# Raise Dead now costs 5000 GP!



## atra2 (Jun 30, 2003)

Aie! Fortunately this can be houseruled in home games. (it annoys the heck out of me for RPGA Living Campaigns. You might as well set fire to a character who dies prior to 5th-6th level. He could have 5000gp by 4th level maybe, but wouldn't be buying any items, increasing his chance of death...)

With Raise Dead at 5000GP, Resurrection at 25000GP, and
many home game DMs being notoriously cheap on wealth,
why didn't they just delete the spells, and move them to the
DMG as a "monty haul" campaign option?

Feh. I can understand if there's an increased gold cost for
coming back with no loss of level or something, but for the
first available Raise Dead-type spell to be 5k.. sheesh.


----------



## atra2 (Jun 30, 2003)

*Oh yeah, the link...*

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45270&perpage=30&pagenumber=25

(control-f (find) for "5000" to find WotC_Andy's post)


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Jun 30, 2003)

Works for me.  Make it 50,000.  Raising the dead should be a miracle of religious faith, not something you pick up at Wal-mart.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jun 30, 2003)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *Works for me.  Make it 50,000.  Raising the dead should be a miracle of religious faith, not something you pick up at Wal-mart. *




if it wasn't so riduculaously easy to get killed in d&d i might agree.  As is though one crit or one failed save and your toast all too often.  The absurdly high offense and low defense of the game almost necesitates relativly easy access to raise dead spells.


----------



## BeauNiddle (Jun 30, 2003)

It takes you  down a level so it makes sense that it removes a reasonable proportion of that levels cash.

Makes sense.


----------



## Tsyr (Jun 30, 2003)

BeauNiddle said:
			
		

> *It takes you  down a level so it makes sense that it removes a reasonable proportion of that levels cash.*




No, that logic really doesn't make any sense. I mean, make it cost whatever you like, I don't care, I can house rule all I like. But don't try to justify it with convoluted logic. "I get weaker, therefor I get poorer" doesn't make any sense. I can only marginaly stomach the "I get weaker, therefor I get dumber" bit that happens when you loose feats, skills, or mental ability boosts.


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2003)

They should remove the costs and level loss altogether.  In fact, remove the spells and just add a reset button provided a player yells, "Save Game!" at the top of his lungs every so often...


----------



## bwgwl (Jun 30, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *if it wasn't so riduculaously easy to get killed in d&d i might agree.  As is though one crit or one failed save and your toast all too often.  The absurdly high offense and low defense of the game almost necesitates relativly easy access to raise dead spells. *



or a DM who doesn't like to kill PCs.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 30, 2003)

How much did it cost before?

I've never played in or run a game where you could buy it.


----------



## ForceUser (Jun 30, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> *How much did it cost before?
> 
> I've never played in or run a game where you could buy it. *



A diamond worth 500 gp in 3.0. this change is...well, ouch. I sense a lot of rolling of new characters in 3.5 vice raising them from the dead. The Wal-Mart approach to resurrection might seem to cheapen the loss of life, but it seems to be a necessary balancing factor of a truly deadly combat system. This change could make it tougher for DMs to maintain continuity in their campaigns due to a revolving door of player characters.


----------



## Emiricol (Jun 30, 2003)

I'm all for it.   I don't really care how lethal the game "is" (as if that's an absolute), it ought to hurt to come back from the dead.   

Some groups may well play meat-grinder style campaigns, and they can certainly Rule Zero it.  For the rest of us, I think it puts life and death in a much better perspective.

So, I think making it cost more is a good idea, and about damn time.


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 30, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, that logic really doesn't make any sense. I mean, make it cost whatever you like, I don't care, I can house rule all I like. But don't try to justify it with convoluted logic. "I get weaker, therefor I get poorer" doesn't make any sense. I can only marginaly stomach the "I get weaker, therefor I get dumber" bit that happens when you loose feats, skills, or mental ability boosts. *




Convoluted? The game is balanced based upon a level/gp value pair. Determining appropriate encounters for a 1st level character with 20,000 gp values would be ridiculous, just to take an extreme example. I'm willing to be this was one reason high-level combat broke down so easily.

As to the flavor argument, resurrection is a precious resource worth about as much as someones life. 5000 gp seems like a viable value.

You seem to have confused the rules and flavor and thus are inhibited in your appreciation of both.


----------



## MojoGM (Jun 30, 2003)

Hi,

Besides the 500 gp of the spell, I assume the actual CASTER of the spell would charge, in a HEFTY donation to the church or whatnot...

I have two characters who just perished and are going to be looking to be raised...I'm going to let them, but oh, there will be a cost....not 500...but not 5k each either...somewhere in-between.

I'm thinking 3000 gp each and a service for the church for each character.

That should do it.


----------



## Tsyr (Jun 30, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *You seem to have confused the rules and flavor and thus are inhibited in your appreciation of both. *




I am not "confused" about anything, thank you. This isn't even about "flavour". It's about logic. 



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Convoluted? The game is balanced based upon a level/gp value pair. Determining appropriate encounters for a 1st level character with 20,000 gp values would be ridiculous, just to take an extreme example. I'm willing to be this was one reason high-level combat broke down so easily.*




I'm not willing to bet that. 

In any event, yes, the game is balanced on a level/GP pairing. But unless you are meticulously carefull, you're never going to have *exactly* the level of treasure that the books suggest for your level anyhow, your group will normaly be a little above or below it. So there is some definetly leeway in the calculation, leeway I think could be used here.



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *As to the flavor argument, resurrection is a precious resource worth about as much as someones life. 5000 gp seems like a viable value.*




That's another arguement alltogether. I don't allow resurections in my game at all, outside of miracles or epic (As in Heroic, not Epic Level) quests. Though I'm going to be starting up a Ghostwalk game, so that will of course change a bit.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 30, 2003)

Welcome to "Wal-Mart" character creation instead of "Wal-Mart" resurrection.

I expect that this rule will be an almost universally negative change.

Player of any pre-8th level character who just died (of course, post-8th level characters may have died to death effects and consequently may need the 10kgp Resurrection so only the cause of the conversation is likely to change before 12th level): So, if I don't raise my character, what level do I start as?

DM:
A. Average party level.
Player: No problem; new character for me. Why lose a level and all my gold/equipment when I can start a new character at the average party level?

B. Average party level -1
Player: No problem; new character for me. Why lose a level and all my gold/equipment when I can start a new character at the same level without losing all his equipment and being almost certain to die again?

C. Average party level (or -1) and no equipment.
Player: Can I have my old character's equipment? (Of couse, this means the new character should be designed along the lines of the old character or the equipment won't be useful).

D. No, you can't have your old character's equipment.
Player: Gee, this is fun. I'm lower level than the rest of the party and I have no equipment. Why don't I just fall on my sword right now and save us all the trouble?

E. First level. We're Old Skool here.
Player: Neat. I'm Old Skool too. I'll just hope that a wounded kobold manages to make it past the rest of the party's fireballs and great cleaves so I can actually contribute to the adventure--well actually so I can roll my dice. Considering that the party wizard is probably a more dangerous melee combatant than my new 1st level (whatever), I can't pretend that killing a wounded, non-levelled kobold is actually a "contribution."


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 30, 2003)

I'm definately in favor of the change... raise dead/res/etc were just too damn cheap for me.

Will we see a lot more new characters? Probably yes, and I'm all for that too.

Raising should not be expected, it should be a miracle. If my character dies, I don't want it to be, "Of course I'm going to get raised!!" I want it to be, "Wow, you guys have the funds to raise me, that's really cool, thanks guys, hehe I'll want to see the look on the BBEG's face when I'm back in town."

If your game is too deadly to you and your dm's taste, then maybe tone it down a bit. If the save or die spells are what's teh problem, I completely understand that- and I personally think that's more of the problem.

For those who like meat grinders, house rule it back. But I like party's being cautious, thinking things through... and the extra cost to raising helps that along.


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 30, 2003)

Perhaps you should clarify your definition of logic. On mechanical/gamist assumptions of balance, this change is pretty logical. Unfortunatly, assuming that there is leeway, the orginal version of this spell only works if we assume that parties are usually rather severly underfunded given their level.

By using narrative terms such as 'poorer' and 'weaker' you are most certainly making a flavor argument.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jun 30, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> This isn't even about "flavour". It's about logic.




No it isn't.  It's about rules.

Logic breaks down in both sub-atomic and d20 systems.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> D. No, you can't have your old character's equipment.
> Player: Gee, this is fun. I'm lower level than the rest of the party and I have no equipment. Why don't I just fall on my sword right now and save us all the trouble?




Um...because you don't _have_ one.


----------



## Tsyr (Jun 30, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *By using narrative terms such as 'poorer' and 'weaker' you are most certainly making a flavor argument. *




I am most certainly not doing any such thing. "poorer" and "weaker" are quantifiable states of being that can be compared to the prior state of existance.



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Perhaps you should clarify your definition of logic. *




Fine. By "logical" I mean anything that has a logical, *in game* reason for it to happen. This is not the same thing is flavour! But I've never heard a good explanation offered up by WotC as to why characters actualy get dumber when they loose a level, for example. It's pure mechanics. 



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *On mechanical/gamist assumptions of balance, this change is pretty logical. Unfortunatly, assuming that there is leeway, the orginal version of this spell only works if we assume that parties are usually rather severly underfunded given their level.*




No, it doesn't. It works either way.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 30, 2003)

GOOD.   Raise dead was way too cheap before.
A ten-fold increase is surprising, but it's too early
for me to say that it's too much.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 30, 2003)

The mechanical assumptions are only balanced if one assumes that no characters below 7th level are raised and that the churches responsible for the Raise Dead spells accept items in exchange for the spell at full price.

Below 7th level, assumed starting gold (for the level) -5000 is significantly less than the assumed starting gold for the character's new level.

If one does not assume that PCs get full price on trading in their items for the spell, then it is likely to have a real cost of 7,500gp or so as the character has to sell items at half value in order to buy the material component. At that point, it lacks mechanical balance until 8th level--possibly 9th depending upon the item/cash ratio in the campaign.

And all of that assumes a standard wealth campaign. The only one of those I've ever played in was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Most others were significantly below standard wealth (and I've also noted that a lot of DMs tie up all of the wealth they hand out in a few really neat items--a practice that would prevent selling some but not all items to pay for the Raise Dead).



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Perhaps you should clarify your definition of logic. On mechanical/gamist assumptions of balance, this change is pretty logical. Unfortunatly, assuming that there is leeway, the orginal version of this spell only works if we assume that parties are usually rather severly underfunded given their level.
> 
> By using narrative terms such as 'poorer' and 'weaker' you are most certainly making a flavor argument. *


----------



## Liolel (Jun 30, 2003)

Ouch just Ouch. Remind me to never die, I don't think that if you sell every last peice of equipment on my body that with the half price it would barely equal 5000. So I'll be suffering a level loss and loosing all my good equipment. A new character is cheaper.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jun 30, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Fine. By "logical" I mean anything that has a logical, *in game* reason for it to happen. This is not the same thing is flavour! But I've never heard a good explanation offered up by WotC as to why characters actualy get dumber when they loose a level, for example. It's pure mechanics.




Anyone else reminded of the _Simpsons_ episode with Lucy Lawless as Xena?  "Anytime you see something like that on the show...a wizard did it!"


----------



## Zogg (Jun 30, 2003)

What a bunch of whiny babies! I for one am GLAD they are raising the price - it provides more of an incentive for people to 

a) stick together
b) respect the cleric 
c) role-play properly - MOST people die and NEVER come back. Coming back to life shouldn't be the standard, even for adventurers. It should be an amazing, show-stopping experience for both the party and the individual.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 30, 2003)

Maybe the PCs should be more respectful of the monsters they face? That should reduce deaths. In many years of DMing I have yet to see the mentality of the players where they respect the dangers they face.

Ever tried to capture a group of PCs? It is almost impossible to do. They fight even when overwhelmed (unless you go ridiculously overboard...you see 15 ancient red dragons around you).

As for options on character death you forgot: -1 level below the lowest member of the party. That one is mine. (But I do equip the guys based on their level at least).

Death SHOULD be costly. Otherwise it cheapens it. Reward isn't appreciated without equal risk. Risk becomes transparent if there is no penalty for failure.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jun 30, 2003)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> *
> As for options on character death you forgot: -1 level below the lowest member of the party.*



I knew a DM who used this rule once.

The party consisted of one 8th-level PC, one at 10th level, and a few others at 11+. After the guy at 8 got himself killed and came back a level higher, they decided it wasn't a very good rule.


----------



## Tsyr (Jun 30, 2003)

Zogg said:
			
		

> *What a bunch of whiny babies! I for one am GLAD they are raising the price - it provides more of an incentive for people to *




Nice to know you don't *just* insult big buisnesses... Though now you don't have the excuse that you are insulting a corporation to back you up...



			
				Zogg said:
			
		

> *a) stick together*




We do. We still die.



			
				Zogg said:
			
		

> *b) respect the cleric *




That assumes there is a cleric. Or that he isn't the dead one. Or that we just plain don't die anyways, which we do.



			
				Zogg said:
			
		

> *c) role-play properly - MOST people die and NEVER come back. Coming back to life shouldn't be the standard, even for adventurers. It should be an amazing, show-stopping experience for both the party and the individual. *




Thank you for correcting my (mistaken, I guess) assumption that "role-playing properly" involved no resurection. I thought it had more to do with staying in character for the setting you were in, and stuff, but I guess not.


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 30, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *The mechanical assumptions are only balanced if one assumes that no characters below 7th level are raised and that the churches responsible for the Raise Dead spells accept items in exchange for the spell at full price.
> 
> Below 7th level, assumed starting gold (for the level) -5000 is significantly less than the assumed starting gold for the character's new level.
> 
> ...




Yes, a tradeoff obviously had to be made based upon assumptions of when the spell would see the most use. It is much easier, both in terms of time and fun invested, to roll up a new low-level character than a high. The major abuse comes in with the huge wealth values of high-levels, so the trade-off is worth it.

And Wotc can't be responsible for balancing the particular parameters of a home game. My pbp game most certainly uses standard wealth, or atleast to as great a degree as possible. I don't 'hand out' items, i just give them gold based upon EL.


----------



## ZSutherland (Jun 30, 2003)

I'm of two minds on this.  On the one hand, making it too costly (and therefore prohibitive) for characters to return to life has the ability to really foul up my DMing.  The players aside, I hate it when I have something planned a few sessions down the line, be it a tough combat scene or just a particular NPC bent at a particular PC and I can't make it happen because the player skipped the game, character dies, or player makes a new character.  If I don't have a firm idea what kind of PC's I'm dealing with, it makes it hard to map out a story to everyone's best mutual enjoyment.  An increased difficulty in raising will certainly make this a more frequent frustration of mine as players die and either can't get raised or decide it's more cost effective or beneficial.

On the other hand, I'm trying to teach my players some valuable lessons.  This is our first real no holds barred campaign, and while the PCs have been having no trouble when they plan and prepare for a hard fight, they've had a few character deaths when they just charged in.  I want to teach them to prepare, scout, and be tactically aggressive, taking advantages where they can get them.

So, I don't want the headache of constantly intigrating new characters, but I don't want death to be a non-issue for them.  For now, it hasn't been because 2 deaths in 6 weeks is probably 100 times more than they're used to, but I can see  it becoming so shortly.

Z


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 30, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am most certainly not doing any such thing. "poorer" and "weaker" are quantifiable states of being that can be compared to the prior state of existance.
> 
> ...




Actually, that is the same thing as flavor. The logic depends on certain assumption that you are inclined to make conscerning the nature of your setting/world. The price of ressurection/raise dead would come under this. 'Poorer' and 'Weaker', especially in the context you used the, have a QUALITATIVIE element. Whether or not a relationship is logical depends heavily on the 'nature' of those variables.


----------



## Tsyr (Jun 30, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, that is the same thing as flavor. The logic depends on certain assumption that you are inclined to make conscerning the nature of your setting/world. The price of ressurection/raise dead would come under this. 'Poorer' and 'Weaker', especially in the context you used the, have a QUALITATIVIE element. Whether or not a relationship is logical depends heavily on the 'nature' of those variables. *




If I had a 19 str, and come back to life with an 18, I am *weaker*. 

If I had 5500 gold, and now I have 500, I am *poorer*.

If I had a 12 int, and now I have 11, I am *dumber*. (Yes, I get the irony of that word use).

These comparisions have nothing to do with the flavour of the world I am in.


----------



## King_Stannis (Jun 30, 2003)

atra2 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> With Raise Dead at 5000GP, Resurrection at 25000GP, and
> many home game DMs being notoriously cheap on wealth,
> ...




I agree - I've never been a fan of resurrection other than DM designed fiat. At some point there has to be an assumption of risk on the player's end. After listening to how some characters are resurrected 2 or 3 times it just makes me wonder how that can be any fun. There is almost no ultimate risk. 

If the DM wants to bring a character back as part of some miracle or plot device, then that's fine - every once in a while. Other than that just move on and start rolling up your next one.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 30, 2003)

I don't understand all this "a new character is cheaper" mentality - what about what is invested in the character itself?  What about the role in the group the PC plays and its role in the on-going story?  

Is it not possible the other PCs will chip in to pay for it - or actually have to struggle to raise the money somehow?

These are the kinds of choices I make based on the character.  

1) Does he want to come back from whatever after-life?

2) Will I have fun playing another character or still playing the same character?

3) Does it make sense in the context of the campaign for the character to return?  

Etc. . . 

Personally, I think anything that makes deaths more permanent and raising more difficult is okay in my book from the sense of it not being cheapened - but at the same time when it comes down to it is not coming back to life worth that extra effort?


----------



## Chun-tzu (Jun 30, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> I knew a DM who used this rule once.
> 
> The party consisted of one 8th-level PC, one at 10th level, and a few others at 11+. After the guy at 8 got himself killed and came back a level higher, they decided it wasn't a very good rule. *




If he was two levels lower than everyone else, he was probably the weakest character and it's little surprise that he died. Compounding that problem (by making him even lower level) isn't going to help.

But if that kind of thing is intolerable to the group, it's easy enough to add an addendum: a new character can't be higher level than the dead one.


----------



## Zogg (Jun 30, 2003)

I love it when my posts are broken down into bite-size chewable pieces. Really, I do. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Nevertheless, TSYR, your point has been made. DMs can rule either way - ie., no resurrection as in your case or running a game where raise dead is "free!" and nobody ever REALLY dies. But that does not negate the fact that for those of us that actually plan on following the core rules, 3.5E will make dying and raising dead/resurrection more of a game-shocking moment. And role-playing will be enhanced, clerics will be respected more and hopefully the party will stick together instead of pretending to be in a race for XP/GP. 

Wow. I feel like I'm repeating myself. Why yes - I am! Oh - I forgot one thing. Those people that disagree with the raise in price are whiny powergaming munchkin babies.  INSULT!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 30, 2003)

Cheap and painless ressurrection ruins any suspension of disbelief I can muster.   "Oh I'm the epic hero Throkk...I've been ressurrected 5 times..."  Blah.    What a great idea for 3.5...I'm stealing it for 3.0!


----------



## Zappo (Jun 30, 2003)

I don't much care about the price increase for Raise Dead. The level hit was nasty enough; the monetary loss is just an added pain.

I _like_ the huge price for Ressurrection, though. I _loath_ the idea of getting back from the dead with no penalties, even with 9th level magic.


----------



## youspoonybard (Jun 30, 2003)

Andy just gave the reasoning on the WotC boards, if you want to hear their side of the story.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 30, 2003)

In my opinion, best rule ever. Wait 'til you see true resurrection.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 30, 2003)

Asked how the cost was determined:



> That's an excellent question.
> 
> We pegged the new prices to be roughly 10% of a typical character's wealth at the level when a cleric could cast the spell.
> 
> ...




I like it.  Coming back from the dead was way to easy.  25k -- ouch!


----------



## Gizzard (Jun 30, 2003)

To the people saying 8th level characters won't be able to come back from the dead:

At what level do you think characters should first have access to raise dead -type magic?  And what effect would it have on the rest of the world?

To me, it's silly that a first level character might be able to be raised for 500G.  If 500G were the cost of performing a miracle, imagine all the mayors, wealthy merchants or even popular commoners who'd be able to afford being Raised.  Think about it; no one able to collect 500G would ever die of sickness or accidents again.  And they wouldn't be mewling about how unfair it is that they had to sell all their stuff (or even hock themselves into indentured servitude for 5 years!) in order to afford Raising - they'd do it and be happy about it.  

But, back to the beginning, at what level do "heroes" become truly important enough that they deserve to be raised?


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 30, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If I had a 19 str, and come back to life with an 18, I am weaker.
> 
> ...




Ah, so it is a mechanical argument. May i then ask what makes this illogical, assuming no narrative or simulationist conscerns?


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 30, 2003)

I don't know why they make changes like this, changes that hurt role-players and don't even incontinence hack-n-slashers.

When a character your're attached to dies, you want to bring him back, and will play him, level-loss and all.  This change makes it harder to stick with a character.

When a hack'n'slasher's character dies, they roll up a new one.  No powergaming campaign I've ever played in has seen any rasing magic cast.

Raising magic in my campaign is _free_, and does not cause level-loss, because I want to _encourage_ staying with one character rather than discourage it.


----------



## Destil (Jun 30, 2003)

3d6 said:
			
		

> *I don't know why they make changes like this, changes that hurt role-players and don't even incontinence hack-n-slashers.
> 
> When a character your're attached to dies, you want to bring him back, and will play him, level-loss and all.  This change makes it harder to stick with a character.
> 
> ...



Roleplayers should be using the Power Components variant for raising the dead, IMHO. Nice story hooks (and side quests), there...


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 30, 2003)

The problem with that is you tend to have a session or two where one player may as well not show up as you quest for his ressurection.

Anything that's not fun is bad by default.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jun 30, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> To me, it's silly that a first level character might be able to be raised for 500G.  If 500G were the cost of performing a miracle, imagine all the mayors, wealthy merchants or even popular commoners who'd be able to afford being Raised.*



No one is saying that a first-level character should be able to afford it. (Even if he could, the spell would fail, because the level loss would bring him to 0 HD.) The issue is that with the increased cost, even a party powerful enough to cast the spell would likely be unable to afford the material component.

Mentioning commoners here is a red herring. Your average commoner earns 1 silver piece per day. Even if he had no living expenses, he'd have to work 7-day weeks for 136 years in order to earn enough for a single 3E _raise_. Once the price is raised to 5000 gp, he'd better be an elf with a strong work ethic.


> [snip]*And they wouldn't be mewling about how unfair it is that they had to sell all their stuff (or even hock themselves into indentured servitude for 5 years!) in order to afford Raising - they'd do it and be happy about it.*



Yeah, if they were real people living in a real world, they'd be happy. If they were players, participating in a game that's supposed to be fun, it's clear that some of them would be rather annoyed.

As I read this thread, it seems that everyone happy about the change is a DM. Do any players like the idea of 5000-gp _raise dead_? Or is this another change that lets "hardass" DMs screw their players, and annoys everyone else?


----------



## Kurtz Tote (Jun 30, 2003)

You just need more necromancers running in your groups.  When somebody dies, they just get animated so you don't have to worry about trying to raise or resurrect them.  If the necromancer is quick enough on the draw, the question won't even come up.


----------



## Nail (Jun 30, 2003)

3d6 said:
			
		

> *The problem with that is you tend to have a session or two where one player may as well not show up as you quest for his ressurection.
> 
> Anything that's not fun is bad by default. *




It's true that death sucks.

No bones about that.  The problems stem from the "believability" of your games.  Part of the fun we're talking about here is from immersing yourself in a world that "makes sense".  Cheap _raise deads_ tend to make the world make less sense.  As always, YMMV.

The idea of rich commoners (or aristocrats or merchants or what-have-you) being able to easily access resurrection.....stretches things a bit, don't you think?

Expensive resurrection magicks make sense, and are a good core rule.  Don't like it?  The house rule forum is just a click away.


----------



## Nail (Jun 30, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> No As I read this thread, it seems that everyone happy about the change is a DM. Do any players like the idea of 5000-gp raise dead? Or is this another change that lets "hardass" DMs screw their players, and annoys everyone else? *



This is just Troll-Bait(tm).

FWIW, I'm a player, and I like the change.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 30, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *To the people saying 8th level characters won't be able to come back from the dead:
> 
> At what level do you think characters should first have access to raise dead -type magic?  And what effect would it have on the rest of the world?*




Honestly, I don't think that characters much below 10th should have an expectation of access to any sort of Raising effect.

IMHO, the high end of availability to Raise effects is that they just typically aren't for sale.  The Cleric gets it at 9th level.  Either don't die before then or make sure the right people owe you a favor.

The low end of availability is that Raise effects are typically not for sale.  Strike Resurrection and True Res from the books and move Raise Dead to a 9th level spell with a 25,000 gp component.  Same guidelines as above.

Somewhere between the two, in my mind, is an option that makes it available for a price from the right people.

I think it stains credulity that in a game of 4 PCs there would be more than one Raise of some sort between them in 20 levels of play.  For six PCs, I could see two.

Ideally, I think that Raises should be viewed a lot like having an artifact in your game.  Stories should be told about how you were once involved in a game that included a Raise -- and it wasn't done cheesy or anything.

Of course, given the realities of this being a game where dice or a DM's judgement can give out and cause a pretty pathetic death, the 3.5 revision is a reasonable compromise.


----------



## Pax (Jun 30, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *No one is saying that a first-level character should be able to afford it. (Even if he could, the spell would fail, because the level loss would bring him to 0 HD.) The issue is that with the increased cost, even a party powerful enough to cast the spell would likely be unable to afford the material component.*




What should have been done, is, in the spell description, simply note that churches/temples/etc typically require a LARGE additional donation to the faith, before they even *consider* petitioning for a character's return from death.

That would have reinforced Andy's stated intent (make the spell be cast more often by the party Cleric) actually HAPPEN.

If the coin cost is levied no matter WHO casts it ... then what does it matter if the party cleric casts the spell, of Father Bob back in town does?

That said -- in general, I dislike it, and I'm not going to use it as-is.  I'll bump the material costs up to those levels *in the case of cast-for-hire*, but not for PC clerics casting it on their friends.  The extra expense will be a donation to the faith, too, so PC clerics won't be making mad profit raising people from teh dead at cut rates.


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 30, 2003)

> No bones about that. The problems stem from the "believability" of your games. Part of the fun we're talking about here is from immersing yourself in a world that "makes sense". Cheap raise deads tend to make the world make less sense. As always, YMMV.



Not really.  My campaign simply assumes that anyone who can afford a 5th level spell will never die for more than a few days until old age claims him.  Actually, because some churches cast spells in exchange for favors, there are theocracies where even normal people never truly die until old age.

The world just makes different assumptions about death, and the people of my world have a different attitude about death.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 30, 2003)

ZSutherland said:
			
		

> *So, I don't want the headache of constantly intigrating new characters, but I don't want death to be a non-issue for them.  *




Note that the spell has a material component; normally, when one casts a spell or has a spell cast on one's behalf, one provides the component. There is, however, nothing that says that is an absolute rule.

In other words, somebody else can pony up the diamond dust for the PCs. Naturally, the PCs would then owe that person a rather sizable favor. 

Me, I'll call that a "plot hook to be named later". 

But then, I'm fond of the terms imposed by Sagiro to return a PC to life in his campaign.



			
				3d6 said:
			
		

> *The problem with that [Power Components] is you tend to have a session or two where one player may as well not show up as you quest for his ressurection.*




The way to get around that is to have the church doing the raising/resurrecting have the power components they need to raise Joe PC on hand. The PCs (including just-back-from-the-dead Joe) then get to quest to replace those components, somehow. 

If the PCs are often going to that church for resurrections, then they may consider such quests as "paying in advance."


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 30, 2003)

Nail said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> FWIW, I'm a player, and I like the change. *




Seconded.

Primarily a player, and like the change.

In the campaign I have been playing in since 3.0 came out I count 14 character deaths with only one Raise Dead. And that was not something the characters sought, it came about as part of an ongoing plot.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 1, 2003)

Reading Andy's "reasoning" on the changes takes away what little faith I had in his game design abilities.

1. "It's not special"

This is the second time this justification shows up (the first time was in the "keen and Imp Crit" don't stack fiasco) and it's no more convincing than it was the first time. I don't care what Andy Collins thinks is "special" or "not special."

And the change doesn't make getting raised more "special" it makes it more punitive. As far as I can tell, special in this context means that raising the dead is either rare or a plot device.

What will determine the frequency of raise dead and/or resurrection in a game are the death rate and policy on replacement characters. Any campaign with frequent death will have either frequent resurrections or frequent character replacement. A campaign with 

As far as the relative commonality of raising NPCs--village mayors, etc goes, there are two answers. 1. This depends upon the assumptions that you make about the clerics in the region. According to the 3e PH, for instance, Raise Dead costs 950gp (450 for the casting, 500 for the material component). If the commoners could get Raise Dead for 500gp then you've already assumed that good clerics (and maybe neutral or evil clerics) are accustomed to casting their spells for free. Assuming that commoners have even that kind of gp on hand also assumes that non-adventuring NPCs have at least a significant fraction of the property value as adventuring NPCs. If they only have 1/10th the property of adventuring NPCs of the same level, they won't generally be able to afford it--even at 3e prices. (That analysis excludes characters obviously much more wealthy than even PCs of the same level--such as the merchants and nobles who buy, sell, and trade magic items with the PCs--they will be able to afford Raise Dead even at 3.5e prices)
2. As others have pointed out, it depends on the assumptions you make about death. There's no reason, for instance, to suppose that many NPCs want to come back. PCs who are raised are obviously the driven types who want to complete their tasks on Oerth (or Faerun) and change the world. That could be very unusual.


The other possibility for making Raise Dead "special" would be the requiring of quests as can be seen in Sagiro's story hour or Nemmerle's story hour. 

The cost of a raise dead spell has little to do with either the frequency or the plot device factor of raise dead. The price increase won't change the frequency of PC raise deads much--it'll just make it cost more when PCs elect to raise an old character instead of creating a new one. It won't explain why NPCs don't get raised more--explanation wasn't necessary for commoners to begin with and it will still be necessary for the wealthy folk. And a price increase doesn't make raising the dead into a plot device.

2. "Everyone goes back to town and gets True Resurrection cast."

This statement makes me wonder how often Andy plays D&D and who he plays it with. In all my time playing 3e, I've seen only 2 True Resurrection spells cast. I've never played in a campaign where there are enough 17+ level clerics running around that True Resurrection is commonly available--even for people willing to shell out the money.

Furthermore, the incentive for a PC to cast the spell--taking no time out of the adventure--is not increased by the change. In fact, it is decreased. By 9th level, it was fairly easy for characters to aquire a 500 gp diamond to carry with them. 5000gp worth of diamond dust is a much more significant investment that is much less likely to be made. Thus, the PC cleric on the field is less likely rather than more likely to have the material component available after the change. And I haven't yet heard of any cleric that prepares Raise Dead when going out to adventure. It's even less likely to occur now that the material component is less available. Consequently, raising dead will still usually mean interrupting the adventure or continuing on with a bored player wether PCs or NPCs actually do the casting.

If Andy actually wanted to change the frequency in which the spell is cast and its "specialness", he should have given it a cost for the caster or had it include a Quest for the raised individual.

If he actually wanted to make it more likely for PCs to cast it rather than for it to be cast by NPCs, he should have increased the price of NPC spellcasting. (spell level squared times caster level times 10gp would have done the trick).

If he wanted to make Raise Dead into the kind of thing that PCs could cast on short notice and continue on with the adventure (note how his point 2 conflicts with point 1 "specialness" here), he should have left the material costs alone.

Whatever one may think of the change, Andy's "justifications" are just plain silly.


----------



## Agback (Jul 1, 2003)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *Raising the dead should be a miracle of religious faith, not something you pick up at Wal-mart. *




It _is_ a miracle of religious faith. But you _also_ need a 500 GP diamond from Wal-Mart.

And I never liked that. If a god wants somebody raised, it ought to be able to do that, not need a honking great gemstone.

As for commercial resurrection, the economical approach was always and still is to build a wondrous item that grinds out a fixed number every day. According to the table on p 242 of the DMG a_Mitre of Raise Dead x5 per day_ will cost 250,000 worth of diamonds, 40,500 worth of other materials and services, 81 days of effort from a cleric of at least 9th level who knows 'Craft Wondrous Item', and personal mana from the cleric amounting to 3240 experience points. At the recommended price for such a cleric's time and bits of his soul, the cost to the god/cult would be the equivalent of 331,000 GP.

Five 'Raise Dead's per day, six days per week, comes to about 1,560 raisings per year. That would only be a prospect for a large cult, even in a dangerous D&D world. Figuring a life expectancy of 30 years, you would need a population of nearly fifty thousand Faithful to need that many raisings. But for any cult that can scrape together the wherewithal, what a wonderful thing it would be to be able to Raise any member of member's child who died prematurely!

Supposing a very generous 10% per annum real return on capital, making a _Mitre of Raise Dead_ would cost the cult that did so approximately 21.2 GP per Raising, which I don't doubt the Faithful would be happy to pay, either 'per service' or on a contributory basis of, say, 10 SP per year. That is, providing the cult can get the volume of turnover. For a smaller cult that nevertheless has the means to make such a piece of ecclesiastical headgear, it must be very attractive to Raise the worshippers of friendly gods provided that they help to amortise the investment.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 1, 2003)

3d6 said:
			
		

> *The problem with that is you tend to have a session or two where one player may as well not show up as you quest for his ressurection.
> 
> Anything that's not fun is bad by default. *




Maybe, but 'easy' does not equal 'fun'.   I couldn't stand playing in a game where there was zero risk.  Do you not let your player's fail on a quest because that wouldn't be fun?  If you are going to make coming back from the dead a trivial experience, why bother to let them die in the first place?  

As a player and especially as a DM, I'm grateful for anything that lowers the power-level of the game.  It's much easier for me to cut a player some slack on a 'raise dead' because he just got unlucky than it is to jack up the price for someone who keeps dying through poor play.

You'll get far better results with  your group if you charge them half of list price in an especially deadly campaign than if you charge them double because you think coming back to life is too commonplace.

This holds true for all the moaning and gnashing of teeth over the changes in 3.5.  Tis far, far easier (and preferable, in my opinion) to keep the core game relatively tame (re: crits, spell DCs, whatever) and let the DM loosen it as they see fit, than to start with a game halfway over the top to begin with, and expect the DM to reign it in.  This also makes it much easier for inexperienced DMs to run a game without one powergamer running rampant.

As an aside, whenever we had a resurrection quest, we had the player whose character had died DM the adventure.  It gave them something to do, it helped them gain experience as a DM, and it gave the regular DM a chance to play for a change.  Plus, in our experience, the player-turned-DM would come up with really epic stuff because they wanted their character's rebirth to be special.


----------



## 3d6 (Jul 1, 2003)

> Maybe, but 'easy' does not equal 'fun'.



"Needlessly punitive" doesn't equal "fun" either.


----------



## Agback (Jul 1, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *No one is saying that a first-level character should be able to afford it. (Even if he could, the spell would fail, because the level loss would bring him to 0 HD.)*




No. According to the spell description _Raise Dead_ does work on 1st-level characters. It reduces their Con instead of their level.



> *Mentioning commoners here is a red herring. Your average commoner earns 1 silver piece per day. Even if he had no living expenses, he'd have to work 7-day weeks for 136 years in order to earn enough for a single 3E raise.*




Only if he was a member of a poor or stupid religion. Cults with more than a thousand members and that responded rationally to their opportunities had wondrous items that could be amortised by charging about 35 _silver_ pieces for a _Raise Dead_.

Of course, things could be very different if the GM Rule Zeroed ridiculously cheap wondrous items.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 1, 2003)

3d6 said:
			
		

> *"Needlessly punitive" doesn't equal "fun" either. *




And 10% of a character's wealth is hardly punitive.  It doesn't even reach the level of hardship if you spread it out amongst all the party members.  And since, as DM, you control the level of wealth in a game, you control the rate at which the party would recoup their losses.

Heck, I pay the government 35%, and that doesn't buy me a 'get out of the afterlife free' card.


----------



## Chimera (Jul 1, 2003)

Gee, I might have to raise my price?

I use a completely different economic system and scale in a moderately low-magic, low-money world.  A _Raise Dead_ costs about the same as a +2 magic item, quite a bit for a lower level party to come up with, quite a bit more than 500gp in normal economic terms.

But I also limit _Raise Dead_ through the various religious sects and their practices.  Most will only raise their followers.  Some won't raise Adventurers.  Some (more of the evil ones) won't raise anyone but an important follower.  Some simply can't do it.  (I do spell lists for each sect)

Of those who do, the price varies wildly, depending on a lot of different variables, such as the sect, the cleric you ask, your reputation, etc.

Depending on the religions of the characters in the group, they may be all fired up waiting for their own (PC) cleric to be able to cast it.


----------



## Willtell (Jul 1, 2003)

*10%?*



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And 10% of a character's wealth is hardly punitive.  It doesn't even reach the level of hardship if you spread it out amongst all the party members.  And since, as DM, you control the level of wealth in a game, you control the rate at which the party would recoup their losses.
> 
> *





The pc's we usually play with typically have only 500gp in coin each, the rest is in armor, weapons and other magical items. To raise a character "we" would need an extra 3950gp, which we would have to raise by selling 7900gp worth of goods - bringing the cost to 9900gp.

That assumes the pc's body has not been looted before it was recovered, or that in raising the cash pc's are not selling +2 (or more) items like armor or weapons which they need to replace with +1 items before they go adventuring again.

As for the "Everyone goes back to town and gets True Resurrection cast." reason. When one character dies we always leave and get the pc raised or get a replacement pc. A 5000gp component for raise dead won't change that.


----------



## rhammer2 (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: 10%?*

I always treat magic items as commodities, so the players can usually get 80-90% market price if they sell quickly. Full value if they take time and find the right buyer. I just can't imagine treating a magic item like a used sword.



			
				Willtell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> The pc's we usually play with typically have only 500gp in coin each, the rest is in armor, weapons and other magical items. To raise a character "we" would need an extra 3950gp, which we would have to raise by selling 7900gp worth of goods - bringing the cost to 9900gp.
> ...


----------



## Agback (Jul 1, 2003)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> *Heck, I pay the government 35%, and that doesn't buy me a 'get out of the afterlife free' card.   *




And that's just Federal direct tax. Add in indirect taxes, state and local taxes, and it comes to quite a sum.

But: that's a tax on your income, not a tax on your wealth. If I had to pay a 10% tax on my wealth (with the interest rate where it is) it would be the whole of my income for more than five years.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Numion (Jul 1, 2003)

IMO resurrections are good for the game. If a player is attached to his character, he should have a way to play it, regardless of deaths. From another POV, I don't see much advantages in permanently destroying characters. 

Of course some players would abuse this, and start to act recklessly, but luckily my players have avoided that. Strange, since they aren't great roleplayers. But they _are_ very pissed when their characters bite the dust. In this way we have it good - players can keep playing their characters (if they want to, which they don't generally after 1 or 2 raises) and death isn't cheapened greatly. 

In general I guess the change is pretty neutral for me. More expensive resurrections make it harder for players, but also make the world more believable by answering most of the questions "why this or that wasn't resurrected?". Because it would cost the royal treasure chamber.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re*

I was contemplating changing the requirements for coming back from the dead for a long time. It was to the point in our campaign that everytime someone died, they would want to go to a big metropolis and obtain _True Ressurection_ since all in all it was only about 7 k gold. Not to much when you are looting everything in the dungeon, hauling it out on horses and in magical carrying items and selling it.

This is a great change. I am glad someone finally pulled the trigger on making coming back from the dead more difficult and costly. This is one of my favorite 3.5 changes.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jul 1, 2003)

I don't have raise dead, resurrection etc. in my game, at least not as spells accessible to clerics and other mortals. It really facilitates my campaign since I can have assassination plots etc. without having to consider the "lets just raise him" solution, and that my campaign world makes a little bit more sense to me.

It only works though because I don't kill off PCs in my game, at least not without a clear warning and a way out ("Do that and you will/may die - want to reconsider?"). 

As far as the reason of this change is considered, I could not care less about Andy Collin's view. Only my and my group's views matter for my campaign, not his ideas of what should be special or not. I have never liked Dungeon Crawls, and don't follow the "Back to the Dungeon!" cry, so balance in my campaign is not centered on dungeon campaigns anyway. 

I have to agree with Rodrigo Istalindir that it is easier to take a strict, limiting game and cut the players a bit slack than to reign in a too-loose campaign, although I still hate the "it is not special enough" reason.


----------



## green slime (Jul 1, 2003)

I like this change too.

5,000 gp is a reasonable price.

OTH, what I'd like to see is some action points, so that the avoidance of death is easier. Some players just cannot seem to avoid death on nearly impossible to miss saves.

1) Dwarven Priest failing Poison save TWICE by rolling 1.
2) Multiclassed Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian doing the same.
3) Failing to tumble away from lethal attackers (needed 4 or better, after level drain)
and the list goes on.

But once dead, I like it to be more "special", more permanent. With no risk of permanent death, the game loses some tension, IMO. YMMV.


----------



## Jeremy (Jul 1, 2003)

I like Andy's rationale.


----------



## Yeoman (Jul 1, 2003)

I like the change quite a bit. I'll be using this in my 3.0 games until we change over.


----------



## hong (Jul 1, 2003)

Might as well post the house rule I use for resurrection (raise dead doesn't exist IMC):

A creature to be resurrected makes a level check (d20 + level/HD), against DC 10. Each previous time it has been resurrected increases the DC by 5, so the second attempt is at DC 15, the third at DC 20, etc. The presence of an expert healer (typically an NPC) confers a +2 circumstance bonus to the roll. If the creature to be resurrected has any levels in an NPC class, the DC increases by 20. There are no level or Constitution penalties for being resurrected, but a creature that fails its level check is forever dead.

You can reduce the DC of the level check by spending XP, at 1000 per -1 reduction. Hence, in the long run, it should end up costing the raised character about 5000 XP per raise.

I'm seeing no reason to change these rules, or use the new material costs.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jul 1, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *If the creature to be resurrected has any levels in an NPC class, the DC increases by 20. *




Care to explain the ratinale behind this rule? It seems to discourage taking, f.e., a level in aristocrat for roleplaying reasons when you want to play a noble.


----------



## hong (Jul 1, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Care to explain the ratinale behind this rule? It seems to discourage taking, f.e., a level in aristocrat for roleplaying reasons when you want to play a noble. *




Basically as a handwave to deal with the age-old "why can't Joe Commoner get raised every time he falls under his plow" question. Death is something that's final for 90% of the population. The remaining 10% are exceptional, and it's from these exceptional people that PCs are drawn.

If you want to play a noble, then you're a noble. You could be a knight (homebrew class based on the OA samurai), if you want to be a fighting noble, or a bard, if you want to be a chatty noble. In the end, your class describes what you do, not what social rank you have.

I _could_ have introduced a wholly noncombat class like the Rokugan courtier, but decided it wasn't really worth the bother. Our group tends to go in for lots of fights, so nobody would have taken it anyway.


----------



## hong (Jul 1, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *OTH, what I'd like to see is some action points, so that the avoidance of death is easier. Some players just cannot seem to avoid death on nearly impossible to miss saves.
> 
> 1) Dwarven Priest failing Poison save TWICE by rolling 1.
> 2) Multiclassed Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian doing the same.
> ...




Check out the new "moment of prescience" spell:

==============
Moment of Prescience
Divination
Luck 8, Sor/Wiz 8
Personal; Duration 1 hr/lvl or until discharged

Once during the spell's duration, you can gain an insight bonus equal to caster level (max +25) on any single attack roll, opposed ability or skill check, or saving throw. Alternatively, you can apply the insight bonus to your AC against a single attack. You can activate the spell at any time, even on another character's turn (it doesn't take an action). Once used, the spell ends.

You can't have more than one moment of prescience active on you at the same time.

==============

This thing is, in effect, a hero point/action point mechanic snuck into the existing D&D rules framework.

Personally, I might just give _everyone_ this ability, usable 3 times per level or something. No sense limiting it to diviners.


----------



## CrimsonTemplar (Jul 1, 2003)

Here's my problem...I play a lot of Living Greyhawk (I enjoy the region I play in, Geoff, & I like the folks that play there with me).  As any of you who have played LG know, it's a cash poor/XP poor campaign.  The change in cost for Raise/Resurrect is very harsh in that kind of an environment.  I agree that a character's death shouldn't be trivial, but this is overcompensation on Andy Colins and the gang's part.  I really hope that there is some way to mitigate the costs of these spells in the campaign.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 1, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *Might as well post the house rule I use for resurrection (raise dead doesn't exist IMC): *




I thought that when you died, Lord British would teleport you all back to his castle and bring you back to life!

Er, anyway, regarding the cost - our group sets aside a 'group share' from the adventuring profits, which we use to pay for such things.  That way, the raisee isn't doubly hosed.

J


----------



## green slime (Jul 1, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Check out the new "moment of prescience" spell:
> 
> ...




Yeah the ability exists to a limited degree. The psionic power _ Fate of One_, the Luck domain. And the above spell. (where is that from BTW?)

I was considering Level/2 +1 Action points (max 5). Can't save them, and they "respawn" every level. Exactly what you could do, I'd have to think about some more. Rerolling is the obvious choice. Have to reread D20 Modern, I think.


----------



## hong (Jul 1, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I thought that when you died, Lord British would teleport you all back to his castle and bring you back to life!
> *




Well, it's certainly an original way of dealing with TPKs.


----------



## hong (Jul 1, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah the ability exists to a limited degree. The psionic power  Fate of One, the Luck domain. And the above spell. (where is that from BTW?)*




It's new for 3.5E. Check out the first page in the "compiled 3.5E changes" thread.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 1, 2003)

As much as I hate hong... I mean, as much as I hate to agree with hong, if they want to make raising dead "special" having some sort of mechanic to determine if you actually come back or not is the way to go.

If you make coming back from the dead automatic, it really doesn't matter how much you're going to charge for it - dedicated role-players with a good DM will treat it with appropriate respect even if it's (relatively) cheap, more casual groups are never going to treat it as something special anyway. 

Not to mention that most of the proposed "consequences" of death people are so happy about are just different ways of making sure you sit around the table doing nothing because your character is dead, which is not what, in my experience, most gamers are interested in.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 1, 2003)

For guys who want to make Raise Dead special, use the GRR Martin houserule


----------



## Nail (Jul 1, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Reading Andy's "reasoning" on the changes takes away what little faith I had in his game design abilities. *



E-B: I respect your opinions and analysis, but this sort of statement from you would mean a great deal _more_ if you used it a great deal less.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *A creature to be resurrected makes a level check (d20 + level/HD), against DC 10. Each previous time it has been resurrected increases the DC by 5, so the second attempt is at DC 15, the third at DC 20, etc. The presence of an expert healer (typically an NPC) confers a +2 circumstance bonus to the roll. If the creature to be resurrected has any levels in an NPC class, the DC increases by 20. There are no level or Constitution penalties for being resurrected, but a creature that fails its level check is forever dead.
> 
> You can reduce the DC of the level check by spending XP, at 1000 per -1 reduction. Hence, in the long run, it should end up costing the raised character about 5000 XP per raise.
> 
> I'm seeing no reason to change these rules, or use the new material costs.*




That seems like a lot of work. Here's what I'm doing (I haven't had a character who needed raising since I implemented this rule, and the PCs don't know about it yet, since they haven't done any research on the consequences of returning from the dead other than they have been warned that it is an act rife with negative possibilities).

When a character is returned from the dead, the denizens of the underworld get a crack at his soul. Instead of losing a level, the returning individual replaces one of his current levels with a level of the tainted spell caster or tainted warrior prestige class from Dragon 302. The occupying fiend is chosen more or less at random, but is always the most diametrically opposed possibility from the character's alignment (thus, a Lawful Good character would be bound with a demon, while a Chaotic Neutral character would be bound with a devil). Before they return, they must bargain with the fiend as to future advancement, agreeing to advance in the tainted class by at least a certain amount, or the fiend will make the return fail. The bargain required for someone returning via _raise dead_ is harsher than the bargain required for _resurrection_, since the power of the magic is less.

The only way to avoid this consequence is to be returned via _true resurrection_.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 1, 2003)

Well, after reading Andys reasoning, I even started to doubt some of the changes I liked when I first read them


----------



## hong (Jul 1, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> That seems like a lot of work. *




What work? Roll d20 and add your level. The DC is 10 + 5 for each time you've been raised before. Spend XP to get the DC back down again. Easy.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jul 1, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *
> Not to mention that most of the proposed "consequences" of death people are so happy about are just different ways of making sure you sit around the table doing nothing because your character is dead, which is not what, in my experience, most gamers are interested in. *



Exactly! It's a *game*, not a novel. The idea is for everyone to have fun, even if the DM needs to modify his grand vision of a perfectly realistic world simulation.

Some people say "just roll up another character," but that's hardly a trivial operation. We play a single two-hour session per week, and the players IMC are not all experts on the rules. Creating a levelled character, choosing feats and skills, and purchasing equipment, can take as long as an hour. That's half a session that the player is just sitting there flipping pages in the rulebooks, not participating in the *game* that he took time out of his schedule to play. Wasting 50% of your game time for a week is not considered fun.

That's not even counting the extra time that some gamers spend on our characters. We prefer to keep them around, rather than discarding them because of a few low rolls. If my campaign used the 3.5 cost for _raise dead_, my 9th-level PC would have had zero wealth left after his second death. When he rolled yet another natural 1 on a save and died for the third time, Andy Collins wanted me to burn the sheet, trash the backstory, chuck his campaign diary, destroy all the work I ever did on the character, and start the whole thing over? Because he thinks it'd be "special"? Andy must be a real jerk.


----------



## dcollins (Jul 1, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *That seems like a lot of work.*




One of my very few house rules is to use the equivalent rule from AD&D: _raise dead_ requires a Con check, DC 6, to come back.

www.superdan.net/housrule.html


----------



## Al (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm inclined to be critical of the new ruling, though it does have its advantages.

The major advantages is that it does solve the 'Joe Noble' gets raised problem.  Unfortunately, it does not completely solve this.  'Joe Noble' may not be able to be raised; 'Joe Duke' will be able to.  So it merely translates the problem to higher up the wealth table.  Whilst this may sound good, likelihoods are that major plot NPCs are likely to be wealthy enough to afford even the 5000gp raise.  A king ruling one million subjects, who earn an average 1sp/day, and charges a 10% tax rate (pretty gentle...) can afford two raises *per day* (level loss notwithstanding) or a true res every sixty hours.  Of course, his people may have problems with the entire national tax take going to getting him back over and over, but that's not the issue.  A better solution all round is to impose roleplaying restrictions, or alternative preventions of raising- assassins usually carry a scroll of Trap the Soul, or whatever.  

Roleplaying restrictions, of course, have the useful addition of being optional applied to PCs.  This is where I have the major problem with the new rule change.  Essentially, when a character dies, the player can do three things.

1. Roll up a new character.
2. Get the old character raised.
3. Tip the table and dice over, storm out of the room, come back to the room, grab his books and dice, storm out again and never return.

Now, option 3. is a non-starter.  Aside from the fact that players are hard to come by, it damages the table.  So, the availability of raising dead turns into a tension between options 1. and 2.  Here's my verdict: I prefer option 2.

The problem with option 1. is that a character evolves over the course of time.  It builds up experiences, relationships and interactions.  Old friends, old enemies and other long-term character developments are pivotal.  The characters bond as a group.  At low-levels, this is not so problematic.  The exploits of low-level characters are broadly insignificant, and by virtue of not having adventured as long, he has not built up that same NPC network that longer-term, higher-level characters have.

Here's the irony: option 2. favours the roleplayers, but the campaign-world paradigm of easy resurrection can damage the verisimilitude.  Option 1.- the 'revolving door PC', I find more objectionable than 'revolving door death'.  I once had a player to whom death was not a problem so long as he got a better character next time round- sometimes, he would willingly *not* return from the dead since he'd be losing a level and some cash.  It's a difficult choice, but I incorporate roleplaying reasons for not being raised, which the PCs can, if they wish, circumvent.  Conversely, raising is relatively easy to be achieved mechanically.  Ultimately, I'm less bothered by the same PC being raised over and over than the same player generating characters again and again.  Easy raising does damage campaign credibility to some extent- but new characters all the time can tear a whole campaign fabric by stymying long-term plots, annuling old friends and enemies, and rendering all that has gone before an obsolete way of pumping up the PC level.


----------



## Galfridus (Jul 1, 2003)

I hate the idea of some sort of res-check. How much would it suck to fail that roll?

I like the new cost, especially since they are apparently toning down most of the instant-kill spells (and, one would hope, abilities) in 3.5.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2003)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> *I hate the idea of some sort of res-check. How much would it suck to fail that roll?*




That is why I prefer my system. It leaves the question of whether to bring back a character in the hands of the player, but there is a price for the choice.


----------



## Agback (Jul 1, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> *A king ruling one million subjects, who earn an average 1sp/day, and charges a 10% tax rate (pretty gentle...) can afford two raises *per day* (level loss notwithstanding)*




10% is a "gentle" tax take by modern standards (most advanced countries take over 45% when you take all tiers of government into account and include indirect taxes). But it is not "gentle" by ancient, mediaeval, or even early modern standards.

The income tax that got Britain through the Napoleonic Wars was sixpence in the pound (2.5%), and applied only to incomes over 120 pounds per year. It was considered onerous, and promptly repealed when the wars ended (both times). The income tax that got Britain through the First World War started at a shilling in the pound (5%) (and has never been repealed since, only increased).

In mediaeval England there were no taxes in the normal course of things. Taxes were levied only on special occasions such as wars and the knighting of the King's sons and the marriage of his daughters. In the normal course of things that King was expected to run the government out of the income of his own estates. That is gentle taxation!

Now, the King of England in middle and High mediaeval times was the richest king in Western Europe. He ruled about 6 million people, and in the 13th century his income was about 30,000 pounds per year. The wages of an unskilled labourer at this time was about 1.5 pence per day. So the king of 1 million subjects earning 1 SP per day might on the same standard be earning 80,000 GP per annum. But not (principally) through taxes.

This king is very nearly as rich as the one you calculated. But you seem to have got the cost of _Raise Dead_ wrong. If the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Abbot of St Denis don't have _Mitres of Resurrection_ or even _Palliums of True Resurrection_ there is something seriously wrong. And if they do, the King can afford to have everyone who dies in his kingdom _Raised_, provided that the bodies are to hand.

Adds a new meaning to the idea of _Habeas Corpus_.

Now obviously, the amount that a mediaeval kingdom could and would pay up to resurrect a king who died in battle would be comparable to the amount it could and would cough up to ransom one who was captured. For some indication, the English paid a ransom of 150,000 marks (100,000 pounds) for Richard I in 1194, and after the Battle of Poitiers the French agreed to pay (but never managed to raise) 4,000,000 ecus d'or to ransom Jean II.


Regards,


Agback


----------



## Metalsmith (Jul 1, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *I'm definately in favor of the change... raise dead/res/etc were just too damn cheap for me.
> *




Then you're more than welcome to spend More than what it costs to assuage your feelings of guilt.

Just don't expect me to do the same.


----------



## seankreynolds (Jul 2, 2003)

I don't like the change to raise dead's material component cost.

Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.

As for the more powerful spells, sure, raise the cost on those, as they replace the character cost (the lost level) with a $ cost.

This just means that far fewer people are going to be able to get raised.

The core books are supposed to set a _standard_ for what a _typical_ campaign is like. In a world where 9th-level wizards can teleport and 9th-level rogues can sneak attack twice a round for +5d6 damage each time, being able to grab a willing soul and cram it back into its own body isn't that hard.

After all, wizards can use one of their 5th-level spells to force an extraplanar being into a trap until it performs a service (at no $ cost, mind you), and clerics can use one of their other 5th-level spells to get 9+ correct answers directly from their deity, or bring himself and a handful of friends bodily to another plane ... why is it so hard to accept that raising the dead isn't that difficult and is appropriately placed at 5th level without a costly material component?


----------



## Agback (Jul 2, 2003)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *In a world where 9th-level wizards can teleport and 9th-level rogues can sneak attack twice a round for +5d6 damage each time, being able to grab a willing soul and cram it back into its own body isn't that hard.*




Hear! Hear!

Why do people who have no trouble believing in eighty-tonne fire-breathing flying lizards suddenly have trouble believing that in a world stuffed to the gunwhales with powerful magic only the old and poor might be in serious danger from death? Face facts, guys! A society with access to D&D magic is going to be unlike any real society. If you want a game setting that is just like mediaeval Europe but with a smidgin of magic, play _Ars Magica_ or _C&S_.

Besides, if you are worried about cheap _Raise Dead_s, worry about the fact that even with the new rules the market rate for getting a friend or relative back from the dead is still less than 22 GP. The broken rule that needs fixing is still the ridiculously high return on investment in wondrous items that cast a number of spells per day.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## hong (Jul 2, 2003)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> *I hate the idea of some sort of res-check. How much would it suck to fail that roll?
> *




Note that under my system, it's possible to reduce the DC to the point where you can't fail the roll. However, you'll pay for it in XP (but not in levels).

[edit: Also, for more squeamish groups, the res check thing could just be what you need to survive a standard resurrection. If you fail, that could just mean having to resort to _nonstandard_ resurrections, ie quests to recover the soul 'n stuff.]


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 2, 2003)

> After all, wizards can use one of their 5th-level spells to force an extraplanar being into a trap...




This is the sort of logic I was looking for when I asked what level characters people thought deserved a Raise Dead.  

So, 500G was a bit cheap; even a first level party with a couple successful encounters behind them could afford a Raise Dead.  But if first-level characters getting Raised is silly, what level characters should be seriously thinking about getting Raised?



> Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.




Are you saying that there should be no material cost to Raise Dead?  ;-)


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jul 2, 2003)

I hate level loss and won't institute any rule that involves it.

Imc I use a compulsory 'quest' spell on all those ressurected as decided by the cleric in accordance to their religion. While undertaking a 'death-quest' you cannot be raised if you die and if you renege, your link to life can be revoked and again death is unraisable. Plus a material componant.

Pros: No level loss. Can create an adventure hook out of thin air. 

Cons: The quest needs to be significant in difficulty for it to be valued. The quest needs to be compatible with both religion and character. The quest has to be undertaken immediately and this may detract from the campaign plot, best to keep the quest tied to the advancing plot somehow.

I really don't care how expensive the diamonds needed are and so 5000 is ok to me.


----------



## Chimera (Jul 2, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Basically as a handwave to deal with the age-old "why can't Joe Commoner get raised every time he falls under his plow" question. Death is something that's final for 90% of the population. The remaining 10% are exceptional, and it's from these exceptional people that PCs are drawn.
> 
> *




Gee, IMC _Raise Dead_ costs the equivalent of about 20 years of income for Joe Commoner, so it's highly unlikely that his family will be able to, or interested in, coming up with the money.

Solves that problem without special rules.


----------



## green slime (Jul 2, 2003)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *I don't like the change to raise dead's material component cost.
> 
> Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.*




So, would you choose to stay dead, or come back alive a grad student? Not much choice there. Given the commonality of levelled NPCs, raise dead is still fairly common. 

The level loss sucks because it means the adventuring character is far more likely to die again. The average level of the party gets all spread out, and it becomes more difficult to challenge all the players equally.

It would be far better if the game had a system whereby the "heroes" could avoid certain death, (without DM fudges) rather than allowing the return from death be something that is not only achievable, it is expected at a certain level of play. You know sooner or later, your character is going to die, but it matters not.

Death is such a huge part of life, our stories, myths and legends, and yet in this game, it is as meaningless as the porridge the farmer had for breakfast. No Epic quests of legend to defeat death here.

Being raised from the dead isn't heroic. Let the heroes avoid the death, through use of action points or similar. Then should bad misfortune strike, the story and legend of the character can continue, in the memory of the players.



			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *The core books are supposed to set a _standard_ for what a _typical_ campaign is like. In a world where 9th-level wizards can teleport and 9th-level rogues can sneak attack twice a round for +5d6 damage each time, being able to grab a willing soul and cram it back into its own body isn't that hard.*




And you have first hand experience of this?!?! Or is this just an opinion, as valid as others?



			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *After all, wizards can use one of their 5th-level spells to force an extraplanar being into a trap until it performs a service (at no $ cost, mind you), and clerics can use one of their other 5th-level spells to get 9+ correct answers directly from their deity, or bring himself and a handful of friends bodily to another plane ... why is it so hard to accept that raising the dead isn't that difficult and is appropriately placed at 5th level without a costly material component? *




Because it disrupts the versimilitude of my game? Because none of the other examples listed actually cause any player expectations as to how ordinary people live their lives? Because there is then no logical reason why even the moderately wealthy die young? Because so many plot devices and adventures become completely pointless, or at best contrived and ludicrous, after a certain level. 

You can't have a murder mystery, without involving magic in the murder, and once you involve magic, any use of logic flys out the window. Thus the solution of the murder relies not upon the use of logic (as a good detective story) but on how well the player can manipulate the PHB spell section.

IMO, a cheap _raise dead_ cheapens the gaming experience. It stays as is in my Greyhawk campaign, but in my homebrew, returning from the dead is not an option.


----------



## dcollins (Jul 2, 2003)

Agback said:
			
		

> *Besides, if you are worried about cheap Raise Deads, worry about the fact that even with the new rules the market rate for getting a friend or relative back from the dead is still less than 22 GP. The broken rule that needs fixing is still the ridiculously high return on investment in wondrous items that cast a number of spells per day.
> *




Agback, no such item exists in the rules -- and thus no such item exists in the standard campaign world.

You're making an error in thinking that "new items" can be designed at will by characters using the pricing guidelines in the DMG. No such rule provides for that freedom at will. The pricing guidelines in the DMG are explicitly only for "new items" that the DM creates and wants to add to his or her own individual campaign. (More: www.superdan.net/dndfaq3.html )


----------



## HeavyG (Jul 2, 2003)

I don't see why it is so important that all deaths be final.  I mean, sure, it is in real life, but why does that mean that it has to be in a fantasy campaign with teleportation, people flying around and so on  ?

If raise dead really offends someone's narrative sensibilities, would it not be easier just to drop the spell ?

The way I see it, there are already magics able to heal your body and people obviously have no issue with those.  And there are also magical spells of comparable power that manipulate souls from one body to the next, like magic jar.  How is it difficult to accept that in these conditions, raising the dead would not be such a difficult feat ?

Of course, it would mean that people in a D&D world would not view death the same way 21st century terrans do, but how is that a bad thing ?  They would probably have a word to define a state of "near-death", meaning the time the soul lingers around the body (1 day per level I think) and "far death" from which it is very tough to come back.  The important thing about suspension of disbelief is that things be internally consistent, not that they ressemble your real life, right ?  (Well, if you have some degree of imagination, I mean.)

Since adventuring is so deadly and this game is supposed to be in part about developping your character, raise dead has a very real role to play in dealing with bad luck of the dice, which happens pretty often.  So, I don't like this price increase too much.


In the Vlad Taltos series of novels, raises are very easy to get.  But it's also pretty easy to make someone impossible to raise.  This is a better fantasy solution, IMO : Create some ways for intelligent opponents to kill you dead (i.e. unraisable), and make it harder (or impossible) to resurrect people.  Narratively, this means that assassins and sentient opponents who want to kill you are to be feared, but that if your PC is unlucky and gets mauled by a beast after you played him for 8 months, then you won't suffer too much for it.  Much more dramatic, IMO.


----------



## DMauricio (Jul 2, 2003)

*On being raised (kinda long-winded)*



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> ...
> 
> As I read this thread, it seems that everyone happy about the change is a DM. Do any players like the idea of 5000-gp raise dead? Or is this another change that lets "hardass" DMs screw their players, and annoys everyone else? *




I dunno.  As a DM, I'm pretty annoyed at the change in cost.

Why should *every* town have a cleric that can cast raise dead?
This certainly doesn't happen in my campaigns.

In my campaign, the players are the only people with that kind of power level (unless they go to a major city/major temple or somesuch) and even in the event that there is an NPC cleric who can raise party members, its doubtful that they'd simply capitulate to raising a dead party member for only monetary means.

In other games I'm involved in (counting some run as a meat grinder/powergaming campaigns) its rare that we can get raised. Generally due to issues on if there is:
a: a willing cleric able to cast said spells 
b: enough of the characters that the spells work
c: enough money in the group to pay for the cost of spell casting. (not counting material components)
d: character incentive to be raised. We use a house rule that unless the player states his character wants to be raised (prior to said character's demise) they can't be raised. (of course this has meant that there are opportunities where the players WANT their characters raised, but this doesn't happen too often - due to the restraints placed by good role playing.  An example of this is the devout fighter who died mid battle - after accomplishing some deeds. The player decided that the character would not want to be raised... simply due to the fact that he had died in an according manner)


As written, only PC clerics would be able to cast raise dead for 500gp (certainly in the campaigns I've played in) 
And with the 3.5 change, I don't know if this will be happening now. Though until I get a copy of the 3.5 core rules, and run a few sessions using the revised spell, I won't really know.


my $0.02


Dom


----------



## nimisgod (Jul 2, 2003)

I pretty much agree with the change even though I have only just started to allow Raises and Ressurections in my game.

I think its incredibly difficult to balance Leniency vs. Strictness. Especially since the RISK contributes to the FUN of the game.

If Raise Dead is too cheap then there is no real risk to dying. I would hate to play a game where the death of a character is just a drop in a bucket to fix.

I mean, where's the Risk of Life vs. Death in that? I might as well play Diablo or something.

On the other hand, when there is no death, there is the risk of people just twiddling their fingers at the 5th hour of a session and just being bored out of their asses.

I remember playing the Legend of the 5 Rings RPG with a killer GM. It was hard to get attached to a character when its so easy to die. I was lucky to die only once (or twice). Everyone else fared far worse.

I remember my brother making up a character (its a point buy game so takes more time than just rolling up stats) and dying one minute after he entered. Needless to say, that Lion Clan Archer did not accomplish much. 

There's no raise dead or ressurrection in L5R so we just had to make up character after we died. On the plus side, we get to make characters whose insight equal our deceased characters but that's beside the point. 

The Risk of Death (and losing a character we were attached to) kept us "deathly" careful of combat. And those who've played the d10 L5R know how deadly the system is. You're usually only 5 feet away from death via katana (or Oni Claw or Taint or Fire or... you get the idea)

But then, the risk of death made the game fun, just like being scared in a Horror RPG is fun. And Gawddamn... that game was fun...

I am in the camp that says Raising the Dead should be difficult. 

If you like your character so much, then you and the party should be able to raise him back to life regardless of cost. 5000 GP is nothing if your fellow players help out. And you are friends, right?

And if you don't care enough for the character, then make a new one. If you know the GM is damned lethal, make a back-up character before the game. 

In-game Logic means a lot of nothing in an FRPG like D&D. Maybe souls have a special value compared to normal monsters. Who the  cares about the explanation involved when any storyteller/GM can make one up easily. 

After why are clerics good at healing? a cleric of a god of destruction should be good at destroying right? Why is a wizard better at that than a priest of the apocalypse? Is the power accumulated by a mortal better than the divine power placed into a mortal? After all, Gods are better at destroying things than tiny little magi right?

Given the diversity of games and the fact that many gamers use homebrews (or adjust a published world to their liking) the use of in-game logic, IMX, is futile in debate unless you are talking about a untouched published setting.

"Necromancy is evil because its like slavery!"

"Not in my setting! The people there believe that wasting the labor potential of the dead is the real evil!"

"What- ing -ever"

If in-game logic is useless, then there is mechanics. Mechanics only count if they add to the Fun. 

Raising the Dead should cost an arm and a leg at low levels for everyone involved and not just the PC that died. But as the party goes higher in level, these costs are more easily surmounted. 

IMO, a GM giving the PCs a tiny bit of aid (and also adding to the story) for a difficult price can still maintain the fear of death better than a GM fudging rolls (SOFTIE OR FAVORITISM!) or one that makes death goddamn cheap.

Even if you don't have money, there are always allies to beg or use favors from.

The Death of a PC should be a big event, at least IMC.

Some GMs are neurotic enough that they usually won't make a Core Rule hard on the players (Guilty!). They'd rather nerf a rule that is hard on the players. FE, in my 3.0 campaign I wouldn't nerf 3.0 Harm or Haste, even though I think they are overpowered. The alternative could be even more unbalancing and unfun. 

But if I thought that 5K GP was too much, it would be easy for me to reduce.


----------



## hong (Jul 2, 2003)

Chimera said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Gee, IMC Raise Dead costs the equivalent of about 20 years of income for Joe Commoner, so it's highly unlikely that his family will be able to, or interested in, coming up with the money.
> 
> Solves that problem without special rules. *




Substitute "Joe Rich Merchant", then. Same thing.

Furthermore, your insight is lacking. "Joe Commoner being raised" covers a bunch of problems, foremost among them being "the guy we were supposed to capture/guard/keep alive got killed? No problem, we raise him."


----------



## Agback (Jul 2, 2003)

dcollins said:
			
		

> *You're making an error in thinking that "new items" can be designed at will by characters using the pricing guidelines in the DMG.*




Actually, I am thinking that these things can be made by the _gods_. They are consistent with the way magic magic works, and the gods and their cults would surely want them. If the gods are under some sort of special constraint, or if magic works differently in this case, there ought to be some sort of indication in the rules.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jul 2, 2003)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> *I don't see why it is so important that all deaths be final.  I mean, sure, it is in real life, but why does that mean that it has to be in a fantasy campaign with teleportation, people flying around and so on  ?
> 
> The way I see it, there are already magics able to heal your body and people obviously have no issue with those.  And there are also magical spells of comparable power that manipulate souls from one body to the next, like magic jar.  How is it difficult to accept that in these conditions, raising the dead would not be such a difficult feat ?
> 
> ...




I agree.  Dont fear raise dead, work it into your campaign ahead of time so that it will happen.  Most people make characters and develop them so it is natural they want to play them for as long as possible.  Especially if there is an ongoing storyline that has everyone involved.  I dont know why everyone wants to make it so complicated.


----------



## hong (Jul 2, 2003)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> *Of course, it would mean that people in a D&D world would not view death the same way 21st century terrans do, but how is that a bad thing ?  They would probably have a word to define a state of "near-death", meaning the time the soul lingers around the body *




"Mostly dead"



> *
> (1 day per level I think) and "far death" from which it is very tough to come back.  *




"All dead"


Hong "because when they're mostly dead, there's only one thing to do!" Ooi


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 2, 2003)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *I don't like the change to raise dead's material component cost.
> 
> Raise dead is "too cheap"? You lose a _level_. That's a month of play-time.
> *




Exactly - which is something all the people saying "you should be grateful you can come back to life at all" seem to be missing.

I don't care whether my character ought to be grateful for being raised, and how much being alive ought to be worth to him - I'm sure I'd be grateful too if I got hit by a bus and got to come back to life, once more a college student. (Hell, if that was the deal, I'd seriously consider going out to play chicken with a truck... Ah, college...)

What I'm not going to be grateful for is effectively losing a month's worth of character advancement, because that's not an imaginary character's loss, it's _my_ time, my progress that's getting set back, and my time that's being completely wasted as I wait for a Raise Dead or generate a new character and wait for it to be introduced.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 2, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *
> Death is such a huge part of life, our stories, myths and legends, and yet in this game, it is as meaningless as the porridge the farmer had for breakfast. No Epic quests of legend to defeat death here.
> 
> Being raised from the dead isn't heroic. Let the heroes avoid the death, through use of action points or similar. Then should bad misfortune strike, the story and legend of the character can continue, in the memory of the players.
> *




You're forgetting that you only get to come back from the dead (unless we're talking about a 9th level spell, which is not going to be readily available) if your body can be recovered - so going into a fight which has a chance of killing everyone in the party, or of leaving your body in enemy hands is certainly heroic enough.
Same goes for facing enemies who can disintegrate you, burn you to ash, devour you, turn you to stone, turn you into an undead creature, etc.

Yeah, the standard for heroism might be a little different, but even with Raise Dead available for 500 gold, you can still easily end up very permanently dead.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 2, 2003)

"If it wasn't so riduculaously easy to get killed in d&d i might agree. As is though one crit or one failed save and your toast all too often. The absurdly high offense and low defense of the game almost necesitates relativly easy access to raise dead spells."

And this is opposed to what? Chill? Call of Cthullu? GURPS? Shadowrun? L5R? Please tell me about the system by which in comparison it is so tough to get killed.  About the only system I can think of that compares to D&D's player durability is WEG Star Wars.  By and large, it is rather tough to get killed in D&D.  It is so tough to die in D&D that it totally changes the way that D&D players (especially those that only play D&D) approach the game.  Even getting injured in a fight is a pretty significant thing in most other systems.  Once hit in GURPS and you go into a shock cycle from which you are unlikely to recover, even if that first hit didn't cleave you to the floor.  In D&D, you are good to go right down to 0 hit points.  Hack-n-Slash is so definatively D&D precisely because there is a pretty good chance that a reasonably high level party can fight thier way out of anything, so you end up with parties whose solution to anything is to whip out swords and start slashing.  

As others have said, it is almost impossible to impress on the average party that they are outmatched and should surrender or negotiate.  Players tend to fight to the death in every situation.

Raise Dead being an effective repeated solution to party death is a relatively new edition to the rules.  In 'old skool' D&D every time you got raised you not only lost CON, but you had to make a resurection survival check (a type of CON save) to see if you had experienced final death.  Even dying once was potentially grevious to a power gamer, if it meant his CON dropped from 16 to 15 or such.

I am in the camp that says that miracles shouldn't grow on trees, but that is hardly my primary interest.  My primary interest is getting players to act like getting killed is a big deal, not an annoyance, so that they actually try to avoid and start playing a little better.  After sufficient story line gets invested in a character, even I don't want to see characters die so I control the hazards accordingly.  But the last thing I want is a party of six characters with 28 resurrections between them turning my story line into a video game.  

Finally, whenever the DM feels that the character's death was just plain bad luck and the character was worth saving he can always fiat the character back to life through a plot device and coming up with the 500 or 5000 g.p. is the easiest part of doing this.


----------



## Malin Genie (Jul 2, 2003)

hong LOL

I don't really care much one way or the other in a home campaign - usually the DMs and players can come to a consensus about character death, party wealth, and the balance between "right, time to make another character" and "Joe's back, baby, and he's packin' heat.  Well, 10% less heat, to be precise...."

For a Living Campaign (especially Living Greyhawk which has, in my experience anyway, been even more cash-poor than it is XP-poor) this change is problematic.


----------



## Zhure (Jul 2, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hong "because when they're mostly dead, there's only one thing to do!" Ooi *




IYKWIMAITYD?


----------



## jasper (Jul 2, 2003)

So it going back to cost it did in first edition? So what. Stick another quarter into the game and get an extra life. 
Hong and others have come up with reasons so Joe Commoner can’t get raised every time he falls under the plow. You forget one reason Joe does not want to come back. In you in heaven gee no bills, no motor cars, and easy life with out the old lady or having to pay taxes. If the other place, I escape having to play in Abyss Accordion choir for a few years but Asmo is going to remember I cut practice and will not be happy when I return. He will probably stick me in the kids recorder section and bend my thumbs backward.

You could create a new character if you buy the big one. Takes a little longer than first edition but that is option. I have seen people take an hour to create a character in first so time wise it evens out. 

I don’t mind a RS check. Why. I only saw them fail 8 times in twenty years of gaming. And I never pull punches imc but would allow raises if you could pay.

It does not matter how cheap, easy, hard, expensive the spell costs. The gamer will decide if he is attached to his character he will pony up the gold. Some players come to play and want to reload the same character. Others welcome the change of characters death bring them. A few cry literally even if the character takes five points of damage.

So stick me in the fire camp of letting characters getting raised and often. I can always come up with new and interesting ways of killing your character off.


----------



## Nail (Jul 2, 2003)

Given that _raise dead_ spells are possible:

If I have to guard someone for a long journey/quest, and I'm high enough level (or have a cleric) I could simply kill him, and have him _Raised_ or _True Ressurected_ afterwards.  Or opt not to heroiclly risk my own life to save that of my charge.  After all, death has no sting.

Surely in a world were such magicks were easily attained, "murder" would not carry as much of a stigma as it does in RL.  

There are some real issues here, that need to be worked out for your campaign.  DMs need to be able to make things fit.  If a cheap (or no-cost) _raise dead_ can work for you; hey that's great.  Just leave me out of it, please.

As for those that whine "_I'll lose a month of XP just to make up the difference_", I say: not true.

The 3.5e system of XP awards is different than 3.0e.  If you are lower level, you gain more XP per encounter.  In fact, given a resonable scenario or two, you'll be back up to average party level in no time.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 2, 2003)

Liolel said:
			
		

> *Ouch just Ouch. Remind me to never die, I don't think that if you sell every last peice of equipment on my body that with the half price it would barely equal 5000. So I'll be suffering a level loss and loosing all my good equipment. A new character is cheaper. *




LOL!

Don't ever die! There...

Death should hurt, I mean, come on, it's DEATH! Rather pathetic that a PC would rather die than have his sword sundered...

PS


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 2, 2003)

This is hardly a problem unique to Raise Dead.

At level 1, Detect Poison starts to make murder mysteries work differently.

At level 1, Endure Elements makes the "man against the elements" story difficult to pull off.

At level 1, Detect Evil makes some plots difficult for some DMs to pull off.

At level 3, Zone of Truth makes some mysteries harder to pull off.

At level 3, Invisibility makes sneaky stuff much less of a challenge

At level 3, Make Whole makes non-magical object centered adventures hard to pull off. (Our boat has a hole in the bottom; how are we going to get off this island now? Make Whole. We've got to protect the priceless glass sculpture while being attacked by summoned bison! Make Whole).

At level 3, Locate object makes a lot of recovery and mystery adventures work differently too.

At level 3, Augury can make some puzzles or challenges obsolete. When confronted by a group of strange jars in one adventure, my party wasn't sure whether we should destroy them, take them with us, or leave them alone and do our best to collapse the entrance to the temple where they were so that no-one else could ever find them. An Augury revealed that smashing them would be a REALLY REALLY bad idea and thus saved our party from certain death.

At level 5, Speak With Dead really changes the way murder mysteries work.

At level 7, Discern Lies makes a lot of mysteries hard to pull off. (+12 sense motive scores, +22 search scores, and +17 spot scores also cause difficulties in this regard).

At level 7, Scrying makes a lot of adventures work differently.

At level 7, Divination makes nearly all adventures work differently. 

At level 9, Raise Dead (3e cost) changes the way murder mysteries work yet again. It also changes the way protection missions work.

At level 9, Teleport changes the way lots of adventures work. We've got to kill the evil general? Scry, Buff, teleport in, kill, teleport out. We need to get this package from Wintershiven to Rel Mord in a week through bandit infested territory while dodging the agents of people who want war between Nyrond and The Pale at every turn? We'll Teleport there.

If you're going to DM D&D at all, you have to come to terms with the fact that some challenges are suited only for  characters without certain magics. And that it's possible to design adventures that are only solvable if you assume the use of certain magics. When 2/3 of the classes have magic, you should expect "how well the players can manipulate the PH spell selection" to be a vital part of "good detective work." (In fact, many DMs would be grateful to have players who saw the non-combat options of magic instead of simply having their spellcasters be walking artillery platforms/first aid stations). If you want a game where magic doesn't enter into good detective work or what plots are available to the DM, you should be playing something other than D&D.



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> *Because it disrupts the versimilitude of my game? Because none of the other examples listed actually cause any player expectations as to how ordinary people live their lives? Because there is then no logical reason why even the moderately wealthy die young? Because so many plot devices and adventures become completely pointless, or at best contrived and ludicrous, after a certain level.
> 
> You can't have a murder mystery, without involving magic in the murder, and once you involve magic, any use of logic flys out the window. Thus the solution of the murder relies not upon the use of logic (as a good detective story) but on how well the player can manipulate the PHB spell section.
> *




And, incidentally, as long as the DM actually gives thought to how the NPCs did what they did, it's not true that "once you involve magic, any use of logic flys out the window." If you make sure that the NPCs have the ability to do what they did, your players may end up saying things like, "Well, the dog was barking outside but the neighbor didn't see anything smash the window. So we know that, whatever killed the merchant was probably invisible. Now, as far as we know, many wizards, priests of trickery gods, bards, and skilled assassins from the Greyhawk guild can do that. So can more ordinary thieves with scrolls. Now, in the Theocracy of the Pale, all arcane spellcasters must register with the church and, when we checked we know that there are only 20 registered arcanists in the city of Holdworthy (present company excepted) and they were all at the Arcanist's guild last night. It could have been an unregistered arcanist, but since Griswold was killed by some kind of shortword--and it was a very precise strike right to the carotid artery, the unregistered arcanist would have to be some kind of dilletante skilled with weaponry and sneak attacks as well. There was no indication that Griswold was involved with any cults and there was no indication of religious ritual on the body, so it probably wasn't an evil priest. From the markings on the window, the murderer wasn't able to pick the lock so it probably wasn't the Greyhawk Assassin's guild--they'd be more competent. So our best bet is probably some kind of unregistered dilletante wizard or a rogue using scrolls of invisibility. Let's head out to the city and find out who might have been buying scrolls or spell components recently--probably from the underworld since the Arcanist's guild storehouse only serves its members. We might check the jewelers' too--if he can cast spells of the third circle, he might well ward himself from divinations with nondetection and that requires Diamond dust."

It seems to me that logic can operate quite well in conjunction with magic as long as the magic in the world operates according to a stable system that is relatively well known to the players. In fact, players can do CSI style analysis of magical and aligned auras and the spells used at the crime scene.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 2, 2003)

3d6 said:
			
		

> *The problem with that is you tend to have a session or two where one player may as well not show up as you quest for his ressurection.
> 
> Anything that's not fun is bad by default. *




There's a d20 adventure pack that's 4 raise dead adventures. The dead player takes on an important NPC character and everyone goes on a quest for the dead guy.

Looked kind of interesting, but I can't remember the publisher off the top of my head.

PS


----------



## Agback (Jul 2, 2003)

Nail said:
			
		

> *Given that raise dead spells are possible:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "murder" would not carry as much of a stigma as it does in RL.*




Nor would the death penalty.

(Hence my quip about _Habeas Corpus_, but I guess no-one reads _1066 and All That_ any more.)

Is anyone else reminded of the Jack Vance novel _To Live Forever_?

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 2, 2003)

It sounds interesting but it seems like that would only serve to exacerbate the negative impact of Raise Dead on party composition--namely the increasing level difference in the party. 

Taking a hypothetical 8th level party of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, a sorceror, and a bard, let's assume the bard dies. The party gains xp for that adventure and goes to the temple to ask about getting the bard raised. Quest time.

So the four PCs go with one "really important NPC" on a quest. No problem. Assuming the NPC is able to contribute to the action of the quest, the bard's player has fun. They finish the adventure, the four PCs and the NPC get experience and the bard is raised. Now, you most likely have a party with 4 9th level characters and one 7th level character--a character who is significantly weaker and is most likely the next character to die as well. If the party was not equal in xp at first--say a 9th level fighter, a 7th level rogue, 8th level cleric, 9th level sorceror, 7th level bard and the bard died, he most likely comes back at 6th level when the rest of the party is 8th-10th level. The 4 level spread in the party will make it even more challenging to construct encounters in which the bard can contribute.

Now, OTOH, if the PC is raised before the party goes on the quest, at least the level difference isn't exacerbated any more than necessary.



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> *There's a d20 adventure pack that's 4 raise dead adventures. The dead player takes on an important NPC character and everyone goes on a quest for the dead guy.
> 
> Looked kind of interesting, but I can't remember the publisher off the top of my head.
> 
> PS *


----------



## Aaron2 (Jul 2, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *
> 
> There's a d20 adventure pack that's 4 raise dead adventures. The dead player takes on an important NPC character and everyone goes on a quest for the dead guy.
> 
> ...




Raise the Dead by Necromancer games.


Aaron


----------



## Al (Jul 2, 2003)

> But it is not "gentle" by ancient, mediaeval, or even early modern standards.




Church Tithes = 10%.  Nuff said.  We could discuss the nature of the tension between the church and secular authorities at this juncture, but I'd rather talk about the cost of raise dead.  Incidentally, one of the reasons secular taxation tended to be was because of serfdom- the time was 'taxed', in effect, by the lord demanding a certain number of days worked, which equates to a tax on income (since you lose a number of days which could otherwise have been spent in your fields).  

Anyway, back on topic...



> If I have to guard someone for a long journey/quest




Big deal.  Long journeys past 9th level...should we ban teleport?  Long 'quests' can be made easier through the use of Otiluke's Resilient Sphere and other protective magic.  If he dies and you raise him- so what?



> By and large, it is rather tough to get killed in D&D




Now you must be joking.  A high-level fighter can take out a wizard in one full round's worth of attacks.  High-level invisible rogues can annihilate characters in double-quick times.  A single crit from the barbarian's greataxe could mean curtains.  By the time instakill spells are taken into account (let alone mega-damage blast spells) mortality rates are huge.  Mechanically, characters *seem* more durable than in other types of setting, but D&D is far more combat-orientated.  I'm going on a limb here, but I'd argue that in my experience of GURPS, there is actually a lower mortality rate.  Part of this is due to mindset and setting, but I think that an *average* D&D campaign probably has a higher mortality rate than an *average* GURPS campaign, for example.



> Death is such a huge part of life, our stories, myths and legends




One problem.  The storyteller, myth-writer and legend-maker have total control over what happens in their stories.  DMs cannot account for bad rolling or PC imcompetence unless they heavily rig the rolls.  Death is only cinematic if it happens at cinematic occasions.  Dying because Orc 85 got a lucky crit and rolled max damage is not heroic, legendary or mythical.



> Being raised from the dead isn't heroic




Nonsense.  Watch Buffy  .  Seriously, it all depends on campaign parameters.  There is nothing 'unheroic' about being raised. 



> Because it disrupts the versimilitude of my game? Because none of the other examples listed actually cause any player expectations as to how ordinary people live their lives? Because there is then no logical reason why even the moderately wealthy die young? Because so many plot devices and adventures become completely pointless, or at best contrived and ludicrous, after a certain level.




On versimilitude, why should it disrupt the game?  High magic can incorporate it perfectly well.  Versimilitude can only be disrupted if you allow it to be disrupted.  Obviously, parameter conflict should be avoided, but if 'easy raising' is a campaign parameter, how does this damage credibility?  As for expectations, this, again, is a campaign parameter- just mull over attitudes to easy raising.  As for plot devices, work around it.  If the prince is assassinated, have the assassin take the body, or use a barghest, or Trap the Soul, or something.  Work with the system, not against it.



> You can't have a murder mystery, without involving magic in the murder, and once you involve magic, any use of logic flys out the window. Thus the solution of the murder relies not upon the use of logic (as a good detective story) but on how well the player can manipulate the PHB spell section




Again, no.  This is because you're applying a real-world paradigm to a fantasy setting, so there will obviously be conflicts.  Adapt the situation for a magical setting.  Elder_Basilisk expertly outlines the shifting assumptions in an increasingly magical scenario.  Just work with it- use counter-divinations such as Undetectable Alignment and Nondetection.  Use Dimensional Locks to thwart Teleport.  Use Trap the Soul, barghests or whatever to thwart resurrection magic.  Hide the body to prevent Speak with Dead.  To really confuse the players, have a dead servant polymorphed into a prince, then kidnap the real one.  Then all the fancy Communes asking 'Did X kill the prince?' will go up the creek.  Remember, work with the system, not against it.



> in my homebrew, returning from the dead is not an option.




Fine.  That's your prerogative.  My problem was the core rules changing.  Sure, I can just reject the change, but that's not really the point.

Ultimately, raise dead only affects versimilitude if you allow it to.  Adapt the campaign setting to fit high magic.  A nation IMC uses prolific necromancy to bolster its workforce with zombies- and sells them on the open market.  One nation bans raising since it feels like necromancy, but permits reincarnation, since this creates a 'new person'- but with none of the old person's property or legal rights.  Work with the system, not against it.


----------



## Chimera (Jul 2, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Substitute "Joe Rich Merchant", then. Same thing.
> 
> Furthermore, your insight is lacking. "Joe Commoner being raised" covers a bunch of problems, foremost among them being "the guy we were supposed to capture/guard/keep alive got killed? No problem, we raise him." *




I guess that's because my homebrew religion rules and setup make this kind of thinking difficult.

Besides, it's D&D.  It's a fantasy world in which people can be raised from the dead without great difficulty.  I've never had a problem with that.  Sure, it makes 'murder mysteries' and so forth a bit harder to plot out, but it *can* be done.


----------



## green slime (Jul 3, 2003)

> Posted by Al
> *
> One problem. The storyteller, myth-writer and legend-maker have total control over what happens in their stories. DMs cannot account for bad rolling or PC imcompetence unless they heavily rig the rolls. Death is only cinematic if it happens at cinematic occasions. Dying because Orc 85 got a lucky crit and rolled max damage is not heroic, legendary or mythical.*




Nor is waving staff 2B over the stiff, to bring back the unlucky deceased, for the umpteenth+1 time.

Heroes can die ignoble deaths. But their heroic deeds live on. I'm not asking for cinematic deaths, just that death be more serious than "hohum, bring back the dead".

I wasn't referring to the actual dying part of legends, but more the avoidance of death. The search to cheat death. WIthout which, Gilgamesh, Persephone and others just seem laughable.

Elder-Basilisk had some good points, but they are only valid if the players are into using the PHB spell section. Most players sort of stumble around, and don't really know half of their spells well enough. As soon as magic is involved in the murder, the possibilities for misdirecting information are endless. So it becomes pointless to seek a logical explanation. And the extremes to which a killer must go to eradicate someone, as well as the precautions nobility must take to avoid such extreme measures... It becomes real messy, real fast.


----------



## green slime (Jul 3, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *This is hardly a problem unique to Raise Dead.*




Never said it was. But I think that they way in which it combines, to screw with plots, campaigns, and the fact that it is too easy to raise the dead, all place it on my dislike pile. I'd much rather have a device for avoiding character death (even at low levels!), than need to constantly raise the dead.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Detect Poison *




Not a problem really. I expect this information to be fairly obvious, if you have a relevant skill.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Endure Elements *




Not a problem. Still needs to be memorized aforehand, or prepared ahead somehow. Doesn't really meddle with plots though. I can still make enough of an environmental hazard that they'll feel the squeeze.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Detect Evil*




No problem for me. Evil has to be like EVIL. Not just your average goon/drugdealer. At least, that is the way I read it.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Zone of Truth*




To a certain degree. Truth is subjective, and you are allowed to be evasive. And there is no way to tell if the creature made its save or not.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Invisibility*




Again to a degree. It is such a staple of the genre that it is expected.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> (Our boat has a *hole* in the bottom; how are we going to get off this island now? Make *Whole....*




Make Hole?  Or warped? Doesn't mend warped wood...



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Locate object*




Has an escape clause, whereby the object must have been experienced first hand. 



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Augury*




Which is just a method to provide further information should the players be at a loss of what to do next. And then the players spend 30 minutes arguing about the validity of the prognosis, as there is after all, a chance for failure.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Speak With Dead*




Yes, but I can cope with this... This is just another witness, after all, and is brief, cryptic or repetitive as it is needed to be.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Discern Lies *




Yeah but it is also available as a skill sense motive, which you mentioned, and so is hardly breaking the mold. Just liek a good detective "knowing" when a witness is lying. 



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Scrying *




Well... sort of. It can be protected against, detected, the scryer can be revealed, I don't see it radically changing anything in the way ordinary people live, or how nobles live their lives. At best it is good information, at worst, misinformation.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Divination*




Well, to a certain degree... There is that chance of failure (causing discussion amongst the players again...) And it is not necessarily going to be understood in time to do any good... But it could have an affect, if you wanted it to. If you have the time. 

And none of the above spells are really above and beyond what we see in Legend, myth, folklore. Oracles, Scrying, knowing things about people / places / objects.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Raise Dead*




And here is my beef. I dislike it because it changes too much. It is too cheap, available for many. It makes some stories utterly rediculous. It premotes metagame thinking on scale unlike other spells. It disrupts the game because, all of a sudden lowly priests of a major temple are expected to be raised by the church



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Teleport*




_Scry_, buff, _teleport_ works for the bad guys as well... which explains why the PCs are constantly getting raised...

There are so many ways to thwart this strategy it isn't funny, and I find it amazing that it is constantly coming up. Sure it works. For a while, against some foes, but not all. It isn't going to work against the general leading an invading army, thats for sure.

My players detest using _teleport_ due to the chance of failure. At least one player does. Surprisingly, his characters are the ones that have managed to stay alive. He is such a coward.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *And, incidentally, as long as the DM actually gives thought to how the NPCs did what they did, it's not true that "once you involve magic, any use of logic flys out the window." If you make sure that the NPCs have the ability to do what they did, your players may end up saying things like, "Well, the dog was barking outside but the neighbor didn't see anything smash the window. So we know that, whatever killed the merchant was probably invisible. Now, as far as we know, many wizards, priests of trickery gods, bards, and skilled assassins from the Greyhawk guild can do that. So can more ordinary thieves with scrolls. Now, in the Theocracy of the Pale, all arcane spellcasters must register with the church and, when we checked we know that there are only 20 registered arcanists in the city of Holdworthy (present company excepted) and they were all at the Arcanist's guild last night. It could have been an unregistered arcanist, but since Griswold was killed by some kind of shortword--and it was a very precise strike right to the carotid artery, the unregistered arcanist would have to be some kind of dilletante skilled with weaponry and sneak attacks as well. There was no indication that Griswold was involved with any cults and there was no indication of religious ritual on the body, so it probably wasn't an evil priest. From the markings on the window, the murderer wasn't able to pick the lock so it probably wasn't the Greyhawk Assassin's guild--they'd be more competent. So our best bet is probably some kind of unregistered dilletante wizard or a rogue using scrolls of invisibility. Let's head out to the city and find out who might have been buying scrolls or spell components recently--probably from the underworld since the Arcanist's guild storehouse only serves its members. We might check the jewelers' too--if he can cast spells of the third circle, he might well ward himself from divinations with nondetection and that requires Diamond dust."*




Or it could be an illusion of a dog barking, and the window was smashed after the fact. Perhaps the window isn't really smashed, it is a _permanent illusion_...

Could be an illusion of a dead body, could be cut after being _held_, could be the religious trying to fob it of on to some rogue, needn't be a local, they could have scry-buff-teleported in from the darkside of the moonn. So no local knowledge of illegal purchases. Nor registered arcanists. It is the job of the DM to drop hints, obviously, but paranoid players just sit there and go, "This is a set-up..."

You end up with such circle arguments from the players during this, that it becomes pointless (although it can be fun to listen into, for a while, but not an entire evening). Magic can do almost anything in the game. 

Then you just cast _raise dead_ get the stiff back to life, and carry on in the dungeon.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *It seems to me that logic can operate quite well in conjunction with magic as long as the magic in the world operates according to a stable system that is relatively well known to the players. In fact, players can do CSI style analysis of magical and aligned auras and the spells used at the crime scene. *




As magic is capable of almost anything, it can create demiplanes, slay from a distance, turn solids into gas, cause the blind to see, sow hate amongst friends, ... SO much so, that it becomes boundless. At high levels, "who killed the king" is unanswerable, as the king's enemies are all so powerful in their own right, that the capacity to decieve and delude any investigator are complete. Players, being aware of this, would rather go demon-bashing.

So yeah, for a good murder mystery, perhaps I should go play something else 

Anyway, thanks for some ideas, and the input and advice. Even if I stubbornly keep my head shoved into the sand, raving about seeing the dead walk again...


----------



## DMauricio (Jul 3, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "Mostly dead"
> "All dead"
> Hong "because when they're mostly dead, there's only one thing to do!" Ooi *




Unfortunately, Miracle Max and Prince Humperdink do not feature in any of the campaigns I'm involved in.

Its a pity though.


Dom


----------



## Agback (Jul 3, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> *Church Tithes = 10%.*




Well, no. They were often much lower. Tithes at 10% were only charged on the _natural increase of land_, ie. crops. Lower tithes were charged on things nourished by land (eg. herds), and personal tithes were lower still.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm.

Besides which, you were trying to claim that the king alone recieved 10%, not that the hordes of clergy had 10% distributed among them.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Agback (Jul 3, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> *Incidentally, one of the reasons secular taxation tended to be was because of serfdom- the time was 'taxed', in effect, by the lord demanding a certain number of days worked, which equates to a tax on income (since you lose a number of days which could otherwise have been spent in your fields).*




That isn't a tax on income. People with high incomes did not pay more.

The work service owed by a serf to his lord was a form of rent on the land he leased. The amount of work owed depended on the number of virgates of land held, not on income. Merchants, tradesmen, and labourers did not do any service at all, no matter what their incomes were.

And besides, this work service was paid to thousands of different lords. It was not concentrated in the revenues of the King.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 3, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, that logic really doesn't make any sense. I mean, make it cost whatever you like, I don't care, I can house rule all I like. But don't try to justify it with convoluted logic. "I get weaker, therefor I get poorer" doesn't make any sense. I can only marginaly stomach the "I get weaker, therefor I get dumber" bit that happens when you loose feats, skills, or mental ability boosts. *




Then I guess you've never been in any type of near fatal accident.

I had to relearn how to walk when I was 15, even though I learned to walk when I was an infant. Funny how because of a simple injury (water skiing accident), I suddenly became "dumber" and had to relearn things.

I had a friend who was in a car accident about three years ago, and he is just now returning to complete fluency in English (which is his native tongue) and a 12th-grade reading level.

And remember... neither of us died and returned to life, so I'd say that our experiences were somewhat less harrowing and traumatic than DEATH would be.

So, in summation, it makes perfect sense for a character that is brought back from the dead to be weaker.


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 3, 2003)

> Tithes at 10% were only charged on the natural increase of land, ie. crops. Lower tithes were charged on things nourished by land (eg. herds), and personal tithes were lower still.




I'm not sure I see that, even in that link you gave.  It seems like tithes have bounced around a bit, but the goal is to make them effectively 10% - hence the word tithe.  For every potential discount there seemed to be an equal potential markup - the tri-annual tithe, the special Crusade tithe etc etc.

Sidelight: I think its more interesting to notice that local Churches seem to have traded their tithing rights away to local nobles with such frequency that a Pope was forced to get involved.

Anyway, the point is that an organization (a local Church) or a person (a local noble) would certainly collect enough money through tithing or taxation to be able to afford a Raise or ten every year at the 500G rate.  Out of the small population of a locality, how many Raises are needed to keep everyone (everyone useful, popular or connected anyway) alive each year?  Especially when a lot of the more powerful figures can afford their own 500G Raise.

--

But another approach: Basically, there has to be some economic cost to Raises to make the world make sense.  Is anyone arguing that Raise should have a zero material cost?  

And once we agree that there must be a material cost, then arguments can be made about whether the number should be closer to 500G or 5000G.


----------



## hong (Jul 3, 2003)

Chimera said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I guess that's because my homebrew religion rules and setup make this kind of thinking difficult.*




Not that I care. 



> *Besides, it's D&D.  It's a fantasy world in which people can be raised from the dead without great difficulty.  I've never had a problem with that.  Sure, it makes 'murder mysteries' and so forth a bit harder to plot out, but it *can* be done. *




Who said anything about "murder mysteries"?


----------



## Storminator (Jul 3, 2003)

Man, E-B! You are highly dismissive! Perhaps the designers thought of that, you know? How 'bout if, just once, you give an idea the benefit of the doubt before you go around blasting it?

PS



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *It sounds interesting but it seems like that would only serve to exacerbate the negative impact of Raise Dead on party composition--namely the increasing level difference in the party.
> 
> Taking a hypothetical 8th level party of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, a sorceror, and a bard, let's assume the bard dies. The party gains xp for that adventure and goes to the temple to ask about getting the bard raised. Quest time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *As magic is capable of almost anything, it can create demiplanes, slay from a distance, turn solids into gas, cause the blind to see, sow hate amongst friends, ... SO much so, that it becomes boundless. At high levels, "who killed the king" is unanswerable, as the king's enemies are all so powerful in their own right, that the capacity to decieve and delude any investigator are complete.  *




Hey Green!

Boy, are we OT here, eh?  But still....can't ....resist.......reply......

I agree that magic can make things much _different_, but I disagree that things become so "boundless" as to make investigative adventuring pointless.  This is for two reasons:

#1) There still are rules governing what can and can't be done, and these rules apply to the magic as well as to the mundane.  (That's the reason for a gaming system like 3e, rather than purely free-form cooperative story-teling.)  If you know these rules, you can still peice together what is true.

#2) At every level of magic, for every _Nondetection_-type spell there is a spell that can counter it.  This will always be true, even if you bring in 3rd party or home-brew material.  Spells like _Commune_ and _Scry_ come to mind.  The magic of the BBEG is not invinsible.  (And if it is, you should redesign your campaign.)

As for _Raise Dead_ costs:
   No one has yet argued that the cost should be zero.  So then, what should the cost be?  I'd say about 10% PC wealth at the minimum level you can cast it.  Sounds fair to me.

....Oh my.   Would you look at that!  That is what the cost is in 3.5e!  Amazing.


----------



## Keith (Jul 3, 2003)

“This change was based on a couple conclusions:

1) Raising from the dead was too cheap. It wasn't "special" or even "unusual"--it was so commonplace as to place significant strains on the believability of the system.”

Having taken this position here a couple of times before, I feel vindicated.  It’s not much to cling to, I grant you, but I’m at work, so it is something at least.
I always priced it out of reach anyway.  Plus I use a death god who does not take kindly to meddling.

I have no problem with people enjoying a setting where they pop back to life every few months.  I suggest at least trying one where you don’t, though.  It can add some realistic and enjoyable tension to deadly situations.


----------



## National Acrobat (Jul 3, 2003)

Hmm. I doubt that hardly any DM out there is going to stick to the 5000gp on Raise Dead. I am sure that there are already tons of House Rules out there regarding the use of the spell anyway.

I know that as a DM, I always attach a Geas to the Spell if it is your own church. That Geas usually takes precedence over what you are currently involved in (or is used as plot device later). If you are attempted to be raised by a faith other than your own there is no guarantee that you will come back. If you do, not only will the cost be significantly higher, but you get the Geas as well. Sometimes, death just needs to be final. 

Now, that is my take on it. I am sure that most folks who DM probably don't see it this way, but none of my players (9 in all) have any problem with this whatsover. They actually like it, because we role play the request of the priest to bring the soul back to life.


----------



## Malin Genie (Jul 3, 2003)

National Acrobat said:
			
		

> *I know that as a DM....*




Yes, but with you as a DM, the last time we merely _spoke with dead_ the entire party ended up traumatised ..... I don't know we'd be game to actually try _rais_ing....


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jul 3, 2003)

The primary problem I have with paying to return from death is why should any god care that you want to pay money to return from death? The clergy might need the cash but the god certainly doesn't and the deity is the one actually granting the return from death. It fundamentally turns deities into mere insurance brokers. ("Uh god, I have the final insurance premium payment, could you please restore Bob here.") 

In my current Rokugan campaign I use a Hero Point mechanic to avoid the Raise Dead spell problem. If you are affected by something that would have killed you, you may spend a Hero Point to be "left for dead" instead of trully dead (i.e. you at at -9 and unconscious). As far as my game is concerned death is THE END. Once you cease being heroic enough death is possible if you are careless. 

Raising the dead is strictly against the rules of the cosmos and even the Fortunes themselves can't or won't violate that rule. No mortal magic can restore a soul to true life.  Only violating the laws of heaven and using forbidden necromancy to convert to an undead will avert true death and only if done BEFORE the Fortune of Death passes judgment. 

The dead soul is judged by the fortune of death within the 21 day holding period mandated by cosmic law. The judged soul is either reincarnated (NOT the same as the druid spell) back into the mortal world, promoted to paradise or sentenced to any one of the 10,000 hells based upon the soul's deeds in life. (A reincarnated character is a new person. It has some vague memories of its past but it is a new character. It has none of the old guy's stuff or abilities.)

I have found in this way that the Fortunes can show favor on heroic (and anti-heroic) characters with the cinematic "he didn't really die" trick, but the spectre of True Death always remains in the background if the characters don't continue to do great things worthy of heros. (As the cliche goes, "fortune favors the bold.")  It also allows BBEGs to be lasting foils for the PCs to test their mettle against and it means that  the general populace just dies when their time comes without the absurdity of paying god to bring you back.

Tzarevitch


----------



## National Acrobat (Jul 3, 2003)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, but with you as a DM, the last time we merely spoke with dead the entire party ended up traumatised ..... I don't know we'd be game to actually try raising.... *





If I recall correctly, some of that may have been due to the method in which a certain cleric performed the Spell... 

Now, I agree the description of the effect may have been over the top....I am certainly hoping that we don't have to have anyone raised.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 3, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *No problem for me. Evil has to be like EVIL. Not just your average goon/drugdealer. At least, that is the way I read it.*




OT: I still don't get why people think this solves the "problem." When I'm running games, it doesn't ruin anything precisely because it detects so many people that it isn't a substitute for Detect Bad Guy. Any of the 5000+ people in the city (of 15000 people) radiating evil could be the bad guy (assuming he's evil) or they could just be average goon/drugdealers. However, as soon as you say "it only detects EVIL", then it is Detect Bad Guy and it's pretty much a license to smite.

*



			Or it could be an illusion of a dog barking, and the window was smashed after the fact. Perhaps the window isn't really smashed, it is a permanent illusion...

Could be an illusion of a dead body, could be cut after being held, could be the religious trying to fob it of on to some rogue, needn't be a local, they could have scry-buff-teleported in from the darkside of the moonn. So no local knowledge of illegal purchases. Nor registered arcanists. It is the job of the DM to drop hints, obviously, but paranoid players just sit there and go, "This is a set-up..."

You end up with such circle arguments from the players during this, that it becomes pointless (although it can be fun to listen into, for a while, but not an entire evening). Magic can do almost anything in the game.
		
Click to expand...


*
That problem has nothing to do with magic. It has to do with paranoia and the sense that the DM is not creating a world in which things are often as they seem but a world in which nothing can be trusted.

Such deception is conceivable in mostly  or entirely non-magical milleaus as well.  Maybe the fabric fibres were deliberately left on the wound and the DNA was planted on the subject. Maybe the fingerprints were left intentionally and the window was smashed by a random vandal who came by 2 hours after the crime. You could go through the entire plot of any detective show spinning conspiracy theories like that. And you would probably have to come to the conclusion that they are all possible--if not likely.

The same thing applies to the magical world. It's always possible that it's a set-up and the bad guys Scry-buff-teleported from a long ways away and used Nystul's antimagical aura to cover the effects of the teleport just like it's always possible that the victim of a more modern setting murder was really a secret agent perfectly living out a double identity and that he was killed by an Illuminati hit team that framed a local ne'er-do-well for the murder (leaving fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc on the scene) before they flew out on experimental silent black helicopters. However, investigators generally ignore that possibility and PCs should be able to ignore its magical equivalent unless the campaign is set up for them to expose the magical Illuminati in which case they will not ignore the possibility but look at it as the preferred hypothesis. Fox Mulder would always be wrong on CSI and the CSI characters would generally be wrong on the X-Files. It's a question of the campaign's assumptions not its magic level.


----------



## Al (Jul 3, 2003)

> And the extremes to which a killer must go to eradicate someone




Probably easier than assassinating someone without magic at all.  Teleport makes strikes much easier, and Improved Invisibility, Nondetection, Mind Blank, Ghostform, Etherealness and a host of other spells make infiltration much easier.  A Summon Monster VIII (barghest) then has a 50/50 chance to finish the job, or a Trap the Soul/Soul Bind is an expensive but reliable way.  Animate Dead is cheap, dirty and messy, but can work.



> The clergy might need the cash but the god certainly doesn't and the deity is the one actually granting the return from death




And this is what I was talking about...roleplaying, not mechanical restrictions.  Some deities IMC do not allow the dead to return *full stop*.  Others allow it freely- for a quest.  Yet others are just happy for it to go ahead.



> I'd say about 10% PC wealth at the minimum level you can cast it. Sounds fair to me.




Again, I think that this is prohibitively expensive.  We'll have to see how things pan out.


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 3, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then I guess you've never been in any type of near fatal accident.
> 
> ...



Thanks for this; I've been trying to work out a rationale for my players on why I intend to use actual level loss IMC (we traditionally don't).


----------



## Metalsmith (Jul 3, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then I guess you've never been in any type of near fatal accident.
> 
> ...




Not to dismiss your horrible accident, but.... 

Are Either of you a 10+ Level Fighter, Wizard, Cleric or Rogue?

This is a Fantasy Game. 

The Payrolls and Paychecks Game(tm) is being held somewhere over there. (points)

Most of the Dissenting posts are not concerned about the level loss. But instead of the Combined effects of Level loss and the Massive hit on their pocketbooks.  It's just eaiser to make a new character than to get the old one raised.


----------



## brehobit (Jul 4, 2003)

Agback said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 10% is a "gentle" tax take by modern standards (most advanced countries take over 45% when you take all tiers of government into account and include indirect taxes). But it is not "gentle" by ancient, mediaeval, or even early modern standards.
> 
> ...





I've been reading a fair amount about this.   I think you are ignoring the huge number of fees and restrictions on the lower classes (serfs and the like)  For them, the "tax rate" could be quite high.  They had often had to use their lord's mill (which was overpriced), had to pay to use the land, and had lots of small standard taxes to deal with.   Not to mention required service that might run many weeks.  Oh well, way off topic for the thread.....


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 4, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then I guess you've never been in any type of near fatal accident.
> 
> ...




... which means that, since you didn't die, in a D&D game you and your friend would have been returned to perfect health with a couple of CLW spells. As long as you're still breathing, and no body parts have been removed, a D&D character comes back to perfect health, and can come back from worse through the use of Regenaration.

Which means that the lasting trauma from dying in D&D is a spiritual matter, not a physical one, and as such isn't really covered by your rationale.


----------



## green slime (Jul 4, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> OT: I still don't get why people think this solves the "problem." When I'm running games, it doesn't ruin anything precisely because it detects so many people that it isn't a substitute for Detect Bad Guy. Any of the 5000+ people in the city (of 15000 people) radiating evil could be the bad guy (assuming he's evil) or they could just be average goon/drugdealers. However, as soon as you say "it only detects EVIL", then it is Detect Bad Guy and it's pretty much a license to smite.*




(Still OT):As I read the text of the spell, you must be a nasty EVIL cleric of or some outer planar entity, or undead. I take the Evil creature line to mean a creature with the type [Evil]...

So an Assassin isn't going to register. Which means that in a city of 5000+ you aren'ty going to run round randomly and _detect evil_. And if you do find it, You would have found it anyway even in your scenario, as the strength of the aura is rather strong...

And still it becomes difficult to justify in a court of law that the guy really was Evil. More proof of evil-doing would be required, IMC.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *That problem has nothing to do with magic. It has to do with paranoia and the sense that the DM is not creating a world in which things are often as they seem but a world in which nothing can be trusted.
> 
> It's a question of the campaign's assumptions not its magic level. *




While that is to a degree true, assassination is about politics. Political machinations in a game mean that little can be trusted. (Who shot JFK?) Mixing magic in makes it even harder to discern the real from the unreal, the plausible from the implausible, and fact from fiction.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 4, 2003)

*re*

I think it is relatively easy to die in D&D. Now staying permanently dead is another matter entirely.

My players hate to die, even if they are receiving a _True Ressurection_. If they die enough times, usually 3, they quit the character whether they liked the character or not. 

I incorporated Hero Points into our game so that the players and the DM would have an option for averting death without resorting to the standard D&D method of dying and coming back to life. I look at hero points as story points, because they help the DM create a more convincing story by giving them carte blanche to come up with a reason why a person lived or something happened that should not even if it is as simple as saying the player clings to life due to strong will.

I hope D&D incorporates Hero Points into the standard game at some point in the future. They really are a boon because they help offset the times when a party is rolling very bad or a single unlucky 1 comes up.


----------



## green slime (Jul 4, 2003)

How exactly does your Hero Point system work, Celtavian? I'm intrigued because I'm trying to find something similar. How many points does a player recieve? How often?


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 4, 2003)

*re*

Players receive one point per level.

They are able to do the following:
1. Turn a killing hit into a blow that knocks them unconcious. 1 pt.

2. Turn a killing blow into a miss, they are able to stay concious and keep fighting. 2 pts.

3. Automatically succeed at a saving throw, skill check or ability check. 1 pt.

4. Automatically bypass SR or DR for one spell or one blow. 1 pt.

5. Gain a +10 unnamed bonus to attack. 1 pt.

6. Automatically land a single attack. 2 pts.

7. Increase the DC of a saving throw for a spell or similar abilty by +4. 1 pt.

8. Cause a being to fail its save. 2 pts.


Once spent they do not replenish. I kind of view them like the nine lives of a cat that they can spend on many different aspects of the game where making a roll might be crucial or to avoid death.

Since I have instituted this rule, it has really helped smooth out my games as far as story is concerned. Pesky 1's on saves for death spells that Player's should have made. The Player's can now avoid death if they get hammered by a crit, sometimes they remain standing and sometimes they choose to go unconcious because it is wiser to do so. A caster can beat the SR of a creature they are rolling poorly against. Basically, a way to survive or succeed when situations look dire.

They gain so few, that they are precious to the players and spent only when in dire need. I also give major villains that I want to be reoccurring villain points equal to half their level. I assume some of their points have been spent since villains usually start as higher levels as NPC's. I use a villain's points when I need them to survive or succeed at something to carry on the adventure.

I don't like arbitrary systems of divine intervention because then there are no built in limits to how far it can go save for DM decision. The Hero Point system puts a limit on the number of times a Player can experience divine grace or whatever a person might call it. It works well for our campaigns and helps smooth the story out when the randomness of rolls might interfere with it.


----------



## Agback (Jul 4, 2003)

brehobit said:
			
		

> *I've been reading a fair amount about this.   I think you are ignoring the huge number of fees and restrictions on the lower classes (serfs and the like)  For them, the "tax rate" could be quite high.  They had often had to use their lord's mill (which was overpriced), had to pay to use the land, and had lots of small standard taxes to deal with.   Not to mention required service that might run many weeks.  Oh well, way off topic for the thread..... *




You are forgetting the context. A previous poster supposed a 10% tax on all incomes as a way of estimating the revenues of the king. The fees that you are talking about never went anywhere near the royal exchequer. the king raised revenues of this sort from his own estates, but very little of this stuff went any further than the lord of the manor.

Besides which, only peasants who held land on the estate paid these dues. Landless labourers didn't pay them, not even the labour contributions. And townsfolk didn't pay them either. A peasant who held two virgates paid double, a peasant who held only half a virgate paid only half. These dues have the character of rent, not income tax.

A typical family in this country pays one third of their after-tax income in either rent or interest on a mortgage. We don't count that as part of the tax take.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Agback (Jul 4, 2003)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> *The primary problem I have with paying to return from death is why should any god care that you want to pay money to return from death?*




Doesn't the same logic apply to _any_ clerical spellcasting?

Gods actually do need money, because their churches need to be built and repaired, their clergy need to be salaried and pensioned, etc. etc. Apparently the gods who don't [delegate clerics to] dispense miracles don't get much in the way of offerings to cover these expenses.

Be that as it may, the price lists in the rules imply that clerical spell effects are available (maybe available only to cult members, but available at some level) to those who make offerings of spell level time caster level times 10 GP. Of course you may, if you wish, provide that in your campaign clerical spells are available only to registered initiates. If you do, most of your PCs will become initiates (and so will most NPCs). You may provide that they are only available to the pious. Most of your players will play their characters as very pious. Think what you want PCs to be like, then make the appropriate rulings for your world.

And let me endorse some clever predecessor's point: In a world where the living dead stalk the night; where magicians can sink a person into indefinite suspended animation in a stony cyst; where gods empower their clerics to _Summon_ outsiders, _Implode_ one target a round, and call down _Flame Strike_; where eighty-tonne fire-snorting reptiles soar across the skies--maybe in a world like that pulling some clown's soul out of the queue at the gates of the Underworld and sticking it back in its body is not such a biggie.

Why are we happy to suppose that society adapts itself to dragons and _Glyphs of Warding_, but not willing to suppose that it might adapt to _Raise Dead_?

Regards,


Agback


----------



## green slime (Jul 4, 2003)

How common are Dragons and _Glyphs of warding_ for everyman?

How common is death?


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Jul 4, 2003)

Cheap Resurrection has always struck me as a bad and often setting-breaking work-around for the problem of player character script immunity.  In the future I would prefer to see this sacred cow made into hamburger and replaced by a far more rational system of Drama/Hero Points.  This would preserve the setting-affecting nature of fast/easy resurrection and cover the lethality of the combat system (which itself might be considered another sacred cow but that's another topic for another day).

- Ma'at


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 4, 2003)

Interestingly, games like d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Star Wars manage OK without raise dead at all 

On the level-loss for being raised idea, I might float an idea past my players and see what they think of it - specifically replacing the level loss with a CON loss (a bit like in the old days). Raise Dead will cost 2 CON, Resurrection will cost 1 CON and True Resurrection will cost 0 CON. Thus the body becomes wearied by it's continual return to life, and gradually fails.

Plus side: no level loss, characters retain their skills, their punch etc.

Minus side: hps could start dropping through the floor after too many resurrections. This can be partially countered by buffing magic and items.

Cheers


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 4, 2003)

Well, reading this thread has certainly been an eye-opener!  It's interesting to see how different people play this game.

Myself, as a player and as a DM--but mostly as a player--I'm against anything that makes _Raise Dead_ tougher than it already is.  I invest hours into my characters.  I write short stories with them.  I search for just the right picture for them over the Internet.  My enjoyment of the game stems from seeing them grow and develop.  To a lesser degree, this is the same if I'm a DM shepherding a group of PCs through my world.

_Raise Dead_ already hurts due to the level loss.  Now it hurts even more.  And the only people who are really hurt--people like me who would rather keep their PCs than roll up a new one.

Someone earlier in this thread said this change would "stimulate role-playing."  I can't disagree more.  Because if I know that in a game as deadly as D&D I won't be able to play my character for more than a few levels, I'm not going to put the time and emotion investiture in that I would have before.  I'm going to create a combat-twink.

Or continue to play 3.0. 

Edit:  there, their, they're


----------



## hong (Jul 4, 2003)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> * I invest hours into my characters.  I write short stories with them.  I search for just the right picture for them over the Internet.  *




For chrissakes man, get a life!

I mean, you have all that free time, and still such a PISSY postcount?


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Jul 4, 2003)

_Originally posted by Plane Sailing _
*Interestingly, games like d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Star Wars manage OK without raise dead at all *

Needed to be repeated, in bold.  Here are two very epic, very cinematic games with larger than life heroes that don't rely on the crutch of resurrection to keep things intereesting.  They are also two games that use the same core system - one of which has far deadlier combats (Star Wars - blasters, grenades and lightsabers) with even deadlier combat rules.

No complaints yet.

- Ma'at


----------



## hong (Jul 4, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by Plane Sailing
> Interestingly, games like d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Star Wars manage OK without raise dead at all
> 
> Needed to be repeated, in bold.  Here are two very epic, very cinematic games with larger than life heroes that don't rely on the crutch of resurrection to keep things intereesting.  They are also two games that use the same core system - one of which has far deadlier combats (Star Wars - blasters, grenades and lightsabers) with even deadlier combat rules.
> ...




I can think of a number of reasons why people haven't complained about WoT or SW:

- Lack of numbers. There are probably six people in the world playing WoT. There's probably more playing SW, but neither of them have anywhere near the userbase of D&D. Hence even if there's a lot of dissatisfaction, you're unlikely to hear it to the same extent.

- Related to that, fewer high-level campaigns. At lower levels, D&D functions fairly well without resurrection. It's only later on, when you have fighters dishing out 100 points of damage per round and wizards chucking disintegrates, that things get really dangerous.

- Fewer instakill effects. In D&D, there's plenty of things that can kill you with a failed save at high level. There aren't any such in WoT, IIRC. Star Wars has the broken VP/WP thing which potentially allows a 1st level stormtrooper to cut down even the most uber jedi, but there, the genre has a strong emphasis on heroes wading through hordes of wimpy mooks. So the problem doesn't show up as much as it might otherwise.

- Less of an emphasis on combat. For many (probably most) people, D&D is basically all about killing monsters and taking their stuff. If you're higher level, that just means you fight bigger monsters. The more fighting you do, the more PC deaths are going to result, and the greater the demand to be able to do something about it.

Before you say it, "so don't fight so much" is not a viable solution for D&D.


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Jul 4, 2003)

_Originally posted by hong _
*- Lack of numbers.*

Granted for WoT, but I know what the sales figures were for Star Wars Revised.  This is a dangerous argument however, because it can be turned around - how many people were complaining for/against the changes in Resurrecvtion now?  So far on this thread I have quickly counted maybe 4 people out of 20 who posted complaining about the change.  And the rest seem to approve fo the change.  So arguing that it was a bad decision is already a minority (those who don't like it) of a minority (those who post here) of a minority (those who play without house rules or who play D&D).

*- Related to that, fewer high-level campaigns.*

This complaint (and to an extent many of your others) seem to skirt the main issue which is a flawed combat system and reinforce my argument that cheap resurrection = band-aid solution to a broken sacred cow.

* At lower levels, D&D functions fairly well without resurrection.*

At lower levels D&D is, if anything, even more deadly.  Any critical will kill most PCs - optimized or not.  Saving throws suck, low ACs, bad Spot levels, lack of compensating magic, lack of Feats, etc.  If the game works at this level of lethality and not at the other perhaps the problem is more a matter of perception and expectation instead of actual mechanics?

*- Fewer instakill effects.*

3.5 has nerfed most of the remaining instant-kills.  And again, there are more at lower level in all 3 games (D&D, WoT d20, SW d20) since most effects that do reasonable damage ARE instant-kills to low hit point characters.

*- Less of an emphasis on combat. For many (probably most) people, D&D is basically all about killing monsters and taking their stuff.*

So is Diablo II - but you notice that along with this style of play comes a distain for cheap "re-loading" of saved games.

*Before you say it, "so don't fight so much" is not a viable solution for D&D. *

Really, and all this time I've had just about everyone trying to tell me that D&D isn't all about killing things and taking their stuff, that I could have role-playing and other elements in it.

Anyway - much of your argument is nonsensical - you complain that at high levels this is unfair, but at high-levels aren't you making about 5000gp per encounter, or have easy access to that sort of cash in the form of magic item creation or performing services?  At the level you are complaining about (high-level) the cost of the spell is of little real consequence.  Even less if you find a scroll or a staff/rod which casts the spell for you.

At low levels (what everyone else is complaining about) you just said there isn't that much of a problem.  Further if the problem was really at low/mid-levels then wouldn't we be hearing more complaints from WoT/SW/d20 Modern gamers, since you posit that the bulk of their games take place in this low to mid level range?

- Ma'at


----------



## hong (Jul 4, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by hong
> - Lack of numbers.
> 
> Granted for WoT, but I know what the sales figures were for Star Wars Revised. *




If those sales figures are anywhere near D&D's, I'd be surprised.



> *This is a dangerous argument however, because it can be turned around - how many people were complaining for/against the changes in Resurrecvtion now?  So far on this thread I have quickly counted maybe 4 people out of 20 who posted complaining about the change.  And the rest seem to approve fo the change.  So arguing that it was a bad decision is already a minority (those who don't like it) of a minority (those who post here) of a minority (those who play without house rules or who play D&D).*




The bulk of people posting on boards tend to be DMs, who are disproportionately concerned with things like world design and verisimilitude. Most players don't really care too much about whether raise dead is so cheap that everyone could be raised, as long as they can do it.



> *- Related to that, fewer high-level campaigns.
> 
> This complaint (and to an extent many of your others) seem to skirt the main issue which is a flawed combat system and reinforce my argument that cheap resurrection = band-aid solution to a broken sacred cow.*




Hello. It's called "3.5E", not "4E". If you're looking for a fundamental rejigging of the combat system, come back in 2006 or thereabouts.



> * At lower levels, D&D functions fairly well without resurrection.
> 
> At lower levels D&D is, if anything, even more deadly.  Any critical will kill most PCs - optimized or not.  Saving throws suck, low ACs, bad Spot levels, lack of compensating magic, lack of Feats, etc.  If the game works at this level of lethality and not at the other perhaps the problem is more a matter of perception and expectation instead of actual mechanics?*




At _low_ low levels (1st-3rd), D&D is deadly. At high levels, (12th+), it's also deadly. In the middle, it's not so deadly. Have you played any high-level campaigns?



> *- Fewer instakill effects.
> 
> 3.5 has nerfed most of the remaining instant-kills.  *




Actually, from what I hear, they've nerfed exactly two: disintegrate and harm. Finger of death, slay living, destruction, power word kill, flesh to stone, prismatic spray, and plane shift (teleport someone to the Abyss) are still remaining untouched.



> *And again, there are more at lower level in all 3 games (D&D, WoT d20, SW d20) since most effects that do reasonable damage ARE instant-kills to low hit point characters.*




Huh?



> *- Less of an emphasis on combat. For many (probably most) people, D&D is basically all about killing monsters and taking their stuff.
> 
> So is Diablo II - but you notice that along with this style of play comes a distain for cheap "re-loading" of saved games.*




Who disdains reloading? Noone I know of, except a minority who like playing iron man. What's disdained is _unavoidable_ reloading, where a fight is so hard you have to do it multiple times before you figure out the trick, or get lucky.



> *Before you say it, "so don't fight so much" is not a viable solution for D&D.
> 
> Really, and all this time I've had just about everyone trying to tell me that D&D isn't all about killing things and taking their stuff, that I could have role-playing and other elements in it.*




Please be aware that trolling is MY schtick, and I get most displeased when people STEAL MY SCHTICK. So please do not steal my schtick. ThaADVANCEnks!



> *Anyway - much of your argument is nonsensical - you complain that at high levels this is unfair, but at high-levels aren't you making about 5000gp per encounter, or have easy access to that sort of cash in the form of magic item creation or performing services?  *




Let me tell you about our high-level campaign. Ever since reaching 15th level, we've been averaging about one death per session, and this is with powerful characters and a sympathetic DM. In the last few months, we've been slogging through the RttToH, and the death rate has gone up to about two per session. On a good day, it can go to 3. The only thing that helps maintain any semblance of continuity is plentiful raising, in particular true res. If prices go up to 25000 gp, you're going to have a lot more people thinking about retiring dead PCs and making up new ones.



> *At the level you are complaining about (high-level) the cost of the spell is of little real consequence.  Even less if you find a scroll or a staff/rod which casts the spell for you.*




When you're shelling out for a true res every session, it adds up, believe me.



> *At low levels (what everyone else is complaining about) you just said there isn't that much of a problem.  Further if the problem was really at low/mid-levels then wouldn't we be hearing more complaints from WoT/SW/d20 Modern gamers, since you posit that the bulk of their games take place in this low to mid level range?*




Duh. I just SAID that the problems arise at high levels.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jul 4, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by hong
> At lower levels, D&D functions fairly well without resurrection.*
> At lower levels D&D is, if anything, even more deadly.  Any critical will kill most PCs - optimized or not.[/B]



Saying "any critical" is clearly incorrect. A crit with a 1d8 weapon, x2 crit, would not kill any PC except a Wiz1 or Sor1. Even then, the mage survives if he has a Con of 16 or better.

The only monsters who are likely to kill with one shot are those with both high damage and high multipliers, which are not common at low levels. (The major exception is an orc with a greataxe, whose critical does 12-45 damage. For that reason, orcs are more lethal to low-level characters than their low CR would indicate.)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 4, 2003)

One of the distinct differences I've noticed in 3e compared to earlier editions is that higher level characters are now threatened with death far more option.

In previous editions, once characters reached about 10th level they could survive in a fight for quite a long time, even against bad odds before they were in danger of dying (and largely laughed at save or die STs too!).

This has tripped up both my players and I in my current campaign, as a 5 round combat can easily finish off 9th level characters - everything just does more damage (apart from the fireballs, natch!).

Just an observation
Cheers


----------



## Al (Jul 4, 2003)

hong and I agree on something...the world gets weirder every day  .

Back to the argument:



> This complaint (and to an extent many of your others) seem to skirt the main issue which is a flawed combat system




Ah, the old baby-with-the-bathwater argument.  You see, you can't change *one* part of the system, without changing the other parts without making it incoherent.  A system is a system- you can change the whole, but tinkering with little bits is likely to mess things up.  Reducing hit poins tenfold but keep damage identical is clearly stupid.  Keeping combat deadly but increasing raising costs tenfold is likewise stupid.



> At lower levels D&D is, if anything, even more deadly




Let's deconstruct this...



> Any critical will kill most PCs - optimized or not




You know very well that's nonsense.  See hong.  HPs can scale very quickly, so unless the PCs are very very low level, roll abysmal hp rolls, or face extreme damage monsters, this is unlikely to kill them.

The trick about hp at low level is that the 'death's door' range is proportionately *much more* at low levels than at higher levels.  At low levels, 10 hp is a nice safety blanket to ensure you go down rather than dead.  At high levels, 10 hps is nothing- and since characters lose no combat efficacy from low hps, it's quite easy to knock someone from low positive hps to death; at lower levels, it tends to go from low positive to dying.  



> Saving throws suck




So do the DCs.  In fact, saves are more often made at lower levels than higher levels, since DCs tend to rise faster than poor saves in particular.



> low ACs




Low to-hit rolls.  Again, the fighter's primary attack is much more likely to hit at high level than at low level.



> bad Spot levels




Bad Hide levels!  Again, since Spot is cross-class for most classes; and Hide is class for hiding classes, and more likely to be magically augmented, hiding is far more weighted towards the hider at the higher levels.



> lack of compensating magic




Lack of offensive magic/offensive buffs/disabling magic/instakills.  Low magic is patently less deadly than high magic, irrespective of 'compensating magic'.



> lack of Feats




...by both sides.

Notice a pattern?  You assert rightly that lower level characters have less defense, but they have to put up with far less *offense*, so the overall equation favours defense far more at low level than high level.



> 3.5 has nerfed most of the remaining instant-kills




Most being two...and Harm is still pretty respectable in terms of damage.  10hps/level is not to be sneezed at.  



> At the level you are complaining about (high-level) the cost of the spell is of little real consequence




10% of a PC's total assets is hardly of 'little real consequence'- particularly since, as E_B points out, most of a PC's assets are not liquid, so when he liquidates them he only gets half.  



> And the only people who are really hurt--people like me who would rather keep their PCs than roll up a new one.




Nicely put.  



> How common is death?




Silly question.  Sensible question: how common is resurrection?  Even at 500gp, that's hardly commonplace.  Particularly since 9th level clerics can only be found in small cities or, very rarely, in large towns.



> A previous poster supposed a 10% tax on all incomes as a way of estimating the revenues of the king.




In all honesty, the precise % doesn't matter- 10% was just a figure I plucked out of the air.  Irrespective of the precise sum, the point that very rich nobility can still afford raising stands.



> (Still OT):As I read the text of the spell, you must be a nasty EVIL cleric of or some outer planar entity, or undead. I take the Evil creature line to mean a creature with the type [Evil]...




[OT]: Nope.  Any 'Evil creature' radiates evil, even at just a faint level.  Since only evil creatures radiate evil, *any* radiation implies that the character is evil, irrespective of strength.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 4, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> I mean, you have all that free time, and still such a PISSY postcount? *



Well, my problem is that usually try to only post if I have something to contribute to the discussion.


----------



## St. Kargoth (Jul 6, 2003)

If they want PC cleric's to do more of the raising, why do they want the PC to fork over 5000 to raise their fellow comrade, who may or may not be a member of their religious orginazation?  I know that in my group, Raise Dead sees about as much use as the bottom side of a refrigerator.  Character dies, there is usually a new character that is introduced, usually because there is no access to raising, at higher levels its the same.  Apparently the revolving door that they think is so common is stuck in my group as you only have 1 life to give, give that and next.  Even the BBEG's never come back for a repeat performance.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 6, 2003)

*re*

Personally, I like the change because I don't want PC's coming back. I would prefer if they just stayed dead unless using a _Miracle_ spell. 

The guys I game with aren't willing to take it this far just yet. They are usually pretty cool about adopting rules changes, so I don't press this one.

I am glad that it is officially more difficult to return from the dead. Its not that I like characters to die, its just if they do, I want it to mean something.

When death becomes like getting the flu or a minor disease, how can it be important? 

"Tom just died. Ahh, damn. Now we have to go back and get him raised from the dead. Oh well, that'll take a few days out of our adventuring time."

What kind of drama is there in the above view of death?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 6, 2003)

*Re: re*

Of course, the change doesn't change that perspective on death in the slightest. It just changes the material cost of the spell. In principle, there is not necessarily any drama in it (at least, I don't think "bringing Bob back from the dead costs so much money; how can we possibly afford it?" is the kind of drama you're looking for--whether it's analagous to an affordable or an expensive operation, it's still analogous to a medical operation); in practice, there is exactly as much drama as the DM and players add to the spell (like many DMs, I dramatically changed the way the spell worked in one campaign to reflect a spiritual and metaphysical world that differed substantially from that assumed in the core rules)--just like before the cost was increased.



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *When death becomes like getting the flu or a minor disease, how can it be important?
> 
> "Tom just died. Ahh, damn. Now we have to go back and get him raised from the dead. Oh well, that'll take a few days out of our adventuring time."
> 
> What kind of drama is there in the above view of death? *


----------



## Metalsmith (Jul 6, 2003)

*Re: re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *Personally, I like the change because I don't want PC's coming back. I would prefer if they just stayed dead unless using a Miracle spell.
> 
> The guys I game with aren't willing to take it this far just yet. They are usually pretty cool about adopting rules changes, so I don't press this one.
> 
> ...




Try playing a higher level game where Death happens more often. When you have a 4 player group and you have 1-2 characters die per game session, How Dramatic is that? 

What happens to story continuity when after 5-6 games you've cycled through all of the Original Characters? Now you're just a group of thugs who've been together only a short period of time with no real history of sticking your necks out for each other. What happens to all the Magic Items that gets cycled into the party when people bring in new characters only to have them die in 3-4 sessions and then don't want to be raised?


----------



## WattsHumphrey (Jul 6, 2003)

Well, there's certainly a lot of debate on this topic.  I have to say that all in all as a player and a GM, I like this change... though I wouldn't use it in my homebrew.

I know there's a lot of arguments on how deadly D&D is, but where I'm sitting, players don't die all that often.  This is, obviously, just my experience and no one else's... but for me, it holds.  When PC's die, I think it should be something powerful and unique that brings them back.

In my own homebrew, I won't use the extra cost because I don't believe that the dead character has much of a choice on if they're coming back or not.  Sure... they can say 'no, I don't want to be raised' and stay dead, but I don't think I've ever seen that happen.  

In my game, the burden of resurrection falls not on the deceased, but on the cleric.  It's going to be a spiritual journey and a devotional path where you prove to your God that you require the services of the dead person enough that (s)he should be raised.  There'll be a cost to the clerics (and I don't mean monetary)... and only to the deceased (and I do mean monetary) if the cleric so wishes.  The dead person (probably) isn't even serving the God who will res him... so the God has very little need for him to be brought back.

But all in all, I think the 'high cost' mechanic is at least a step toward raise as I see it.  YMMV.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 6, 2003)

I like this change, seeing as I already house ruled the following:

Raise Dead: 1000 gp/level of raised character
Resurrection: 5000 gp/level of raised character
True Resurrection: 10,000 gp/level of raised character

I don't think coming back from the dead should be easy, otherwise everybody would be doing it all the time!  King dies?  Bring him back!  Major villain executed?  Bring him back!  People already come back plenty enough . . .


----------



## LordAO (Jul 7, 2003)

If raising the dead was too rampant in D&D they should have upped Raise Deas to 7th level and made the spells cost experience points.

The idea of players paying money to get raised is just stupid.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jul 7, 2003)

If they wanted to make resurrection special, increasing the monetary cost was the wrong thing to do. It's easy to get money, and you don't even have to be an adventurer-- you can levy taxes or run a business or sell your grandma into slavery. A monetary transaction feels too commonplace, and doesn't make the event any more dramatic.

Charging money is especially stupid, because if the DM wants to keep the party balanced against encounters of equivalent CR, he needs to replace the money they spent. A PC of level X should have possessions worth Y gold pieces in order to be balanced. If he dies and comes back, he has lost more than a level; he's lost a lot of the gear that made him competitive. The DM must either replace the gear (which means the gp cost of raising is irrelevant), or leave the raised PC in an even more weakened state. In dangerous encounters, the weakened PC is very likely to die again soon, which puts him on the slippery slope down to level 1.

I happen to think that losing a level is punishment enough. I know that if my Sor16 gets killed tomorrow, he won't gain that level back until approximately the end of August. (With our short sessions, we're lucky if we advance once per real-time month.) Everyone else IMC knows the same thing, so we're really paranoid about death, and we take it seriously when it occurs. Tacking on a ridiculously high monetary price to the _raise_ spell will not change our attitude in the slightest, except to make us annoyed when we need to sell off and re-acquire magic items.


----------



## Destil (Jul 7, 2003)

You know, if we had a nice 2 to 4 page section in the DMG discussing the issues, costs and such with raise dead... how to adress it and mantain the degree of drama & vermisilitude you wanted and simply had the spell require * as a component, I think I'd be a lot happier...

Then again, a big sidebar in the DMG with optons for adjusting the game to how you want to play it is my solution to everything.

*The components of this spell are highly up to the DMs discression.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 7, 2003)

In this case, however, the sidebar would be very useful. I think that, of all the houserules I see in action on story hours and in games I've actually played, house rules on raising dead are probably the most common.

The reason is probably because death is one of the ultimate facts of our existence and what happens after death is a huge portion of any cosmology or metaphysic. And the reactions of people to death are a very large component of culture--from ancient egypt with its mummification rituals to viking societies and their adulation of a warrior's death, to modern societies which are arguably defined in part by the great lengths to which they go to avoid seeing or thinking about death.

And resurrection or the lack thereof, to make the understatement of three millenia, also has very large implications for real world religions--an understanding of significance which I think is often carried over into role playing games. 

So, with good reason, raise dead policies are one of the easiest ways to define a campaign world.



			
				Destil said:
			
		

> *Then again, a big sidebar in the DMG with optons for adjusting the game to how you want to play it is my solution to everything.
> 
> *The components of this spell are highly up to the DMs discression. *


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 7, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *In this case, however, the sidebar would be very useful. I think that, of all the houserules I see in action on story hours and in games I've actually played, house rules on raising dead are probably the most common.
> 
> The reason is probably because death is one of the ultimate facts of our existence and what happens after death is a huge portion of any cosmology or metaphysic. And the reactions of people to death are a very large component of culture--from ancient egypt with its mummification rituals to viking societies and their adulation of a warrior's death, to modern societies which are arguably defined in part by the great lengths to which they go to avoid seeing or thinking about death.
> 
> ...




Good point EB. I agree, the cost doesn't change the attitude. I just have to work on a way to make bringing back the dead palatable to my players given the lethality of D&D. 

Not many folks like to lose their favorite PC. That conflicts with my view that if you lose your favorite PC, it better be meaningful. The Hero Points help quite a bit in our campaign for death avoidance, but now I want to come up with a reasonable way to come back from the the dead that creates a sense of drama.


----------



## jasper (Jul 7, 2003)

Interesting I don’t any one who plays Wheel of Time or Star Wars. D&D is made with Raise Dead etc being the reset button.

Raise Dead will only hurt a little bit more. Most DMs who do use it will gladly hope the players sell donate extra magic items to get Bobby The barbarian raised.

Style of play comes from a cheap re-loading of Diablo II saved games. Hmm I guess AD&D was far seeing as it had cheap reloading of characters when Pong was the only computer games.


----------



## HeavyG (Jul 7, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *If they wanted to make resurrection special, increasing the monetary cost was the wrong thing to do. It's easy to get money, and you don't even have to be an adventurer-- you can levy taxes or run a business or sell your grandma into slavery. A monetary transaction feels too commonplace, and doesn't make the event any more dramatic.*




Yes.  A far better cost would be XPs.  Even though the PHB says a XP is worth 5 gp, my NPCs are always very reluctant to spend them on a stranger's behalf.  Especially non-adventuring types who have trouble levelling as it is.

I would also not be adverse to a raised PC being out of action for a while.  But making it difficult to raise the dead will lead to cowardly adventuring or a gung-ho "I'll just create a new set of numbers" attitude, IMO.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 7, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by Plane Sailing
> Interestingly, games like d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Star Wars manage OK without raise dead at all
> 
> Needed to be repeated, in bold.  Here are two very epic, very cinematic games with larger than life heroes that don't rely on the crutch of resurrection to keep things intereesting.  They are also two games that use the same core system - one of which has far deadlier combats (Star Wars - blasters, grenades and lightsabers) with even deadlier combat rules.
> ...




actually I find star wars far less deadly than D&.  The VP/WP mechainic can kill someone in a shot sure, but crits are less common since the treat range is basically 20.  And weapons, well there just less deadly at mid to high levels.  And I'm sure someone can dish out some absurd combo character in star wars I have yet to see the 100 points of damage a round monstrosities I regularly see in D&D.

This is because while the base blaster does more than a bow, it does far less than a magic bow with magic arrow and feats and prestige classes etc boosting it.  5 shots at 2d8+2 with my blaster=55 points of damage 5 shots at 1d8+12+2d6=112.

And then there's no save or die spells to worry about, its overall just far less deadly.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 7, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> actually I find star wars far less deadly than D&.  The VP/WP mechainic can kill someone in a shot sure, but crits are less common since the treat range is basically 20.  And weapons, well there just less deadly at mid to high levels.  And I'm sure someone can dish out some absurd combo character in star wars I have yet to see the 100 points of damage a round monstrosities I regularly see in D&D.
> 
> ...




It's even less deadly than you make it sound...

If you have a SW hero with 10 CON, wearing the lightest armor out there (padded flight suit or blast vest, for example), he still needs to get critically hit for 22 points of damage to die outright. 

That's 2 points shy of max damage from most blaster-rifles, and more damage than an average shot from a blaster-cannon.

Assuming non-dairy characters, you'll only see that sort of damage regularly from thermal detonators, crew-served weapons, melee specialists with high strength and vibro-axes, and very high level Jedi Guardians.  The fact that 90% of SW characters don't have access to any sort of magical bonus to damage and don't have high strength (a definite dump-stat in this setting, Dex is king) really makes a huge difference in damage output.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 7, 2003)

Well my biggest gripe with raising dead is losing a level, mainly because it screws up the whole campaign.  If the party is doing adventures for Level 11, and someone gets energy drained or killed down to Level 9, the character basically has to retire because he or she can no longer compete.  Losing levels is ridiculous.

I pretty much replace all instances of losing levels with XP loss, and XP loss can never result in losing levels even if you go below the minimum for your current level.  Another important note is I do the same thing for item creation.

When people go below their minimum, until they have enough XP, they basically get penalties as if they had negative levels.


----------



## Al (Jul 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I like this change, seeing as I already house ruled the following:
> 
> Raise Dead: 1000 gp/level of raised character
> Resurrection: 5000 gp/level of raised character
> ...




However, once again, this hurts PCs much more than it does plot NPCs.  As I have already said, the king can easily afford 20,000gp.  Heck, a castle costs 500,000gp, so raising the king at 20k is probably a deal.  At 5k, it's almost definitely going to be performed unless there are roleplaying or mechanical restrictions- which block raising at whatever the cost.  Look at the amount that supposedly ransomed King Richard I when he was captured by Leopold of Austria...

To PCs, however, these costs are punitive, and players are far more likely to just introduce new characters- which creates all sorts of problems (see pp.1-5 of this thread, especially Lord Pendragon).  Especially since PCs tend to die reasonably often (at high levels, every 3-4 encounters is probably not an unreasonable estimate- see hong's account of RttToEE), this is extremely harsh: kings tend to only get assassinated once or twice.  Assassinating a king enough times until the royal exchequer runs out of money is probably unfeasible unless the state is impoverished, or, once again, roleplaying blockades are implaced- even at 20k.  Sure, you could jack up the prices until no nation could afford it at a reasonable rate (say, 500 billion) but then it's probably out of the PCs' league.

So it creates lots of problems, whilst solving very few.  It hurts PCs far more than it does NPCs.  Either low-cost raise dead or high-difficulty raise dead works, since PCs and important plot NPCs can keep in step with accessibility of resurrection.  High-cost, low-difficulty raise dead just screws over the PCs without necessarily adding the much-vaunted low-resurrection verisimilitude.


----------



## Henry (Jul 7, 2003)

On the other hand, in our games I would like to see people bring in more new characters than simply get their character _Raised_. In addition to the verisimilitude of it, it also reinforces my game preference for caution in playing, and gives real heroism meaning, if a player sacrifices his character for the lives of others or others in the group, it has more "bite" than knowing that you can "throw your life away for fun" if you have the cash.

In real life, would I skydive, if I knew I could be resurrected if the chute failed? Absolutely! But because there's that .01% chance that the person who packed the chute ed up, you aren't getting me off a plane in midair anytime soon.


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 7, 2003)

> Try playing a higher level game where Death happens more often. When you have a 4 player group and you have 1-2 characters die per game session, How Dramatic is that? What happens to story continuity when after 5-6 games you've cycled through all of the Original Characters?




Two thoughts:

1) On continuity: I think we all agreed that D&D is deadly at both high levels and very low levels.  So your DM has to deal with this issue from the very beginning of the game - some 1st & 2nd level characters are probably going to die and there won't be any money to Raise them.  Additionally, their death isn't going to mean a whole heck of a lot: "The orc hits you for ... um ... 22."  Maintaining contunuity is a problem the DM should have a handle on.

2) On the meatgrinder: You mention losing multiple characters per session and Hong mentions playing the notorious RttTOH as examples of how many high-level characters _can_ die.  It sounds like both of you are playing meatgrinder style modules.  This type of module is not for everyone; take a look at all the threads from DMs saying, "Help, my players are all dying and not having fun."  It's not a function of whether Raise costs 500G or 5000G; even at 500G the fun of going "Fight, Die, Raise" starts to wear thin.  Moreso, meatgrinders are certainly not for people who spend lots of time on character backgrounds when they should be munchkinizing their characters instead.  ;-)  

2a) Additionally, these 3E meatgrinders were surely designed with the 3E Raise costs in mind.  Under 3.5E it's no surprise that they'd require some tweaking.  And, as I mention earlier, that there are people who will not find this fun regardless of how much tweaking the DM or module designer does.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 7, 2003)

It should be noted that maintaining versimilitude in replacement characters differs greatly at high and low levels. Before 4th level, you can easily posit a farmboy looking for revenge on his family's killers, a runaway wizard's apprentice, a mendicant priest, or a deserter joining the party. There are plenty of appropriately levelled people out there.

By the high end of mid levels, however, there can only be so many "greatest knights in the kingdom." After a few vacancies in the round table have been filled, one will begin to wonder where all these great knights have been coming from.

And at high levels, the versimilitude involved in character replacement becomes even more problematic. Sepulchrave's story hour is probably extreme in this regard but imagine the difficulties with replacing Mostin. The PCs know the names of most wizards of his caliber. Making a former NPC a PC would be possible but there simply aren't many unknown wizards of Mostin and Shomei's caliber. Similarly, replacing Nwm or Eadric would be highly problematic. The problem can also be illustrated in the more familiar world of Greyhawk. If the PCs are of similar power to the Circle of 8, there just aren't replacements waiting around out there. Now, characters with ECLs might be one alternative--have a hound archon paladin join the group, or a Githerazai monk, or a troll barbarian, or even a dragon of some kind or other. However, that option would also stretch versimilitude if it were used often. A party of a Half celestial, a dragon, a troll, and a devil on the path of redemption would begin to look a bit silly.



			
				Gizzard said:
			
		

> * Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) On continuity: I think we all agreed that D&D is deadly at both high levels and very low levels.  So your DM has to deal with this issue from the very beginning of the game - some 1st & 2nd level characters are probably going to die and there won't be any money to Raise them.  Additionally, their death isn't going to mean a whole heck of a lot: "The orc hits you for ... um ... 22."  Maintaining contunuity is a problem the DM should have a handle on.*


----------



## Anubis (Jul 7, 2003)

Well my costs were for having NPCs perform the act, not for PCs casting it.

I am just looking for a way to make raising the dea an uncommon (or even rare) thing while making PCs using true resurrection after every encounter realistic.

What excuse does anyone have for NOT having someone raised?  I can try to force the "your character doesn't want to come back" line so many times.  It's especially hard when some NPCs wanna stay dead for different reasons and such, and it's a double standard that some others will be raised.  Makes no sense.  I can't figure out a single way to balance everything.

I would remove revival things altogether, but then what does one do about instant death spells?  I think these abilities are far too important top monsters to just dismiss.

The only possible solution I have ever come up with is that NPC clerics simply will refuse to raise people most of the time unless the religion is the same AND a quest is performed, or something like that.


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 7, 2003)

> And at high levels, the versimilitude involved in character replacement becomes even more problematic. Sepulchrave's story hour is probably extreme in this regard but imagine the difficulties with replacing Mostin.




Well, that gets into my second point.  Sep is not running a meatgrinder campaign.  Or the sort of campaign where Mostin's player is going to throw a fit and say "I just can't play Mostin if he's only 22nd level instead of 23rd" if he were to get killed for that matter.  ;-)  

So, 500G or 5000G or even 25000G is pretty irrelevant; if Mostin died everyone would come up with the cash to get him Ressed or else the Paladin's temple would step in.  

People aren't complaining about the effects of high level characters dying once; they're complaining about the effects of high level players dying _a lot_.  To which I say - if your high level character is dying every other session you've got more problems than 5000G is going to fix.   If you enjoy playing meatgrinders, go forth and prosper.  But meatgrinders are a tricky animal, and one that trips up a lot of gaming groups.  Changing the price of Raise Dead puts a dent in this style of gaming, but its really more a problem with the Meatgrinder as an art form rather than whether Raise Dead costs any particular amount.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 7, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> People aren't complaining about the effects of high level characters dying once; they're complaining about the effects of high level players dying a lot.  To which I say - if your high level character is dying every other session you've got more problems than 5000G is going to fix.   If you enjoy playing meatgrinders, go forth and prosper.  But meatgrinders are a tricky animal, and one that trips up a lot of gaming groups.  Changing the price of Raise Dead puts a dent in this style of gaming, but its really more a problem with the Meatgrinder as an art form rather than whether Raise Dead costs any particular amount. *




problem is with the damage outputs of many monsters and NPC classes and save or die effects, even in a soft ball campaign its very easy fo people to die very session. Fail a save you're dead, one full attack and you're dead.  Heck with some classes you make your save vs some damaging effect and your still dead.

Now if you don't have combats very often or your combats are against masses of much weaker foes then maybe death will be less common.  But death is very easy in 3e, no matte rhow soft you play it.


----------



## Yobgod Ababua (Jul 8, 2003)

In the game I'm currently playing in, and in the one I recently finished running, I saw two problems that I believe this change will help alleviate:

1) The well-meaning PC cleric would constantly offer to raise any NPCs that were accidently killed in the course of the story. The cost was low enough, even for a low-mid level cleric, that they could afford to do so.  Not really a story breaker, but it definately made the world seem odd.  The corrolary was that a moderately wealthy NPC could fairly easily have a considerable number of followers raised, which messes with many standard plotlines unless all plot related deaths suddenly involve death effects or missing corpses. Increasing the expense helps this considerably.

2) Around 12th level the PCs save enough money for a true ressurection or two and cease to have a real fear of death.

Overall the former rules and costs ended up creating a world where, without severe DM intervention, everyone (PC or NPC) had a fairly cavalier attitude towards death. With the increased costs, the DM can more easily explain why every well-off NPC doesn't show up again a week later, while still allowing PCs to come back and keep playing (slightly more in debt to the local church if neccessary).  It's much easier to come up with a reason why the PCs (or an important NPC) will get a loan for their restoration to life when needed than to explain why everyone else isn't doing it constantly.



> even in a soft ball campaign its very easy fo people to die very session.




Not if your DM is doing his job properly. I've been involved in two long-running 3e games that are not by any means "softball", yet there have only been maybe 5 player deaths in over a year of playing. There's usually a near death or two every session, but actual deaths only happen when a player does something stupid -and- gets unlucky.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 8, 2003)

Not knowing Sep or his campaign firsthand, I can't say anything for sure, but I think your justified appreciation for his campaign is clouding your perception of its lethality. I'm not certain how many sessions the story hours posted represent but in the last few there have actually been quite a few character deaths that strike me as non-preplanned.

Ortwin has died twice, Tarl the Incorruptible died, and now Shomei has also died. I suspect that adds up to something like an average of one death per five sessions--not a meatgrinder but still quite deadly. And you would also do well to note that, strictly speaking, the price of Raise Dead/etc spells is irrelevant in that campaign since it's considered blasphemous--all recoveries so far have been with Reincarnate or variants thereof. 

And, I think it will be very interesting to see what happens in the next few updates of Sep's story hour. Now that Ortwin has lost all his gear and Shomei has lost a lot of hers, I suspect we'll begin to see how hampered characters of those levels are by the lack of gear.

Now, I suspect that more "standard" campaigns might experience even more significant hampering effects once the gear-deprivation begins to add up.



			
				Gizzard said:
			
		

> * Well, that gets into my second point.  Sep is not running a meatgrinder campaign.  Or the sort of campaign where Mostin's player is going to throw a fit and say "I just can't play Mostin if he's only 22nd level instead of 23rd" if he were to get killed for that matter.  ;-)
> 
> So, 500G or 5000G or even 25000G is pretty irrelevant; if Mostin died everyone would come up with the cash to get him Ressed or else the Paladin's temple would step in.
> 
> People aren't complaining about the effects of high level characters dying once; they're complaining about the effects of high level players dying a lot.  To which I say - if your high level character is dying every other session you've got more problems than 5000G is going to fix.   If you enjoy playing meatgrinders, go forth and prosper.  But meatgrinders are a tricky animal, and one that trips up a lot of gaming groups.  Changing the price of Raise Dead puts a dent in this style of gaming, but its really more a problem with the Meatgrinder as an art form rather than whether Raise Dead costs any particular amount. *


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 8, 2003)

> Ortwin has died twice, Tarl the Incorruptible died, and now Shomei has also died. I suspect that adds up to something like an average of one death per five sessions--not a meatgrinder but still quite deadly. And you would also do well to note that, strictly speaking, the price of Raise Dead/etc spells is irrelevant in that campaign since it's considered blasphemous--all recoveries so far have been with Reincarnate or variants thereof.




I believe Shomei is an NPC.  I don't recall Tarl, so I suspect he was an NPC as well?

It's interesting to discuss Sepulchrave's campaign, since its obviously a benchmark - the sort of campaign people aspire to run.  In any case, over all the time of the story hour there have been very few PC deaths.  If I recall Mostin, Nwm, Eadric and Ortwin are the original 4 PCs.  They're all still around, Ortwin even more Ortwin than ever in his new form.  This despite "broken" spells like Time Stop, Horrid Wilting and Finger of Death being thrown around with abandon.  Also despite, as you point out, Sep's house rules on Raises.  

It's certainly not a "meatgrinder" campaign in the way RttToH or CotSQ supposedly are.  

Now, IMHO, there are a couple things going on here.  First, Sep is experienced enough to know how to match his party to the challenges they face.  And his players are experienced enough not to get in over their heads.  

The danger rate has increased a lot in the last few sessions, but that's not a function of the party's level.  First up, Sepulchrave has thrown some new monsters at the party and discovered the hard way that their CRs were off (the Chimera.)  Second, the players have decided to step into the way of danger, they have moved away from the home that they understand and are now out in uncharted territory with an insanely powerful foe opposing them. 

Anyway, my original point was more that the people complaining about dying many times seemed to be playing meatgrinders.  Since Sep has managed to run a successful campaign up into Epic Levels without allowing Raise Dead or Ressurections, I take that as proof that high levels don't automatically equal a collosal death rate.  And, extending from that, that the 5000G fine for dying is still a minor penalty.

-edit-
Digression: Back to the original thought; I don't see the material cost of Raise Dead making much difference in anyone's Story Hour that I read.  I haven't read any CotSQ or RttToH Story Hours (because I *dont want spoilers!*) but they might be interesting subjects for research on how the cost change would affect PCs.  Ie, can someone point out a Story Hour where it would make a difference whether Resses were 5000G or 25000G?  And, if not, does that mean that it's not going to be as big a deal as people are worried about?


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 8, 2003)

*re*

I plan to turn the gold cost into an offering. The PC will have to offer the same amount of gold in objects valuable to the particular deity. It will be an offering to the deity to intervene on behalf of their mortal follower and call back the dead person. That will work better for story.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 8, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> Digression: Back to the original thought; I don't see the material cost of Raise Dead making much difference in anyone's Story Hour that I read.  I haven't read any CotSQ or RttToH Story Hours (because I dont want spoilers!) but they might be interesting subjects for research on how the cost change would affect PCs.  Ie, can someone point out a Story Hour where it would make a difference whether Resses were 5000G or 25000G?  And, if not, does that mean that it's not going to be as big a deal as people are worried about? *




Not a story hour, but based on my experiences running CotSQ it'd likely completely disrupt the module if it was run as written, because of a)Not enough loot to pay 5000gp per Raise Dead, b)No place to acquire 5000gp worth of diamond dust without Teleport (or to sell the items found, really) and c)The situation being specifically set up to make leaving the "dunegon" very difficult later in the module.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *I plan to turn the gold cost into an offering. The PC will have to offer the same amount of gold in objects valuable to the particular deity. It will be an offering to the deity to intervene on behalf of their mortal follower and call back the dead person. That will work better for story. *




Sure right until the players start blackmailing the deity.  "Okay, you're going to charge us?  Fine.  We're leaving.  No more quests for you."


----------



## green slime (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: re*



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sure right until the players start blackmailing the deity.  "Okay, you're going to charge us?  Fine.  We're leaving.  No more quests for you." *




Yeah, that'll get their dead companions right back... or not. You really want to tick the gods off?


----------



## smetzger (Jul 8, 2003)

*Cost was 5000 in 1e*

I would just like to point out that Raise Dead cost 5000gp in 1e.


----------



## hong (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: re*



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, that'll get their dead companions right back... or not. You really want to tick the gods off? *




Well, you're not really blackmailing the god. You're blackmailing the DM.


----------



## green slime (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, you're not really blackmailing the god. You're blackmailing the DM.  *




Well, it can get real nasty real quick regardless, if you want to take "No more quests for you" route... Time to trash that campaign...

Some players think it is their god-given right to have a DM. Any effort by the DM to introduce a sense of balance, wonder, and imagination is treated with incredulous stares and protests; "but in this ..."


----------



## hoyerhan (Jul 8, 2003)

I liked the old rules (2e?) where a resurrection resulted in Con loss. That makes it bad to die, and prevents too many raise deads on one character.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> *
> Some players think it is their god-given right to have a DM. Any effort by the DM to introduce a sense of balance, wonder, and imagination is treated with incredulous stares and protests; "but in this ..." *



Some DMs think it is their god-given right to have players. Any effort by the DM to impose his own sense of balance, wonder, and imagination may be terminally boring.

The DM gig goes both ways; with ultimate power, comes the responsibility for helping everyone has a good time. You can theoretically create any world you want, but you can't force the players to enjoy it. If they complain about a certain style of game, perhaps listening to them would be useful.


----------



## Henry (Jul 8, 2003)

hoyerhan said:
			
		

> *I liked the old rules (2e?) where a resurrection resulted in Con loss. That makes it bad to die, and prevents too many raise deads on one character. *




However, back in 1st edition, I and all the players in our group would have GLADLY taken the CON loss, because between 7 and 14th, con loss didn't matter one darned whit, except for system shocks and resurrection survival, which we hated to use. 

Taken together, it's a perfectly workable machanic, to make deat a dicey proposition (pun intended), but throwing one out tended to make it more worthwhile.

Even today, Level loss is so despised that people would rather wait to be True Res'ed, rather than be resurrected now. If level loss were the ONLY thing available, it still acts as a deterrent to recklessness, while allowing beloved characters to return.

While I hate nechanics that FORCE you make a new character after one bad dice roll, I dislike people using resurrections so fluidly that death is about as inconvenient as a road trip to another state.


----------



## green slime (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> Some DMs think it is their god-given right to have players. Any effort by the DM to impose his own sense of balance, wonder, and imagination may be terminally boring.
> 
> The DM gig goes both ways; with ultimate power, comes the responsibility for helping everyone has a good time. You can theoretically create any world you want, but you can't force the players to enjoy it. If they complain about a certain style of game, perhaps listening to them would be useful. *




You mean like the munchkin complaining his arse off because his non-magical adamantine weapon he blew 1/3 of his cash on has no effect on incorporeal monsters? Because I point out that the PsiHB pricings are out of whack, when he turns up with a new character, that was supposed to be sent to me to review PRIOR to the game, and has overspent cash, has a character sheet even he can hardly read, an equipment list I defy anyone to read (marked in some pseudocryptic code) and then spends 3 hours of our game time trying to correct HIS errors which all couild have been avoided had he emailed me his character. Then argues for 20 minutes that the SRD says Combat Reflexes allows the character to make multiple attacks per round against a single opponent. Imagine that. I should try and be reasonable... Some players just complain. Complain, and complain. Believe me, it aint the style... To the detriment of the other players and to the point where I feel like packing it all in. Now where does that leave the players that just want to enjoy the game?


----------



## Metalsmith (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> *
> To the detriment of the other players and to the point where I feel like packing it all in. Now where does that leave the players that just want to enjoy the game? *




You just solve it the way I used. 
"Well guys, due to change in work hours and other things I'm going to put the game on hiatus for a month or so. Give me all your phone# again and I'll call you when we're ready to start up." (after player X leaves) "Alrighty, See you same time next week ok guys?"


----------



## AuraSeer (Jul 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *
> Some players just complain. Complain, and complain.*



Okay, that's a whoooole other set of issues. Some people enjoy making life difficult for the DM, some people refuse to have a good time unless they're in control, and some people are just irritating self-centered powergamers. Those people are jerks who should be reeducated with a sharp stick, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. They'll complain regardless of whether the DM injects "balance, wonder, and imagination" or not.

My post was addressing a different point: the DM does not create a campaign world in isolation. It's only a means to an end, a vehicle for helping everyone have fun.

In the post you originally replied to, *Dinkeldog* was pointing out a way for players to tell their DMs they're unsatisfied with a campaign. It's perfectly acceptable for players to react to campaign changes by saying "We don't want to play a game like that." Of course it is equally acceptable for the DM to refuse to run the style of game they like, but then he will need to find another group to play with.

I have encountered DMs who treat their worlds as perfect works of art, to be gazed at and adored but never, ever critiqued. Any player who dares to roll his eyes at the "wonder" or "realism" is immediately labelled a roll-playing hack-and-slash munchkin philistine, and his input is totally ignored. Such DMs are also jerks who should be reeducated with a sharp stick.


----------



## ZSutherland (Jul 8, 2003)

I posted early in this thread and then didn’t get back to it a while, but have finally read every post.  I was of two minds when I originally posted, and have now come down firmly against the price increase for the following reasons.

1. As a DM, I find players introducing new characters to be quite disrupting.  I’m not running a meat grinder campaign (yet), but as soon as the PCs are of appropriate level, we will begin CotSQ, and I am being much harder on them than they I once was.  This is so they will learn the skills and thought patterns to succeed in CotSQ, yet they have already had 3 character deaths amongst 6 players.  Still, they campaigns continuity is sound, but would be torn to shreds by a replacement of three of the characters.

2. One of the characters actually must be replaced.  She succumbed to the corporeal instability of a chaos beast and became one herself.  Despite the apparently “low” price of raise, despite the fact that I’ve been using the treasure rules exactly as written, and despite the fact that two of the PCs have and have made us of item creation feats, all of them are below their wealth level.  The equipment of the character who died, which they recovered, if sold for market price and split evenly will put them where they need to be.  If they’d had to deduct another 15k for the one raise and one ress they’ve had, it would be much worse, and it’s not a secret how important wealth and equipment are in 3e.

3. The idea that returning from death wasn’t “special” or “unique” enough is just as absurd as the idea that, based on the behavior of a bunch of munchkins who took the rules as written plus a splat book prestige class and a couple of third party weapon enchantments that the DM should probably have known better than to allow, criticals are not “special” or “unique” enough.  The only idea more absurd is that this tweak to raise will cause the party cleric to be the returner of life more frequently than an NPC.  Right, because most 9th level characters (1st level of access to such magic) are gonna walk around with nearly 1/6 of their wealth tied up in a bag of diamond dust so that they can use one spell, one time.

4. As a player of D&D I love to make characters.  I’ve got quite the stash of characters that have never been played just sitting around for a rainy day.  As a player in a campaign, I hate to make a new character.  I’ve invested time and energy into the character, have a back story enmeshed with the other characters.  To prove the point, which of the following statements sounds better in the context of standard D&D?  “Hey pal!  You can’t die right now, we’re trying to save the world from the evil lich king, remember?” or “Hi there, you look like a lively chap.  We’re on a self-appointed mission to save the world from the evil lich king, and we’re kind a short on manpower since he snapped his finger and sent the soul of our buddy speeding off to the netherworld.  Wanna take his place and tag along?”  The really IC response (assuming a good character) to #1 is probably, “Man, this afterlife is sure nice, but they’re right.  We have to beat that bastard.”  The IC response to #2 is probably “No!  Why would I want to stick my neck out for a bunch of complete strangers obviously in over their head?”  There’s your verisimilitude.

5.  Someone said that if you’re characters are dying so much that this change will truly effect you in a negative manner, that you’re DM’s not doing his job.  Unless you’re in a game where there’s little to no combat (which is a fine campaign style, but in such a campaign complete removal of the raise spells wouldn’t make any more difference), that’s a load of crap.  PCs die.  They roll 1s on saving throws.  Bad guys roll critical hits or nasty damage.  Cleric’s botch turn checks, allowing the other PCs to be drained into undeath.  It happens, and it’s not the DM’s job correct game mechanics.  This is not to say there’s only one good gaming style.  Sepulchrave’s campaign sounds like a lot of fun, but the players all knew what the rules were ahead of time, and that they were different from the standard.  It takes a skilled DM to pull that sort of house rule off well, and it sounds like Sepulchrave has done a marvelous job with it.  However, in principle, the DM’s job is to provide a fun story world for the PCs to inhabit and explore and challenges for them to overcome.  It is not the DM’s job, unless he takes it on himself as Sepulchrave has done, to go about changing rules.  It’s Wizard’s job to provide a well crafted rules set so the DM doesn’t have to.  That’s why we shell out tons of cash to them.

5. The argument that 500 gp raises aren’t heroic enough or dramatic enough, or whatnot, but that increasing that price by tenfold makes it the epitome of good storytelling is horribly flawed.  It boils down to this.  If a PC dies and the player wants to keep it and has the money, they’ll shell out the cash.  Otherwise, they’ll make a new character.  How is it any more dramatic to make it more expensive?  It isn’t.  If death, even with cheap raises is cheap or trivial in your campaign, that’s where the DM is falling down on the job, because how you attain that raise dead or resurrection is up to the DM, and its his or her job to make it special and dramatic.

A quick thought and then I’ll be done with this overly long rant.  It strikes me that Andy’s real problem isn’t raise, but true res.  True res really can make death trivial, but there’s a simple solution to that.  Take the gold costly material component from all of them and induce an XP cost.  Now, create a spell that allows willing characters to give up some of their personal power (exp) to the caster for the purpose of casting a spell.  Somebody with a better head for mechanics would have to work out the details, but that seems to solve all the problems.  If raise costs 500 xp (not too difficult to make up at 9th level) having an NPC cast it will cost at least 2500 gp (that’s just to cover the exp), which means that party clerics will be more likely to use the spell, and what’s more dramatic than your whole party giving up a bit of their spiritual power as a group to restore you to life.


Z


----------



## Pax (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> *Believe me, it aint the style... To the detriment of the other players and to the point where I feel like packing it all in. Now where does that leave the players that just want to enjoy the game? *




So; anyone who disagrees with you, or points out a dislike for a ruling, must by default be the same sort of blatantly-cheating, overly-power-gaming munchkin bastard?

Right.  Sure.  "Obey the One True Word of the Gaming-God, He Who Gives Us The Law, for His is the Path of Correct Gaming and all others are False Paths", etc, etc.

I'm sorry, but, I'm not buying it.

That player shoudl have been told, in no uncertain terms, to play by the legitimate rules or not play -- and leave it at that.

However, you shouldn't be looking down your nose ats omeone for saying "damn, rule X sucks because <insert reason here> ... I wish that could be changed!"


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 8, 2003)

I like it! 

If the players want to stay in the story when they might not be raised, they should have better contacts with thier next of kin or a few close friends who can belivably become PC's that are still connected with the ongoing plot..  

This will also help pay back these who only play the antisocial orphans as characters.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 9, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *In my opinion, best rule ever. Wait 'til you see true resurrection.   *




I -SO- agree.

More than enough reason right there to pick up 3.5

I might even return the spells to their old levels now!

(I used to have Raise Dead moved up to the old Resurrection slot, and Resurrection up at the True Resurrection slot. True Resurrection was a sub-category of Miracle).


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Piratecat_
> *In my opinion, best rule ever.*




Just curious Piratecat, but Why?

I've been reading this thread from the beginning (and all the other revision debate threads).  I don't particularly care for this change - primarily because my gaming experience has been apparently so incredibly different from the revision teams experience and the supposed majority feedback.

I've been reading the exploits of the DoD for a while now also - and I'm curious as to how this change makes your campaign better?  Or how it would change the tone of your campaign at all?

I wish the revision team would have simply stated that the cost of any spell component is dictated by the DM.  So, instead of stating 5000gp of diamond dust is needed to complete a raise dead spell the description would just say diamond dust is needed and the DM could determine how much.  This has the added benefit of removing the effects of locational economics (in a diamond scarce area less diamond dust = 5000gp) if the DM uses such things.


----------



## green slime (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*

Pax, keep your One-True-Gaming-God advice for yourself please. I do not need it.

I do not look down my nose at people that take up issues with rules. 

The player in question, has issues. Not with rules, but with life. Still, I do not look down my nose at him then either. He is a good friend of mine.

If I were to detail a complete listing of every argument, detailing all the rules "misunderstandings" or "misreadings" that this player tries to pull, I'd be a lot older, this message would be a lot longer, and there would be no point, but to cause some more remarks about how I am abusive/misguided/suffer from some complex.


----------

