, and if one of the characters dies forever, it should be as part of some grand climactic battle at the end of the entire adventure, with a funeral scene in the epilogue before the other characters retire to whatever ordinary fates fit their storylines.
Dropping a character out of the story midway through? Unless the player is moving or otherwise leaving the group, it really shouldn't be done.
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.
Very much what James said: Story heavy games especially need a beginning, middle, and end, and if one of the characters dies forever, it should be as part of some grand climactic battle at the end of the entire adventure, with a funeral scene in the epilogue before the other characters retire to whatever ordinary fates fit their storylines.
Dropping a character out of the story midway through? Unless the player is moving or otherwise leaving the group, it really shouldn't be done.
I will further second (third?) this.
Lord of the Rings would have lost quite a bit of its appeal if Tolkein would have brought in some other wizard, Radagast perhaps, instead of Gandalf the White.
It was cool when Gandalf came back and was ready to kick some butt. Having some total stranger show up and replace him would have been much more lame.
Yeah, I know that wasn't exactly a Resurrection; but close enough.
I could get biblical - Easter would be very very different if some dude named Fred had walked out of that tomb that day...
To take it back to Pathfinder, I recently frustrated my DM when we started up a Rise of the Runelords and I was playing a paladin, the party's only melee "tank" character. We had just barely reached 4th level when DM decided to have one monster, just one, that did about 140 HP of damage to my poor paladin in the course of 7 or 8 melee rounds. His companions took his corpse back to his temple in Magnamar and they offered the Raise Dead for a significant discount. But of course, that would mean he would come back as level 2.
Every fight we had in that entire first book of the AP was life or death. There was no way the party could possibly survive with a level 2 tank facing the kinds of battles we had been facing recently. He would have just died again. And again.
So he declined the rez. After all, he had served Iomedae faithfully and now he was in her divine presence, and he had eliminated the only threats we knew about. To his belief, Sandpoint was quite safe - the DM hadn't even introduced any hint of a story hook to get us into the 2nd book yet.
No need to go back.
Of course, after refusing the rez and informing the DM I would roll up a rogue, he expressed his frustration about how my paladin had been an essential hook to get us to the next book.
In other words, the PC death broke the continuity of the story.
Apparently none of the other characters in the group suited the story properly - evidently the hook needed someone with a "champion" sort of mentality, and everyone else was just "eh, well, lets kill the goblins to find out if they have loot" rather than because it was the right or good thing to do.
Just one example of how PC death can be detrimental to a story - even in a world where the normal rules for rezzes apply.
I agree that it sometimes feels contrived to have characters come back, but it isn't necessarily fair to players. I've run a campaign where death was a permanent thing, and it wasn't fair to the players who had their characters drop from a single lucky hit. In fact, it turned the game into a massive arms race of who could optimize their character the most, so that they wouldn't die. I'm never running with those rules in a D&D/PRPG setting again.
My two cents.
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
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
My take: Any GM who wants to remove raise dead ... What might feel fun on one side of the screen isn't always fun on the other...
+1
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...
In my Weds game, I used to be the highest level character at level 11 with no deaths. Once we hit the "swings on a dime" combat levels (10-20) I started dying, a lot. I'm now the lowest level character at level 14. I'd much prefer not dying, but I don't get my choice. Frankly, if I played in a game with heavy death penalty (more than it is now) I wouldn't come back to the game after dying.
Resurrecting the players is a must if one wants to play the game as intended. It does create some weird situations however when it involves the world around the PCs.
Herald: "The king is dead, long live the (new) king!
Vice-Roy: "Actually, the king isn't dead. Remember that favor the temple of St-Cutbert owed him?"
New King: "What do mean the king isn't dead. I'm the next one in line! The chart clearly states that..."
Vice-Roy: "I know what the chart says, I scribed it myself and I can assure you there is a clause for resurrection"
New King: "but..."
Vice-Roy: "And if you had anything in that "hunting accident", you should know that the king has quite a resurrection fund for himself. You'll get the trone when he dies of old age"
New King: "but I will be over 60!"
Vice-Roy: "Then you'll be an old and wise king"
New King: "This kingdom sucks. If dad's looking for me, I'll be next door invading my uncle..."
Actually, there's a solution to this in some noble lines and traditions: the heir must be hale, hearty, and well enough to ride into battle. If the elder brother is blind, the title passes to the younger son, and if by some miracle the elder son suddenly regains his sight, the title has still passed to the younger.
Following this logic, by dying, the old king has effectively abdicated. The fact that he's come back afterwards basically leaves him in the position of being the king's father.
Of course you might expect that given the amount of skullduggery, plotting and murder in many royal families, there'd also be a lot of secret resurrections off the books, as well as interesting situations where, if the king is without issue, the best way to reaffirm the line of succession and get an heir is to raid the crypt for some ancestor who died young and agrees to come back, which must make for some really messed up family trees.
Kevin Andrew Murphy.
I am unfamilar with shadowlands could you fill me in?
I can see it is working for you, because your gods are highly active and it's kinda epic on the high fantasy scale of high.
Also to your other post
I can see the flip side of ha ha were playing munchin fest 2010 have back up characters rolled up!
But I am not even sure dark is what I am aiming for with this removal.
Just a little more realistic.
Imagine someone accually running because they don't want to die.
Not because there CR is too low for this challange or something.
Just people not wanting to start fights at every coner because they have a love of there life.
Tarlane.
That story sounds tops, I really like the short bit of fluff there and it being drow I can imagine people getting 'kinky' (say no more) in strange places because of legends and such.
It makes for great story espically for a very sexual people.
R_Chance.
But with your arguement comes problems, I mean I know 'classic' D&D is all about the gods are real and so for and such.
But by doing that you almost remove there mystical element.
They let you come back ecta, but you know of them on a personal level because you have ethier come back or touched the mind/spirit of the other side whatever it is.
T O.
Just for you I will start another thread on D&D money and such.
James Risner.
Who is your DM?
You don't die it's not a challange?! wtf?!
I disagree with that sentiment, repsectfully.
herkles.
This isn't about that...
Thats more a fear of mutation than a fear of death.
Plus it still leaves a number of other problems.
Nero24200.
Thanks for the link!
Revivify, in my head at least is a great way to fill it.
It seems to me much more like healing rather than death defiance.
Stonechild.
No, I do not use anything that allows people back.
Lathiira.
It's great to know I am not losing my mind and that breath of life is a real spell.
I will freely admit that I do not spend a great deal of time looking at spells.
The savage tides thing though I have not played it I understand that it is epic in scope.
Which is a different kettle of fish, your fighting off demon lords, the good gods may want to help you.
Your meat and pateos joe adventure I don't see why they would.
(note to self: make an NPC named Joe the adventures will think his of great importance)
KnightErrantJR.
Thanks for the link to the dragon magazine I am embarressed to say but I can't put it on my list of things to get as I am already getting the BBoFM or Big Book of Furry Monsters, I know some people call it something different here...
As well as some other things my gaming shop owner is finally getting pazio product in the store and he had to order quite a bit of stuff to be able to get pazio stuff in so hobby money is being directed that way for some time...
Well putting all of that aside it's more about the idea behind the spell as well as accessability.
And the knowledge it brings.
It just seems to me that it makes magic less mystical...
The connection to the gods is confirmed for sure and a number of other things that come with that.
James Jacobs
Wearing the shoe on the other foot is important.
Like I said I recognized the mechanical need for it at some stages of the game but also I do suggest an alternative.
Revivify or spells similar.
Rather than being a rest button it's you need this done now.
A sense of desperation is achieved.
I have only played in pazios, pathfinder society adventure paths at cons so my experince with them is limited.
But I disagree on the point that should have them in liner style adventures, If I am correctly interpreting it correctly, death in books(or movies) which is the ultimate in liner story can be so gripping and moving.
Some of the best deaths I have seen in books are the causal ones, you have this character built up, you have spent weeks perhaps imagining this person then his just shot in the back wile his in an alley walking home.
Your angery and betrayed and a number of other things.
But the book did what it is ment to.
To make you feel something.
I know adventuring is not a book.
Players have one thing.
One thing only, their character thats all they can do to effect the world.
But I just think that a good DM with this is fine.
Perhaps it is just me because the idea of liner gaming has become forgin to me.
Kevin Andrew Murphy.
If a persons character dies for me I introduce them with a new character and concept, not just here is this person.
Having them find party memeber(s), conflict, interest and a huge number of things can come from this.
It's long and involved but rewarding.
DM_Blake,
Gandalf is from a book where someone has complete control over everything that happens.
Tom Bombadil, removal from the movie didn't effect it a huge ammount...
Well before I go to far off on a tangent.
'lame' to me is the idea of being able to remove the fear of death or even more than that taking away the element of mystery behind the gods and the viel between this realm and the realm of the gods being removed by a spell.
I know your just taking it to the extremes but the revese extremes are just as bad if not worse.
P.S sorry that your game was wrecked but I think some dues ex machina and other such could help here such as giving true res or something
Cydeth
I will say this.
My players omptimize there characters an exteme ammount.
However not one of them is a munchin.
I can see an arms race being a hugely bad thing.
But for myself at least, I have never had one lucky swing ruin an encounter for the players...
For me on the other hand...
Laurefindel.
It has been a long time since I have had a game which has accually had a king in it but I found your little bit amusing thanks for your work.
In Closing.
I recognize the mechanical need for such a spell, where death attacks lucks hits and such can ruin things.
But on those points isn't that just fixed by DM style also?
Perhaps not the first but the later why does the luck hit have to be lucky?
Can't it just be so lucky that it does just enough to make you goto minus X rather than those few points over that would kill you?
Also players have limited control as it is and taking away resurrection may seem mean spirited at best.
But on that it's designed to draw them in more.
We may not have spells and magic.
But people can picture a fireball, they have seen back draft in a movie they have seen grenade in a movie, well perhaps they haven't but they can wrap there head around it.
Spells are just very deadly weapons.
But to bring someone back from the dead, thats a concept that is hard to understand at the best of times.
The far reaching implications the spell has also.
You take it away it is gone.
No DM cheating players are quite happy (in my experince) to play on an even keel, no res? thats cool I kill important figure X his a douche and doesn't help the Village/Town/City/Kingdom.
I understand the flip side even if I disagree with it.
Having raise dead or anything similar in a campagin is for the DM to 'balance' with there world.
Through economics, god based dues ex machina or heaven= cool.
But in my opinion it's much harder to justify.
Spells such a Revivify or any varient of, be ones that extend the time that it lets you get to a body, the range and other thing without removing it's orginal concept.
I think works much better.
Rather than I brought you back, it becomes I stopped you leaving.
And there inlines the body of my arguement.
Back = cure, stopped = prevention
The prevention is is better than the cure.
Thats my thought in a nut shell thanks for all of your efforts.
Stuff
Why wouldn't a good god authorize a resurrection? Even a neutral adventurer not of the faith might be converted to the faith, further empowering the god. And even a neutral adventurer that has no interest in conversion might be revived because the church never knows when it will need the services of such a person, making the raise dead spell an insurance policy for the future. Motives can be found at need. Also, people are going to fear death, since there is a high correlation between dying and lots of pain, blood, and other unpleasant sensations. Just because my HP are an abstraction and pain is too doesn't mean, in-game, that my character isn't screaming in agony when a dragon bites him after all. Your character, in-game, is still a real live human being (or elf, or tenku, or whatnot). Just because you have the potential for being raised doesn't mean you want to go through with it if you don't have to. It's the last-ditch insurance policy. Also, it assumes you're near a cleric at some relevant time point. Which means if the cleric in the party goes down, you might have a problem.
On another note, the revivify and breath of life spells are good spells to have handy, if for the reason you outline of 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. But sometimes symptoms go unnoticed or untreated, and then you need the cure...along with 7000gp of diamond or more.
All deaths, for that matter, are not created equal either. At higher levels, you can die of effects that negate the effectiveness of raise dead (death effects, missing bodies, etc.) and thus require the even more powerful and expensive resurrection spells. Those will dent any characters wealth in short order. My current cleric, while 17th level, can't actually cast resurrection or true resurrection because there aren't appropriate diamonds around.
Death is only as much a revolving door as your campaign makes it. Sometimes, it's just that. Other times, it's downright nasty.
R_Chance.
But with your arguement comes problems, I mean I know 'classic' D&D is all about the gods are real and so for and such.
But by doing that you almost remove there mystical element.
They let you come back ecta, but you know of them on a personal level because you have ethier come back or touched the mind/spirit of the other side whatever it is.
I'd say divine magic (including Raise Dead) pretty much eliminates any doubt about the existence of gods. You may or may not agree with / worship a given god, but they exist. You may oppose / despise a given deity and it's worshippers, but there is no doubt about it's existence. There are undoubtedly individuals who refuse to worship any god as well. But they know that gods exist. As for how much you know about the god / heaven when you come back... that would vary by the religion / campaign setting / DM. Some may remember nothing, others have vague recollections, etc. I doubt the gods would permit perfect recollection and knowledge to return to mortal lands, and it could be argued that the "resurectee" might not be able to put his experience into a coherant framework for mortals to understand. If "heavan" was well remembered and perfect I doubt you'd get many takers on Raise Dead. They would all be unwilling... unless of course you're pulling people out from the other side of it :)
Kevin Andrew Murphy.
I am unfamilar with shadowlands could you fill me in?I can see it is working for you, because your gods are highly active and it's kinda epic on the high fantasy scale of high.
The Shadowlands are being used in 4e in a variant as the Shadowfell, but I'm mentioning that mostly for reference, not as something I'm using as whole cloth. They're actually a much older trope in literature and folklore.
For example, there's a folktale about a man who goes to visit his grandfather's grave, and his grandfather invites him into his "house" and they spend the night drinking and chatting before he passes out drunk. When he awakes the next morning, he finds himself lying on the grave, but there are empty winebottles strewn about, and when he goes back to the village, he finds a hundred years have passed.
For my world, that's basically a Shadowlands adventure. It's a lot like Fairyland, but darker.
I use it as a combination of the Realm of the Dead, the Negative Material Plane, but mostly as the Realm of Memory. Where the ruins of an old inn stand by the wayside in the mortal realm, there may be a beautiful charming old inn in the Shadowlands, which may occasionally slip into the mortal realm or vice versa when the moon is right or there are hungry travelers who don't know to avoid the haunted place. But like in the Sixth Sense, most of the dead don't know they're dead. And it becomes even more interesting when someone decides to build a new inn on the site of the old, because haunting or not, it's got location-location-location!
I should also note that for my world, I don't equate Death with Evil. The Shadowlands are not Hell, but as with many places in the mortal realm, you can get there from here, so it's completely reasonable to find a shadow demon in the Shadowlands.
I should also mention that I don't consider my game so much epic high fantasy as fairytale. Death isn't so much a revolving door as it's a bad neighborhood on the other side of the tracks where exceedingly bad things can happen to you, and "Fates worse than death" is not an exaggeration.
|
i say the death penalty needs to cheapen.
it just encourages new pc's, and looting the fallen pc's thus spreading wealth.
Lets use an example of how the harshening of death rules get bad.
you have a an 8th level fighter named joseph who dies, you whip up the same guy under the name joe, same level too, and die, and make a 3rd one named joey. and these guys are all carbon copies of each other. no raise dead means, joe can give his starting gold to the party to buy josephs gear, and joey does the same thing. they all fit in the same suit of fullplate, without resizing, they all have been specialized in the same greatsword, can wear the same size gloves, bracers etc. doesn't it get a little strange?
if we had no penalty to death but a used 5th level spell slot for the day and a wasted hour. that would heavily reduce the number of carbon copy pcs.
my cleric of sarenrae died last week. i have the week off. (dm is doing something else.) i could've made a carbon copy (party is now without a designated healer) i whipped together a 16 year old tian woman who pretends to be a helpless 12 year old girl. she wears a black yukata and can do an excellent job pulling pidgeons out of her huge sleeves. (a yukata is a kimono made of a lighter material, i beleive it's cotton instead of silk) guess what class she is? she is chronologically 16, and takes advantage of the fact she looks 12. you have 3 guesses. i will tell you it is a core class. in both D&D 3.5 and PF. what are your guesses.
you have a an 8th level fighter named joseph who dies, you whip up the same guy under the name joe, same level too, and die, and make a 3rd one named joey. and these guys are all carbon copies of each other. no raise dead means, joe can give his starting gold to the party to buy josephs gear, and joey does the same thing. they all fit in the same suit of fullplate, without resizing, they all have been specialized in the same greatsword, can wear the same size gloves, bracers etc. doesn't it get a little strange?
Evil b@stard that I am, it's first level for new PCs. PCs often have heirs, friends and / or debts. Helps take up the estate. Not to speak of funeral expences. Bodies need to be buried preferably in concecrated ground or at least disposed of in some way. The first revenant or ghost the PCs encounter will convince them of that. There is no real pole playing reason for a party to bequest a new character with all that stuff either. If they want to hire / bring in a new charachter, and it wasn't a PC, you know they wouldn't be that generous.
Resurrection should be possible, if not easy, but the traditional D&D "death penalty" is having to start out at low level again (at least well below the surviving PCs if not 1st). Nothing like hiding behind your fellow PCs for a few levels to push the point home. Given the relative speed with which a new PC levels up it won't be forever before the new PC is close to the parties current level either, so the "penalty" is temporary.
And it eliminates or reduces the "cookie cutter" character syndrome and encourages players to be inventive with their new character.
Evil b@stard that I am, it's first level for new PCs.
Have you ever played in a game with this rule? It's not even remotely fun once you've died. "Oh hi, party of 10th level characters! I'm a 1st level noob who can't even handle being looked at by the monsters you're fighting. I'll just die again in the first combat, but don't let that stop you from welcoming me as a valuable addition to the party!".
Being forced to not participate in combat for many sessions just because the flesh golem got a lucky crit with his scythe and did 150+ points of damage to you in a single combat is, frankly, rather beyond the pale.
Being forced to not participate in combat for many sessions just because the flesh golem got a lucky crit with his scythe and did 150+ points of damage to you in a single combat is, frankly, rather beyond the pale.
Flesh golem? Scythe? Why would that come up . . .
You know what the solution to that problem is?
I still feel dirty. I rolled two crits in one fight. I'm a sad monkey of a GM.
Heh. I only rolled one crit with the guy, but IIRC the total was something like 182 points of damage to a level 7 character (it was with full 3.5 power attack, as stated in his tactics block ><). The rest of the party got off without too much damage, but they were scared of that NPC, even though no one actually died in the fight (I used an Action Point system for that campaign where players could trade in APs to negate deaths; the intent was to keep the same party together for the entire campaign rather than have a revolving door, and it worked).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
Who is your DM?
You don't die it's not a challange?! wtf?!
I disagree with that sentiment, repsectfully.
Wed's night GM is named Matt, it is a home game. I've also died many times (on my 4th character now) in the Sat night game (an extremely low level game, started at 6th and currently 8th level.)
You can disagree, it is your right. Just don't expect me to play in a game I feel like I can't die. It's no fun to be invincible god mode PC's.
Now, in games I run, I sometimes pull punches when it is better to do so. I remember a new player came to my Sunday game when the game was around 7th level. He was a Crusader (ToB) and had the most HP in the game at the time. He charged a Redcap, provoked, the redcap attacked, crit, and killed the player with one hit. I pulled the punch, and simply made it knock him unconscious instead of -24 ish him to death. Had it been the 2nd or 3rd session for him, I wouldn't have pulled the punch.
|
|
why should we punish the player whose character died, to the luck of the dice? do you roll your stats too? do you roll hitpoints? Do you roll starting gold? do you give XP solely based on the monsters that individual player killed? all these can cause imbalance. i beleive a new pc should be at party average level. rounded up if fractional. rolling stats, you get the guy with nothing below 15 and the guy with nothing above 14. rolling hit points, you can get the barbarian with less hp than the wizard. roll starting gold, and the fighter might be poorer than the monk. give XP based on the individual characters inflicted body count. the greatsword wielding plate wearing fighter becomes the only character that matters. as the wizard will never gain XP, cause he'll never earn his save or dies, or his AoE. the healer/buffer will never gain XP, because he never gets a kill, because he has to heal others. the rogue will never get xp, without flanking, but everything will be so high CR to balance with the figther, flanking won't help poor rogue. so why should new pc's be 1st level in a higher level party?
Well I haven't expected the ammount of responce I have been getting.
Regardless of where you stand I would like to thank you all for your imput.
Lathiira.
It is always up to the GM to allow or remove something.
And restrict the use of something.
In my opinion it is more mean spirited to try and kill people with stuff that removes the possiability of resurrection rather than killing them but before they do announcing the lack of resurrection.
The first just seems like a break from an unwritten GM contract.
The seond well thats this whole topic...
Lewy.
As above Lew...
R_Chance.
Well there is a whole nother topic there.
With avatars and the whole forgotten realms deal no, gods a real full stop new pargraph your arguement is dead... But.
If you not in such a place where no one has ever seen an avatar or anything else (not divine magic) that supports proof postive that there are gods I disagree.
The ability to heal people is a rather fantasic power, but where did they learn there abilities from other clergy men?
They must prepare there rites before battle just as a wizard prepares his rituals before he goes.
They become exhausted just as wizards do.
To the average peasant the are agents of the devine, perhaps to a wizard or more scholarly individuals they are liars.
Wizards wearing priests robes, the most well guarded schools of magic ever.
But if they lose there faith they lose there magic...
But there have been clerics that work against the church still fully able to use there magic...
Does this mean that gods do not support the church?
Does this mean that some can simply over come some restrictions?
Is there truly a connection?
R_Chance, does that sound more interesting than, are the gods real, yes.
Kevin Andrew Murphy.
Sounds very ravenloft.
It sounds cool, I am interest.
Luminiere Solas.
I can not think of a feasible way of defending the point of looting the body.
My campagin is very much a poverty campagin in regards to the PCs
so I do not have that problem.
Well I can say that I don't think that looting your friend is exactly good, the average adventure being good.
But in regards to that I do not have a satifactory answer.
R_Chance.
Thats pretty evil...
I will say this in selection of new characters, my world is non scaling.
Ie the guards of the city who were levels 1 though 3 and captains/highest level law enforcement being level 7.
Well once my player reach level 9 it doesn't become 6 though 9 and 11.
It remains the same.
So once in the old campagin (same world different party) the mage was about to die they were level 12? at the time I believe.
And I am like well I guess your going to be horriable scared
(thief went into a room where three adult red dragons were in circles they all they all looked up when they saw her, then the mage went in the room ofcorse all the dragons had readied an attack, breath weapon)
And he said ohh can't you just give the next mage my spell book and stuff and we'll go from there.
I interjected, Oh the next spell cast you can find is most proberly 7th (beign a low magic world) 9th if your lucky and I am not sure that they would want to even adventure an 11th level warrior you could find
but same problem.
Thats a horriable block of text...
Anyway most of that was just me, you can be "res'ed" (revivified) you moron just do it and stop crying.
That play caused a bit of GM burn out and end up making me want to end the campaign prematurely but thats a different story.
It would really suck to have to do that.
After play at gen con there was a whole group that came along and some of them were nice others I could have done without at my table but the thing was they played pathinder society and higher level characters.
If this was something they did regularly perhaps I would not have been as angery as I was.
But they had just done it so they could level there characters before they went to the con.
It shit me to tears because the adventures had to be tier'ed up and the rest of us who were at the table just came with level ones.
Basicly everything revolved around them.
And my guy dispite hero charges leaping off cliff sides to jump into enemies and all the action movie bravido I could muster was just a small inconvenience.
That is not fun.
Zurai.
See above for my opinion.
In short order I am with you.
In conclusion
One of the things that often seem to effect this thread is character wealth and availability.
Now there are somethings I just flat out disagree with.
Basicly I love the desprate running to a goal, the high intensity game where you must stop this person before this happens!
Trailblazers 10 min rest mechanic and other such house rules very much appel to me it makes the game more fun.
Why did I bring that up because often modles or just thoughts of most other players I have met assume you go grap a wand of healing as soon as possiable.
Negating all stress you already had.
Someone said lame in this though I loath that word as about a tenth of how much I loath apathy.
It is appropate, it's lame.
Wealth to mitigate the risk of adventure?
What is this, medevil batman?
Listen your not Bruce Wayne, as much as well all want to be.
The second part is availability.
I have been listening to alot of GM advice podcasts or D&D related ones.
Not because I think I am a bad GM/DM but because we should always strive to be better.
Now to get my players to stop there madness the man childern that they are would be rather difficult.
But all of these podcasts have talked about contracts.
Now like my group alot of it is informal, they know that this is a low fansty, low magic, poverty, high risk campaing.
They have not only accepted this but enjoy it.
Thats not for everyone.
But I see alot of, GM deinal part way through which well it **** me to tears.
See if you don't say at the start of the game I am not allowing this that or the other or when someone comes to bring something in you say I reserve the right to exlude or modfiy certain things.
Well you brought it on yourself.
Alot of what I read from the horror side of things and I am not talking about the genre I am talking about players horror stories.
Is where there has been an informal contract and it has been broken.
People come in expecting Y and the F.
No one wants F.
Long story short.
GM's if you don't want your players to be batman tell them.
Players if you want to be batman tell the GM.
If you can't decided on ethier try and reach a middle ground and make sure both parties know where the line is drawn.
P.S more people have responed since I wrote this.
I have not ignored you and will address you in full however I have people do and things to see. do you all soon.
Wait is that how it goes?
Evil b@stard that I am, it's first level for new PCs.Have you ever played in a game with this rule? It's not even remotely fun once you've died. "Oh hi, party of 10th level characters! I'm a 1st level noob who can't even handle being looked at by the monsters you're fighting. I'll just die again in the first combat, but don't let that stop you from welcoming me as a valuable addition to the party!".
Yes, I have played in games like that. Do you always respond with a knee jerk reaction without reading the whole post? Here's the relevant part of my post for you:
Resurrection should be possible, if not easy, but the traditional D&D "death penalty" is having to start out at low level again (at least well below the surviving PCs if not 1st).
Being forced to not participate in combat for many sessions just because the flesh golem got a lucky crit with his scythe and did 150+ points of damage to you in a single combat is, frankly, rather beyond the pale.
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? 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. Of course, stupidity or bad luck can kill you at about any level.
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. Of course, if feeling superior is your thing, have at it.
Well I haven't expected the ammount of responce I have been getting.
Regardless of where you stand I would like to thank you all for your imput.Lathiira.
It is always up to the GM to allow or remove something.
And restrict the use of something.
In my opinion it is more mean spirited to try and kill people with stuff that removes the possiability of resurrection rather than killing them but before they do announcing the lack of resurrection.
The first just seems like a break from an unwritten GM contract.
The seond well thats this whole topic...
I agree it is up to the GM to allow or remove something or restrict things. You, as GM, are all of the gods. If you decide, as Pharasma, you don't want someone to come back, then that's it. If you decide, as Saranrae, that the fighter your priest wants to bring back might be a good person to convert to your faith because he's actually a pretty cunning guy, go for it.
As for things that make revival difficult: death magic specifically has screwed with raise dead. You seem to feel death is meaningless because raise dead is easy to get, correct me here if I'm misunderdstanding. So using death magic is therefore one possible tactic to counteract that problem. Pathfinder took the punch out of death magic overall (slay living, for example, does a healthy amount of damage now on a failed save instead of outright killing someone), but that's still an option, built right into the core rules. If the body isn't whole, raising it gets more difficult. Admittedly, you might want to talk to the players and tell them that such things could happen in the game. But death effects, at least, are core and available to both sides of the table.
I note that you mention your game is a povert campaign, so I must ask you: why do you feel death isn't scary and/or has no sting? Has it still been happening frequently, followed by raising of the dead? I've heard of campaigns where there is no way to revive the dead where death still has no sting because players refuse to grow attahced to their characters, causing a revolving door of PCs. Is it something like that?
why should we punish the player whose character died, to the luck of the dice? do you roll your stats too? do you roll hitpoints? Do you roll starting gold? do you give XP solely based on the monsters that individual player killed? all these can cause imbalance.
Yes, they roll their stats. They like it that way. Yes, they roll their hit points too (although my house rule is it has to be at least half the max to start at first level). Yes, they roll starting gold too. They (my players) like the luck involved. Damn me for allowing it. As for experience, the party splits it evenly. Treasure -- well that's up to the party to figure out. If I wanted a perfectly balanced game, where every class equaled out and every player started out identical I wouldn't play 3.5 / PF. And I didn't say 1st level in a high level party. Most PC kills come early. Most PCs will be starting new characters at first, because tha party is probably about 1st to 4th level. High level parties would require increased levels of "new" PCs, probably about half the parties current high level. My opinion, of course. You're free to do whatever you want. My players haven't complained. They like death to have a bite, not just a bark.
Well I haven't expected the ammount of responce I have been getting.
Regardless of where you stand I would like to thank you all for your imput.
A pleasure.
R_Chance.
Well there is a whole nother topic there.
With avatars and the whole forgotten realms deal no, gods a real full stop new pargraph your arguement is dead... But.If you not in such a place where no one has ever seen an avatar or anything else (not divine magic) that supports proof postive that there are gods I disagree.
The ability to heal people is a rather fantasic power, but where did they learn there abilities from other clergy men?
They must prepare there rites before battle just as a wizard prepares his rituals before he goes.
They become exhausted just as wizards do.To the average peasant the are agents of the devine, perhaps to a wizard or more scholarly individuals they are liars.
Wizards wearing priests robes, the most well guarded schools of magic ever.
But if they lose there faith they lose there magic...
But there have been clerics that work against the church still fully able to use there magic...
Does this mean that gods do not support the church?
Does this mean that some can simply over come some restrictions?
Is there truly a connection?R_Chance, does that sound more interesting than, are the gods real, yes.
I see what your driving at. Interesting idea, but fraud at that level would require other people or beings to over look it or participate in it. Wizards, demons, magical beings of all sorts would have to accept the deception. Or perhaps be supressed or persecuted to keep up the deception. Interesting.
As for the Clerics going against the divine, they would need another source of magic to maintain their spells, especially the high level ones, unless, of course, it's all a fraud and they are magic users of some type.