Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,171 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
So nothing bad should ever happen to the party, ever.

Bad things still happen to winners.

The party cleared the dungeon and recovered the stolen wands, but found their pet mimic, who had been set to guard the entrance, had been slain.

Liberty's Edge

ZZTRaider wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And if the football game rules are changed so nobody can lose, because losing may be upsetting to one side or the other, who watches? Who cares?

Who cares? The players, presumably. Sure, some people play sports for the fame and the glory, and there might be less of them if it's not a big spectator sport any more. But a lot of the others just enjoy the game and want to strive to be the best they can be.

Tabletop RPGs aren't really a spectator sport to begin with. Regardless of how much risk or cost there is involved in resurrection, you're probably not going to get many people watching your campaign without playing. So who cares if it's less interesting to watch because eventually the PCs will win? As long as the players are having fun and enjoying the game world unfold around them, that's the important part.

This guy disagrees with you.

And 3/4 of the party is spectating at any given time.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
So nothing bad should ever happen to the party, ever.

Bad things still happen to winners.

The party cleared the dungeon and recovered the stolen wands, but found their pet mimic, who had been set to guard the entrance, had been slain.

I was taking the argument it to the opposite extreme.

If you remove death from the game as an option, you remove failure for any character from the game as an option.

In your scenario, with the new rules, just raise the mimic. It doesn't cost anything.

If your party wants to save a player, they can, at any level. But if they aren't willing to make the investment to do that, why should we just give it to them for free?


Wealth is the least replaceable resource in pathfinder. tied only by experience points.

while i recommend removing the material cost from raise dead, restoration, and similar spells. i would recommend the following.

resurrecting the dead PC shouldn't hit the wallet directly, it should be a means to create a sidequest.

the sidequest adds more drama than hitting the damned wallet. and it still passes the message that death isn't cheap.

just like i think that powerful, permanent magic items shouldn't require money, but a side quest or few.

if a player intends to sidequest for the item, then they should at least be guaranteed the desired item some point during their sidequest.

you don't go questing for a +5 adamantine glaive, you go questing for "nightmare's sorrow", a +5 holy evil outsider bane adamantine glaive with an adamantine haft said to have been once owned by an adamantine valkyrie of the iron lord.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And what is wrong with giving it to them for free when they are willing to make that investment?

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.

So nothing bad should ever happen to the party, ever.

Your opinion is then that only bad things should happen to the party, never good things? That way they feel like they've overcome something!

(Or perhaps, taking arguments to the extreme in either direction renders them nonsensical, and doesn't really contribute much to the dialogue?)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And what is wrong with giving it to them for free when they are willing to make that investment?

if they are that willing to invest into a character, they should be equally willing to be involved in a penalty free sidequest of the DM's choice.

the quest can be as simple as doing a minor fetch quest for the local high priest, or as complex as seeking the 4 dragon wells at the 4 corners of the planet and gathering a 16 ounce bottle from each well.


shallowsoul wrote:
Joana wrote:

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.

You don't 'win' at Pathfinder so I'm not sure why that was even said. Also 'you', the player, get to continue playing but it just might be another character. The default way to play the game is you may lose. You are not guaranteed to succeed at anything, the joy of succeeding comes when the threat of failure is real but you managed to somehow beat it. Does thiamin always happen? No it doesn't and I am glad of that.

Also I don't think SKR said that.

I don't disagree with you in the basic sentiment.

I think that the penalty of death should be reserved for important situations, for several reasons.

1) When the stakes are always the same, it can get boring. Oh look, another fight to the death. It loses some of its shock value and sting if it's common.

2) Failure should not stop a story. I apply this to other parts of the story as well. Like Perception, if a clue is vital to progressing the story, the PCs find it. The perception check is now for additional information, or a failure might result in an additional red herring or misinformation. If a player fails a climb check, instead of having the fall, I might have a piece of gear come lose, or there's an ambush waiting at the top. I don't want to sit and have them stare at the wall for 5 min coming up with another solution, I want to get to the action.

3) We get to choose how the continuity of the game flows without having to introduce deus ex machina into it. Especially if death becomes more of a player choice, in regards to story, and not a calculation of resources.

4) Death is the end. If a character dies and doesn't come back, anything involving that character loses momentum. I don't run dungeon crawls, I prefer stories with a plot. Plots can involve character death, and I think they should even, but I prefer that the players and GM have more direct control over that. They decide if the death is appropriate, not the dice. We use dice to determine outcomes of the unpredictable. We don't use dice to determine what the plot of a campaign is, just specific actions within it.

I'm a fan of consequences. There are a myriad of other consequences that are often just as appropriate, if not more so, than death though.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
And what is wrong with giving it to them for free when they are willing to make that investment?

Who says they are willing to make the investment? If they are willing, why remove it?

I mean, why roll dice if they want to hit. They might miss, and if that happens enough...

Liberty's Edge

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Joana wrote:

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.

So nothing bad should ever happen to the party, ever.

Your opinion is then that only bad things should happen to the party, never good things? That way they feel like they've overcome something!

(Or perhaps, taking arguments to the extreme in either direction renders them nonsensical, and doesn't really contribute much to the dialogue?)

Or maybe we should never have monsters attack them, because that could lead to a negative outcome.

Again, I'm arguing extremes because that honestly seems to me like the position being put forward when you remove all penalty for death.

There is no reason to remove functionally the entire penalty for dying that I can see other than "I don't want to have to have a penalty."

My position is death is scary when something bad can happen, and the risk of scary outcomes make the game more fun.

Why would we make the game more boring?

Silver Crusade

Just houserule it and stay away from Society play. I mean seriously, the designers aren't going to change the way it works.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking about the oft-repeated accusation that video games are having a negative influence on tabletop RPG rules, and I realized that, to the extent that a comparison can be made between the two types of game, what we're seeing is more likely a case of convergent evolution.

Think about it; back in the heyday of arcades, videogames were *tough*. Unforgivingly tough. There were no saved games, and you only had as many continues as you did quarters. Even games on home consoles typically gave you an arbitrary, small number of lives or continues, so you could dedicate hour after mind-numbing hour to them and still never get to the end. I know that, when I was a kid, I only ever beat a couple of the games I owned; eventually I would just get stuck, and give up in frustration.

Over time, video games have become much more forgiving, on the whole. In much the same way that the Role Playing hobby has experienced an "old school renaissance" in recent years, there has been a backlash of "hard core" gamers against the percieved dumbing-down of gameplay, but ultimately there's a good reason for it.

Most people like to have second chances. Most people like to see their characters succeed. Certainly they want to feel like they've overcomed real challenges along the way, but most people don't want to play the first two levels of Battletoads over and over again until they finally get past the first bike section, only to get killed immediately thereafter and have to start over again.

Punishing players for making mistakes or rolling poorly at a crucial moment by putting a "death tax" on a non-renewable resource or giving them a random chance of dying permanently doesn't seem like it serves any purpose but to frustrate them. It's not *fun.*

I'm not saying that nothing bad should even happen to the party. I'm not saying that they should always win, either. But a PC can fail in a multitude of different ways besides failing a save against Disintegrate or being the recipient of a lucky crit; why should they get extra punishments heaped on them in those specific cases?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Again, I'm arguing extremes because that honestly seems to me like the position being put forward when you remove all penalty for death.

It's not the argument I'm putting forward. You have a tendency to view the other side in a discussion as the polar opposite, instead of just as a different point of view.


Two styles of play arguing about which is superior. Old school, including me, favor the possibility of death / serious consequences. Newer players tend to favor removing the possibility because they see it as interfering with the story or player choice. Both styles are fine, it's a matter of preference. Why argue about it? You're not going to convince each other. The risk of death / failure is an integral part of the game for me. But I recognize that it may not be for everyone. Just make sure of the ground rules before you play in a given campaign...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

What else should I argue about? Paladins? Monks? Dubstep?


TriOmegaZero wrote:


What else should I argue about? Paladins? Monks? Dubstep?

Anything but Monks...


R_Chance wrote:
Two styles of play arguing about which is superior. Old school, including me, favor the possibility of death / serious consequences. Newer players tend to favor removing the possibility because they see it as interfering with the story or player choice. Both styles are fine, it's a matter of preference. Why argue about it? You're not going to convince each other. The risk of death / failure is an integral part of the game for me. But I recognize that it may not be for everyone. Just make sure of the ground rules before you play in a given campaign...

I've been playing since 1992, which is roughly 60% of my life. I am not a newer player.

Nor am I arguing for the removal of all serious consequences, or even the removal of death from all games. I think the base game should give better tools for setting the dial of what death means to a campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

My position is death is scary when something bad can happen, and the risk of scary outcomes make the game more fun.

Why would we make the game more boring?

Nobody wants to make the game more boring. That's a strawman fallacy. Everybody wants to make the game more fun, it's just that they have different ideas of what make a game fun. Some people like Battletoads, some others like Mass Effect 3. Some people like to play Diablo 3 in Hardcore, others like to play it Softcore. Liking more one or the other is a matter of taste, nothing more, nothing less.

Myself, I play Pathfinder and D&D without Raise Dead or Resurrection. Dead characters stay dead. So the gold cost of the spell isn't an issue for me. But I understand that some other people preffer to have Raise Dead, with or without permanent penalties.


Irontruth wrote:


I've been playing since 1992, which is roughly 60% of my life. I am not a newer player.

Nor am I arguing for the removal of all serious consequences, or even the removal of death from all games. I think the base game should give better tools for setting the dial of what death means to a campaign.

Not to be argumentative (really not)... but, uh, to folks playing since the 80's (or the 70's), you kinda are. A newer player. I'm explicitly NOT saying that because you're newer, you think [x] about the game. But you are a decade newer to playing than me, and I've been playing for 80% of my life.

Do these statistics mean anything?

While I'll grant you that getting lumped into a category of THOUGHT by virtue of your time-in-grade can be irritating, in a value-neutral definition of terms, to many folks you are a newer player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alitan wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I've been playing since 1992, which is roughly 60% of my life. I am not a newer player.

Nor am I arguing for the removal of all serious consequences, or even the removal of death from all games. I think the base game should give better tools for setting the dial of what death means to a campaign.

Not to be argumentative (really not)... but, uh, to folks playing since the 80's (or the 70's), you kinda are. A newer player. I'm explicitly NOT saying that because you're newer, you think [x] about the game. But you are a decade newer to playing than me, and I've been playing for 80% of my life.

Do these statistics mean anything?

While I'll grant you that getting lumped into a category of THOUGHT by virtue of your time-in-grade can be irritating, in a value-neutral definition of terms, to many folks you are a newer player.

Yes, to the 115 y/o man in Japan, everyone is 'newer'.

But it really has no bearing on the overall conversation. Also the implied condescension is just that. I know you're trying not to be, but it still is.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Joana wrote:

I care. Because I have invested a great deal more than the time involved to roll dice or distribute point buy, as the case may be. I have created a character concept with backstory and motivations and relationships to my fellow party members and local NPCs. My PC is a character, not a jigsaw of feats, traits, skill points and magic items. She is the same person at level 2 that she is at level 17. You can put together the same set of mechanical choices again, but you can't replicate a unique personality.

I'd actually rather lose her at level 17, as she'll have had time to explore some of her storylines and achieve some personal goals instead of "Hi, guys, let me tell you about my long-lost twin sister I hope someday to -- Oops. *splat*" So I either come up with some contrived "Hey, what are the odds, we were actually long-lost triplets!" or I completely throw out the whole idea, an idea which is a lot more complex and specialized than any particular character build. Or, more likely, I quit because the whole reason I was playing was to play that PC. Frankly, I've never found a campaign plot, homebrew or published, anywhere near as interesting as the story of my PC and her friends, as individuals, growing and changing and accomplishing things together. I don't play to experience someone else's story. If I want a plot, I'll read a book or watch a movie. I play to experience my story.

Exactly. Characters are not interchangeable if you've taken the time to invest in their backstory enough to make them real people. This is why Raise Dead is so crucial as a spell in a roleplaying game. It's not like saying, "Well, we're playing Monopoly, and your Scottie Dog went bankrupt, but you can take over my Flat Iron because I have to leave and that way you can keep on playing and see if you can beat the Top Hat and the Sportscar."
Sorry but story investment doesn't give you any special treatments that you can hide behind. You are treated the same as the guy who spent 14 seconds on his backstory. The game doesn't revolve around your investment.

My investment in the game revolves around my investment and the investment of others. The guy who spent 14 seconds on his backstory sounds pretty boring to game with, frankly. I really can't imagine any of my characters interacting with him in any meaningful fashion, or imagining his roleplaying going any further than "I am the dour and broody mysterious figure who does not discuss his past."

Which, I will note, is fine if that's what you want, and I'll not WRONGBADFUN anyone else's game, but by the same token, I know what my personal cup of tea is, and if it's not being served, I'll vote with my feet and find a different GM and different players.

Sometimes, however, especially as a GM, you will have a mixed group, and it is bad to have a mechanic that punishes one style of player but rewards another, especially if you'd like to encourage the style that's being punished. You want roleplaying at your table? Then you want some way for people to bring back established characters. Raise Dead is designed for that and overcosting it goes at cross purposes with getting good roleplaying and player investment in the characters.

It should also be pointed out that the idea of recruiting a new adventurer and everyone implicitly trusting him doesn't work that well in many games, especially long-running campaigns where enemies are set up with spies and agents and characters will consequently be leery of random joes who seem almost too good to be true.


Irontruth wrote:


Yes, to the 115 y/o man in Japan, everyone is 'newer'.

But it really has no bearing on the overall conversation. Also the implied condescension is just that. I know you're trying not to be, but it still is.

If it has no bearing, your citation of your gaming history is just as pointless.

As for "implied condescension..."

I can't control your inference of anything from my statements. I, however, implied nothing; it was a statement of facts.

Since I wasn't implying any condescension, I wasn't trying not to be condescending. I was trying to avoid irritating you, which is pointless, since you're as prickly as a hedgehog. If you're going to take offense at value-neutral statements of fact because you dislike the facts as they stand, you're going to be offended a lot.


Alitan wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Yes, to the 115 y/o man in Japan, everyone is 'newer'.

But it really has no bearing on the overall conversation. Also the implied condescension is just that. I know you're trying not to be, but it still is.

If it has no bearing, your citation of your gaming history is just as pointless.

As for "implied condescension..."

I can't control your inference of anything from my statements. I, however, implied nothing; it was a statement of facts.

Since I wasn't implying any condescension, I wasn't trying not to be condescending. I was trying to avoid irritating you, which is pointless, since you're as prickly as a hedgehog. If you're going to take offense at value-neutral statements of fact because you dislike the facts as they stand, you're going to be offended a lot.

I wasn't offended. The comment was more general than that. I understand you intended to make the statement value-neutral. I'm letting you know it isn't as value neutral as you'd like it to be.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Joana wrote:

I fail to see how allowing low-level characters to have access to raise dead in any way involves altering the rules of the game so no one loses. It doesn't make the PCs more powerful or give them an unfair advantage after they're raised; it just gives their players the same chance the players of high-level characters have to not have to make up a new character if they would rather play the one they already have.

Besides, as SKR said, the PCs are supposed to win. It's not a level playing field in the first place. If your party TPKs in book 1 of an AP, you never get to play the rest of the adventure. It's lose-lose for everyone, in-game and out.

You don't 'win' at Pathfinder so I'm not sure why that was even said. Also 'you', the player, get to continue playing but it just might be another character. The default way to play the game is you may lose. You are not guaranteed to succeed at anything, the joy of succeeding comes when the threat of failure is real but you managed to somehow beat it. Does thiamin always happen? No it doesn't and I am glad of that.

Also I don't think SKR said that.

I don't disagree with you in the basic sentiment.

I think that the penalty of death should be reserved for important situations, for several reasons.

1) When the stakes are always the same, it can get boring. Oh look, another fight to the death. It loses some of its shock value and sting if it's common.

2) Failure should not stop a story. I apply this to other parts of the story as well. Like Perception, if a clue is vital to progressing the story, the PCs find it. The perception check is now for additional information, or a failure might result in an additional red herring or misinformation. If a player fails a climb check, instead of having the fall, I might have a piece of gear come lose, or there's an ambush waiting at the top. I don't want to sit and have them stare at the wall for 5 min coming up with another solution, I want to get to the action.

3) We get to choose how the continuity of the game flows without having to introduce deus ex machina into it. Especially if death becomes more of a player choice, in regards to story, and not a calculation of resources.

4) Death is the end. If a character dies and doesn't come back, anything involving that character loses momentum. I don't run dungeon crawls, I prefer stories with a plot. Plots can involve character death, and I think they should even, but I prefer that the players and GM have more direct control over that. They decide if the death is appropriate, not the dice. We use dice to determine outcomes of the unpredictable. We don't use dice to determine what the plot of a campaign is, just specific actions within it.

I'm a fan of consequences. There are a myriad of other consequences that are often just as appropriate, if not more so, than death though

2) and 3) contradict each other. If you are bending the rules back and forth to keep the story flowing as you want it, you are constantly introducing deus ex machina in your games.

If something irks me is playing with a GM that want to tell a tale in which I am a passive participant.
"You have done X and the consequence should be Y, but as the story should go on you get B." Sorry, I prefer to suffer for my mistakes and bad rolls to be the actor in pre written play.

Silver Crusade

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Joana wrote:

I care. Because I have invested a great deal more than the time involved to roll dice or distribute point buy, as the case may be. I have created a character concept with backstory and motivations and relationships to my fellow party members and local NPCs. My PC is a character, not a jigsaw of feats, traits, skill points and magic items. She is the same person at level 2 that she is at level 17. You can put together the same set of mechanical choices again, but you can't replicate a unique personality.

I'd actually rather lose her at level 17, as she'll have had time to explore some of her storylines and achieve some personal goals instead of "Hi, guys, let me tell you about my long-lost twin sister I hope someday to -- Oops. *splat*" So I either come up with some contrived "Hey, what are the odds, we were actually long-lost triplets!" or I completely throw out the whole idea, an idea which is a lot more complex and specialized than any particular character build. Or, more likely, I quit because the whole reason I was playing was to play that PC. Frankly, I've never found a campaign plot, homebrew or published, anywhere near as interesting as the story of my PC and her friends, as individuals, growing and changing and accomplishing things together. I don't play to experience someone else's story. If I want a plot, I'll read a book or watch a movie. I play to experience my story.

Exactly. Characters are not interchangeable if you've taken the time to invest in their backstory enough to make them real people. This is why Raise Dead is so crucial as a spell in a roleplaying game. It's not like saying, "Well, we're playing Monopoly, and your Scottie Dog went bankrupt, but you can take over my Flat Iron because I have to leave and that way you can keep on playing and see if you can beat the Top Hat and the Sportscar."

I'm afraid your investment is still meaningless when it comes to the dice. Also, long investment does not automatically make your background or your character "good", the 14 second guy's background may still be better than yours. Now if that's the way your DM wants to homebrew then that's all fine and dandy but we aren't talking about homebrew. That's like some people around here think if they post this huge wall of text it automatically makes them right.

At the end of the day, your investment time means absolutely nothing when death, the costs and the dice are concerned.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gnoll Bard wrote:
Punishing players for making mistakes or rolling poorly at a crucial moment by putting a "death tax" on a non-renewable resource or giving them a random chance of dying permanently doesn't seem like it serves any purpose but to frustrate them. It's not *fun.*

I have seen this a couple of times in the thread. Where you play that money isn't a renewable resource?

One of the starting supposition in WBL is that you would have "15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins." It is supposed that you would use those disposable items and normal gear and spend those coins while adventuring and that they will be replaced in the course of the adventures.
The spellcasters will pay for expensive spell components, everyone will eat, sleep at inns, pay ship passages, buy some potion and so on.
Raise dead is part of the miscellaneous expenditures and is factored in the loot given out generally.

5.000 gp is 10% of your WBL at level 9. For a group is is 10% of total WBL at level 6. So, in theory, you cash at hand and mundane equipment will cover the cost of a raise dead at those levels and get replaced before you get to the next level. Sure, you would suffer a bit for a time but not much.

Only if you want to turn every last coin into magical equipment you will have problems with paying for a raise. Or if you die every second encounter.

If the GM look your WBL, counting every coin and expendable, and say "they are at WBL, they should not find any coin or magic items until they reach the next level" you would have a problem, but it is a problem with the GM, not with the rules.
The rules assume that if you are level 6 going to level 7 your WBL will be approximately between 16.000 (starting point) and 23.500 (end point at level 6 and starting point for level 7).
It can be even more as some of the gear you have gathered will eb later sold for less than full value.

If at first level all the character take the rich parents trait and have 900 gp as starting cash the GM should not remove any treasure worth more than 100 gp because "the shouldn't surpass WBL", nor he should say "There is a wand in this adventure that was placed there to help them survive, but it is worth too much, I must remove all other treasure till they have used the last charge of the wand."

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
Gnoll Bard wrote:
Punishing players for making mistakes or rolling poorly at a crucial moment by putting a "death tax" on a non-renewable resource or giving them a random chance of dying permanently doesn't seem like it serves any purpose but to frustrate them. It's not *fun.*

I have seen this a couple of times in the thread. Where you play that money isn't a renewable resource?

One of the starting supposition in WBL is that you would have "15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins." It is supposed that you would use those disposable items and normal gear and spend those coins while adventuring and that they will be replaced in the course of the adventures.
The spellcasters will pay for expensive spell components, everyone will eat, sleep at inns, pay ship passages, buy some potion and so on.
Raise dead is part of the miscellaneous expenditures and is factored in the loot given out generally.

5.000 gp is 10% of your WBL at level 9. For a group is is 10% of total WBL at level 6. So, in theory, you cash at hand and mundane equipment will cover the cost of a raise dead at those levels and get replaced before you get to the next level. Sure, you would suffer a bit for a time but not much.

Only if you want to turn every last coin into magical equipment you will have problems with paying for a raise. Or if you die every second encounter.

If the GM look your WBL, counting every coin and expendable, and say "they are at WBL, they should not find any coin or magic items until they reach the next level" you would have a problem, but it is a problem with the GM, not with the rules.
The rules assume that if you are level 6 going to level 7 your WBL will be approximately between 16.000 (starting point) and 23.500 (end point at level 6 and starting point for level 7).
It can be even more as some of the gear you have gathered will eb later sold for less than full value.

If at first level all the character take the rich parents trait and...

Don't forget that WBL is not a set in stone rule but a guideline that not everyone uses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

2) and 3) contradict each other. If you are bending the rules back and forth to keep the story flowing as you want it, you are constantly introducing deus ex machina in your games.

If something irks me is playing with a GM that want to tell a tale in which I am a passive participant.
"You have done X and the consequence should be Y, but as the story should go on you get B." Sorry, I prefer to suffer for my mistakes and bad rolls to be the actor in pre written play.

2 is a concept called "failing forward" sometimes. Here are some games I would recommend checking out, they all advocate it's use explicitly in their text (might not use the term "failing forward" but the concept is present):

13th Age
Dungeon World
Pretty much all the FATE games
Burning Wheel

I can tell you, the concepts do not contradict each other. And I am not advocating the thing that irks you. That irks me as well. The part with Perception is from a game called Trail of Cthulhu. The game is designed to be a detective game, not a dungeon crawl. If the players don't find the major clues, they can't advance the plot. So the game tells you to just give them the major clues. These aren't necessarily beneficial clues (it is a Cthulhu game after all), but rather just a means of telling the players where they might have to go next.

If the players want a benefit from the clues they find, they have to expend resources in that game. In PF terms, I'd do it like this:

Scenario: party comes across a caravan slaughtered.
Automatic information: they find a corpse of an orc, maybe a couple arrows, the caravan was definitely attacked by orcs.
High Perception Check: they'd learn something valuable, like evidence that the orcs used magic, or a common tactic that they need to be prepared for. Same with high skill checks in knowledge, or survival for tracking, etc.

The automatic information is so that the players have enough information to advance along the story if they choose. The plot is not delayed because the party all rolled 1's and 2's on skill checks, they players just don't receive additional beneficial information that they can use later.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Just houserule it and stay away from Society play. I mean seriously, the designers aren't going to change the way it works.

The irony is, this is pretty much exactly the attitude Sean K Reynolds was advocating back on page 2. People felt it necessary to tell him his playstyle sounded horrid :D

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Irontruth wrote:

2 is a concept called "failing forward" sometimes. Here are some games I would recommend checking out, they all advocate it's use explicitly in their text (might not use the term "failing forward" but the concept is present):

13th Age
Dungeon World
Pretty much all the FATE games
Burning Wheel

I'm a huge fan of Burning Wheel via Mouse Guard, and the "failing forward" aspect is one of the things I absolutely love.

Speaking of Mouse Guard, death is much less common than in Pathfinder (at least in my experience), but it's still possible to fail. In fact, failure is necessary to advance, and yet the game is still challenging, exciting, and fun. It's not a very videogame-like system either, probably even less so than Pathfinder.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Just houserule it and stay away from Society play. I mean seriously, the designers aren't going to change the way it works.

The irony is, this is pretty much exactly the attitude Sean K Reynolds was advocating back on page 2. People felt it necessary to tell him his playstyle sounded horrid :D

I found some extra irony in the fact that I disagree with SKR's notions 95% of the time, yet here I agreed with his view.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
So nothing bad should ever happen to the party, ever.

Bad things still happen to winners.

The party cleared the dungeon and recovered the stolen wands, but found their pet mimic, who had been set to guard the entrance, had been slain.

Except its free to ressurrect him so thats not that bad.


Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If you want to run a game like a video game, feel free. I think it is safe to say most people would rather just play a video game, but YMMV.

My point was that if people want to complain about video games influencing RPGs to be too easy, I'm going to respond by pointing that they are in fact categorically wrong in their generalization of video games.

Just like if they complain about comic books, I'm going to ask them how American Splendor is ruining anything.

Running an RPG "like a video game" is a useless statement. There are too many different kinds of video games, so they either need to before specific, or lay off the comparison. Even saying "like an MMO" is useless, because there are plenty of different styles.

How about "like a popular video game"? Because outside of niche games, you get infinite retries and can very frequently save as often as you like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are LOADS of popular games where you don't get infinite retries other than by starting a new game (like starting a new campaign). Just to name two, both Diablo 3 and Minecraft have difficulty settings where it's one life only, and easy access to ressurections is not similar to save/load systems as the world still continues if you die in D&D. It's more similar to "several lives" options.

And as noted, when ressurects became common in video game RPG's, it was inspired by D&D, not the other way around. Baldur's Gate had raise dead, Diablo didn't.


Ilja wrote:

There are LOADS of popular games where you don't get infinite retries other than by starting a new game (like starting a new campaign). Just to name two, both Diablo 3 and Minecraft have difficulty settings where it's one life only, and easy access to ressurections is not similar to save/load systems as the world still continues if you die in D&D. It's more similar to "several lives" options.

And as noted, when ressurects became common in video game RPG's, it was inspired by D&D, not the other way around. Baldur's Gate had raise dead, Diablo didn't.

Those games both allow for infinite retries. Having a hardcore mode that a small percentage of players isn't the same.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If you want to run a game like a video game, feel free. I think it is safe to say most people would rather just play a video game, but YMMV.

My point was that if people want to complain about video games influencing RPGs to be too easy, I'm going to respond by pointing that they are in fact categorically wrong in their generalization of video games.

Just like if they complain about comic books, I'm going to ask them how American Splendor is ruining anything.

Running an RPG "like a video game" is a useless statement. There are too many different kinds of video games, so they either need to before specific, or lay off the comparison. Even saying "like an MMO" is useless, because there are plenty of different styles.

How about "like a popular video game"? Because outside of niche games, you get infinite retries and can very frequently save as often as you like.

No one has advocated either of those things, so I fail to see how they would be relevant.

Being raised is not a "do over", it's a continuation of what has happened. If the party lost to the BBEG, they still lost. Sure they might get another try, but if I'm the GM, he's doing something bad to the world in the meantime. Which is fine, it's a chance to show the PC's what is going to happen if they fail a second time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd still want to know why video games are shown in a negative context here.


Irontruth wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If you want to run a game like a video game, feel free. I think it is safe to say most people would rather just play a video game, but YMMV.

My point was that if people want to complain about video games influencing RPGs to be too easy, I'm going to respond by pointing that they are in fact categorically wrong in their generalization of video games.

Just like if they complain about comic books, I'm going to ask them how American Splendor is ruining anything.

Running an RPG "like a video game" is a useless statement. There are too many different kinds of video games, so they either need to before specific, or lay off the comparison. Even saying "like an MMO" is useless, because there are plenty of different styles.

How about "like a popular video game"? Because outside of niche games, you get infinite retries and can very frequently save as often as you like.

No one has advocated either of those things, so I fail to see how they would be relevant.

Being raised is not a "do over", it's a continuation of what has happened. If the party lost to the BBEG, they still lost. Sure they might get another try, but if I'm the GM, he's doing something bad to the world in the meantime. Which is fine, it's a chance to show the PC's what is going to happen if they fail a second time.

I have seen a lot of people making assumptions about the character's motivations. Not every character is going to care if the enemy is doing bad things to the world. There are neutral and evil characters too. If you told my antipaladin that his failure resulted in a town being wiped out, he would probably laugh.

Sure, I guess he would be unhappy if he failed to accomplish his objective, but the risk of losing wealth is a major motivator for an evil character. I am not even sure if my allies would be willing to spend the 5k gold to resurrect me. Remove the cost and this fear goes away.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Except its free to ressurrect him so thats not that bad.

Until you try and find out he doesn't want to come back.

Contributor

shallowsoul wrote:

I'm afraid your investment is still meaningless when it comes to the dice. Also, long investment does not automatically make your background or your character "good", the 14 second guy's background may still be better than yours. Now if that's the way your DM wants to homebrew then that's all fine and dandy but we aren't talking about homebrew. That's like some people around here think if they post this huge wall of text it automatically makes them right.

At the end of the day, your investment time means absolutely nothing when death, the costs and the dice are concerned.

Certainly you can have an involved backstory which is bad, and an off-the-cuff backstory which is good, but that's not the way to bet. The off-the-cuff backstory is at best a thumbnail description, likely a quick literary reference to an existing character, and probably a cliche. The involved one? Probably more interesting.

As for "the dice," they're extraneous to this discussion. How a character dies is immaterial: bad dice, GM fiat, drugs and coup de grace from another party member who turned evil, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is what happens once they are dead.

This discussion is about whether Raise Dead is balanced relative to other 5th level spells and whether the 5000 GP diamond material component is useful or necessary.

From the "useful or necessary" angle I'm arguing that the reasons to keep characters around--player engagement, continuity, etc.--weigh more heavily in terms of running a roleplaying game. Having a character die, having their "friends" loot their body--and likely hock most of the gear--then miraculously have a new fully-equiped character meet them wherever they happen to be? It strains disbelief badly, far more so than gods, who are willing and able to raise the dead, being willing to waive an arbitrary requirement for a 5000 GP gemstone.

After all, if you throw roleplaying and disbelief out the window, the sensible thing for any party of adventurers to do is to kill their party member Kenny, loot his corpse, wait for Kenny 2.0 to wander by, kill him, then rinse and repeat until they have a massive and insane pile of loot.

Certainly you can pull this sort of stunt in a video game. I remember playing Omega back in the day, pickpocketing infinite Keys of Magic from the Archmage by just setting a restore point and exploiting the rules of the game.

In a tabletop RPG? There's a GM who puts his or her foot down and stops that sort of nonsense.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Except its free to ressurrect him so thats not that bad.
Until you try and find out he doesn't want to come back.

If he wants to be dead then his dying isn't a bad thing. It would be selfish to keep him alive or bring him back to life. I would have just killed him myself to accomplish that.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

johnlocke90 wrote:

I have seen a lot of people making assumptions about the character's motivations. Not every character is going to care if the enemy is doing bad things to the world. There are neutral and evil characters too. If you told my antipaladin that his failure resulted in a town being wiped out, he would probably laugh.

Sure, I guess he would be unhappy if he failed to accomplish his objective, but the risk of losing wealth is a major motivator for an evil character. I am not even sure if my allies would be willing to spend the 5k gold to resurrect me. Remove the cost and this fear goes away.

They're not assuming anything, they're speaking in general terms about the common adventurer. The points they're making apply equally to neutral and evil characters, just in a slightly different way.

Your antipaladin, for example, might not care if the local town gets sacked. But what if he was planning on sacking that town himself? Someone just walked off with all his loot.

Or because you failed to stop the BBEG, he stages a coup and ascends to the throne, taking over the kingdom. He might share part of his alignment with your antipaladin, but that doesn't mean you'll be chummy. In fact, you're probably the number one threat to his rule. Guards show up to arrest you whenever you show your face in town, and soldiers patrol the borders to capture you if you try to escape the kingdom. Worse, if you want to overthrow the prince and get some revenge, you might have to ally with some *shudder* CG clerics of Milani.


Like an Anti-Paladin would care about a temporary allegiance with a CG Cleric that much.

Any Cleric dumb enough to enter such a deal more or less deserves that dagger on their back.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Icyshadow wrote:

Like an Anti-Paladin would care about a temporary allegiance with a CG Cleric anyway.

Any Cleric dumb enough to enter such a deal more or less deserves that dagger on their back.

And only a fool would assume a good cleric can't be just as crafty and devious as any antipaladin ;)


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Like an Anti-Paladin would care about a temporary allegiance with a CG Cleric anyway.

Any Cleric dumb enough to enter such a deal more or less deserves that dagger on their back.

And only a fool would assume a good cleric can't be just as crafty and devious as any antipaladin ;)

Haven't you heard about Good is Dumb before?

We all know it's a proven fact by now and all! o:

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
I'd still want to know why video games are shown in a negative context here.

To be quite blunt, I don't want the video game experience when I play a table top RPG. I get the video game experience from video games, I play Pathfinder and other RPGs for something different.


So it's just some kind of TTRPG elitism thing, then? I don't see how similarity breeds inferiority here or why anyone should care, just like if some sport you prefer resembles another somehow would apparently boil your blood. And like I said already in a previous post, video games are more varied with how death is handled than some people here seem to assume. Also, would you say a Play-by-Post game of D&D / Pathfinder is "too similar to a video game" for precious little you to play?

There's no such thing as a glorious TTRPG master race, probably never will be.


"the video game experience" is having the game rendered on a screen. Unless using map tools, theres no risk of it. Raising the dead as a game concept largely comes from d&d. Or at least was spread through it.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:

So it's just some kind of TTRPG elitism thing, then? I don't see how similarity breeds inferiority here or why anyone should care, just like if some sport you prefer resembles another somehow would apparently boil your blood. And like I said already in a previous post, video games are more varied with how death is handled than some people here seem to assume. Also, would you say a Play-by-Post game of D&D / Pathfinder is "too similar to a video game" for precious little you to play?

There's no such thing as a glorious TTRPG master race, probably never will be.

I don't think you are using that word correctly.

Would you go to a Garth Books concert for the Pink Floyd experience?


Btw, compared to video games with respawning mechanics, most games have harsher penalties than highlevel characters suffer in d&d. Apart from single life games and modes, penalties are usually heavy in xp. In diablo 2 you lost about 1/3 level at higher difficulties ( havent played d3), in minecraft you respawn at level 1 with 0 exp. Thats a fair bit harsher than two percent of wbl.

551 to 600 of 1,171 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.