Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 1,171 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

I'm in camp 42. It's a specialized version of camp 4 that feels an overwhelming sense of entitlement for Breyers Cherry Vanilla ice cream.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
I'm in camp 42. It's a specialized version of camp 4 that feels an overwhelming sense of entitlement for Breyers Cherry Vanilla ice cream.

So camp 4 wants ice cream

camp 42 feels entitled to special Ice Cream.

Which camp is lactose intolerant.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm totally in camp 4.

Not the season for ice cream.

Hot chocolate cake?

What...no a la mode? What's wrong with you?

;)

Chocolate rules!

And, BTW, the world is still going his merry way. Good 22 to you all ;-)

Shadow Lodge

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

The problem is that if the idea of the side quest was implemented it would become necessary to add those strings to all the characters capable to reincarnate/raise/resurrect someone or remove the ability.

Then it would become necessary to do that to all the items in play.

Adabar Staff of life: this staff was created by a cleric of Adabar, so every time it is used you will have to do a quest for Adabar.
What happen it the party has no one that follow Adabar? If they are all followers of the Green Faith and despise cities?

Each item, class, archetype, with the capability to raise someone from death would require a divine patron.
Maybe appropriated but it would require a lot of extra work.

Or, a cleric or character with a clear divine patron contacts the servants of that patron when raising the dead (whether using the spell or activating an item).

A character without a clear divine patron would contact either the servants of a deity with appropriate interests (A LG oracle of battle might contact Iomedae even if they don't worship the goddess personally) or they may contact a powerful outsider of the appropriate alignment (such as a Star Archon for the LG Oracle). Or else they may get the goddess of death by default.

You could make patron-specific raise dead items, but it wouldn't be necessary.

Tacticslion wrote:
The lower-level-raise-dead: could be okay, but we've heard no specific ideas and could break verisimilitude

I'm a bit nervous about this one. First, having a 3rd level spell capable of raising the dead (especially if the cost is eliminated or lower) makes it even more likely that the spell would have drastic world-building consequences with large portions of the populace being raised. 5th level clerics (those capable of casting 3rd level spells) aren't that uncommon and this would make raising the dead in general feel less special. From a mechanics POV, if it can only raise characters up to 5 HD, it's generally useful for one level - the one were the party is level 5. Before that the cleric can't cast it, after that the party can't be raised by it. (Though I suppose a cleric could cast above their level using a scroll, which slightly mitigates the narrow usage window).

ciretose wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Would it be fair to sum up the conflicting schools of thought into the following generalizations?

Camp 1 is advocating a 'free res' No gp cost, just pop off a 5th level spell and he gets better.
Camp 2 feels there should be some level of 'death tax'. Whether it be gold, diamonds, vestal virgins. Pay it, cast your spell, he gets better.
Camp 3 feels the powers over life and death don't take Amex, don't take Discover and don't take cash. Bill the Bard Bit the Bullete? You need to do X to 'earn' Bill getting better.

Camp 1 seems right, but I'm not in it so...

Camp 2 seems ok I guess, but I'm not in it so...

Camp three is not correct (or at least there should be a camp 4...)

Camp 3 is "Death should have an effect that lasts longer than a week, be it XP loss, level loss, possible failure, etc..."

Camp 4, I believe, wants some ice cream.

I think these categories are OK as general statements, but expect that some people might be split between two camps, and that some camps may have varied opinions (for example, Camp 2 may have people who prefer a flat cost as well as those who prefer a cost-per-HD method).

As someone who is leaning towards Camp 3, I think that it is fine as-is.

"Death should have an effect that lasts longer than a week, be it XP loss, level loss, possible failure, etc..." should be Camp 4.

Camp 5 is ice cream.


Diego Rossi wrote:


@Alitan
Maybe you should look the rules about witches and oracles. They aren't constrained in any way by their patrons or mysteries.
There is nothing like a ex-witch or ex-oracle.

End of an adventure includes the end of an adventure path. Sure, you can be playing something that end within a few session, but we are speaking of rules that will work for all campaign. A lot of campaigns have a story with interlocking events where a side quest will break the story.

A AP is a good example of that so I use them, but you can have that situation in a homebrew too.

ciretose wrote:
I am not saying your idea is bad, I am saying I don't see how it could be implemented with any kind of standarization.
Exactly my point, but evidently for Alitan was simpler to avoid addressing it and instead diverting it to something different.

Who said anything about the caster being constrained? I'm talking about the recipient of the spell, not the one doing the casting.

I didn't address standardization mostly because it's a futile endeavor, given the swath of campaigning styles out there.

At some point during a campaign, there will be a break in the action that might otherwise be downtime, into which doing a service to the Power(s) which reversed your death can be fitted.

I will admit that this works best with a sandbox-style game, but it isn't impossible in any format.

Liberty's Edge

"Not impossible" and "Standard" aren't the same thing.

Plug and play is great for one offs, not so great for long running games with the same group looking for more than tropes. More than tropes isn't best serves on the fly.


ciretose wrote:

"Not impossible" and "Standard" aren't the same thing.

Plug and play is great for one offs, not so great for long running games with the same group looking for more than tropes. More than tropes isn't best serves on the fly.

If it's a "long-running game with the same group looking for more than tropes," do you expect me to believe the GM incapable of adapting a quest that is meaningful and "more than tropes" from his/her experience with said group?

Eh, I'm not going to jump through teh Internetz and force you to use the idea. I think owing a favor makes more sense than material expenditures; it works well for me. I'm of the opinion that it isn't unreasonable as an idea for general use; obviously, folks disagree. Go figure.

Liberty's Edge

I'm more referring to the earlier "GM can immediately adapt a side quest on the fly when someone dies and not throw off that nights game" argument, which would have to be part of implementing a side quest as the solution plan.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

"Not impossible" and "Standard" aren't the same thing.

Plug and play is great for one offs, not so great for long running games with the same group looking for more than tropes. More than tropes isn't best serves on the fly.

I generally prefer gaming on the fly, but I understand not everyone does. But one spell, at character level 9 or higher that only comes up once in a while is not exactly forcing you to adopt a completely foreign play style.

I also said, I'd rather see a super simple spell, all it does is bring a character back. Then a section in the book that talks about options and styles, including GP cost, XP cost, negative levels, failure chance, etc.

Liberty's Edge

I think you have to be able to adapt as a GM, but making that the outcome of a spell to create an entire side quest, immediately, is a bit more than adapting IMHO.

But it sounds like we agree, so it is beside the point :)


ciretose wrote:


Kthulhu wrote:


I'm in camp 42. It's a specialized version of camp 4 that feels an overwhelming sense of entitlement for Breyers Cherry Vanilla ice cream.

So camp 4 wants ice cream

camp 42 feels entitled to special Ice Cream.

Which camp is lactose intolerant.

...and what about the diabetics? Do they get their own camp? 4.3 maybe... sugar free ice cream sucks though. *sigh*


ciretose wrote:
I'm more referring to the earlier "GM can immediately adapt a side quest on the fly when someone dies and not throw off that nights game" argument, which would have to be part of implementing a side quest as the solution plan.

I missed that statement.

And I've been advocating a quest that comes up... sometime... in the nebulous future. [I.e., when it's convenient.]

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And the exact quest can also be delivered at a later point, if convenient for the game (that is, if the GM doesn't have a quest ready or expects that the current plotline will take some lengthy resolution). The power in question could easily just tell the raised person "you owe me one, I'll call in the favor when I feel like it."

Failure to return the favor would result in the givt of life being revoked, and possibly an unpleasant afterlife.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm totally in camp 4.

Not the season for ice cream.

Hot chocolate cake?

I live in Florida. It's always the Season for ice cream.

Sovereign Court

smurf
One of the best threads kinda turned lame.


Pax Veritas wrote:

smurf

One of the best threads kinda turned lame.

SKR just needs to drop in to keep the pot boiling. Or, in this case, relight the fire ubder it. The thread, lately, has revolved around semi-cryptic statements and comments from him.

*edit* OK, what the smurf is going on... my beard is gone. Among other things...


ciretose wrote:

I think you have to be able to adapt as a GM, but making that the outcome of a spell to create an entire side quest, immediately, is a bit more than adapting IMHO.

But it sounds like we agree, so it is beside the point :)

I've played a lot of games the past couple years that require you to adapt, constantly, as a GM. Improvisation is a skill, it's something you can learn and practice. It is not something that should be feared or looked down upon. Fear of improvisation is a common root for GM railroading, they don't have something prepared for what you want to do, so they try to steer you back to what they have prepared. At least for me though, most of the best things happen when a game goes off the rails, both as a player and GM.

I also envision a lot of these being possible during the primary story, or related in a way. Off the top of my head:

Lets say the party is hunting down a lich, but one of them dies along the way. They cast Raise Dead and an angel answers. He says something like "find the remains of three of his former servants and bring them back to Father Mike, then I'll tell you what to do next" (the guy who gave you the original lead). You do the adventure like normal, but now the player has to remember to look for the remains.

As the GM, I don't know what's special about those three guys yet, but I have a session or two to figure it out. It might lead to the next adventure, or they just had interesting information for the angel (but their souls are in Hell, so he can't get access to them).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not everyone has as easy time adapting, though. Or people might be good at certain parts of adaption - I have no problem coming up with a framework on the fly, and thinking of combat encounters, puzzles or hazards but I'm reaaally bad at creating believable NPC's on the fly.

For many people just handwaving in a quest will mean that quest will be, honestly, quite boring, since they don't know how to do it well. There IS a risk the quest will be very run-of-the-mill "fetch X" quest.

If it works for you, great, but I don't think one should assume that the miniquest method can work for everyone (or even most).

It can also lead to obnoxious situations in which someone dies on the quest to get someone raised.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alitan wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


@Alitan
Maybe you should look the rules about witches and oracles. They aren't constrained in any way by their patrons or mysteries.
There is nothing like a ex-witch or ex-oracle.

End of an adventure includes the end of an adventure path. Sure, you can be playing something that end within a few session, but we are speaking of rules that will work for all campaign. A lot of campaigns have a story with interlocking events where a side quest will break the story.

A AP is a good example of that so I use them, but you can have that situation in a homebrew too.

ciretose wrote:
I am not saying your idea is bad, I am saying I don't see how it could be implemented with any kind of standarization.
Exactly my point, but evidently for Alitan was simpler to avoid addressing it and instead diverting it to something different.

Who said anything about the caster being constrained? I'm talking about the recipient of the spell, not the one doing the casting.

I didn't address standardization mostly because it's a futile endeavor, given the swath of campaigning styles out there.

At some point during a campaign, there will be a break in the action that might otherwise be downtime, into which doing a service to the Power(s) which reversed your death can be fitted.

I will admit that this works best with a sandbox-style game, but it isn't impossible in any format.

If the caster need a divine intervention to raise a dead he is constrained by the need to work with that divine patron.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
R_Chance wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:

smurf

One of the best threads kinda turned lame.

SKR just needs to drop in to keep the pot boiling. Or, in this case, relight the fire ubder it. The thread, lately, has revolved around semi-cryptic statements and comments from him.

*edit* OK, what the smurf is going on... my beard is gone. Among other things...

From what I get in a post in JJ thread, if smurf is written in a post you get this.


I think the "going to the plane where the soul ended up to bargain for it/yank it back" might be a decent approach to the quest-style raising. It's easier to fit into campaign since:
1. Many planes have different time scales so it might be very likely they can fix everything and end up back at the material plane as if it had just been five minutes, a'la Narnia.
2. It might open up campaign-related benefits too.

For example, say a Chaotic Neutral character died. When asked about resurrection the town priest says "that's far beyond my power - your friend is in the Limbo now. there's an old portal in the woods north of here that leads to Limbo". They can then enter limbo, find the PC's soul, and on their escape from it's chaos they find another gate leading to another part of the material plane, and yet the moon has barely moved since they entered - thus they've found a "shortcut" on the material plane that they can benefit from during the rest of the AP.

Now, if people die all the time and wants to be raised, that's not going to work of course, but if it's only rarely, then it might very well be a decent approach.


Diego Rossi wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Pax Veritas wrote:


s---f
One of the best threads kinda turned lame.

SKR just needs to drop in to keep the pot boiling. Or, in this case, relight the fire under it. The thread, lately, has revolved around semi-cryptic statements and comments from him.

*edit* OK, what the s---f is going on... my beard is gone. Among other things...

From what I get in a post in JJ thread, if s---f is written in a post you get this.

Well, let's take the "mur" out of the "s---f" and find out.

*edit* Yes, beard... and other things back in place :) Thanks.


I think it also reacts to smruf and surmf and smu
rf


Alitan wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


@Alitan
Maybe you should look the rules about witches and oracles. They aren't constrained in any way by their patrons or mysteries.
There is nothing like a ex-witch or ex-oracle.

End of an adventure includes the end of an adventure path. Sure, you can be playing something that end within a few session, but we are speaking of rules that will work for all campaign. A lot of campaigns have a story with interlocking events where a side quest will break the story.

A AP is a good example of that so I use them, but you can have that situation in a homebrew too.

ciretose wrote:
I am not saying your idea is bad, I am saying I don't see how it could be implemented with any kind of standarization.
Exactly my point, but evidently for Alitan was simpler to avoid addressing it and instead diverting it to something different.

Who said anything about the caster being constrained? I'm talking about the recipient of the spell, not the one doing the casting.

I didn't address standardization mostly because it's a futile endeavor, given the swath of campaigning styles out there.

At some point during a campaign, there will be a break in the action that might otherwise be downtime, into which doing a service to the Power(s) which reversed your death can be fitted.

I will admit that this works best with a sandbox-style game, but it isn't impossible in any format.

What if the characters refuse to do the sidequest after being resurrected?


johnlocke90 wrote:
Alitan wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


@Alitan
Maybe you should look the rules about witches and oracles. They aren't constrained in any way by their patrons or mysteries.
There is nothing like a ex-witch or ex-oracle.

End of an adventure includes the end of an adventure path. Sure, you can be playing something that end within a few session, but we are speaking of rules that will work for all campaign. A lot of campaigns have a story with interlocking events where a side quest will break the story.

A AP is a good example of that so I use them, but you can have that situation in a homebrew too.

ciretose wrote:
I am not saying your idea is bad, I am saying I don't see how it could be implemented with any kind of standarization.
Exactly my point, but evidently for Alitan was simpler to avoid addressing it and instead diverting it to something different.

Who said anything about the caster being constrained? I'm talking about the recipient of the spell, not the one doing the casting.

I didn't address standardization mostly because it's a futile endeavor, given the swath of campaigning styles out there.

At some point during a campaign, there will be a break in the action that might otherwise be downtime, into which doing a service to the Power(s) which reversed your death can be fitted.

I will admit that this works best with a sandbox-style game, but it isn't impossible in any format.

What if the characters refuse to do the sidequest after being resurrected?

Then the DM throws a hissy-fit followed by "rocks fall and everyone dies", of course :3

Liberty's Edge

Ilja wrote:

I think the "going to the plane where the soul ended up to bargain for it/yank it back" might be a decent approach to the quest-style raising. It's easier to fit into campaign since:

1. Many planes have different time scales so it might be very likely they can fix everything and end up back at the material plane as if it had just been five minutes, a'la Narnia.
2. It might open up campaign-related benefits too.

For example, say a Chaotic Neutral character died. When asked about resurrection the town priest says "that's far beyond my power - your friend is in the Limbo now. there's an old portal in the woods north of here that leads to Limbo". They can then enter limbo, find the PC's soul, and on their escape from it's chaos they find another gate leading to another part of the material plane, and yet the moon has barely moved since they entered - thus they've found a "shortcut" on the material plane that they can benefit from during the rest of the AP.

Now, if people die all the time and wants to be raised, that's not going to work of course, but if it's only rarely, then it might very well be a decent approach.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying it is a bad idea for a plan in a home game. We are just saying that you are calling for a spell to have a quest as a material component, adding all sorts of interesting questions, for example as you pointed out, what if someone else dies on the side quest? Does the player get to go on the side quest, and if so do they die? If not, aren't they still getting an XP penalty for not going on the quest?

Etc...


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Ilja wrote:
I think the "going to the plane where the soul ended up to bargain for it/yank it back" might be a decent approach to the quest-style raising.

In canon Golarion, once a soul has moved on from being judged to its final plane, it can't be returned to its body. Also, once a soul has moved on from the Boneyard, it no longer remembers being Joe the PC at all and wouldn't recognize any of its friends who came there to see it or know what they were talking about -- nor would they likely recognize it since it is made into a brand new outsider. That's why they make a big deal about being judged by Pharasma and how long it can take a soul to wait in line for it; once it's been judged, it can no longer return to the Prime Material as "itself" at all.

Personally, I'm not a fan of that cosmology, but that's canon for Golarion, so planewalking anywhere other than Pharasma's Boneyard isn't going to work to get a fallen comrade back.


johnlocke90 wrote:


What if the characters refuse to do the sidequest after being resurrected?

Then they die again, and the Power involved in raising them will never intervene on their behalf again.


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


If the caster need a divine intervention to raise a dead he is constrained by the need to work with that divine patron.

Right, because having divine magic isn't a matter of divine intervention at all.

You're not getting the Mystery; no, it isn't confined to the scope of a single deity. It draws its power from all deities which share in its ineffable aspect.

Finally, even if a Mystery is entirely god-forsaken, the god/dess of Death is going to have to be dealt with in a raising/resurrection: it is a direct interference with his/her domain.

Silver Crusade

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

i don't think a deity would want payment in the form of wealth to ressurect someone. that is what the sidequest is for.

the Pay 5,000 gold and take 2 negative levels that can be removed for 1,000 gold each is more video gamey than the side quest method.

you are essentially dropping quarters in a machine. only they are virtual quarters in a virtual machine. which somehow, completely favors those nobles with a boatload of wealth to spare.

Kill a peasant, nobody cares. they churn out 5 new ones.

Kill the Local Baron. he buys a raise dead insurance package (preplanned), waits a week, and hires stronger adventurers to take you down.

Kill the Count, the Duke, or the Marquis, and they will be back even faster with an even faster and hire a bigger band of stronger adventurers.

Kill the king, he's back the next day with no negative levels, completely unharmed by the mutiliations you performed, which aren't even visible. and not only does he have an even bigger hired band of stronger adventurers than any of his subordinates, he has a whole nation to kill you with.

i know the scenarios sound a little ridiculous, but they exist only because raising the dead only requires an expenditure of funds.

Actually, wealth is sacrificed to gods all the time. It shows deities that mortals are willing to sacrifice what they hold dear to the gods.

Silver Crusade

The rules are fine the way they are.

You don't like it, change it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Again, I don't think anyone is saying it is a bad idea for a plan in a home game. We are just saying that you are calling for a spell to have a quest as a material component, adding all sorts of interesting questions, for example as you pointed out, what if someone else dies on the side quest? Does the player get to go on the side quest, and if so do they die? If not, aren't they still getting an XP penalty for not going on the quest?

Etc...

I know, you know ;) I'm discussing from a general perspective and saying that "if you want to have the miniquest approach, this is a way I think is feasible and kinda makes sense compared to "fetch me my cat and I'll raise your friend"".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

The rules are fine the way they are.

You don't like it, change it.

Öuhm... Isn't that the point of this thread? I mean... What?


ciretose wrote:
Ilja wrote:

I think the "going to the plane where the soul ended up to bargain for it/yank it back" might be a decent approach to the quest-style raising. It's easier to fit into campaign since:

1. Many planes have different time scales so it might be very likely they can fix everything and end up back at the material plane as if it had just been five minutes, a'la Narnia.
2. It might open up campaign-related benefits too.

For example, say a Chaotic Neutral character died. When asked about resurrection the town priest says "that's far beyond my power - your friend is in the Limbo now. there's an old portal in the woods north of here that leads to Limbo". They can then enter limbo, find the PC's soul, and on their escape from it's chaos they find another gate leading to another part of the material plane, and yet the moon has barely moved since they entered - thus they've found a "shortcut" on the material plane that they can benefit from during the rest of the AP.

Now, if people die all the time and wants to be raised, that's not going to work of course, but if it's only rarely, then it might very well be a decent approach.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying it is a bad idea for a plan in a home game. We are just saying that you are calling for a spell to have a quest as a material component, adding all sorts of interesting questions, for example as you pointed out, what if someone else dies on the side quest? Does the player get to go on the side quest, and if so do they die? If not, aren't they still getting an XP penalty for not going on the quest?

Etc...

The process is the same.

Your second question seems awkwardly worded.
I'm guessing your third question relates to the second, but I didn't understand that one, so the context is lost on me.

Shadow Lodge

Alitan wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


What if the characters refuse to do the sidequest after being resurrected?

Then they die again, and the Power involved in raising them will never intervene on their behalf again.

Or, in Icy's words, the GM throws a hissy fit. Because we all know that the PCs essentially spitting in the face of a god shouldn't have any consequences.

Silver Crusade

Ilja wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

The rules are fine the way they are.

You don't like it, change it.

Öuhm... Isn't that the point of this thread? I mean... What?

What this thread has turned into is an argument about "officially" changing it. This thread could have ended on page 1 with "If you don't like the rule then homebrew it".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Ilja wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

The rules are fine the way they are.

You don't like it, change it.

Öuhm... Isn't that the point of this thread? I mean... What?
What this thread has turned into is an argument about "officially" changing it. This thread could have ended on page 1 with "If you don't like the rule then homebrew it".

I haven't seen any of that. ANY discussion on the merits of a rule system can be "ended" with "if you don't like it then homebrew it". Like, 90% of threads could probably have that as their "ending". That doesn't mean further discussion can't be beneficial.


TOZ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Not the season for ice cream.
LIES.

... are you claiming the cake is a lie?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Ilja wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

The rules are fine the way they are.

You don't like it, change it.

Öuhm... Isn't that the point of this thread? I mean... What?
What this thread has turned into is an argument about "officially" changing it. This thread could have ended on page 1 with "If you don't like the rule then homebrew it".

No one is forcing you to engage in the discussion. I find the discussion useful, so I'm going to continue it for now as long as other people also wish to discuss it. This is the PF RPG general discussion, since we're mostly talking about the theory behind concepts within the game, it is an appropriate place for us to be having this discussion.

In the thread listing, there's a 'hide' feature if you don't want to see this thread anymore. It's the little circle with a line through it next to the post count.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Ilja wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

The rules are fine the way they are.

You don't like it, change it.

Öuhm... Isn't that the point of this thread? I mean... What?
What this thread has turned into is an argument about "officially" changing it. This thread could have ended on page 1 with "If you don't like the rule then homebrew it".

No one is forcing you to engage in the discussion. I find the discussion useful, so I'm going to continue it for now as long as other people also wish to discuss it. This is the PF RPG general discussion, since we're mostly talking about the theory behind concepts within the game, it is an appropriate place for us to be having this discussion.

In the thread listing, there's a 'hide' feature if you don't want to see this thread anymore. It's the little circle with a line through it next to the post count.

Actually it would be better in the homebrew section because that is mostly whats been discussed.


Kthulhu wrote:
Alitan wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


What if the characters refuse to do the sidequest after being resurrected?

Then they die again, and the Power involved in raising them will never intervene on their behalf again.
Or, in Icy's words, the GM throws a hissy fit. Because we all know that the PCs essentially spitting in the face of a god shouldn't have any consequences.

Who said the revival is done by a god in the first place? Certainly wasn't me~

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Ilja wrote:

I think the "going to the plane where the soul ended up to bargain for it/yank it back" might be a decent approach to the quest-style raising. It's easier to fit into campaign since:

1. Many planes have different time scales so it might be very likely they can fix everything and end up back at the material plane as if it had just been five minutes, a'la Narnia.
2. It might open up campaign-related benefits too.

For example, say a Chaotic Neutral character died. When asked about resurrection the town priest says "that's far beyond my power - your friend is in the Limbo now. there's an old portal in the woods north of here that leads to Limbo". They can then enter limbo, find the PC's soul, and on their escape from it's chaos they find another gate leading to another part of the material plane, and yet the moon has barely moved since they entered - thus they've found a "shortcut" on the material plane that they can benefit from during the rest of the AP.

Now, if people die all the time and wants to be raised, that's not going to work of course, but if it's only rarely, then it might very well be a decent approach.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying it is a bad idea for a plan in a home game. We are just saying that you are calling for a spell to have a quest as a material component, adding all sorts of interesting questions, for example as you pointed out, what if someone else dies on the side quest? Does the player get to go on the side quest, and if so do they die? If not, aren't they still getting an XP penalty for not going on the quest?

Etc...

The process is the same.

Your second question seems awkwardly worded.
I'm guessing your third question relates to the second, but I didn't understand that one, so the context is lost on me.

If the player is dead, are they brought back as a result of the quest (therefore after the quest is completed as a reward) or before the quest.

If after, you are penalizing the party by making them have to complete a quest AND the dead guy either is on the sidelines or making a second character...and if the dead guy is on the sidelines or using a back-up, who gets the XP from the quest.

If the dead guy comes back before the quest, what happens if he dies on the quest? What if the party fails?

It isn't a simple thing is all I am saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Before, I would see it as a deal being made with the character.

2) Irrelevant for my concept.

3) The entity who made the deal with him is probably going to up the ante, or maybe not show up.

I'm with you, I want consequences for death, but I think they're better placed in the story instead of being mechanical. I would encourage the GM and player to work together to make the sacrifice/quest harder and more difficult the more often death comes up. Perhaps how these trips back and forth are taking a toll on the character, changing them for the worse, but it can all be in the story.

You're right, there are questions to be answered. But just because I haven't answered them all prior to you asking them doesn't mean its a bad idea. The method would rely on a decently written advice section, probably half a column, to be read by player and GM. Like most things in a game, it'll go smoother when they work together instead of being adversarial.

Silver Crusade

So why do people want to trivialize death and make it easier to come back from?


LazarX wrote:
DM Aron Marczylo wrote:
One of the few things my RL DM has done correctly is decided to let us just use GP for the cost of spells like diamond dust for ressurections and many other things, otherwise you run into the issue of having a rotting party member being dragged around to the nearest villiage, which most likely does not have a huge supply of gems to use and crush for the spell.
Your DM isn't more "correct" than one who insists on following the rules text for the material component. He's just taking his Book Given right to invoke Rule Zero. It's an entirely proper move, but that doesn't make a DM who goes by rules text.. "wrong".

sorry I didn't meant it in that term, I was more refering to it's easier with coins than components, but everyone has their own likes and dislikes afterall. No one has a "correct" way to play the game.


Irontruth wrote:

1) Before, I would see it as a deal being made with the character.

2) Irrelevant for my concept.

3) The entity who made the deal with him is probably going to up the ante, or maybe not show up.

I'm with you, I want consequences for death, but I think they're better placed in the story instead of being mechanical. I would encourage the GM and player to work together to make the sacrifice/quest harder and more difficult the more often death comes up. Perhaps how these trips back and forth are taking a toll on the character, changing them for the worse, but it can all be in the story.

You're right, there are questions to be answered. But just because I haven't answered them all prior to you asking them doesn't mean its a bad idea. The method would rely on a decently written advice section, probably half a column, to be read by player and GM. Like most things in a game, it'll go smoother when they work together instead of being adversarial.

i agree with this.

Shallowsoul wrote:
So why do people want to trivialize death and make it easier to come back from?

death is already trivial in the majority of pathfinder groups i know. it's easier to just change a character's name and say it's a twin brother or something.

but some of us, will actually bother to roll up something new. unlike the iconic example of the family of dwarven Decuplets that all seem to be fighters of the same style.

and with weekly william, we actually had, multiple families of dwarven decuplets. and they are all related to a dwarf named Hans. the same Dwarf named Hans.


shallowsoul wrote:
So why do people want to trivialize death and make it easier to come back from?

You're going to need to be more specific.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
So why do people want to trivialize death and make it easier to come back from?

You could test reading the 700+ posts on the subject.

Silver Crusade

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


Shallowsoul wrote:
So why do people want to trivialize death and make it easier to come back from?

death is already trivial in the majority of pathfinder groups i know. it's easier to just change a character's name and say it's a twin brother or something.

but some of us, will actually bother to roll up something new. unlike the iconic example of the family of dwarven Decuplets that all seem to be fighters of the same style.

and with weekly william, we actually had, multiple families of dwarven decuplets. and they are all related to a dwarf named Hans. the same Dwarf named Hans.

So if death is already trivial to some groups then why do we need to trivialize it even more?

I don't allow character clones in my games unless you have a very very good reason and if that one dies then don't even think about trying it again. Depending on the situation, death can be final such as the body having to be left behind and not recoverable.

We usually set aside gold for just such an occasion but if we don't have it then we sell an item that the person carried to pay for the cost of the raise

751 to 800 of 1,171 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 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.