Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

951 to 1,000 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Elamdri wrote:
I typically craft for others for 60% of price.

...and I don't have an issue with that. While I generally craft for cost for the party, making a bit of cash on the side for making people what they want isn't a bad thing. And heck, a 40% price break is awesome, too. Nevertheless, you can expect a passel of posts telling you you're selfish or greedy for taking that 10% as profit: brace yourself.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MarkusTay wrote:
Except for the guy who has to go 'mine diamonds' just to Rez his dead buddies all the time (trying desperately to steer this back).

I know, right?!

Those interested in continuing the crafting discussion might should make a new thread.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, sorry I drifted as well. This has been one of the few threads that seems to stay interesting even in drifts. Everyone seems to be serious about discussing topics rather than just latching onto positions for dear life.

Silver Crusade

Cheeseweasel wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
I typically craft for others for 60% of price.

...and I don't have an issue with that. While I generally craft for cost for the party, making a bit of cash on the side for making people what they want isn't a bad thing. And heck, a 40% price break is awesome, too. Nevertheless, you can expect a passel of posts telling you you're selfish or greedy for taking that 10% as profit: brace yourself.

:)

Well, the way I look at it is that a day I spend crafting for you is a day I can't spend crafting for me. And while I derive a benefit from another party member having better gear, it's not the same as making myself more powerful, which is what the feat is supposed to do. After all, me spending 2 weeks crafting boots of speed for the fighter instead of upgrading my cloak to +3 isn't going to help me when I fail my save vs. phantasmal killer and realize that if I had the cloak, I would have saved.

Also, I typically don't charge the 10% for essentials like cloaks of resistance +1 and +1 weapons/Armor and things for the party, like bags of holding.


I suppose it's fair... but it's a very alien mindset from what we've done.

So: let's make another thread for the crafting conversation!

I'm personally considering making raise dead (though not reincarnate) a creature-specific ability, requiring the summoning/binding of/dealing with creatures to do.

That would make some amount of sense for the 'charge', and also allow it to be waived for purposes of quests for the raiser (probably coming with a free geas).

... at least at lower levels, in my homebrew campaign.

Silver Crusade

I think for my next campaign I might remove the costs from Raise Dead and see how it goes. Obviously it will take some time just to get to that level, but I'm interested to see if it really has an appreciable effect.


I'm thinking of doing something similar at some point. It's a curious exercise to be sure!

Silver Crusade

I'm thinking I might start the campaign at 3rd level so that it's not TOO long before they get 5th level spells.


Sounds neat!
Also, though this shouldn't be a topic here, similar to most (not all) of our 3.5 experience (we often though not always skipped levels 1-2 for getting into 'bigger' stories faster).


I usually start experienced groups at level 3, but when teaching groups of new players (a thing I love to do, for years and years) I start them at level 1 so that they can learn the game before they encounter anything truly dangerous. I just started a game like this last week, and plan on rushing them through the first two levels as soon as I think they are ready.

For instance, the Dawraven ranger is very much looking forward to his wolf companion at level three, so one of his 'quests' lead him to rescue a wolf pup. This will be his wolf when he gets to level three. Since most kids these days are coming from online RPGs, I want them to be fully immersed in the engaging tabletop RP format.

Tacticslion wrote:

I'm personally considering making raise dead (though not reincarnate) a creature-specific ability, requiring the summoning/binding of/dealing with creatures to do.

That would make some amount of sense for the 'charge', and also allow it to be waived for purposes of quests for the raiser (probably coming with a free geas).

... at least at lower levels, in my homebrew campaign.

That is a VERY interesting way to Rez - I may have to steal that. You are basically hiring a 'soul-snatcher' to go grab the dead person back for you. That has some epic traction right there. Kudos.

Silver Crusade

Tacticslion wrote:

Sounds neat!

Also, though this shouldn't be a topic here, similar to most (not all) of our 3.5 experience (we often though not always skipped levels 1-2 for getting into 'bigger' stories faster).

Well, in the group I play in, everyone's played pen and paper RPGs for years. I'm technically the newest in the group. Since that's the case, we'll often start adventures at either 1st, 3rd, or 5th level, depending on how quickly we want to get into higher level play and whether we want to start with "established heroes" or do a coming of age/hero's journey game.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I've leveled lots of heroes from level one, but sometimes you just want to get in there, have a few HD, and not have to worry about being taken out by a max damage longsword attack.

I'm really curious to see how having raise dead be free plays out in the game.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@Tacticslion

Your argument sum up to: "the crafter is spending time off stage so his time is worth nothing".
Great reason to avoid the crafting feats like the plague.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Forgotten Knight wrote:
Anyway I get sidetracked easily. I think a good reason for the cost to bring them back is "payment" to your god. You are using their magic, and they have to have one of their agents ferry the characters soul back to the body, from the land of the dead, and you do have to pay the ferry man right?

2 copper pieces. The only problem is that you have to track down Charon to pay him for the job. :-D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MarkusTay wrote:

I usually start experienced groups at level 3, but when teaching groups of new players (a thing I love to do, for years and years) I start them at level 1 so that they can learn the game before they encounter anything truly dangerous. I just started a game like this last week, and plan on rushing them through the first two levels as soon as I think they are ready.

For instance, the Dawraven ranger is very much looking forward to his wolf companion at level three, so one of his 'quests' lead him to rescue a wolf pup. This will be his wolf when he gets to level three. Since most kids these days are coming from online RPGs, I want them to be fully immersed in the engaging tabletop RP format.

With the big differences between archetypes within the same class and the customization possibilities through feats I think that learning the ropes of your characters from level 1 is a good idea in Pathfinder.

Silver Crusade

Forgive me for returning to the crafting argument and going off topic, but one thing I wanted to point out that I forgot to mention:

one of the problems I've had in the past with crafting is what to do with other players while someone is crafting.

I've literally played in games where someone spent 2 in game weeks crafting an item for another player, while the rest of the party went off adventuring, and then came back two weeks later and argued that the crafting player shouldn't receive a share of the experience and loot from the adventuring because he didn't participate. That's what I think actually gave rise to the 10% tax for me.


Elamdri wrote:


Forgive me for returning to the crafting argument and going off topic, but one thing I wanted to point out that I forgot to mention:

one of the problems I've had in the past with crafting is what to do with other players while someone is crafting.

I've literally played in games where someone spent 2 in game weeks crafting an item for another player, while the rest of the party went off adventuring, and then came back two weeks later and argued that the crafting player shouldn't receive a share of the experience and loot from the adventuring because he didn't participate. That's what I think actually gave rise to the 10% tax for me.

They shouldn't get a share of the experience / treasure from an adventure they weren't on. They should, on the other hand be paid for their crafting efforts. A good reason for it not to be "at cost" too...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cheeseweasel wrote:
As for the diamond thing? Well, to be honest, I never gave it any thought: it's just the way the spell was written. If I WERE to give it some thought (like now, lol) I'd say that the flat 5K cost should probably be adjusted to 1K/HD of the raisee, and that that 1,000 could be broken up into a number of items, not just a diamond, not just gems: how about an object d'art appropriate to the temple doing the raising? Etc.

1,000 gp level is high.

Let's look the different spells costs:
- reincarnate: oils worth 1,000 gp
- raise dead: diamond worth 5,000 gp
- resurrection: diamond worth 10,000 g
- true resurrection: diamond worth 25,000 gp

If I were to change the costs I would first decide for what levels those costs are appropriate.
- reincarnate: available at level 5
- raise dead: available at level 9
- resurrection: available at level 13
- true resurrection: available at level 17

If we take those levels as an indication of the level at which the cost is "appropriate" we could get:

- reincarnate: 1,000/5 = 200 gp/level
- raise dead: 5,000/9 = 555, let's say 500 gp/level
- resurrection: 10,000/13 = 769, let's say 750 gp/level
- true resurrection: 25,000/17 = 1470, let's say 1,500 gp/level

Not bad numbers.

Now how we justify that cost? Instead of asking for a diamond or oils the payment is something that will strengthen the faith.

So it could be building a shrine or a church, crating a work of art for the local church or even doing a unpayed mission (we are back to the quest, but now it is not the single option).
This way the penniless bard with a great charisma can write an epic on a faith hero. Pricing that can be done on the basis of the earning from profession and perform check, possibly with some synergy between the two. It will require a lot of time to pay the church, but it could be done "off stage" from the main game, with the bard working at his poem in his free time.
On the other hand the wealthy merchant could commission a great architect for the monument remembering his daughter returning from the death thanks to the help of Adabar, while the well to do farmer could pay for a "ex voto" (you see plenty of them in catholic churches, remembering divine help).

A crafter could make a magic item for the church or giving his spellcasting services to them.

Even when the caster is one of the party members you would be required to pay the faith, not the cleric, for your return from the dead. At most the cleric get to decide what is a appropriate fee.

Maye this is a better option than paying a straight fee to the gods?

Edit:

At this point if the target don't get the miracle (i.e., for some reason he stay dead) the other guys would only pay for the basic spellcasting, not the additional "fee" for the miracle. [note: miracle is used in the colloquial meaning of the term, non in reference to th actual spell)

Silver Crusade

R_Chance wrote:
They shouldn't get a share of the experience / treasure from an adventure they weren't on.

and I actually agree with that, but the example was my counter to a point that was made earlier, which was that it was inconsiderate or greedy to charge party members to craft for the party, because the crafter benefits from the rest of the party having better gear.

Therefore, my counter argument was that if the craft is stuck crafting while the rest of the party is out leveling and gathering loot, which they aren't going to share with the crafter, then the crafter should be compensated for their services. It's not fair to force the crafter to craft loot for the party while the rest of the party gains experience and loot and then argue that they shouldn't have to compensate the crafter for the lost opportunity that he gave up to make loot for others.

Liberty's Edge

We really should move the crafting stuff to a new thread. It is a good discussion, but it doesn't belong here.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

1,000 gp level is high.

Let's look the different spells costs:
- reincarnate: oils worth 1,000 gp
- raise dead: diamond worth 5,000 gp
- resurrection: diamond worth 10,000 g
- true resurrection: diamond worth 25,000 gp

If I were to change the costs I would first decide for what levels those costs are appropriate.
- reincarnate: available at level 5
- raise dead: available at level 9
- resurrection: available at level 13
- true resurrection: available at level 17

If we take those levels as an indication of the level at which the cost is "appropriate" we could get:

- reincarnate: 1,000/5 = 200 gp/level
- raise dead: 5,000/9 = 555, let's say 500 gp/level
- resurrection: 10,000/13 = 769, let's say 750 gp/level
- true resurrection: 25,000/17 = 1470, let's say 1,500 gp/level

Not bad numbers.

I suggested something similar a few pages back, iirc. It works well for my main concern: making raise dead available (though still a major sacrifice in relation to WBL) at low levels, but I think high-level characters are used to having a relatively cheap (in relation to WBL) option for returning. A per-hit-die fee raises the costs for high-level characters considerably and might make death a little too much of a speedbump in their eyes.

The idea of resurrection or true resurrection being available at low levels also bothers me a bit, but when you add in the spellcasting fee and the difficulty of finding a 17th-level cleric when there's not one in your party, it probably wouldn't actually be a realistic possibility in most cases.

Personally, I'd be okay with keeping the costs as they are now and simply making reincarnation a more party-friendly option by replacing the monstrous races with some of the non-core PC races. The chance of coming back as a goblin or troglodyte dissuades me from taking the chance on rolling the dice on that one; I'd rather stay dead.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A wizard crafting for himself can make himself slightly more powerful. A wizard crafting for the fighter can make himself slightly less dead.


MarkusTay wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

I'm personally considering making raise dead (though not reincarnate) a creature-specific ability, requiring the summoning/binding of/dealing with creatures to do.

That would make some amount of sense for the 'charge', and also allow it to be waived for purposes of quests for the raiser (probably coming with a free geas).

... at least at lower levels, in my homebrew campaign.

That is a VERY interesting way to Rez - I may have to steal that. You are basically hiring a 'soul-snatcher' to go grab the dead person back for you. That has some epic traction right there. Kudos.

Thanks! Mostly I got it right out of the discussion on this thread. :)

Also, guys, new home for the crafting discussion. Please use it for that. Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

[

Also, guys, new home for the crafting discussion. Please use it for that. Thanks!

We already had that discussion a few times, you could resurrect one of the old threads.

@Joana: what do you think of the alternate way to pay, instead of the straight payment in gold/diamond?


Diego: those are some pretty nice numbers, actually, and a pretty decent way of handling it. We're still ultimately (given Sean's assertion about WBL) talking about a future loan from ourselves (at least with too much dying), but it works and makes reasonable presumptions about the cost of the world at large, too.

One other element for raising the dead via outsider/costs involved: it's very likely that the outsiders actually use the stuff they're given. That street paved with gold? Well, the gold had to come from somewhere...


Diego Rossi wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

[

Also, guys, new home for the crafting discussion. Please use it for that. Thanks!
We already had that discussion a few times, you could resurrect one of the old threads.

... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh, than do that!

I only made a new thread because the discussion continued here!

Shadow Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:

Now how we justify that cost? Instead of asking for a diamond or oils the payment is something that will strengthen the faith.

So it could be building a shrine or a church, crating a work of art for the local church or even doing a unpayed mission (we are back to the quest, but now it is not the single option).
This way the penniless bard with a great charisma can write an epic on a faith hero. Pricing that can be done on the basis of the earning from profession and perform check, possibly with some synergy between the two. It will require a lot of time to pay the church, but it could be done "off stage" from the main game, with the bard working at his poem in his free time.
On the other hand the wealthy merchant could commission a great architect for the monument remembering his daughter returning from the death thanks to the help of Adabar, while the well to do farmer could pay for a "ex voto" (you see plenty of them in catholic churches, remembering divine help).

A crafter could make a magic item for the church or giving his spellcasting services to them.

Even when the caster is one of the party members you would be required to pay the faith, not the cleric, for your return from the dead. At most the cleric get to decide what is a appropriate fee.

I like this. I will probably use this. Probably in conjunction with the "barter with the supernatural agent rule" with the default payment reflecting scaled-by-HD values.


In my 1st ed. game I just severely limited the clerics capable of casting the 7th level resurrection spell ( you need a 16th level cleric for that spell).

I discovered that while the players still had the 1 day per cleric level for raise dead (party cleric is about 11th now) to lend them a sense of urgency. they still needed to have the corpse "mostly intact" for the spell.

They have told me that knowing that only 3 clerics capable of bringing their hero back from being fed into a dwarven chipper shredder are on the continent, and knowing that two of them are not on talking terms with the heroes after they sorta kinda...wiped out a stronghold both sides wanted...

...they used an earth elemental to help a volcano erupt...overkill ensued.

It made them think thrice before doing something that could get them killed. They really valued their characters lives.

That last 16th level cleric? She is a cleric of Chauntea, I lectured them on the values and virtues of the circle of life...and being part of the compost cycle thereof...for 18 in game hours!

Yes a 12th level druid or magic user could cast reincarnation...but who really wants their prized character come back as a badger...or a kobold?

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
A wizard crafting for himself can make himself slightly more powerful. A wizard crafting for the fighter can make himself slightly less dead.

Of course, as discussed in other threads, a player fully focused on optimization might pick the slight personal power increase, since death is tending more and more towards being a little more than a minor inconvenience.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
@Joana: what do you think of the alternate way to pay, instead of the straight payment in gold/diamond?

It's similar to what's been done in several of my group's games: a quest or significant service to the temple or deity's cause. To the extent that it doesn't actually impinge on mechanics or gameplay, however, I doubt it would be acceptable to those who want a significant cost to returning from the dead, particularly if it's the kind of thing that could be put off until after the end of the party's current urgent quest -- and hence never come into play in the campaign at all if it's a one-off for the characters.

Would the one paying for the raise be the dead guy or his friends? You have a wealthy merchant paying for his daughter's raise; is the bard charged with creating the epic the raisee or the guy who carried his friend back to the temple? Does the cleric arrange for the dead guy's friend to do them a favor, or is there some sort of negotiation process with the soul itself at the point that the spell is cast and it can't return without agreeing to some sort of geas?

Another option I've seen for consequences for returning from the dead I've seen in one game was, in addition to the monetary cost, the DM enforced an alignment shift on any PC who got raised to the alignment of the deity's temple that raised them, and I think that was going too far. I wouldn't feel like I was really playing the same PC anymore but some sort of Stepford clone. It would give NPC clerics a good motivation to agree to raise people, though, as they'd basically be adding to their flock and spreading their deity's worldview.


What about making an atonement an alternate cost... giving more variables to the idea (in case they can't afford it), but not enforcing it?


Kthulhu wrote:
A wizard crafting for himself can make himself slightly more powerful. A wizard crafting for the fighter can make himself slightly less dead.

What if I put that extra gold towards things that increase my survivability? Boots of teleport or even a cloak of resistance +5 will help a ton for survivability.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
What about making an atonement an alternate cost... giving more variables to the idea (in case they can't afford it), but not enforcing it?

Hm, 5th-level spell, no material cost. So you're saying, if you don't have the 5,000 + 450 casting fee, you could pay 450 for the raise, 450 for atonement and the PC voluntarily become part of the deity's flock if the soul agrees to return under those conditions? I ... kind of like that, actually. It's passively-aggressively heavy-handed in a way that would make my CG characters furious. ;)

Problems: What if the dead PC is already a follower of that deity and thus has nothing to bargain with? Also, when there's an RP condition to a mechanical option, it exacerbates any differences of opinion over alignment; just look at all the paladin threads. What if the player gradually returns the PC to his old alignment via his actions, thus bypassing the supposed "cost?" Would he die again, or would he simply be unable to act un-NG (or whatever alignment)?

EDIT: johnlocke90, there's a separate thread for the crafting discussion now.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A question for the guys supporting the summoning of outsiders or similar entities as a way to raise the dead.

How would you manage the scrolls of rise dead? You would substitute them with planar binding/planar ally scrolls?

And who will be the main guy raising the dead? The cleric with planar ally or the wizard with planar binding?


As far as I understand it, technically, they're still using the spell Raise Dead, it's just that the IC explanation of how it actually works that's different.
So a scroll of Raise Dead (which includes the 5000gp cost already) would be an IOU from an entity capable of returning the dead to life, be it the deity itself or some other powerfull being, and it's still the cleric who's reading the scroll, or someone with sufficient ranks in UMD.

As an aside, in my home brew campaign there's something known as a Diamond Heart, a traditional wedding gift for the very well off.
It is a magical, heart-shapes jewel (usually a pendant) consisting of a large diamond in a platinum setting rimmed with tiny saphires and inscribed with a single word. Touching the heart to a dead being while speaking the inscribed word will return the being to the land of the living.
Take a wild guess at the pricing ;)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's a video game called Dark Souls.

It's difficult. No, it's insanely difficult. It's relentless. It's trying to kill your character every 5 sec. It's mostly succeeding. It's cursing/poisoning/bleeding you and not telling you how to cure that. You see the "YOU DIED" screen dozens times a day.

Now, it has death penalty, but it's of the "lose currency and go back to the last checkpoint" variety. I like that. I'm dinged a bit, but I'm not screwed over. The game isn't telling me "suffer well", it's telling me "try harder".

Now that's a bit like 3E death, isn't it? But there's a major difference.

In Dark Souls, every death is *your* fault. You're too slow. You're too fast. You're too careless. You wander through a dangerous place with your defenses down. You attack recklessly and you open yourself for riposte. You didn't observe and figure out the bosses' attack pattern before going in. You're wearing the wrong gear. You made a basic mistake in building your character. You didn't notice the trap.

All that sounds familiar, yes? These are common causes of PC death in RPGs.

But there's more.

In an RPG, you might die because your team mates made a mistake. Because they suck at tactics. Because one of them is an Oracle/Sorecer/MT and the other is a low STR high CHA Barbarian/Cavalier. Because they don't know about the Big Six. Because they OMG ROPERS HAVE A STR DRAIN TENTACLES HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW IT MRRRRGHBLLLLZLZLE! Because one of the players is your significant other who doesn't optimize and has a poor grasp of combat, but loves the game anyway and you won't risk a "honey, you suck at D&D" discussion and the possibility of sleeping on the couch.

You might die because of a scythe crit. Because of random encounter table giving you a CR 10 Black Dragon against an APL 6 party. Because of *insert any 1E/2E arbitrary "if you turn left, you die, no saves" Gygaxianis. Kthulhu and all you 1E/2E grogbeards, get your rose tinted glasses off, this stuff sucked.*

You might die because the GM has a bad day, and in a fit of losing the ever-elusive fairness of GM'ing decides to SCREW YOU ALL, DIE. Or perhaps decides to *there are 3 Flame Drakes in this adventure, what's wrong with the 4th one?*.

In D&D, you might die because of a whole array of causes that are not fault of your own. Some of them are totally unfair and leave you sitting there frustrated, because your beloved PC is dead of no your own fault.

Now, do we really need to shove a pointed stick up your posterior at this point, or is docking you some gold pieces and game time needed for "fall back and raise dead" more than enough?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But there is a fairly significant difference.

In Dark Souls the narrative thread of the game is that you never actually die. All those times you went back to the checkpoint, the narrative of the game was that you never actually died. In game, the hero did everything without dying.

That type of narrative flow doesn't work in a 4 player table top game. Your death doesn't just result in a rewind. It actually happened, in the narrative.

So now rather than erasing history, we are dealing with an event in the narrative.

Let us plug that narrative into Dark Souls. Suddenly the hero isn't really all that impressive. He's actually kind of lame. He achieved heroic status largely by repetition after repeated failure. The bad guys can only win if he gives up, as he is functionally immortal.

This is my concern.

Table top is different from video game. The narrative of video game ignores failure. Table top incorporates it.

If you remove failure from the game, you disrupt the narrative and you risk the character becoming what your hero in Dark Souls actually is when you incorporate the many deaths into the narrative.

Not so much heroic as persistent.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

But there is a fairly significant difference.

In Dark Souls the narrative thread of the game is that you never actually die. All those times you went back to the checkpoint, the narrative of the game was that you never actually died. In game, the hero did everything without dying.

That type of narrative flow doesn't work in a 4 player table top game. Your death doesn't just result in a rewind. It actually happened, in the narrative.

So now rather than erasing history, we are dealing with an event in the narrative.

Let us plug that narrative into Dark Souls. Suddenly the hero isn't really all that impressive. He's actually kind of lame. He achieved heroic status largely by repetition after repeated failure. The bad guys can only win if he gives up, as he is functionally immortal.

This is my concern.

Table top is different from video game. The narrative of video game ignores failure. Table top incorporates it.

If you remove failure from the game, you disrupt the narrative and you risk the character becoming what your hero in Dark Souls actually is when you incorporate the many deaths into the narrative.

Not so much heroic as persistent.

You missed my point by a mile. My point was that in Dark Souls (as in most video games), character death is always the result of player's action. And that holds true for most single player games. You lose because of your own fault, except for cases of faulty game design.

In D&D, character death is sometimes (and actually, quite often) the result of somebody other than the player. Grumpy GM, inefficient co-players, whoever wrote 3.5 Xanesha, THOSE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS INVOLVED.

Is it fair to punish me harder just because the guy I'm playing with and having great fun isn't a turbo optimizer and when we got hit by incorporeal undead he didn't know he's supposed to use that magic axe? Is it fair to punish me harder because the GM fails @ CR balance and just tossed out an impossible fight? Is it fair to punish me harder because of scythe crit? Is it fair to punish me harder because we're playing an adventure where Greg Vaughan and Sir Pett made a bet on who's going to write the more deadly one (and both being Magnificent Bastards, they didn't write that on the cover?).

Really? That's not "gritty and heroic", because D&D is not a gritty game, and lying in the gutter to suffer the morbid consequences of your death is not really heroic either. There are RPGs out there that are voyages into metaphorically (and sometimes physically) slashing your own wrists (WFRP? Kult? WoD? Half the indie game market?). D&D isn't one of them. It's a game of you "I died, sigh, there goes the pocket money, raise dead please!". Lying in the gutter and agonizing over the morbid consequences of your character's death isn't part of D&D paradigm.

Whenever I join a game and hear the GM go "raising dead is impossible in my world and healing is very difficult, apart from that it's normal D&D" I walk away, because the GM has clearly no idea what D&D is.

Liberty's Edge

Gorby I got your point, but a) I don't think it is true video game is less random and b) even if I did I don't think it over rides destroying the narrative.

Death in video games is often random. Damage is often randomly generated on the same principles as die roll. It is even more random, I would argue, as there is no GM making sure the combat is "fair" and/or fudging rolls along the way.

Death in video games I would argue more often has less to do with skill than it does of foreknowledge of that random trap that killed you last time.

Only you don't really care that you died when you are playing solo because no one saw it, and in the narrative it doesn't matter.

When you are playing a video game in a group Leroy Jenkins would like to speak to you about random and not your fault.

But in a video game setting, character verisimilitude isn't a particularly high priority, IMHO.

I do think that is a goal of table top gaming, I do think creating a "realistic" narrative story is a large part of the goal. This is why we spend all the money on setting books and APs.

I think making death meaningless will lead to more Leeroy Jenkins type situations, where why the hell not just not pay attention and charge in, we can just raise later. Why be chicken?

Liberty's Edge

Also, for the 100th time NO ONE IS SAYING RAISE DEAD SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE OR EVEN ALL THAT HARD.

Just that it should have a lasting consequence, like it did in 3.5.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You're still missing (or avoiding) my point. Why impose harsher penalties for the actions of others at the table? Why make people suffer more for not their own faults? Are we playing a game to have fun, or is it some kind of shared self-mutilation experience?

Why promote conflict? If my PC dies because the GM miscalculated the CR system and got a level 16 Fire Giant Sorcerer against a level 6 party and my character dies (true story), should I go "hrrrmpppppfffff It's OK, I have money for raise dead, no biggie" or should go "oh you bloody bastard, because of your failure at math I have now to endure negative levels"?

If my GF's character dies because she's not turbo excellent at D&D, should we just go "oh happens, we'll raise dead you" or shall I go "honey, you're a double burden now, not only you can't play this game AND now you're docked in negative levels so we can't go on through the Caves of Cadavers...maybe some knitting for you tonight?".


How many lives do you get in Pathfinder?

In old school 1st. you get however many times your constitution was when you first rolled up your character.

You have a con of 15?

Your 16th death is the final one...raise dead...resurrection...reincarnation...heck even wish...all count...

Can't keep a fair count? Thats okay, the con score goes down for each time you get brought back...although to be honest I've only had to use that for two players in 20 or so years.

If Pathfinder gives you infinite lives...I can see the issues here.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:

You're still missing (or avoiding) my point. Why impose harsher penalties for the actions of others at the table? Why make people suffer more for not their own faults? Are we playing a game to have fun, or is it some kind of shared self-mutilation experience?

Why promote conflict? If my PC dies because the GM miscalculated the CR system and got a level 16 Fire Giant Sorcerer against a level 6 party and my character dies (true story), should I go "hrrrmpppppfffff It's OK, I have money for raise dead, no biggie" or should go "oh you bloody bastard, because of your failure at math I have now to endure negative levels"?

If my GF's character dies because she's not turbo excellent at D&D, should we just go "oh happens, we'll raise dead you" or shall I go "honey, you're a double burden now, not only you can't play this game AND now you're docked in negative levels so we can't go on through the Caves of Cadavers...maybe some knitting for you tonight?".

First, it isn't imposing harsher penalties, it is keeping the existing penalties from 3.5, or actually in what I've proposed less than was in 3.5.

Second, the entire game is conflict. Things hit you with spells that either cause negative effects or remove hit points that could remove you from the game entirely.

Conflict is the basis of the game. If your GF gets hit by a monster, do you raise her AC so she doesn't get hit?

OK, so do I sometimes with my wife...but that isn't where the baseline of the game should be if you want it to be challenging and interesting to play over the long haul.

Am I against a nerfed version for new players. No.

Am I against making the stories as interesting as watching my buddy play Dark Souls? No.

The fact that bad things sometimes happen is why you are so happy when you successfully avoid them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

He means inter-player conflict, not inter-character conflict.

Liberty's Edge

In his example, the GM screwed up. The GM should find a way to fix the screw up and fortunately, since the GM has that power, the GM can.

The other players didn't dock her anything if that is the rule. It isn't a conflict at the table, if anything she is grateful other players at the saved her at all.

That is exactly what happened in 3.5 and I never remember anyone ever resenting the party for bringing them back because they got a negative level.

Ever.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Just pointing out that inter-player conflict is NOT the basis of the game.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

In his example, the GM screwed up. The GM should find a way to fix the screw up and fortunately, since the GM has that power, the GM can.

The other players didn't dock her anything if that is the rule. It isn't a conflict at the table, if anything she is grateful other players at the saved her at all.

That is exactly what happened in 3.5 and I never remember anyone ever resenting the party for bringing them back because they got a negative level.

Ever.

For every you with your approach to what others do at your table, there's one Icyshadow. :)

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
ciretose wrote:

In his example, the GM screwed up. The GM should find a way to fix the screw up and fortunately, since the GM has that power, the GM can.

The other players didn't dock her anything if that is the rule. It isn't a conflict at the table, if anything she is grateful other players at the saved her at all.

That is exactly what happened in 3.5 and I never remember anyone ever resenting the party for bringing them back because they got a negative level.

Ever.

For every you with your approach to what others do at your table, there's one Icyshadow. :)

Only when you don't screen your players :)

It is much easier to remove a penalty nerf your table to taste than to season it for spice.

Liberty's Edge

Also Icyshadow is Shallowsouls Doppelganger, not mine :)

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Just pointing out that inter-player conflict is NOT the basis of the game.

But I don't see any inter-party conflict. Just rule enforcement.

Nearly everyone agree removing gold cost or penalties to the party for bringing you back would be a reasonable if not good change.

Where the disagreement comes in is if death should continue the historical standing of having more impact than a simple status effect. If you remove the impact, you change the narrative of the game, and frankly of the world.

Suddenly everyone is a highlander.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Only if everyone can get the spell cast for them.

951 to 1,000 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 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.